A linguistic ontology of space for natural language processing

Bateman, John A.; Hois, Joana; Ross, Robert; Tenbrink, Thora

doi:10.1016/j.artint.2010.05.008

Cited by 168 publications

(119 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

109

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Paralleling this aspect, the disciplines of the spatial sciences focus strongly on conceptualization and categorization to structure spatial as well as temporal information, often using ontological frameworks (Bateman, Hois, Ross, & Tenbrink, 2010). In the spatial sciences and related branches of artificial intelligence, qualitative spatio-temporal representation and reasoning formalisms play a prominent role in connecting human category construction with formal approaches to advance processes at the human-machine interface (representation, reasoning, retrieval).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigations into the Cognitive Conceptualization and Similarity Assessment of Spatial Scenes

Wallgrün

Yang

Klippel

et al. 2012

Geographic Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Formally capturing spatial semantics is a challenging and still largely unsolved research endeavor. Qualitative spatial calculi such as RCC-8 and the 9-Intersection model have been employed to capture humans' commonsense understanding of spatial relations, for instance, in information retrieval approaches. The bridge between commonsense and formal semantics of spatial relations is established using similarities which are, on a qualitative level, typically formalized using the notion of conceptual neighborhoods. While behavioral studies have been carried out on relations between two entities, both static and dynamic, similar experimental work on complex scenes involving three or more entities is still missing. We address this gap by reporting on three experiments on the category construction of spatial scenes involving three entities in three different semantic domains. To reveal the conceptualization of complex spatial scenes, we developed a number of analysis methods. Our results show clearly that (I) categorization of relations in static scenarios is less dependent on domain semantics than in dynamically changing scenarios, that (II) RCC-5 is preferred over and (III) that the complexity of a scene is broken down by selecting a main reference entity.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigations into the Cognitive Conceptualization and Similarity Assessment of Spatial Scenes

Wallgrün

Yang

Klippel

et al. 2012

Geographic Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our findings show for the first time how categorization relates to two fundamentally distinct types of concepts expressed in spatial language: containment vs. direction. As highlighted by Bateman et al (2010), these two types of terms are based on ontologically distinct spatial concepts and as a consequence exhibit distinct linguistic patterns. We conclude that rather than reflecting linguistic versus non-linguistic direction categories, prototype and boundary based categorization are two separate nonlinguistic strategies of dividing space, each with its own suitable verbalization strategy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Boundaries and Prototypes in Categorizing Direction

Mast

Wolter

Klippel

et al. 2014

Spatial Cognition IX

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Projective terms such as left, right, front, back are conceptually interesting due to their flexibility of contextual usage and their central relevance to human spatial cognition. Their default acceptability areas are well known, with prototypical axes representing their most central usage and decreasing acceptability away from the axes. Previous research has shown these axes to be boundaries in certain non-linguistic tasks, indicating an inverse relationship between linguistic and non-linguistic direction concepts under specific circumstances. Given this striking mismatch, our study asks how such inverse non-linguistic concepts are represented in language, as well as how people describe their categorization. Our findings highlight two distinct grouping strategies reminiscent of theories of human categorization: prototype based or boundary based. These lead to different linguistic as well as non-linguistic patterns.

show abstract

“…As detailed by Talmy [37], Bateman et al [2] and others, spatial language is schematic and abstract, allowing for a wide range of relationships to be expressed by a limited number of linguistic expressions. This is true, to different degrees, for all word categories (or parts of speech) that are capable of conveying spatial information.…”

Section: Spatial Languagementioning

confidence: 99%