Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T06:33:18.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Engineering spatial concepts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2009

Daniela Micucci ,
Francesco Tisato  and
Marzia Adorni
Daniela Micucci
Affiliation:
D.I.S.Co., University of Milano—Bicocca, viale Sarca 336, 20126 Milan, Italy; e-mail: daniela.micucci@unimib.it, francesco.tisato@unimib.it, marzia.adorni@gmail.com
Francesco Tisato
Affiliation:
D.I.S.Co., University of Milano—Bicocca, viale Sarca 336, 20126 Milan, Italy; e-mail: daniela.micucci@unimib.it, francesco.tisato@unimib.it, marzia.adorni@gmail.com
Marzia Adorni
Affiliation:
D.I.S.Co., University of Milano—Bicocca, viale Sarca 336, 20126 Milan, Italy; e-mail: daniela.micucci@unimib.it, francesco.tisato@unimib.it, marzia.adorni@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The success of a software system strongly depends on the ability of turning a precise domain analysis into a concrete architecture. Even if the domain model relies on sound ontological bases, there is often a wide semantic gap between the conceptual model and the concrete components that should reify it. To fill the semantic gap, relevant domain concepts should be engineered by identifying the corresponding architectural abstractions, which can be realized by concrete software components. Space plays a crucial role in many application domains, but surprisingly, related architectural abstractions have not emerged yet. This paper proposes space-related abstractions derived from the application of classical software engineering principles; in particular, the information hiding principle that leads to an operational definition of space. Basic abstractions are refined to deal with architectural aspects. As the underlying software engineering principles are close to principles that underlie the definition of space ontologies, the conjecture is that the proposed space architectural abstractions might be the basis for a formalization in ontological terms.

Type
Article
Information
The Knowledge Engineering Review , Volume 24 , Special Issue 1: Software and system engineering – part 1 , March 2009 , pp. 77 - 93
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bass, L., Clements, P.Kazman, R. 2003. Software Architecture in Practice, 2nd edn.Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Bateman, J., Farrar, S. 2004a. Modelling models of robot navigation using formal spatial ontology. In Spatial Cognition IV: Reasoning, Action, Interaction, Frauenchiemsee, 11–13 October 2004, Freksa, C., Knauff, M., Krieg-Brückner, B., Nebel, B. & Barkowsky, T. (eds). Springer, 366–389.Google Scholar
Bateman, J.Farrar, S. 2004b. Spatial Ontology Baseline. Collaborative Research Center for Spatial Cognition, University of Bremen (I1-[OntoSpace]:D2, SFB/TR8).Google Scholar
Bateman, J.Farrar, S. 2004c. Towards a generic foundation for spatial ontology. In Formal Ontology in Information Systems, 4–6 November 2004, Varzi, A. C. & Vieu, L. (eds). Torino, 237–248.Google Scholar
Borgo, S., Guarino, N.Masolo, C. 1996. Stratified ontologies: the case of physical objects. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Ontological Engineering at ECAI, Vet (ed). Budapest, 5–16.Google Scholar
Clements, P. 2008. Origins of Software Architecture Study [online]. Available from http://www.sei.cmu.edu/architecture/roots.html (accessed 18 June 2008).Google Scholar
Egenhofer, M.Rodrguez, A. 1999. Relation algebras over containers and surfaces: An ontological study of a room space. Spatial Cognition and Computation 1(2), 155–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fonseca, F. T., Egenhofer, M. J., Agouris, P.Camara, G. 2002. Using ontologies for integrated geographic information systems. Transactions in GIS 6(3), 231–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, A. U. 2001. Tiers of ontology and consistency constraints in geographical information systems. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 15(7), 667–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghezzi, C., Jazayeri, M.Mandrioli, D. 2003. Fundamentals of Software Engineering, 2nd edn.Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. 1977. The theory of affordances. In Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward and Ecological Psychology, Shaw, R. & Brandsford, J. (eds). Erlbaum, 62–82.Google Scholar
Howarth, R. J. 2005. Spatial models for wide-area visual surveillance: computational approaches and spatial building-blocks. Artificial Intelligence Review 23(2), 97–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuipers, B. 2000. The spatial semantic hierarchy. Artificial Intelligence 119(1–2), 191–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchese, F. M. 2005. A reactive planner for mobile robots with generic shapes and kinematics on variable terrains. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Advanced Robotics. IEEE Robotics and Automation Society, 23–30.Google Scholar
OMG. 2008. UML 2.1.2 Superstructure and Infrastructure [online]. Available from http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/formal/uml.htm (accessed 18 June 2008).Google Scholar
Parent, C., Spaccapietra, S.Zimányi, E. 1999. Spatio-temporal conceptual models: data structures+space+time. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM International Symposium on Advances in Geographic Information Systems. Kansas City, 26–33.Google Scholar
Parnas, D. L. 1972. On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Communications of the ACM 15(12), 1053–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelekis, N., Theodoulidis, B., Kopanakis, I.Theodoridis, Y. 2004. Literature review of spatio-temporal database models. Knowledge Engineering Review 19(3), 235–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, M., Hakimpour, F.Sheth, A. 2006. Analyzing theme, space, and time: an ontology-based approach. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM International Symposium on Advances in Geographic Information Systems. Arlington, 147–154.Google Scholar
Smith, B.Grenon, P. 2004. The cornucopia of formal–ontological relations. Dialectica 58(3), 279–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon. 2008. Published Software Architecture Definitions [online]. Available from http://www.sei.cmu.edu/architecture/published_definitions.html (accessed 18 June 2008).Google Scholar
Tarr, P., Harrison, W., Ossher, H., Finkelstein, A., Nuseibeh, B.Perry, D. 2000. Workshop on multi-dimensional separation of concerns in software engineering (workshop session). In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering. Limerick, 809–810.Google Scholar
Tisato, F., Micucci, D., Adorni, M.Cirasa, E. 2007. Architectural abstractions for space awareness. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Ontology, Conceptualization and Epistemology for Software and Systems Engineering, Sicilia, M., Micucci, D. & Sartori, F. (eds). Centro Copie Bicocca. Available from http://www.lintar.disco.unimib.it/ONTOSE07/ONTOSE07-Proceedings/pdf/Micucci.pdf (accessed 18 June 2008).Google Scholar
Yuan, M. 1996. Modeling semantical, temporal and spatial information in geographic information systems. In Geographic Information Research: Bridging the Atlantic Craglia, M. & Couclelis, H. (eds) Taylor & Francis, 334–347.Google Scholar