Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DESTINATION DESCRIPTIONS
IN URBAN ENVIRONMENTS
PhD THESIS
Martin Tomko
April, 2007
ii
Abstract
iii
Keywords
destination descriptions, wayfinding, pragmatic communication, relevance, spa-
tial knowledge, a-priori spatial knowledge, familiarity
iv
Declaration
(i) the thesis comprises only my original work towards the PhD except where
indicated,
(ii) due acknowledgment has been made in the text to all other material used,
(iii) the thesis is less than 100,000 words in length, exclusive of table, maps,
bibliographies, appendices and footnotes.
Martin Tomko
v
vi
Preface
The work presented in this thesis has been supported by the Cooperative Research
Centre for Spatial Information, whose activities are funded by the Australian
Commonwealth’s Cooperative Research Centres Programme.
The street network dataset of Hannover is part of the ATKIS Basis DLM
dataset provided by the National Mapping Agency of Lower Saxony (Landesver-
messung und Geobasisinformation Niedersachsen).
vii
viii
Publications
During the course of this project, a number of publications and public presenta-
tions have been made which are based on the work presented in this thesis. They
are listed here for reference.
Journal Papers
Tomko, M., Winter, S., Claramunt, C., to appear 2007. Expe-
riential Hierarchies of Streets. Computers, Environment and
Urban Systems
Winter, S., Tomko, M., Elias, B., Sester, M., to appear 2007.
Landmark Hierarchies in Context. Environment and Planning
B: Planning and Design
Tomko, M., Winter, S., 2006c. Recursive Construction of Gran-
ular Route Directions. Journal of Spatial Science 51 (1), 101–
115
Book Chapters
Tomko, M., Winter, S., 2006b. Initial Entity Identification for
Granular Route Directions. In: Kainz, W., Riedl, A., Elmes,
G. (Eds.), Progress in Spatial Data Handling. 12th Interna-
tional Symposium on Spatial Data Handling. Springer-Verlag,
Vienna, Austria, pp. 43–60
Winter, S., Tomko, M., 2006. Translating the Web Semantics
of Georeferences. In: Taniar, D., Wenny Rahayu, J. (Eds.),
Web Semantics and Ontology. Idea Group Publishing, Her-
shey, Pennsylvania, USA, pp. 297–333
ix
Invited Talk Winter, S., Tomko, M., 2005. Route Directions of Varying
Granularity. In: Seminar on Spatial Cognition. Schloss Dagstuhl,
Germany
Technical Reports
Winter, S., Klippel, A., Tomko, M., May 2, 2005 2005. Deliver-
able 3.3/2: Experiments on Usability. Internal report, CRC-SI
Australia
Tomko, M., August 23, 2004 2004a. Analysis of Wayfinding
Scenarios. Internal project report, CRC-SI Australia
x
Acknowledgements
The three years during which I worked on this thesis were an amazing experience
which would not have been possible without the contribution of many people.
First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Dr.
Stephan Winter. As a true guru, Stephan led me through the obstacles of sci-
entific thinking and writing on the way to become a researcher. Without his
encouragement, guidance, support and patience, this thesis would not exist.
My sincere thanks are extended also to my second supervisor, Dr. Matt
Duckham for all the feedback and suggestions, and to Dr. Alexander Klippel
for the sometimes turbulent discussions. Without the pressure to answer Alex’s
questions, many details in this thesis would remain unsolved. I would also like
to thank my industry mentor Maurits van der Vlugt for advice throughout this
project.
I express my gratitude to Prof. Christophe Claramunt of the Naval Academy
Research Center as well as to Dr. Monika Sester and Dr. Birgit Elias from the
University of Hannover for inspiring collaboration on parts of this thesis and for
providing the landmark dataset. Furthermore, Birgit was always keen to help with
her local knowledge of Hannover and assess the results produced in this thesis.
My thanks are extended to the colleagues from the Department of Geomatics,
Stefanie Andrae, Jochen Wilneff, Joanne Poon, Stephan Hansen, Sue Hope, Jane
Inall, Zaffar Sadiq and Patrik Laube for discussions, support, encouragement, fun
and table tennis matches, and especially Anna Boin for reading through the draft
of this thesis.
Writing a PhD thesis can be a lonely experience, the more that I wrote
mine far from home. First of all, I would like to thank Callum Eastwood for
support and friendship which I believe will last a long way beyond the PhD
years. Cheers, Bro! Ned Rogers, Marina Carpinelli, Elisa Toulson and Michael
Laity, along with the fellow paddlers, climbers and bushwalkers of the Melbourne
University Mountaineering Club created my closest social network. I would like
to thank Ertan Yesilnacar for being an understanding and patient flatmate during
the whole duration of this research.
Finally, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to a few very special
people - my parents, Jana and Jan Tomko, and my brother Jakub Tomko, for the
years of love and encouragement. They always trusted me, and I always tried to
make them proud of being my parents. Last, but not least, I would like to thank
my partner Miranda Smith for her patience, support and love during the stressful
period of producing this thesis, as well as for proofreading the final drafts of the
thesis. Thank you for everything!
xi
xii
Contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.1 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.2 The Familiar Structure of the Environment and Route Di-
rections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1.3 Inferential Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1.4 Current Approaches to Route Directions’ Personalization . 5
1.2 Scope and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3 Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.4 Expected Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.5 Thesis Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2 Background 11
2.1 Experiencing Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1.1 Mental Representations of Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1.2 Conceptualization of Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.1.3 Hierarchical Structure of Spatial Mental Representations . 15
2.1.4 Route Planning and Wayfinding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.2 Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.2.1 Communication Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.2.2 The Meaning of Utterances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.2.3 Relevance Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.2.4 Knowledge, Context and Communication . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.2.5 Referential Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.2.6 Communication about Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.2.7 Directions and Cognitive Ergonomics . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.3 Modeling and Formalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.3.1 Formalization and Functional Programming . . . . . . . . 33
xiii
CONTENTS
3 Destination Descriptions 41
3.1 Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.2 Definition of Destination Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.3 Structure of Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.4 Selection of Referents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.5 Common Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.6 Characteristics of Destination Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
xiv
M. TOMKO CONTENTS
7 Conclusions 125
7.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
7.2 Main Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
7.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
7.3.1 Cognitive Workload and Destination Descriptions . . . . . 129
7.3.2 Reliability of Inference of Common Spatial Knowledge . . 131
7.3.3 Experiential Data Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
7.4 Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
7.4.1 Descriptions and Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
7.4.2 The Where? Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
7.4.3 Externalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
7.4.4 Coupling of Inferential and Agent-Based Systems . . . . . 136
7.4.5 Complex Integrated Experiential Hierarchies . . . . . . . . 136
7.5 Concluding Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
xv
CONTENTS
xvi
List of Tables
xvii
LIST OF TABLES
xviii
List of Figures
xix
LIST OF FIGURES
4.10 The graph of the connections of the level 2 districts by named streets. 76
4.11 Distribution of experiential rank values of the streets of Hannover. 77
4.12 33 most prominent streets of central Hannover. . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.13 Schema of relations between heterogeneous types of elements of
the city in integrated hierarchies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
xx
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Motivation
1.1.1 Example
Current Web based map services, in-car navigation services and mobile naviga-
tion services are providing route directions to a variety of users in many contexts,
and for different purposes. Apart from traditional turn-based directions, with
references to street names and distance information, recent developments enable
the inclusion of point-of-interest (POI) and landmark information. Distance in-
formation is being replaced by more convenient estimates of travel times, along
with visualizations of the façades facing the street the wayfinder is navigating
along. The information provided is sufficient to identify a specific route, and
the significant actions that have to be taken along to route to follow it. The
information provided is thus sufficient even for a novice in the city.
A considerable proportion of the users of such navigation services consist of
people with at least coarse a-priori knowledge of the city in which they want to
navigate. Consider the following example of Stephanie, an inhabitant of Han-
nover, Germany, returning home from a business trip, and the directions she
provides to the taxi driver at the Airport:
Stephanie:“To Luisenstrasse, please.”
Taxi driver:“??”
Stephanie:“It is in the center, next to the Staatstheater, off Rathenaustrasse.”
Taxi driver:“Very well.”
...
Taxi driver:“Here is the Staatstheater, where should I go now?”
Stephanie:“It is that laneway after the theater. The house at the end, thank
you.”
1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Consider the example of Stephanie and the taxi driver. A close look at the
references used reveals a spectrum of different types of referents: regions, such as
the city, notable buildings (the Staatstheater ), and linear referents along which the
wayfinder can navigate (Rathenaustrasse,the laneway). As we can see, references
to several types of elements of the city (Lynch, 1960) may occur in one set of
human-generated route directions. This is in contrast to the traditional approach
of current navigation services, that typically only include references to paths.
Furthermore, we can notice that Stephanie does not start her route directions
at her current position (at the airport), but instead refers to a distant and vaguely
delimited region distant from the airport—the center. She not only uses an
unofficial label for the district, but she also assumes that the taxi driver will be
able to identify it and knows how to get there. Her route directions proceed
from a reference to the larger neighborhood of the destination in steps closer and
closer to the destination, with each consecutive referent having lesser and lesser
probability of being known by the taxi driver. Stephanie does not enforce an
exact route to the taxi driver.
2
M. TOMKO 1.1. MOTIVATION
3
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Let us consider the above example in more detail. Stephanie and the taxi driver
have never met before. Thus, Stephanie does not have any information about
the taxi driver’s spatial knowledge, nor does the taxi-driver have any information
about Stephanie’s spatial knowledge. If the classical communication theory which
assumes that all the information needed for understanding a message is contained
within the message (Shannon and Weaver, 1949), held true, the route directions
provided by Stephanie would not be sufficient to guide the taxi-driver to the
destination, as they do not contain the full information about the actions that
the wayfinder must take to reach the destination. The taxi-driver, however,
understands the meaning of the directions provided by Stephanie and gets her
home.
Stephanie makes several assumptions about the taxi driver, as she enters
the cab. These assumptions are made based on observations and common sense
knowledge of the situation. Stephanie may assume that the taxi driver has some
spatial knowledge of Hannover, assumes that the taxi driver will try to be coop-
erative by interpreting the directions provided by Stephanie, and that the cab in
which she is sitting will be used to get her home.
Many more, and finer grained assumptions can be made by Stephanie. Based
on these assumptions derived by inference from the situation at hand, Stephanie
provides route directions to the taxi driver. The assumptions made by Stephanie
are necessary to correctly interpret the situation in which the communication
occurs and provide information to the taxi driver in a way that will be understood.
People experience deficiencies of the classical communication model every
day. Linguists have addressed these deficiencies by developing theories of prag-
matic communication. This thesis explores situations where the referents included
in route directions exchanged between agents are assumed to be part of the com-
mon knowledge. The approach is grounded in the relevance theory of inferential
communication (Sperber and Wilson, 1986). Relevance theory is built on a gen-
eral view of human cognition with the assumption that human cognitive processes
tend to maximize the efficiency of any action. The relevance of possible referents
is evaluated, and the referent which satisfies the requirements for relevance in the
given situation is selected. This thesis aims to present a formal model of this
selection process.
4
M. TOMKO 1.1. MOTIVATION
5
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
wayfinders with at least partial spatial knowledge of the environment. The bene-
factors of the research presented in this thesis are developers of navigation systems
for wayfinders frequently travelling to unfamiliar destinations in partially-known
urban environments, such as the police, emergency management and tourism ser-
vices, but also locals—everyday users of Web based navigation portals, location-
based services and in-car navigation services.
The goal of this research is to analyze how the structure of an urban environment
is reflected in the way humans describe route destinations, and to formalize these
principles in a computational model that would enable automated creation of
destination descriptions. The research question explored in this thesis is:
What is the relation between the city structure and the route directions of
familiar wayfinders?
The research presented in this thesis builds on the hypothesis that it is possi-
ble to construct a generic model of destination descriptions based on the knowl-
edge of the inherent functional city structure.
The answer to the research question leads to a formal model for the genera-
tion of destination descriptions for persons with previous spatial knowledge of the
environment. The objective is to identify the referents that are likely to be used
in the given context by humans. The model is based on the basic assumption of
pragmatic behaviour that rational beings try to limit their cognitive effort and
energy expenses while still being able to reach a goal. People try to minimize their
effort by being as efficient as possible while carrying out a task. In the context
of communication, the speaker is trying to transfer the information to the hearer
through a message while minimizing the effort required to do so. The recipient
of the information interprets the meaning of the message, also trying to minimize
her or his effort. In the situation of communication of destination descriptions
the communication partners mutually assume the possession of a-priori spatial
knowledge of the environment. Consequently, they refer to it in the destination
descriptions. The effort of both the speaker and the hearer is thus decreased.
This thesis focuses on the identification of relevant references in a given con-
text. The context is defined by a restricted set of characteristics: the spatial
context characterized by the start and destination of the route; and the commu-
nicators, two mutual strangers exchanging destination descriptions (and thus can
not refer to places previously experienced together). The certainty of the correct
6
M. TOMKO 1.3. APPROACH
identification of the referent by the hearer can thus not be granted through mu-
tual experience. It is not the goal of this thesis, however, to emulate the exact
behavior of specific humans, nor is the goal a cognitive study of the resulting
route directions.
1.3 Approach
The approach taken in this research starts from the empirical characterization
of human generated destination descriptions, such as Stephanie’s, allowing the
research hypothesis to be formulated. The comparison of the characteristics of
destination descriptions with the structure of space in which they are provided,
and with the human spatial mental representations identified in previous works,
the common properties of destination descriptions are identified. Once the charac-
teristics of route directions and the spatial, communicative and cognitive context
in which they are created are determined, the processes of the construction of
destination descriptions can be studied. The identification of references for des-
tination descriptions will be based on the characteristics of the spatial structure
in which they occur.
The approach applied builds on the interdependence of state and process de-
scriptions of complex systems (Simon, 1962), a common problem-solving method
in cognitive science and artificial intelligence research. Starting with a state
description of destination descriptions, the characteristics of the construction
process of destination descriptions is inferred. The process description is then
formalized, computationally implemented and applied on a test dataset. The
characteristics of the outcomes of the model are compared with the characteris-
tics observed empirically. If they are equivalent, the model is considered valid.
From the observation of similarities in route directions communicated by
people familiar with the environment, it can be concluded that common principles
are followed in the process of selection of references. The general characteristics
of such route directions are collected and form the basis of the hypothesis.
The empirical characteristics gathered are further interpreted with regard to
communication theory, psychology and cognitive science. The principles inferred
from this body of knowledge are then formalized in a general model of selection
of references in destination descriptions. The model consists of a set of rules
determining the selection process.
The constraints imposed on the model are limited to the hierarchical spatial
data model of the urban environment, without individual considerations of a
7
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
more detailed wayfinder’s profile. Thus, the model should provide plausible route
directions for wayfinders satisfying the condition of at least partial a-priori spatial
knowledge of a given urban environment.
The conceptual model is consecutively implemented in a computationally
executable model. The inputs are limited to the hierarchically structured dataset
of the environment and the route to be described. No other inputs are allowed
during the execution of the model implemented. The output of the model is
the the set of references constituting the destination description. This output is
verified against the specification of the previously gathered characteristics.
8
M. TOMKO 1.5. THESIS STRUCTURE
9
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
10
Chapter 2
Background
This chapter reviews previous work in the fields of spatial cognition, commu-
nication and computer science related to the acquisition and communication of
spatial knowledge.
People store their spatial knowledge in mental representations of space. This
environmental knowledge is acquired through interaction with the environment
and facilitated through perception. Mental representations of spatial knowledge
and their organization are discussed in Section 2.1.
Communication in and about space, such as direction giving, represents an
important use of people’s spatial mental representations. People familiar with
an environment share common spatial knowledge due to similar experience of
their environment. This knowledge is then used in place and route descriptions
they exchange. Concepts from the pragmatic theory of communication are intro-
duced in Section 2.2, and point to the significance common knowledge plays in
communication.
Section 2.3 provides an introduction to modelling and formalization and is an
introduction to the methods used in operationalization of the theoretical model
of destination descriptions presented in this thesis.
People learn the layout of their environment, be it natural or built, through con-
tinuous interaction. They perceive the environment through senses, learn the
layout of the environment and store the knowledge acquired in mental represen-
tations (Fig. 2.1).
11
CHAPTER 2. BACKGROUND
With repetitive interaction, people get increasingly familiar with the layout
of the environment and develop spatial knowledge stored in spatial mental repre-
sentations (Siegel and White, 1975). With continuous interaction, the structure
of this spatial knowledge evolves through stages with different characteristics.
At first, landmark knowledge is acquired, characteristic by discrete knowledge
of salient spatial features. The spatial relations between these features may
not yet be established. Landmark knowledge is integrated into more complex
structures—sequences, also called routes. Hence, at this stage of spatial knowl-
edge evolution, route knowledge is formed. At this stage, landmarks are recalled
in the order as experienced along a learned route, and their complex spatial rela-
tionships may not be evident. As people become familiar with the environment,
survey knowledge is formed, enabling them to locate and infer directions and
distances (metric properties) between the individual spatial features.
Tversky (1993) proposed to distinguish spatial mental representations (re-
ferred to as mental maps) into further sub-categories of cognitive collages and
spatial mental models. Cognitive collages are patchy in nature, contain only
partial information on the environment, and are heavily distorted. In contrast,
spatial mental models allow integration of spatial knowledge from distant regions
as well as perspective taking and inference of directions between landmarks. Spa-
tial mental models may still be metrically inaccurate. Spatial mental models were
suggested to represent the spatial mental representations of familiar environment.
The speed with which people learn the environment and transit between
these stages of spatial mental representations is highly individual, and is largely
depending on their spatial abilities (Allen, 1999) and the frequency of interac-
tion with the environment. Continuous interaction with the environment allows
to proceed from landmark to route to survey knowledge. It has been recently
hinted, however, that these types of knowledge may be acquired simultaneously
(Ishikawa and Montello, 2006), depending on the individual’s spatial abilities. For
instance, some individuals may acquire basic metric characteristics of space after
relatively little interaction. Thus, continuing interactions allows the accuracy and
12
M. TOMKO 2.1. EXPERIENCING SPACE
Following the representational theory of mind, the basic elements of mental rep-
resentations are called concepts (Margolis and Laurence, 2006). Concepts are the
result of a cognitive process of categorization of the knowledge acquired while
perceiving the world (Rosch, 1978). The goal of the cognitive process is to create
a simplified, abstract model of the knowledge acquired, in order to reduce its
complexity and thus the mental effort required to store it. Furthermore, con-
ceptualizations allow generalizations and abstract reasoning about the domain of
knowledge processed.
Mental conceptualizations of space and of spatial phenomena have been the
subject of intensive research (e.g., Downs and Stea, 1977; Freksa and Barkowsky,
1996; Hirtle, 2003; Klippel, 2003b; Klippel et al., 2004, 2003; Klippel and Winter,
2005; Lynch, 1960; Montello et al., 2003; Richter and Klippel, 2005). An essential
contribution to the conceptualization of space is the work of the urbanist Kevin
Lynch, studying the phenomenon of imageability of urban environments. In his
experiment, Lynch studied the composition of sketches provided by the inhabi-
tants of American cities (Lynch, 1960). Sketch maps represent common devices
people use to communicate spatial knowledge (Agrawala and Stolte, 2001), and
as such present a convenient and familiar way of externalizing spatial mental rep-
resentations in cognitive research (e.g., Kim and Penn, 2004). The analysis of
the sketches collected by Lynch revealed five basic structural elements of the city
form: paths, nodes, landmarks, districts and edges. These elements present the
basic concepts in the (static) spatial mental representations, i.e. the image of the
13
CHAPTER 2. BACKGROUND
• Node: nodes are points, strategic foci of activity in which the observer
can enter. Typically, nodes are convergences of paths (junctions), where
concentrations of characteristic activities occur. As noted by Lynch, some
nodes are the focus and epitome of a district, of which they stand as a
symbol.
14
M. TOMKO 2.1. EXPERIENCING SPACE
encourages the theory that the principles leading to the formation of a coarse
representation of the city also contribute to the representation of its parts. This
hypothesis of scalability (Carrera, 1997) explores the application of Lynch’s basic
urban morphemes to the analysis of a single square. Other attempts to re-define
spatial concepts constructing the structure of an urban space can be found in
the work of Singh (1997), specifically focusing on nodes defined as areas where
districts of multiple land use types meet.
It is necessary to note that the term landmark may also be used for any of
the type of elements of the city, if the element in question holds the quality of
landmarkness, i.e. is prominent due to salience of its characteristics in a given
environment (Raubal and Winter, 2002). The term landmark will be further used
according to Lynch, to refer to point-like features of high salience. It is implied
that all references to spatial features found in route direction have the property
of salience or prominence, standing out from the environment.
Furthermore, it is important to note the difference between physical features
of the world having the function of a path (i.e. locomotion occurs along them)
(Lynch, 1960; Montello, 2005), and the notion of paths used to design the results
of a path planning process (mental or computational). The terms route planning
and route will be further used in such cases, following the definition of Montello
(2005). Montello (2005) defines a route as a linear pattern of movement of a
wayfinder, as opposed to paths, a linear physical feature along which movement
occurs (also see Section 4.3). Although in urban environments the movement
along a route typically occurs on paths, this is certainly not a general limitation.
In less structured built environments (parks, squares) and natural environments,
wayfinders are not bound to paths (e.g. when crossing a meadow).
References to all five types of elements identified by Lynch may occur in
route directions communicated by people. The definitions of each of the type
of elements provided by Lynch are, however, vague. Refined definitions of the
elements of the city are therefore used for operationalization in the model of
destination descriptions (Section 3).
15
CHAPTER 2. BACKGROUND
16
M. TOMKO 2.1. EXPERIENCING SPACE
from a single viewpoint. Montello (1993) suggests that environmental space needs
to be learned by integrating the information acquired over significant periods of
time. Such spaces are then equivalent to cities and city neighborhoods. Finally,
spaces of geographical scale are projectively much larger then the human body
and cannot be learned by locomotion. Such spaces must be learned through
symbolic representations, such as maps. This thesis focuses on destination de-
scriptions in urban spaces of environmental scale. The performance of the model
of destination descriptions proposed in geographical spaces is possible, although
not tested.
Once formed, spatial knowledge is used in day to day interaction with the envi-
ronment, such as route planning and wayfinding. Route planning is the mental
activity of planning the way through an environment. As noted by Couclelis
(1996), two stages of route planning can be distinguished. The first, coarse plan-
ning stage consists of the retrieval of a detached mental view of the area, resem-
bling a map-like view. Major structural elements of the environment as well as
channels between the start and the destination are retrieved from memory. This
stage is most likely to occur among subjects with high spatial abilities or good
familiarity with the environment. In hierarchical, regionalized environments, the
influence of important higher-order regions on route planning has been confirmed
(Wiener and Mallot, 2003).
In the next, fine-level route planning stage, a mental representation of the
route is developed, involving detailed, first person’s imagined travel through the
environment, including embodied actions at decision points. This representation
is then used during wayfinding (and compared to the environment perceived by
the agent during locomotion), or in the communication of route directions (Frank
et al., 2001).
In case of unfamiliar environments, spatial knowledge needed for wayfinding
has to be acquired prior to wayfinding. Other sources, such as maps and route di-
rections are used to form a mental representation of the environment (Figure 2.2).
These source are a form of communication between agents with a-priori spatial
knowledge of the environment (e.g., local experts, but also automatic route ser-
vices accessing spatial databases) and agents receiving this spatial knowledge
through communication without a-priori spatial knowledge (e.g., tourists). The
expert agent retrieves a route in a route planning process based on their own
expert judgment, or based on criteria specified by the wayfinder. A formal model
linking the stages of route planning with route directions and the navigation as
17
CHAPTER 2. BACKGROUND
18
M. TOMKO 2.2. COMMUNICATION
route.
2.2 Communication
This section introduces relevance theory (Sperber and Wilson, 1986), a funda-
mental communication theory in which the model of destination descriptions
presented in this thesis is grounded. After an introduction to communication
theory in general, and relevance theory in particular, the implications to spa-
tial communication are drawn, with the focus on place descriptions and route
directions.
19
CHAPTER 2. BACKGROUND
• quality (“Do not say what you believe to be false; do not say that for which
you lack adequate evidence.”);
20
M. TOMKO 2.2. COMMUNICATION
Grice assumes that the hearer rationally applies the maxims as rules of thumb
in understanding the implied meaning, carried by an utterance. The intended
meaning may not be conveyed by the speaker if the maxims are not respected.
The utterance may convey a changed meaning to the hearer, resulting in an im-
plicature. The recognition of the intentions of the speaker, oriented toward the
hearer in an overt manner is yet another contribution of Grice to pragmatics.
While largely discussed, Grice’s theories laid the foundations of modern prag-
matics.
and
21
CHAPTER 2. BACKGROUND
From there, the hearer can infer the meaning of the utterance. Again, several
meanings may be inferred (Sperber and Wilson, 2004, p.3):
Sperber and Wilson use the expression degrees of relevance, implying that
certain stimuli may be more or less relevant then others, depending on the ration
of the processing effort and contextual implications they afford. The maximiza-
tion of relevance leads through a path of minimal effort, as living organisms tend
to minimize the expenditure of energy in every situation. As Sperber and Wil-
son (1986) state, human cognitive processes are geared toward maximizing the
cognitive effect of a stimulus, while minimizing the cognitive effort necessary to
process it:
22
M. TOMKO 2.2. COMMUNICATION
• Everything else being equal, the greater the cognitive effect achieved by the
processing of a given piece of information, the greater its relevance for the
individual who processes it.
• Everything else being equal, the greater the effort involved in the processing
of a given piece of information, the lesser its relevance for the individual
who processes it.
Some of the meanings that can be inferred from the utterances require less
processing effort, and are thus more easily derived (Noveck and Sperber, 2006)
in a given context. This meaning represents the interpretation of the utterance
that is most naturally derived. Relevance theory assumes that hearers follow
heuristics of comprehension build on the principles stated above. Thus, they
follow the paths of minimal effort to interpret an utterance, infer its meaning in
a given cognitive environment, and stop as soon the meaning found satisfies the
expectation of relevance.
Of course, a different set of stimuli in the environment of the speaker may
lead to a different meaning inferred by the hearer. Also, the speaker does not have
to be optimally relevant in an utterance, as a better stimulus may be found in a
given situation. It only has to appear to the hearer that the utterance is optimally
relevant. The hearer may not know that the speaker may be able to construct a
stimulus of higher relevance; the hearer just believes that the stimulus received
is optimally relevant. Such deception is a frequent tool of lawyers in legal text,
where a statement may be deliberately worded in a manner allowing multiple
interpretations. And indeed, even in less critical situations, it has been shown
that speakers are not always trying to be cooperative to the full possible extent.
Even then, however, understanding can be achieved (Davies, 1995).
23
CHAPTER 2. BACKGROUND
Sperber and Wilson, however, further note that what context consists of is difficult
to define. A common approach to context-adaptive information system therefore
usually consists of detailed definitions of relevant parameters of context.
In inferential communication, the speaker and the hearer may assume the
possession of tacit knowledge by the communication partner as an important
part of the communication partner’s cognitive environment. Tacit knowledge is
the part of one’s knowledge that has not been made explicit in the information
exchange. Tacit knowledge was identified as an important influence on commu-
nication in situations of co-ordination and collaboration. Researchers suggested
a theory of mutual knowledge to explain the use of tacit knowledge by commu-
nicators (e.g., Clark and Carlson, 1982). There, mutual knowledge (also mutual
belief) is defined as the kind of knowledge that is the product of an infinite series
of reciprocal expectations. Let us imagine two agents, A and B, and a mutual
belief of a phenomenon p:
...
Clark and Marshall (1981, cited by Sperber and Wilson (1982)) mention
physical co-presence, linguistic co-presence and community membership as factors
allowing the inference of mutual knowledge. The already complex establishment
of mutual knowledge becomes exponentially difficult with an increasing amount of
communicators (Clark and Carlson, 1982). Relevance theory therefore refuses the
concept of mutual knowledge on basis of cognitive effort, as it is implausible that
such a complex and infinite reasoning process would be necessary in frequent and
trivial communication tasks. Meaning inference is offered instead as a solution
(Sperber and Wilson, 1982).
24
M. TOMKO 2.2. COMMUNICATION
25
CHAPTER 2. BACKGROUND
and short-term inhabitants are not major, which seems to be aligned with the
findings of Ishikawa and Montello (2006), about the relatively fast formation of
advanced forms of spatial knowledge. In this context, the five years long learning
period used to separate short-term from long-term inhabitants in the experi-
ments of Fussell and Krauss (1991) seems to be excessive. They draw, however,
a clear conclusion that the perceptions of the distribution of knowledge are so-
cially shared. Furthermore, one’s choice of characteristics and construction of
references in a referring expression is influenced by the perception of the hearer’s
familiarity with the described referent (Fussell and Krauss, 1992; Lau and Chiu,
2001).
In this thesis, the adjective familiar will be used for people with a-priori
spatial knowledge of the environment’s structure. The extent of this a-priori
knowledge is not known and has to be inferred by communication partners when
assessing the extent of common knowledge. People familiar with the environ-
ment can also be referred to as locals, a term which will be used in a restricted
sense, without its other social or regional connotations. The reasons why a rel-
atively limited amount of trips through a given environment suffices to judge an
individual a local will be presented later in the thesis.
26
M. TOMKO 2.2. COMMUNICATION
• accuracy;
• brevity;
In their conclusions, Dale and Reiter (1995) note that an a-priori, explicit
implementation of the maxims is hardly possible, but very likely also unnecessary.
The outputs of their algorithms satisfied the maxims by being goal-driven. In
some sense, this result confirms the objections to the maxims as stated by the
relevance theory (Sperber and Wilson, 1986). The principle of relevance alone
is able to satisfy the characteristics required by the maxims and is also much
simpler to formalize. This approach is close to the approach presented in this
thesis.
Worth mentioning is previous research on referring expressions related to
place descriptions and route directions. The collaboration on references to ob-
jects, either mutually known and visually accessible by the recipient (Clark and
Wilkes-Gibbs, 1986; Heeman and Hirst, 1995), or unknown and inaccessible by
the recipient (Edmonds, 1994) was studied.
In this thesis, the case of descriptions of routes through coarsely familiar
environment is explored. These descriptions are a series of references to spatial
objects that are commonly known, but visually inaccessible at the time of the
communication of the directions. There is so far little research that specifically
looks into human route communication to wayfinders familiar with the environ-
ment.
27
CHAPTER 2. BACKGROUND
elements of the city are introduced in a hierarchical order from general to highly
specific local references (Plumert et al., 1995b, 2001; Shanon, 1979). The answer
to the so-called where question varies with the context of the place description
(Tversky, 2003).
Route directions are verbal externalizations of mental representations of
routes, created during route planning and communicated by the speaker to the
hearer, i.e. the wayfinder. The goal of route directions is to unambiguously
describe the route to the hearer (Montello, 2005). As their goal is to uniquely
identify a place or a route, both place descriptions and route directions can be
perceived as spatial referring expressions.
The principles of route direction construction, their structure and the prin-
ciples of selection and inclusion of referents has been the object of research for
many years (e.g., Couclelis, 1996; Denis et al., 1999; Freundschuh et al., 1990;
Jarvella and Klein, 1982; Klein, 1979; Lovelace et al., 1999).
Route directions and place descriptions are constructed based on the spatial
knowledge of the speaker. The need to communicate a description of a specific
place or route to a wayfinder leads to a recall of this spatial knowledge, which
is selected and consequently externalized in form of a place description or route
directions. As noted by Couclelis (1996), the fine-level, detailed and embodied
route planning stage can be well formalized in computational models of navigation
and direction-giving. The result are so called turn-by-turn directions, typically
a series of references to streets using street names, connected by turn action
instructions. References to landmarks at decision points where turn actions occur
are more and more often included. The result are directions with a consistent
level of detail along the complete route. They are easily computed and provide
rich information to wayfinders with no previous environmental knowledge.
Turn-based route directions judged good by wayfinders in a series of exper-
iments are organized in an order which reflects wayfinder’s interaction with the
environment (Allen, 2000). The process of identification of locations along the
route that should be referred to in turn-based directions, and the identification of
appropriate environmental clues referred to was researched by Denis et al. (1999);
Lovelace et al. (1999); Michon and Denis (2001). References to salient features
along the route, mostly found at decision points (where turns occur in the route)
were found to be most useful in experiments (Lovelace et al., 1999; Michon and
Denis, 2001). An approach to automated identification of such salient features
has been presented by Raubal and Winter (2002), Winter et al. (2004), Notheg-
ger et al. (2004) and Elias (2003). They build on the research of Sorrows and
Hirtle (1999), studying the characteristics of landmarks, salient features of an en-
28
M. TOMKO 2.2. COMMUNICATION
29
CHAPTER 2. BACKGROUND
Richter, 2007a).
Dale et al. (2002, 2003) implemented a computational system providing hi-
erarchical route descriptions in an urban environment. Road status hierarchies,
road lengths and turn structures were used to construct a hierarchy of chunks
of instructions. The resulting directions were structured in a hierarchical tree-
like representation for use on mobile devices. While computationally simple, the
use of administrative street hierarchies may not necessarily be always cognitively
plausible. Furthermore, in contrast to human-generated route directions, Dale
et al. (2002, 2003) do not reduce the detail of the directions communicated. The
new structure is expressed through a graphical user interface, where the route is
still communicated in detail, turn-by-turn.
Changes in granularities of route descriptions due to the complexity of the
route have been also suggested by Agrawala and Stolte (2001). A graphical layout
system was designed to improve the communication of complex routes to users,
based on the structural properties of the route.
A large body of work on conceptualizations of the structural and functional
properties of routes, especially those of junctions, is presented by Klippel (2003a)
and Klippel et al. (2004). A set of primitive conceptual elements of route direc-
tions was identified and designed by wayfinding choremes. In consecutive works,
the analysis and use of the properties of routes to conceptualize route-specific
chunks of route information is demonstrated (Klippel et al., 2003; Richter, 2007a).
Klippel et al. (2003) use the term spatial chunking for the process of construction
of these route-specific route direction chunks. The following types of the spatial
chunking process were identified: landmark chunking, numerical chunking and
structure chunking.
Landmark chunking uses the presence of salient spatial features at the deci-
sion points where a turn occurs in the route to chunk the directions, e.g. “. . . turn
left after the church.”. This spatial chunking process proved to be the approach
of choice in the subject testing performed. The selection of the appropriate land-
mark for landmark chunking in route directions was further studied by Klippel
and Winter (2005). Numerical chunking consists of counting the number of de-
cision points where turns do not occur between two decision points where a turn
occurs along the route. This allows the creation of chunks of the following type:
“. . . turn left at the third intersection.”. Structure chunking relies on the unique-
ness of the spatial structure of the decision-points—intersections—where turns
occur, as illustrated by the example: “. . . turn left at the T junction.”. In a later
paper (Richter and Klippel, 2005), a fourth type of spatial chunking is identified,
based on the relationship of the route and line-landmarks. An example of this
30
M. TOMKO 2.2. COMMUNICATION
type of spatial chunk is:“. . . follow the river.”. They suggest to extend the line-
landmark chunking approach with a stop criterion, e.g.:“. . . follow the river until
the bridge.”. The chunking processes may be applied to spatial chunks as such,
forming a hierarchy of chunks and higher-order chunks (e.g. “. . . turn left at the
next two T-junctions.”).
The experiment of Klippel et al. (2003) showed that spatial chunking is a pre-
ferred means to structure turn-based route directions by people for both a-priori
and accompanying route directions. Spatial chunking can be well operationalized
in computational algorithms and data structures (Hansen et al., 2006).
The spatial chunking approach relies completely on the structural and func-
tional properties of the route and its immediate environment for the construction
of the spatial chunk included in route directions. No information about the route
is avoided in the resulting route directions, making this approach usable also by
wayfinders with no a-priori knowledge of the environment. The resulting direc-
tions grow proportionally with the length and complexity of the route described.
While superior to traditional turn based directions, this approach may still lead
to the inclusion of excessive and thus irrelevant information to a wayfinder with
previous spatial knowledge of the city.
Finally, the reduction of the content communicated to only the pragmatically
necessary content offers itself as a means to reduce the cognitive workload of the
hearer. The pragmatic content of any message depends on the message itself (as
in classical communication theory), but also on the cognitive environment of the
hearer and of the speaker, and on the previous knowledge of the hearer (Grice,
1957; Sperber and Wilson, 1986). A schematic representation of the process of
communication and interpretation of route directions provided to a wayfinder
familiar with the environment is shown in Figure 2.3.
The knowledge of the hearer is inferred by the speaker. The existing spa-
tial knowledge of the hearer is used by the hearer to substitute the information
omitted in the place descriptions or route directions by the speaker for pragmatic
reasons. The speaker assumes that the hearer will be able to find her or his way
between the individual spatial features referenced in the route directions. Such
reduction of the content of route directions communicated is a method frequently
employed by people. It is, however, non-existent in current navigation systems.
Reduction is often in direct conflict with the requirement of providing certainty
that the information provided will be always usable.
The inspirational work of Frank (2003) provided the first insights into the
pragmatic information content in route directions, based on algebraic modeling.
An agent, i.e., a model of a human user, was represented as an algebra, and
31
CHAPTER 2. BACKGROUND
(a) The speaker and the hearer have a-priori spatial knowledge of the
environment, stored in their respective spatial mental representations
(MR1 and MR2).
32
M. TOMKO 2.3. MODELING AND FORMALIZATION
33
CHAPTER 2. BACKGROUND
the next one. Vice versa, the result of complex functions can be computed by
atomic evaluation of its elementary functions. The behavior of the whole pro-
gram is transparent, as no external influences and special cases can be executed
without affecting all the inputs and outputs.
The functional programming language Haskell, and its precursor Gofer, were
previously successfully used for formalization of algebraic specifications of spatial
models, where semantic purity and strictness is necessary (Car, 1997; Frank, 2001,
2003; Frank et al., 2001; Kuhn and Raubal, 2003; Timpf and Kuhn, 2003). The
applications focused primarily on ontological and semantic modeling (Kuhn and
Raubal, 2003), granularity transformations in hierarchical data structures and
processes (Car, 1997; Timpf and Kuhn, 2003) and algebraic modelling of com-
munication of spatial information between cognitive agents (Frank, 2000, 2003).
The common requirement of these models is the explicit representation of the
semantics of the model in the algebraic representation, along with the possibility
to verify the validity of the resulting specification.
“In such systems, the whole is more than the sum of the parts
. . . given the properties of the parts, and the laws of their interactions,
it is not a trivial task to infer the properties of the whole.” (p. 468)
Systems, such as living organisms (systems of organs and tissues), the society
(the system of people and their social interactions) or urban systems (cities and
their constituents, such as the street network) are examples of complex systems.
Complex systems can be analyzed in a hierarchical manner, with the consid-
eration of the whole as a system of parts of finer granularity. The hierarchical
properties of these systems are frequently the result of an evolutionary process
(Bejan, 2000). Hierarchical properties grant complex systems a high level of ro-
bustness and efficiency. This can be related to the properties of the hierarchies
assisting in handling complex information in mental representations (cf. Sec-
tion 2.1). Decomposability, the fundamental property of complex systems, allows
the simplification of their descriptions across multiple granularities. At coarser
granularities of the description, only the agglomerative properties of the parts
have to be considered.
34
M. TOMKO 2.3. MODELING AND FORMALIZATION
2.3.3 Granularity
35
CHAPTER 2. BACKGROUND
36
M. TOMKO 2.3. MODELING AND FORMALIZATION
connected in pairs by edges e from the set of edges E. Let i, j and k be distinct
vertices of G. An edge e of the set E is then defined as an unordered pair of
vertices vi and vj : eij = (vi , vj ). A subgraph G′ of the graph G is a subset of
vertices V ′ of the set V , and the subset of edges E ′ of the set of edges E connecting
the vertices in the set V ′ . Any graph G can be represented in an adjacency matrix
A of dimensions V × V with entries aij (i, j = 1, . . . V ) equal to 1 if an edge exists
between two vertices vi and vj , and 0 otherwise. This matrix is symmetrical.
The reachability of two vertices vi and vj is a central property of network
analysis. A path from vi to vj is a sequence of vertices and edges between vi
and vj , such that no vertex or edge is repeated more than once. A shortest
path between vi and vj is the path of least costs between the two vertices. The
cost function can be assigned to the vertices, edges, or both. The simplest cost
function counts the number of either vertices or edges visited along the path.
Algorithms such as Dijkstra (1959) and A∗ (Hart et al., 1968) can be used to
compute shortest paths between two vertices in a graph, based on an arbitrary
cost function. Note that the graph-theoretic use of the term path is different
from that introduced in Section 2.1.2. A route through an environment may be
represented in a graph by a path (in its graph-theoretical meaning).
Traditionally, the basic analytic structures in geographic network analysis
are graph representations of networks isomorphic with their geographic layout.
Linear geographic elements, such as streets elements, are represented in the graph
by edges e and intersections of these linear elements by vertices v. Such repre-
sentations are called primal graph representations. Common network analysis in
geographic information systems largely relies on the analysis of the metric prop-
erties of networks, where the cost function analysed over a network is related
to the length of an edge. Shortest path problems, travelling salesman problems
and other analytic tasks then require the assignment of costs to the edges of the
graph.
In the geographic realm, space syntax theory was one of the first to use a
dual graph representations of urban networks where graph vertices represent lin-
ear spatial features, and their intersections are represented by edges (Hillier and
Hanson, 1984). Such a representation emphasize the purely structural character-
istics of the urban network (Bera and Claramunt, 2003; Claramunt and Winter,
2007; Hillier and Hanson, 1984; Porta et al., 2006), and is therefore appropriate
for the analysis of the purely structural properties of the system.
Graphs analysis not only allows the analysis of network-like urban structures,
but also of spatial partitions of urban space. Partitions of space have been for
a long time studied with the help of specific types of planar graphs—Voronoi
37
CHAPTER 2. BACKGROUND
Among the most important structural properties of network elements are their
centrality characteristics. Three basic centrality measures allow the structural
significance of a network element to be characterized: degree centrality, closeness
centrality and betweenness centrality.
Degree centrality CiD of a vertex vi , in space syntax called connectivity, is a
measure specifying the number of direct neighbours (vertices connected by edges)
of a vertex:
X
CiD = eij (2.1)
j∈V
(ni − 1)
CiC = P (2.2)
j=1..n pij
Nodes with high closeness centrality have low average length of the path to all
other nodes in the graph. When applied to a given urban network, this measure
reflects global properties of the structure of the city, revealing its core. In space
syntax this measure is known as global integration, or relative asymmetry, and
38
M. TOMKO 2.3. MODELING AND FORMALIZATION
is applied on dual graph representations of the axial graph (Hillier and Hanson,
1984).
A localized measure of integration, considering only the network within a
radius of three steps is frequently used to reveal the variation of integration
across the network. This step-distance is based on empirical findings related to
the average length of pedestrian walks (Penn et al., 1998).
Betweenness centrality (also load, choice) quantifies the likelihood a graph
vertex lies on a shortest path between two other vertices of the graph. Between-
ness centrality CiB of the vertex vi was defined by Freeman (1977) as follows:
X njk (i)
CiB = (2.3)
i6=j6=k
njk
where njk (i) is the number of paths between vj and vk leading through vi . Be-
tweenness centrality provides a global value of a network element and thus allows
its structural characteristics to be compared with all other nodes in the graph.
Betweenness centrality is less influenced by the choice of the study area then local
characteristics of centrality.
Geographically embedded street networks or river systems display structural
patterns that can be studied by exploring the properties of their graph represen-
tations (Heinzle et al., 2006). The distribution of values of the different centrality
measures of graph elements reveals structural properties of the network and its
pattern. For example, regular grid-like street networks can be characterized in
terms of the distribution of the degree centrality and closeness centrality values
of the streets. The hierarchical model of space used in this thesis will be based
on the study of the distribution of betweenness centrality over several patterns
of urban networks to reveal their hierarchical structure.
39
CHAPTER 2. BACKGROUND
Axial lines have been studied as the basic building element of graph rep-
resentations for their relation to the conceptualization of convex spaces. It has
been, however, shown that further concatenations of street segments and/or axial
lines take place in human mental representations. Approaches based on strokes
or continuity lines have been proposed to account for such cognitive chunking of
linear elements of space (Figueiredo and Amorim, 2005; Thomson and Richard-
son, 1999). Concatenations of street segments sharing street names into named
streets was proposed by Jiang and Claramunt (2004), leveraging the semantic
properties of the analytical elements in combination with their structural proper-
ties. Such named streets then represent a functional modelling element of street
networks. Named streets are defined as the set street segments sharing a label
(street name), and are represented as a single modelling element of the network
analysed. Named streets are further used as the basic modelling element of net-
works in this thesis.
40
Chapter 3
Destination Descriptions
3.1 Scenario
• Stephanie wants to get to the centre of Hannover, not another city, nor
the centre of a local village. If she wanted to get to these places—unusual,
although possible destinations for a taxi driver at the Hannover airport, she
would specify them in more detail. Furthermore, the whole set of directions
enforces the assumption (the centre combined with Staatstheater).
• Stephanie wants to be driven to her destination in the cab she is sitting in,
i.e. she does not want to change modes of transport midway. Thus, the
road network available to cars (taxis) will be used.
41
CHAPTER 3. DESTINATION DESCRIPTIONS
• Stephanie has some knowledge of Hannover (i.e., either from a map, or she
may even be an inhabitant of Hannover). This inference may be based on
the fact that she knows the centre (a vague concept, someone with no prior
knowledge of a city tends to use official references), knows that Luisenstrasse
is a laneway, and knows a landmark in its vicinity. Finally, after the first
unsuccessful utterance an unfamiliar visitor of Hannover would ask the taxi
driver to find his own way with a map.
On the other hand, Stephanie can assume at least the following in the given
situation:
• The taxi driver knows Hannover (i.e., has previous knowledge acquired by
driving around the city. This may include, e.g. the capability to drive out
of the airport, and reach the city.).
• As they have never met, the taxi driver does not know her house (thus, she
has to provide some route directions).
• The taxi driver knows the most prominent places, landmarks and streets of
Hannover. She also assumes that the taxi driver knows what she means by
centre and Staatstheater.
• The taxi driver may not know all the streets in Hannover (the street name
and number would be otherwise sufficient). This is confirmed by the un-
successful utterance of Luisenstrasse.
• The taxi driver will make an effort to understand and interpret her direc-
tions correctly (i.e. will behave collaboratively, as he wants to earn his
money, which he only gets if he gets to the correct destination).
• The taxi driver will use the cab to drive her home. Thus, route directions
provided should be optimized for a car driver (and not e.g. a helicopter
pilot, which would need only a set of coordinates).
The assumptions inferred from the situation at hand may be coarser or more
detailed. Some may even seem far-fetched and ridiculous. They demonstrate,
however, the richness of background information that may be used to interpret
the directions given and that is not uttered explicitly. Difficulties in interpretation
may arise, but the context brought by the remaining references clarifies them.
Should the taxi driver know a prominent street Luisenstrasse elsewhere in the
city, the reference to the centre and the Staatstheater make it obvious that it
is not the correct interpretation of the reference. Should he not know such a
42
M. TOMKO 3.2. DEFINITION OF DESTINATION DESCRIPTIONS
street at all, he may infer from the directions that the street is right next to
the Staatstheater, and will wait for environmental clues in its vicinity to see
whether he needs more information. Of course, in case that the taxi driver knows
the Luisenstrasse in the centre of the city, the additional references may seem
redundant. The role of the additional references is to construct a full referring
expression, uniquely identifying the destination, and thus to reduce ambiguity.
The type of route directions provided by Stephanie to the taxi driver will
be from now on called destination descriptions. A more formal definition of the
destination descriptions, along with their main properties, follows.
43
CHAPTER 3. DESTINATION DESCRIPTIONS
Consider Figure 3.1, which presents three templates of the structure of the route
directions communication process. Figure 3.1a schematically depicts turn-by-turn
directions between the start and the destination (T BT ). Such route directions
contain references to to streets, connected with action directions at decision points
along the route. This is in contrast to destination descriptions, as depicted on
Figure 3.1b. A sequence of references identifies the destination of the route.
Destination descriptions (DD) are communicated with the context of the start in
mind (either explicitly requested by the hearer, or inferred in case of co-location of
the speaker and the hearer). The references included in destination descriptions
do not cover the whole route. In fact, the route is never communicated to the
hearer. Thus, the first reference of destination descriptions relates to a spatial
feature in the proximity of the destination, and not in the proximity of the start of
the route. The speaker assumes that the references made are part of the common
knowledge, shared with the hearer.
44
M. TOMKO 3.4. SELECTION OF REFERENTS
Figure 3.2: Structure of spatial communication for a route with a transition point
(Dest.’ )(see text for details).
In an ideal case where the destination of the route is known to the speaker and the
hearer, and this knowledge is also mutually known, the speaker may use a direct
reference. It is, however, almost impossible to establish such mutual knowledge
(Section 2.2.4). Furthermore, for most locations of a particular city, such mutual
knowledge is also highly unlikely. Only members of a narrow group of people with
large overlaps in common knowledge (e.g. family members, colleagues, fellow
students or members of a social club), have means to infer the mutuality of their
spatial knowledge.
Thus, the speaker includes also references to entities of coarser granularities
in the destination descriptions, to construct a spatial referring expression and
thus uniquely identify the referent to the hearer. Among multiple alternatives,
45
CHAPTER 3. DESTINATION DESCRIPTIONS
the reference to the most prominent feature provides highest likelihood of correct
interpretation (Pattabhiraman and Cercone, 1990). It requires the least cognitive
effort from the speaker to be retrieved from the set of alternatives. Furthermore,
the speaker assumes that a prominent referent will require a low cognitive effort
of the hearer when linking the references made by the speaker to his or her spatial
mental representations of the same referents.
So, the speaker refers to well-known elements of the city in the proximity
or containing the destination. With every additional reference made, the spa-
tial extent in consideration is more restricted. Consecutive references point to
entities within the extent of the previous referent. Every reference specifies the
destination in more detail, as well as mutually enforcing the interpretation of
the other references. The selection of consecutive references by the speaker is
made in a manner maximally exploiting the meaning of the previous reference,
thus maximizing its relevance. Furthermore, the understanding of every consecu-
tive reference is achieved in the enriched context of which the previous reference
is part. The combination of the references uniquely describes the destination,
and any omission of a reference would increase the ambiguity of the resulting
directions.
The hearer expects a reference to a referent of maximal possible relevance in
a given context. If multiple interpretations of a reference are possible, the optimal
one is the one maximizing the relevance of the utterance (Hasida et al., 1995).
The cognitive environment (Sperber and Wilson, 1986) of the hearer changes
with every reference made. Every reference enriches this environment and makes
it less ambiguous.
The destination description provided by Stephanie in the example above
can be represented by a schema of the referents included (Figure 3.3). The
hierarchy of granular references reflects their prominence within Hannover. The
prominence of a spatial feature drives the selection of referents for destination
descriptions. The cognitive effort to link the reference to its mental representation
is lower among prominent entities. Thus, by applying the principle of relevance,
prominent spatial features are more likely to be included in route directions.
Let us explore the selection of the referents more formally. Let us call the spa-
tial mental representation of the speaker S and that of the hearer H (Figure 3.4).
The content of S and H are the mental representations of the experienced ele-
ments of the city, i.e. the reality R. Thus, S and H are sets of these mental
representations, and they are incomplete representations of R. The perception of
the environment by an agent is subjective, incomplete, and determined by per-
sonal characteristics of the agent, and therefore the content of the sets S and H
46
M. TOMKO 3.4. SELECTION OF REFERENTS
Figure 3.4: Mental representations of the speaker (S) and the hearer (H), formed
by experiencing the reality. Common knowledge of the speaker and the hearer
(C) represents the subset of mental representations of elements of the city shared
in S and H. Note that the hierarchical structures of S, H and C are represented
as tree-like structures for simplicity only (Arc denote the partial order in the
hierarchy).
47
CHAPTER 3. DESTINATION DESCRIPTIONS
If the spatial behaviour of the speaker and the hearer has common characteristics,
as is the case with most people inhabiting a certain area, the structures hS and hH
share some common characteristics. The intersection of the sets S and H is the
set of elements forming the common knowledge C of the speaker and the hearer
(S ∩ H = C). The common knowledge C has a hierarchical structure hC (C, ≤).
For any two elements ea and eb , parts of common knowledge C (ea , eb ∈ S, H, C),
the following holds true {ea , eb |if ea ≤S eb and ea ≤H eb then ea ≤C eb } . In case
that the set of elements in C is large, i.e. the size of C approaches that of S, the
speaker can provide destination descriptions to the hearer in an inferential spatial
communication, and the likelihood of the hearer inferring the meaning intended
by the speaker is high.
The following cases may then happen in the communication:
Figure 3.5: Detail of the hierarchical structures S, H and C (see text for details).
Imagine that the referent is to the element e5 in Figure 3.5 (detail of Fig-
ure 3.4), and that the reference to this referent is unambiguous (e.g., it is a
castle, and there is only one castle in the set C). If the castle was also the
destination of the route described in the destination description, the direc-
tions: “Go to the castle.” will be correctly understood by the hearer. This
is a frequent case in the communication with taxi drivers where the intended
destination is a well known, prominent location with an unambiguous and
familiar name.
48
M. TOMKO 3.4. SELECTION OF REFERENTS
Note that the semantics of the reference may allow the hearer to infer the
meaning of the reference: a palace is a part of the Castle; once there, the
driver may ask for detailed turn-based directions, or find the palace based
on environmental clues. If it is not possible to provide references of coarser
granularity, turn-based directions of full detail must be provided.
An extension of this scenario can be imagined. Imagine that the set C con-
tains elements that can be referred to with the same reference (e.g., a name). A
simple, direct reference to one of these entities is then ambiguous in the spatial
context in which the destination description is provided. Destination descrip-
tions are referring expressions, as they must identify the destination of a route
uniquely. Incomplete referring expressions lead to a lack of orientation (Paraboni
and van Deemeter, 2002). The principle of relevance drives the interpretation of
the references—the cognitive environment in which the references are provided
contains also parameters of spatial context. The current location assists with the
hearer’s interpretation of the reference.
This reasoning is closely related to the interpretation of meanings in collab-
orative games, as introduced by Hasida et al. (1995) and Hasida (1996). If a
communicator sends a message m1 , and this message may encode the contents
c1 and c2 , and there is a possibility of the message m2 to convey the content c2
uniquely, then the most relevant interpretation of a message m1 corresponds to
the content c1 (Figure 3.6). Note that Hasida et al. (1995) provide the reasoning in
terms of Grice’s cooperative principle, as opposed to the interpretation provided
here, which follows the more cognitively plausible relevance theory of communi-
cation. The implications for the selection of references and the interpretation of
their meaning are illustrated in the following examples.
Let us assume that there are numerous castles in the proximity of the location
in which the communication of the route directions occurs, all present in the
common spatial knowledge C (Figure 3.7). Furthermore, let us assume that the
directions are provided by the speaker to the hearer in the spatial context of
the start location e13 . The destination castle where the speaker wishes to get is
represented by e5 . Several scenarios are then possible:
49
CHAPTER 3. DESTINATION DESCRIPTIONS
Figure 3.6: Possible encodings of two contents in messages, and their interpreta-
tion based on relevance theory.
Figure 3.7: Detail of the hierarchical structure of the set C (see text for details).
2. The current location of the speaker and the hearer (e13 ) is within a second
castle (element e6 ). Note that both elements e5 and e6 have equivalent
granularity in the structure of the space concerned, i.e. they have similar
prominence. Physical co-presence is a strong determinant for the interpreta-
tion of references. The principle of relevance will lead the hearer to interpret
the reference to the castle as meaning the element e6 . The relevance of the
directions: “To the Castle!” will be judged low by the hearer, as a location
matching this reference has already been reached. The meaning intended
by the speaker will not be the meaning understood by the hearer. A refer-
ence to a coarser element of C therefore needs to be added, such as e2 . The
resulting directions will then consists of two references (to e2 (Prague) and
50
M. TOMKO 3.5. COMMON KNOWLEDGE
51
CHAPTER 3. DESTINATION DESCRIPTIONS
52
M. TOMKO 3.6. CHARACTERISTICS OF DESTINATION DESCRIPTIONS
finer, set of turn-based route directions included upon request by the user.
53
CHAPTER 3. DESTINATION DESCRIPTIONS
and brief description of the route. As the directions proceed from general to more
detailed references, the certainty of the speaker that the hearer has sufficient
spatial knowledge decreases. In human communication, speakers then change
from destination descriptions to turn-based directions.
The examples presented show how the current location and the granular
structure of the environment impact on the selection of references by the speaker,
and consecutively their interpretation by the hearer. The minimum spatial detail
communicated in a reference occurring in destination descriptions is that of the
first reference. The selection of consecutive references then consists of the task of
retrieving a relevant reference within the context area specified by the previous
reference.
The examples presented point to the importance of a cognitively motivated
model of the space, in order to be able to execute a formal model of destina-
tion descriptions computationally. Therefore, before introducing the model of
destination descriptions, the cognitively motivated, experiential structure of the
environment will be discussed.
54
Chapter 4
55
CHAPTER 4. HIERARCHICAL DATA STRUCTURES
56
M. TOMKO 4.2. EXPERIENTIAL HIERARCHIES
Prominence The feature must stand out from the background, be salient, dis-
tinct, or unique (Sorrows and Hirtle, 1999).
The prominence of each of the types of elements of the city is the result of
its visual, semantic and structural characteristics. For each of these types, how-
ever, the relevance of these characteristics is different. Districts are difficult to
be perceived from a single point. They are experienced as an cohesive, homo-
geneous environment, sharing characteristics and distinct from its surrounding.
The semantic and structural characteristics are therefore comparatively stronger
then visual ones. Paths may be experienced due to their structural properties,
facilitating frequent trips through the city due to their structural embedding.
Landmarks are remembered due to their unique visual or semantic properties,
such as the distinct characteristics of their façades or the type of business resid-
ing in a building.
The identifiability of the feature is an important parameter in communica-
tion among mutual strangers. If two locals are not mutual strangers (i.e., are
member of a community, such as a family), their common spatial knowledge has
the properties of mutual knowledge. This extended, shared context allows for
descriptive reference in destination descriptions, such as: “Go to the cafe where
we celebrated your birthday last year”. Among strangers, such references are
not possible. Thus, the speaker has to rely on a common system of labelling of
spatial features, such as street names, suburb names, and well-known vernacular
57
CHAPTER 4. HIERARCHICAL DATA STRUCTURES
As introduced in Section 2.1.2, five elements of the city form (concepts) are
recognized as the basic building blocks of mental representations of urban space.
In the model of destination descriptions presented later, three of those elements
are explored, namely districts, landmarks and paths. Due to their vague definition
and operationalization in the work of Lynch (1960) (for a different approach to
re-definition of the types of elements of the city, see Conroy Dalton and Bafna,
2003), their refined definitions as used in this thesis are introduced:
The basic element of this network is the named street (further used inter-
changeably with street), consisting of all the street segments sharing the
same name (label). Reasons for this choice are explained later in this chap-
ter.
District: a section of the city with a two-dimensional extent, sharing some com-
mon characteristics and have a distinct inside and outside.
Two types of districts are explored in our model: the hierarchical partition of
space into suburbs (administrative partition), and a more cognitively motivated
hierarchy of spatial partitions, created by reconstructing the reference regions of
landmarks.
The two remaining types of elements of the city, nodes and edges, are not
formally explored in the remainder of this thesis. The extension of the model to
include these elements is a subject for future work.
58
M. TOMKO 4.4. HIERARCHIZATION OF ELEMENTS OF THE CITY
1
Parts of this section were previously published in (Winter et al., to appear 2007). I acknowl-
edge the contribution of my co-authors Stephan Winter, Birgit Elias and Monika Sester. The
support of the National Mapping Agency of Lower Saxony, Germany (Landesvermessung und
Geobasisinformation Niedersachsen) which provided the testing dataset for Hannover (ATKIS
Basis DLM (www.atkis.de)) is gratefully acknowledged.
59
CHAPTER 4. HIERARCHICAL DATA STRUCTURES
60
M. TOMKO 4.4. HIERARCHIZATION OF ELEMENTS OF THE CITY
All landmarks exist at the lowest, or finest level i = 1. The landmarks present
at higher levels are subsets of the set L1 . Each landmark can be characterized
by the maximal level m at which it appears in the leveled hierarchy (lm ), and by
the current level i at which it is used in discourse (li ), with i ≤ m. The difference
is the reference region associated with the landmark. Landmarks at level 1 can
be considered local landmarks. Landmarks of higher levels (i > 1) are more and
more global in their spatial context.
61
CHAPTER 4. HIERARCHICAL DATA STRUCTURES
62
M. TOMKO 4.4. HIERARCHIZATION OF ELEMENTS OF THE CITY
The counts of landmarks retained per level level of selection is shown in Table 4.1.
A textual list of landmarks and a link list of the ancestor landmarks selected in
their reference regions was reconstructed for each level of the hierarchy. This was
derived from the Delaunay triangulation, providing a neighborhood structure of
the landmarks compared.
For further analysis and application of the selection of references for desti-
nation descriptions, only the top six levels of the partition were used. This limits
the number of landmarks and thus simulates a sparser distribution of prominent
features through the study space, which would otherwise not be possible with the
dataset of the size available. A hierarchy of six levels also provides a sufficient
depth of the dataset to demonstrate the functionality of the model.
The hierarchical structure of the dataset is demonstrated on Figure 4.3 for
Levels 3-7. With every finer level of the partition, the number of elements grows
exponentially and thus Level 2 (the least granular level used in the model of
destination descriptions) is not shown. The common names of the landmarks
used are shown in Table A.1 in Appendix 1. The distribution of the landmarks
if Level 2 on the background of the street network of Hannover is shown on
Figure 4.4.
Apart from the hierarchy of partitions of the dual regions of landmarks, another
such partition fulfilling our criteria of identifiability of its constituent elements
is the administrative hierarchical partition of a city. Parts of the city, such as
suburbs, referred to by their names, occur frequently as referents in destination
descriptions of locals. Administrative partitions are therefore instances of the
spatial concept of Lynch’s type district, and administrative spatial partitions are a
data structure explored for the automated generation of destination descriptions.
Many researchers have pointed to the fact that administrative hierarchical
partitions of space do not reflect the commonsense conceptualizations, claiming
that people’s conceptualizations of boundaries between parts of the city are usu-
ally not crisp (Alexander, 1988; Dalton, 2006). As hinted by Dalton (2006), the
experience of suburbs of the locals does not exactly match the administrative
partition of the city, but is strongly determined by other structural properties,
63
CHAPTER 4. HIERARCHICAL DATA STRUCTURES
Level 2
Level 1
(a) (b)
Level 3
Level 4
(c) (d)
Level 5
Level 6
(e) (f)
Level 7
(g)
Figure 4.2: (a): Local landmarks with their reference regions (outlined in black)
and neighbored landmarks (black dots). (b)-(f): hierarchical levels of more and
more salient landmarks. (g): the most salient landmark, present through all
levels.
64
M. TOMKO 4.4. HIERARCHIZATION OF ELEMENTS OF THE CITY
Figure 4.3: Representation of the top levels of the hierarchical structure of land-
marks (Levels 3 − 7).
65
CHAPTER 4. HIERARCHICAL DATA STRUCTURES
such as the structure of the street network. An example of such structure emerg-
ing from individual experience is the partition of the city by reference regions of
landmarks.
Administrative hierarchical partitions can be represented as tree structures.
The boundaries between the partitions are crisp and well defined (Montello, 2003;
Smith and Varzi, 2000). The boundaries are shared by partitions across multi-
ple levels of granularity, with the coarsest level containing elements of the size
of whole continents or countries. Intermediate levels of granularity are country
specific, and contain elements equivalent to states, other larger regions, counties,
down to cities and suburbs. The partial order establishing the hierarchy is that
of containment. The finest building block of an administrative partition of space
is usually a lot or a house, the smallest region delimited by ownership bound-
aries. The elements at this level of detail are rarely used in communication, and
references to concrete buildings—landmarks are used instead.
In historical cities, the delineation of suburbs is close to the experience of the
locals. This relation between the administrative partition and the experience is
evolutionary and important. Structures of historical cities often emerge by amal-
gamation of villages, usually with a historical market town at the core. Still, in
modern, planned cities, the delineation of the boundaries between administrative
partitions does not necessarily follow the experience of locals. Furthermore, while
administrative partitions such as cities or suburbs have well known names, their
size is too coarse a reference for destination descriptions.
Reference regions of landmarks have a strong experiential basis (i.e., visual
experience of the landmark), and should therefore be considered when construct-
ing experiential hierarchies of districts. Their identifiability is granted by the
name of the generator landmark (“the vicinity of the Eiffel Tower”). The hier-
archical rank of the reference region and the landmark may then be considered
structurally equivalent.
Reference regions of landmarks relate to the empirical phenomenon where a
region around a central landmark embodies the characteristics of a whole suburb
or even a larger region around. Thus, a portion of the city may belong to multiple
regions of the hierarchically higher partition (Figure 4.3).
To include references to districts into destination descriptions , the selection
model must account for a variety of hierarchical structures of districts, such as hi-
erarchical partitions (tree-like structures) and hierarchies of partitions. This must
be done in an integrated manner, as the hierarchical structure may have differ-
ent characteristics at different granularities. Both types of hierarchical structures
occur in the test dataset of Hannover, and are accounted for by the selection
66
M. TOMKO 4.4. HIERARCHIZATION OF ELEMENTS OF THE CITY
model.
67
CHAPTER 4. HIERARCHICAL DATA STRUCTURES
68
M. TOMKO 4.4. HIERARCHIZATION OF ELEMENTS OF THE CITY
by secondary influences. Indirect sources, such as Web pages and news articles
reflect on the prominent streets, further supporting the individual experience.
The inference of the shared experience of parts of the street network is related
to the structural properties of the network. The hierarchy created by experience
needs to take into account the likelihood of the usage of a specific street, not only
its central aspect. A comparison of the values of centrality measures and their
distribution, starting with regular street networks, follows. By the introduction
of irregularities in the regular patterns, the distribution of the centrality values
is altered and the effect is evaluated from the perspective on the impact on the
shared experience of individual streets. This allows centrality measures to be
identified, that reveal structural properties of named streets contributing to their
experiential prominence.
Rectangular grid patterns consist of perpendicular streets forming blocks.
All junctions have the same degree and are thus identical in their local structure.
Such urban layouts are typical for modern planned cities. Downtown areas of
major US and Australian cities follow this pattern, as well as some European
planned cities, e.g. Barcelona. Some of these cities have a few streets intersecting
the grid pattern diagonally. Such streets are usually well known.
Betweenness centrality reveals the relative importance of these streets, as
shown by comparison with the degree and closeness centrality. Figure 4.5 presents
a grid pattern and its dual graph representation consisting of 6 orthogonal streets,
forming a grid of 2 × 2 blocks. The dual graph analysis was performed using
the software Pajek (Batagelj and Mrvar, 2006). The graphs reveal the bipartite
structure of the north-south and east-west streets. The betweenness values of
the network of named streets are all equal. If we consider named streets as the
building element of the grid-like street network, no structural difference between
the individual streets is revealed by in any of the degree, closeness or between-
ness centrality measures. If the element of analysis is a street segment, higher
betweenness and closeness centrality values are attributed to the central part of
the grid. As all the streets are intersected by the same number of connecting
streets, degree centrality remains uniform in the whole grid.
In such a regular grid, however, the hierarchical ranking of streets by be-
tweenness and closeness is identical. Hence, irregularities in urban layouts that
impact on the perception of the city as such also cause variance between the cen-
trality values. The addition of a diagonal street (Node 7 in Figure 4.6b) in the
69
CHAPTER 4. HIERARCHICAL DATA STRUCTURES
[0.10] 2 [0.10] 3
[0.10] 1 [0.10] 4
[0.10] 6 [0.10] 5
Pajek
(a) Street network (primal graph rep- (b) Street network (dual graph representation).
resentation) Labels represent betweenness values of streets.
grid network leads to a change of betweenness values of the streets. The north-
south streets intersect all of the streets in the network and thus would lie on most
shortest paths. They rank on top of the hierarchy when ordered by betweenness.
The newly introduced shortcut follows in the ranking. The ranking by closeness
centrality or degree centrality would, however, not reflect the direct experience
of the urban structure appropriately.
In a star-like network (Figure 4.7), the insertion of a shortcut (Street 4)
changes the reachability of the peripheries involved. Values of betweenness cen-
trality reflect this change in a manner reflecting the likelihood of common ex-
perience of a network element. Betweenness centrality thus reflects better the
evolution of experiential hierarchies of streets of wayfinders.
It is the occurrence of shortcuts between internally highly connected sub-
graphs that motivates the use of betweenness for the reconstruction of the hier-
archical structure of the street network. In a street network, such subgraphs may
stand for districts, where the internal connectivity of the street sub-network is
higher than that in the remainder of the city.
The dual graph representation of the street network from Figure 4.7 reveals
the structural changes caused by the shortcut (Figure 4.8). By the addition of
Street 4, the two distant peripheral parts of the network become directly con-
nected. A new urban core is created by the triangle 1, 3 and 4. The individual
importance of Streets 1 and 3 decreased with the introduction of the Street 4.
The measure of betweenness reveals the alteration of experiential prominence of
70
M. TOMKO 4.4. HIERARCHIZATION OF ELEMENTS OF THE CITY
[0.05] 3
[0.05] 2
[0.05] 4
[0.08] 1
[0.08] 5
[0.07] 7
[0.08] 6
Pajek
(a) Street network (primal graph (b) Street network (dual graph representa-
representation) tion). Labels represent betweenness values
of streets.
Figure 4.6: Graph representations of named streets grid with a diagonal street—
shortcut.
streets in the network. It preserves the high prominence of Street 2 and reflects
the lowering of the importance of Streets 1 and 3. Before the insertion of Street
4, betweenness values for the Streets 1, 2 and 3 in the network were equal, 0.44.
After the insertion of Street 4, Street 1 has a betweenness centrality value of 0.41,
Streets 1 and 3 have values of 0.23 and Street 4 a value of 0.18.
Closeness centrality fails to reveal the alteration of this street network ap-
propriately. The closeness centrality value of Street 2 decreases as Street 4 is
inserted. Street 2, however, remains the only means of access to a significant
portion of the graph. Also, the relatively high values of closeness of the streets on
the peripheries of the graph compared to the central streets have little justifica-
tion from the experiential point of view. Thus, closeness centrality fails to reveal
the relative importance of the streets to the overall structure of the city. The
importance of Streets 2 and 4 would become even more prominent if a partition
71
CHAPTER 4. HIERARCHICAL DATA STRUCTURES
(a) Dual graph representation of the street net- (b) Dual graph representation of the street net-
work, with betweenness centrality values. work, with closeness centrality values.
of the network into a suburb was introduced. The peripheral, cohesive parts of
the graphs can be clustered into a district. In such a case, the significance of
Streets 2 and 4 as links in the functional structure of the city would be further
emphasized.
Due to its local character, degree centrality does not provide a measure of
prominence of a network element outside of its immediate neighborhood. In natu-
rally evolved spatial transport networks with high degree of asymmetry, closeness
centrality does not provide a reliable measure of hierarchical importance of a net-
work element in the overall network. It distorts the hierarchy by assigning higher
values to the streets in the core of the network. Side-lanes and alley-ways located
at the geographic center of the area of interest will always get high closeness
values, as long as they form loops (cycles) and thus do not lie on the periphery
of the graph. This structural property, however, does not necessarily make them
prominent.
Betweenness centrality reflects the probability of a street to be selected by
a frequent wayfinder for a trip within the street network. With the increasing
number of trips performed, the likelihood that betweenness approximates the
agent’s experience of the urban environment increases.
The structural role of the streets facilitating movement between the functional
partitions of the city into suburbs should be considered for a refined ranking of
streets in experiential hierarchies.
72
M. TOMKO 4.4. HIERARCHIZATION OF ELEMENTS OF THE CITY
Figure 4.9: Alternative streets with equal betweenness related to their suburb
context (primal graph representation).
73
CHAPTER 4. HIERARCHICAL DATA STRUCTURES
• ndk dl (dij ) the number of shortest paths linking two districts dk and dl that
contains dij .
X ndk dl (dij )
CiB = (4.1)
ndk dl
dij 6=dk 6=dl
The experiential rank value E i for a named street i in the experiential hierarchy
of the street network based on the betweenness centralities of the street network
(Eq. 2.3) and the district partition of space (Eq. 4.1) is then defined as follows:
X
Ei = CiB × CdBi (4.2)
j
j
74
M. TOMKO 4.4. HIERARCHIZATION OF ELEMENTS OF THE CITY
and verification of the method on a dataset of the street network and district
partition of Melbourne, Australia, see Tomko et al. (to appear 2007).
To demonstrate the distribution of the values of Ei , the dataset of the the street
network of Hannover and the second level partition of the city by landmark
reference regions (Figure 4.2b) was used. The second level partition was selected
as it presents the basic partition of the city into reference regions of all the
landmarks considered. The consideration of partitions of coarser granularities
would lead to a loss of detail, as more streets would connect a single district.
First, the street centerline dataset was processed in order to merge streets
segments into street names. The unique Street ID attribute was used to merge
related street segments. Note that this was considered to be a more reliable
method then merging by real street names, as the street name attributes were
incomplete.
The betweenness centrality analysis was performed in the space syntax soft-
ware Mindwalk (Figueiredo, 2002) on a street network of 1350 named streets, out
of which 394 were located in the study area of the center of Hannover. Mindwalk
implements a computationally efficient version of betweenness centrality, called
fast choice. It considers only one random shortest path between each pair of
nodes in a graph, instead of generating all the alternative shortest paths. In
larger networks, such as the one used in the example, the differences in central-
ity values resulting from fast choice are statistically insignificant. This can be
simply verified by multiple analysis of the same network, noting that the values
computed do not change. The result of the analysis is a vector of betweenness
centrality values CiB for all the named streets in the study area.
In parallel, a matrix recording the connectivity of districts by named streets
A394×32 was created (the 394 streets in the study area intersect 32 Level 2 dis-
tricts). The matrix was based on a link-list of named streets and districts con-
nected through them. The reduction from such a 2-mode network into a 1-mode
network was performed in the network analysis software Pajek (Batagelj and
Mrvar, 2006). Consecutively, the vector of betweenness centrality values for the
districts CdBi was calculated. The resulting values are reported in Table 4.2 and
j
the connectivity of the districts is shown in Figure 4.10.
Note that the adjacency graph of the districts (Figure 4.10) is different to
the Delaunay triangulation of the landmarks. Named streets connect multiple
districts which are thus considered connected, although they may not be adjacent
75
CHAPTER 4. HIERARCHICAL DATA STRUCTURES
Table 4.2: Betweenness centrality vector CdBi of Level 2 districts of central Han-
j
nover
Figure 4.10: The graph of the connections of the level 2 districts by named streets
(betweenness centrality values in square brackets).
76
M. TOMKO 4.4. HIERARCHIZATION OF ELEMENTS OF THE CITY
The values of Ei range between 0 and 0.147. The mean value calculated from
the sample was x̄ = 0.0019 with a standard deviation in the dataset σ = 0.0113.
The distribution of experiential rank values follows a power-law distribution
(Newman, 2005). The dotted line splits the named streets with Ei values above
the mean value (left of the line) from the named streets with Ei values under the
mean value (right of the line).
There are in total 33 streets with Ei above the mean x̄, and only 9 such that
their experiential rank value is more than a σ above x̄ (Table 4.3).
Individual experiential hierarchies are continuous rankings, and it is impos-
sible to draw a line separating prominent and non-prominent streets. It is, how-
ever, possible to approximate this limit by the mean value in the distribution.
The streets of above-mean experiential rank values will be called prominent. The
bulk of the streets in the hierarchy are below the mean value of prominence. In
the case of the city of Hannover, the streets around the mean value of Ei are
more than a thousand times as prominent as those with the lowest values (null
values were not considered).
Figure 4.12 shows the 33 most prominent streets of the study are in central
77
CHAPTER 4. HIERARCHICAL DATA STRUCTURES
78
M. TOMKO 4.4. HIERARCHIZATION OF ELEMENTS OF THE CITY
Hannover in an overlay with the boundaries of the study area and the second-level
Voronoi partition of the area by landmark reference regions.
N01F
UFK
N0
1FU
95
N2
0C
8L
F
N
20
G
R
5B
N X 7
01 VY 4C
FU 1F
N0 N0 0B
N0
1F
UQ
KU N2
1F
O
VP
X
N0
2
0E
2T
A 8N N2
0C
02
N2
56
D
FY
1 H2 6
N0 N01FUV
N2
02
56
8
6
56
N202
02
UJ S
N2
N2
N0
5VG
N01F
025
1F
VV
6S
Y
N0
N01
1F
2569 UU N01FVRO
N20
FVO
3
N01FUSL
F
N20
DDIH
N0
1F
UV
H
N2
0G
R7
U
U
56
02
N2
The joint consideration of the street network structure together with the sub-
urb partition of the city allow for a reliable identification of the most prominent
streets of the street network, as shown on the example of central Hannover and
in a previous study of a larger area in Melbourne, Australia (Tomko et al., to
appear 2007). The result illustrates the plausibility with which the novel measure
reveals the experiential hierarchy in an urban network.
The prominent streets identified represent empirically important connectors
of central Hannover, including the prominent streets along the boundary and
across the study area: Engelbosteler Damm, Bremer Damm, Nienburger Straße,
Friederikenplatz, Brühlstraße and Leibnizufer, among others.
The exploration of the spatial distribution of the prominent streets shows
that they are relatively evenly distributed across the study area, without mani-
festation of the boundary effect. This was expected, as the constituting measure,
betweenness centrality, is not susceptible to boundary effects. The distribution
corresponds with the empirical experience where a relatively small proportion of
79
CHAPTER 4. HIERARCHICAL DATA STRUCTURES
streets in a city form a cognitively important skeleton structure. This means that
in any urban structure there is a relatively large number of streets with a low
prominence, and only a few prominent ones.
The empirical success of route direction communication in our daily lives
suggests that there is a large overlap in the structures of our spatial knowledge,
and that the knowledge of the prominent parts is common. Thus, a certain de-
gree of difference in individual experiential hierarchies is not a barrier to reaching
understanding. The match between the prominent parts of the hierarchies of the
speaker and of the hearer is high when most of their elements are identical, but
not necessarily ranked in the same order. Due to the power-law distribution of
street prominence values in the experiential hierarchies, highly prominent streets
have values higher by magnitudes than those of low prominence. Thus, while the
individual rankings in the mental representations of streets of a speaker and a
hearer may be different, the sets of the prominent streets will by largely overlap-
ping. This also allows the use of the proposed objectivized experiential hierarchy,
for an automated construction of route directions by an automated service. Even
a small sub-set of all the streets in the street network may provide a sufficient set
of potential referents for place and route descriptions in the area in consideration
(Kuipers et al., 2003).
• landmarks may be ordered in a rank of similar properties, but are also linked
80
M. TOMKO 4.5. INTEGRATED EXPERIENTIAL HIERARCHY
Other relationships are also possible. The structure of the street network may
determine the experiencing of the districts, or even their genesis. Dalton (2006)
for example suggests a redefinition of suburbs as a function of the structure of
the street network.
Of course, these types of elements of the city form have also relations at the
same level, not only across hierarchical levels or granularities. Paths connect dis-
tricts, while landmarks have a perceptual influence on their reference regions and
thus give context to districts (i.e., as seeds of the Voronoi partition). Landmarks
are also experienced by wayfinders navigating along paths, they are en route.
Figure 4.13 schematically depicts these possible relationships.
81
CHAPTER 4. HIERARCHICAL DATA STRUCTURES
82
Chapter 5
The cognitive environment of the speaker and the hearer, i.e. the context in
which the communication of destination descriptions occurs, determines the se-
lection of references. Modeling context is, however, a non-deterministic problem
(Dey, 2000). The parameters of context relevant in a specific task depend on the
individual. As noted by Clark and Marshall (1981, cited in Sperber and Wilson
(1982)), physical co-presence, linguistic co-presence and community membership
are factors facilitating the inference of common knowledge among communica-
tors. Each of these broad groups of parameters could be further decomposed in
detailed parameters of context. A system developer will invariably make subjec-
tive assumptions about the users of the system developed. The more assumptions
a developer commits to, the less general and adaptive the resulting system will
be. The approach presented in this thesis therefore relies on a minimal set of
assumptions about the cognitive environment of the speaker and the hearer.
83
CHAPTER 5. A GENERIC MODEL OF DESTINATION DESCRIPTIONS
not made explicitly known to the speaker, and it is therefore left unspecified
in the model proposed.
84
M. TOMKO 5.2. MODEL CONSTRAINTS
As presented in Section 3.4 and shown in Figure 3.4, the common knowledge of
the speaker and the hearer C, is the intersection of the mental representations of
the reality by the speaker (S) and the hearer (H), acquired by perception of the
urban environment. The references made by the speaker in a given environment
can only be to elements e1..m of the set S, e1..m ∈ S. To reach understanding,
however, these references must also be members of C. Otherwise, the hearer
will not be able to identify the referents in her or his spatial representation and
understanding will not be reached. In the model presented, a necessary and
explicit assumption is made: the understanding of the speaker and the hearer is
possible, i.e. the relative ranking of elements in the spatial mental representations
of the hearer and the speaker is preserved {ea , eb | if eSa > eSb then eH H
a ≥ eb } (see
Section 3.4 for the discussion on reference selection).
The constraints of the model presented are summarized as follows:
In destination descriptions, the route is not described by the speaker to the hearer
in full detail. Only the referents selected by the speaker during route planning as
the most relevant are communicated to the hearer. Note that the route imagined
by the speaker fulfils the speaker’s own route planning criteria.
85
CHAPTER 5. A GENERIC MODEL OF DESTINATION DESCRIPTIONS
r1 , r 2 , . . . , r n
This can be illustrated on the example of the Castle from Section 3.4 (Fig-
ure 3.5).
the Castle, the N ew P alace
e5 , e11
86
M. TOMKO 5.4. RELEVANCE OF A REFERENCE
in the context specified by the previous reference. Note that it is assumed that
the start of the route is explicitly known by both the speaker and the hearer.
The application of the principle of relevance (Definition 3, page 23) to the se-
lection of references for destination descriptions requires a cognitively plausible
operationalization of cognitive effort and cognitive effect in a given context. This
will allow to reference the element of highest relevance in the candidate set. The
quantification can hardly be absolute. A relative comparison of the estimates of
the cognitive effort needed to interpret the potential referents is therefore chosen.
The first element that satisfies a set of rules assessing the relevance of a reference
will be selected. This approach is commonly called lazy evaluation.
In the model proposed, the relevance of a reference r to an element, in a given
context, is operationalized as a function of the prominence of r, and of the distance
of the element represented by r from the start s (Equation 5.1), in a model of
an environment. The routes,t , or more specifically, its start s and destination t
provide the parameters of context required by the principle of relevance. The
distance of the element, as well as the prominence of r are evaluated relative to
the distance from s and the prominence of t.
(s,t)
rankr
relevancer(s,t) = (5.1)
distancer
The more prominent an element of the environment is, the less effort is
required from the hearer to relate the reference made by the speaker to her or
his mental representation of the element. Furthermore, no references of lower
prominence than that of t are relevant, as they would increase the cognitive effort
of processing them, and would not provide any cognitive effect to the hearer. On
the other hand, distance from the referent increases the hearer’s cognitive effort,
as the ambiguity of the reference increases. The greater the distance between the
current location of the hearer (s) and the element represented by the reference r,
the larger is the choice set of elements that has to be mentally searched through.
Distance is thus a measure enabling the cognitive effort required to process a
reference to an element to be estimated.
The reference selected for inclusion in destination descriptions must balance
the requirement to provide a reference to the most prominent reference possi-
ble, with the requirement of referring to a reference close to the current spatial
context s. Not only the balanced consideration of the two factors allows for the
87
CHAPTER 5. A GENERIC MODEL OF DESTINATION DESCRIPTIONS
evaluation of the relative relevance of a reference, it also allows for the avoidance
of trivial references. Trivial references are references requiring low cognitive ef-
fort to process, but which provide low cognitive effect in the given context. The
inclusion of trivial references results in an excessive number of references in the
resulting destination description. Such a destination description does not satisfy
the requirement of a referring expression, due to redundant references.
To preserve cognitive plausibility, the model presented does not require the
use of Euclidean distance of the potential referents in a given context. Instead,
topological distance between elements in the hierarchical structure of the environ-
ment is considered.
To select the most relevant reference r in a given spatial context, the topological
relation of the spatial context defined by the start of the route s, its destination
t, and the distance from the potential references is evaluated in the hierarchical
structure of the city.
Consider a dataset CD containing the set of districts covering the route
routes,t from start s to destination t. The dataset is organized as a hierarchical
partition of space. The identification of references to be included in destination
description in the context of s in this hierarchical dataset can be codified in a set
of rules.
First of all, two specific scenarios have to be distinguished in which destina-
tion descriptions can not be provided. First, the start s and the target t must be
part of the spatial knowledge of to the speaker, or in the case of a computational
system, included in the database CD . Second, the route described must have a
distinct start and destination. As a consequence, the start s and the destina-
tion t may not be specified as identical. The Rules 1 and 2 verify these basic
requirements for the provision of destination descriptions.
88
M. TOMKO 5.5. RULES FOR SELECTING DISTRICT REFERENCES
4. The start and the destination should not have neighboring direct superor-
dinate elements.
The higher the prominence of a referent, the higher is the cognitive effect
and lower the cognitive effort of processing the reference. As the reference r is
necessarily a superordinate (or ancestor) elements of t, the superordinate elements
of t are evaluated. Sets Supert of superordinate elements of t, and Supers of
superordinate elements of s can be extracted from the hierarchical dataset CD .
The set Supert is then the candidate set for the reference r:r ∈ Supert .
The inclusion of the reference r in the context of s must provide relevant in-
formation to the resulting destination description. Thus, the topological distance
of the start s to the reference r should be low, but not trivial. In the hierarchi-
cal partition of the environment CD , sets Supert and Supers have necessarily at
least one common element—the root of the hierarchy. If an element is common
to Supert and Supers , a reference to this element does not provide any informa-
tion value in to the hearer in the spatial context of s. Such a reference has no
pragmatic information content and is thus trivial. If the condition is not fulfilled,
an element of finer granularity should be evaluated.
Finally, the Rule 6 assures a minimal topological distance of 1 between the
referent r and the start s (dists,r = 1), in order to avoid references of low relevance.
The cognitive effort to process such a reference is not balanced by the cognitive
effect (i.e., information value) it provides. If the condition is not fulfilled, an
element of finer granularity, satisfying all conditions above should be selected.
This rule is derived from a strict interpretation of the principle of relevance.
89
CHAPTER 5. A GENERIC MODEL OF DESTINATION DESCRIPTIONS
The Rules 1-6 can be formalized as function ref and represented by the
Algorithm 2. Note that in Algorithm 2, Rules 5 and 6 are applied in one step
(line 11-13).
d0 , d3 , d32 , d322
Rules 1 to 4 are satisfied by the composition of the dataset and the structure
of the route itself, and a destination description can therefore be created. Rules 5
and 6 are then used to select the first reference of the destination description of
90
M. TOMKO 5.5. RULES FOR SELECTING DISTRICT REFERENCES
Figure 5.1: Schematic representation of (a) the hierarchical partition of space and
(b) the schema of a route through this partition.
91
CHAPTER 5. A GENERIC MODEL OF DESTINATION DESCRIPTIONS
92
M. TOMKO 5.5. RULES FOR SELECTING DISTRICT REFERENCES
93
CHAPTER 5. A GENERIC MODEL OF DESTINATION DESCRIPTIONS
Figure 5.3: Illustration of the process of selection of references for the destination
description of the destination d322 of the routed122 ,d322 . The gray triangles denote
the district considered in each step.
Once again, the selection of references consists of the evaluation of the or-
dered set of superordinate elements of the destination d322 : [d0 , d3 , d32 , d322 ].
After the retrieval of the first reference r1 = d3 , the spatial context changes
from s = d122 to s′ = d341 , as d341 is the first defining district of routed122 ,d322
within the spatial context of the reference r1 = d3 . The consecutive reference
searched for must be relevant in the context of the sub-route of routed122 ,d322 ,
namely subroute3 = routed341 ,d322 .
The next district considered for reference is d32 . In the current spatial context
s′ = d341 , the information value of the reference to d341 is low. d32 is neighbouring
the district d341 . The reference to d32 does, at best, provide the hearer with
information one step closer to the destination. Any route within the spatial
context of r1 = d3 , transiting through d34 must necessarily lead through d32 . As
the reference to any other element of the granularity of d32 (i.e., d31 and d33 )
is also missing, the consecutive reference must necessarily be within d32 . As
the model of destination descriptions proposed provides a strict interpretation
of the principle of relevance, the hearer’s own spatial knowledge may be used to
substitute this information. As shown in following sections, the reference to other
types of elements of the city than districts may help reduce potential ambiguity
in such situations.
As the reference to d32 does not satisfy the rules specified, it is retained by the
speaker and a finer reference is sought in the set of the remaining superordinate
elements of the destination. As there is no further reference of intermediate
granularity available to the hearer in the given context, the reference to the
destination is included. The granularity of the spatial hierarchical partition CD
does not allow more detailed route directions of the route described.
The resulting sequence of references in the destination description for the
94
M. TOMKO 5.6. RULES FOR SELECTING LANDMARKS REFERENCES
route122,322 is:
d3 d322
95
CHAPTER 5. A GENERIC MODEL OF DESTINATION DESCRIPTIONS
• The reference is always made to the landmark, and not to its reference
area. The identity of the landmark is unique even if its reference area
changes across granularities. Thus, it is possible that a reference is made
to a landmark that at is at the coarser granularity the ancestor of both
the current location and the destination. Rule 5 is therefore irrelevant for
landmarks.
Furthermore, two new rules are proposed, enriched with mechanisms to deal
with redundant referents in the resulting destination description, as well as with
the selection among multiple possible referents:
96
M. TOMKO 5.6. RULES FOR SELECTING LANDMARKS REFERENCES
8. Among possible referents, priority is given to the referents along the route.
If multiple landmarks satisfy this condition, the landmark closest to the
destination is selected.
Note the multiple possible referents selected at the same granularity, as indi-
cated by the brackets. As the hierarchy of landmarks allow for multiple ancestors
of a landmark, multiple references are possible. The consideration of the con-
text provided by the route (routed5 ,d1 ) then applies. The references l2g+3 , l2g+2
and l2g+1 to the landmark l2 is possible at multiple granularities. Furthermore, at
the granularity g + 3, the reference to the landmark l7 is an alternative to l2g+3 .
97
CHAPTER 5. A GENERIC MODEL OF DESTINATION DESCRIPTIONS
98
M. TOMKO 5.6. RULES FOR SELECTING LANDMARKS REFERENCES
99
CHAPTER 5. A GENERIC MODEL OF DESTINATION DESCRIPTIONS
While landmark l2 is en-route, i.e. its finest granularity reference region (d2 )
is part of the route specification (d2 ∈ routed5 ,d1 ), landmark l7 is not en-route
(d7 ∈
/ routed5 ,d1 ). If no preference can be given through the consideration of the
route context, the selection of the reference is arbitrary. Landmark l2 is given
preference and is referred to in the destination description:
l6 , l2 , t
100
M. TOMKO 5.7. RULES FOR SELECTING PATHS REFERENCES
as opposed to the final three references to landmarks (both numbers include the
destination). The different properties of landmarks allow for a brief set of refer-
ents in the destination descriptions, while preserving the relevance of the resulting
set of references. A reference to a landmark may be interpreted at multiple gran-
ularities. This property may be the reason why references to landmarks are so
frequently made by people, and why route directions and destination descriptions
with landmarks are considered useful.
The duality of landmarks with their reference regions allow for a flexible se-
lection and interpretation of an element as a landmark or district reference. Thus,
an explicit distinction is not necessary in the selection algorithm. Instead, the
semantic characteristics of the references may be considered. Thus, if a reference
region of a landmark is selected at a coarse level of granularity, and it covers an
area equivalent to an administrative district, the reference to the district’s name
is appropriate. District names represent a reliable common naming scheme in a
given city.
• The mean value of the experiential rank of all paths in the hierarchy CP is
denoted as Ex̄ .
101
CHAPTER 5. A GENERIC MODEL OF DESTINATION DESCRIPTIONS
The paths in CP represent the elements of the structure along which wayfind-
ers move. They can connect distant districts, and a reference to such paths can
therefore radically decrease the need for other references, especially if the path is
prominent. Only references to paths which connect the districts along the route
are referred to by the speaker. The set of such paths is noted Proute . Note the
difference from turn-based directions, where references to all paths constituting
the route need to be referred to, to unambiguously define the route to the hearer.
The application of the principle of relevance in the selection of path referents
requires the consideration of the experiential rank value Ei of the path, as well as
its structural granularity g. A reference to a path can be only made if the path
is prominent. The only exception is that of a direct connection of the current
spatial context and the destination of the route, when the speaker can refer to
the path directly (e.g.: “follow this path to destination.”).
Multiple paths can be available as possible referents along the route. The
preference order for the selection of referents, derived from the application of the
relevance principle, is summarized in the following rules:
10. Direct connectivity: the path providing direct connection between the cur-
rent spatial context and the destination should be selected, disregarding
whether it is prominent or not;
11. Prominence: the most prominent path from the set of alternatives should
be selected;
Note that the rules of the selection of path references for destination descrip-
tions also consider cognitive effect as the function of prominence (experiential
or structural) and cognitive effort as the function of topological distance (direct
connectivity). Due to the characteristics of paths, there is no need for measures
avoiding the selection of trivial references—a reference to a path directly connect-
ing the current spatial context with the destination is the most relevant reference
102
M. TOMKO 5.8. INTEGRATED DESTINATION DESCRIPTIONS
By the application of the principles above, path referents can be included into
district and landmark based destination descriptions in a recursive manner. The
set of paths Proutes,t is ordered in a sequence of their appearance along the route
routes,t . For every new spatial context s, s′ , ... the paths from Proutes,t are evalu-
ated for their relevance as potential referents, as shown in Algorithm 6.
The simple combination of the topological distance, the hierarchical rank of
a spatial element and the context of the route, combined in set of rules, provide
means for a computational interpretation of the principle of relevance enabling
to select references for destination descriptions.
103
CHAPTER 5. A GENERIC MODEL OF DESTINATION DESCRIPTIONS
19 else
20 Stop
104
Chapter 6
Computational Implementation
of the Model of Destination
Descriptions
105
CHAPTER 6. MODEL IMPLEMENTATION
needed.
Elements district and landmark are represented together in a unique struc-
ture of the abstract data type District. They are represented as a list of four
values: the identifier ObjectID, the granularity Level, name ObjectName and
the list of the subordinate elements Landmarks, which are the generators of the
reference regions (districts) of finer granularity, and the list of ObjectID of its
neighboring districts (Neighbors). Appendix B contains the data type definitions
along with the test dataset for central Hannover.
Elements of type path are modeled as abstract data types Path, represented
as a triplet (list of three values) of the path identifier (ObjectID), its constituent
districts (a list of ObjectID of the instances of districts), and the experiential
rank value of the path.
type Path = ( ObjectID , Districts , Expvalue )
type District = ( ObjectID , Level , ObjectName , Landmarks , N eighbors )
The inputs for the identification of the references for destination descriptions are
represented by the integrated hierarchical dataset World, and a list of objects
route, specifying the sequence of finest level districts defining the route between
the start and the destination. The input of the World is in-built in the program
106
M. TOMKO 6.3. MAIN FUNCTIONS
and is therefore not explicitly passed to the main function granularDirs of the
program as a parameter. Thus, the only parameter of the main function is route.
Note that the start of the route s and the destination t can always be derived
from the definition of route as its first and last element, respectively.
The dataset World is constructed by applying the function createWorld
to the list of paths paths and the list of landmarks and/or districts areas as
arguments (Appendix C, line 28).
world :: [ Object ]
world = createWorld ( areas ) ++ createWorld ( paths )
The specification of the route provides the definition of the spatial con-
texts evaluated during the selection of the references by the speaker. The spatial
context is the only personalization parameter considered in this model. Finally,
one last parameter influences the selection of references: the specification of the
threshold experiential rank value, allowing the definition of prominent paths in
the given dataset. By changing this value, the size of the prominent paths dataset
can be increased or decreased. In the following, the mean value Ex̄ is used, defined
as the variable eimean (Appendix B), following the discussion in Section 4.4.3.
The output of the main function of the implemented model is a list of instances of
type Object, representing the referents selected for the destination descriptions.
107
CHAPTER 6. MODEL IMPLEMENTATION
First, the construction of the set of district and landmark based references is
explained. The constituent function grdDist of destDesc wraps around recDirs
and ensures the correct hierarchical ordering of its output. The function recDirs
(Appendix C, line 117) executes the recursive retrieval of district and landmark
references for the destination description (Algorithm 3). The filtering of references
to a single instance of each landmark (Algorithm 5) is consequently achieved by
the application of nubBy (equalByName) in the function destDesc, as described
earlier.
recDirs :: [ Object ] -> [ Object ]
recDirs ( s : sx )
| getRef s t ( s : sx ) == t = [ t ]
| otherwise = ( getRef s t ( s : sx ) ) :( recDirs ( subroute ( getRe f s t ( s : sx ) )
( s : sx ) ) )
where t = last ( s : sx )
A test at the beginning of the function recDirs ends the recursion if the
destination district is returned as reference. In this case, t is added to the result
set and the function ends. If the test is negative, a reference is retrieved and
the function recDirs runs again to find consecutive elements. This time, the
parameter route is represented by the result of the function subroute (Appen-
dix C, line 257), that determines the districts constituting the route in the area
specified by the previous reference. The districts are in the same sequence as in
the complete route.
subroute :: Object -> [ Object ] -> [ Object ] -> [ Object ]
subroute i r obj = [ x | x <- r , testObject i ( findSupersOrd x obj ) ]
108
M. TOMKO 6.3. MAIN FUNCTIONS
marks, Rules 5 and 6 do not apply (Section 5.6) and are replaced by the Rules 7
and 8. The main constituent function of getRef s t (s:sx) is the function
compHier sbranch tbranch route, which applies the rules on the sets of super-
odinate elements of s and t (Appendix C, line 137):
compHier :: [ Object ] -> [ Object ] -> [ Object ] -> Object
compHier sbranch [] route = error " no input of destinatio n branch "
compHier [] tbranch route = error " no input of start bran ch "
compHier sbranch tbranch route = if length ( t : tx ) == 0
then error " change to turn based directions "
else
if length [ x |x < -t , y < -s , isNeighbor x y || x == y ] /= 0
then compHier ( concat ( sx ) ) ( concat ( tx ) ) route
else
if length [ x |x < -t , y < - route , fetchName x == fetchName y ] >=1
then last [ x |y < -t , x < - route , fetchName x == fetchName y ]
else ( last t )
where ( t : tx ) = groupBy ( equalLevel ) ( ordByLevelDesc ([ t | t < - tbranch ,
( testObject t sbranch ) == False ]) )
( s : sx ) = groupBy ( equalLevel ) ( ordByLevelDesc ([ s | s < - sbranch , ( testObject s
tbranch ) == False ]) )
This function also implements the consideration of the context of the route
in the selection of the appropriate reference among several possibilities. If a
reference to a landmark is possible, and the finest-granularity reference region of
this landmark is part of the definition of the route, the reference to the landmark
(or its reference region at the granularity considered) is given preference and
selected for the destination description.
The function destDescA integrates district and landmark references with refer-
ences to paths. When a reference to a path is included, not only the current
spatial context and the the previous district reference must be considered, but
also the hierarchical order of the possible paths referents.
Note the use of the function dirConectByProm in the function destDescA
(d:dx) (p:px), which is used in the last stages of the inclusion of path references
in the sequence of district and path references (Appendix C, line 170). It returns
a reference to the experientially most prominent path available when two districts
are directly connected. It takes as inputs an ordered set of paths occurring along
the route, provided as the result of the function routePaths.
This function orders paths along the route based on their relevance in a
given spatial context based on a combination of their order of appearance along
the route, their structural granularity (i.e., the structural prominence returned
by the function fetchMaxLevel) and experiential prominence. It compares paths
109
CHAPTER 6. MODEL IMPLEMENTATION
along the route based on the ordering function compByRouteCTX. Paths are or-
dered based on their structural relation with the route: the closer to the desti-
nation does the path appear along the route, the more relevant is the reference
to such path in the given context. The inputs of the function are two triplets
of values, describing the paths compared following the template: (path ID, ID
of first district of appearance along the route, ID of last district of appearance
along the route). The function elemIndex returns the position index of a district
in the sequence of the route (Appendix C, line 158).
compByRouteCTX :: ( Object , Object , Object ) -> ( Object , Object , Object ) -> Ordering
compByRouteCTX (a ,b , c ) (d ,e , f )
|( elemIndex c route < elemIndex e route ) = LT
|( elemIndex b route > elemIndex e route ) && ( elemIndex c rout e == elemIndex f
route ) = LT
|( fetchMaxLevel a < fetchMaxLevel d ) = LT
|( fetchExp a < fetchExp d ) = LT
|(( notElem ( fetchName b ) ( grdDistShow route ) ) || ( notElem ( fetchName c )
( grdDistShow route ) ) ) && (( elem ( fetchName e ) ( grdDistSho w route ) ) || ( elem
( fetchName f ) ( grdDistShow route ) ) ) = LT
| otherwise = GT
To verify the model, routes of various lengths and complexities across a test area
of central Hannover were constructed. Consecutively, destination descriptions
for these routes were generated, and their adherence to the rules specified was
verified. The content of the destination descriptions was assessed by comparing
the resulting sets of references with the characteristics of destination descriptions
summarized in Section 3.6. Note that the example of Stephanie arriving at the
airport and traveling to the center of Hannover could not be tested due to the
limited dataset available. The following principal characteristics of destination
descriptions were sought:
110
M. TOMKO 6.4. MODEL VERIFICATION
Note that the combinations of references retrieved were tested against general
characteristics of destination descriptions generated for a hearer with inferred
extent of a-priori spatial knowledge of the environment. The spatial knowledge
of the speaker was modeled in an experiential hierarchical dataset. The sets
of references retrieved are therefore influenced by the content and quality of the
dataset (limited extent, assessment of the properties of landmarks). For instance,
the complete path street network available was considered for the references, as it
would be if the hearer was a pedestrian. Central Hannover has, however, a large
pedestrian zone. As mentioned earlier, the shared functional perspective of the
speaker and the hearer on the structure of the environment is a requisite for an
appropriate selection of references for destination descriptions and the means of
transport used must be considered. It is therefore likely that the set of references
provided by a local to a taxi-driver would consider the accessibility of the different
parts of the city by considering the mode of transport.
This section is structured as follows: first, sets of district and landmark
based destination descriptions are retrieved and their content verified against the
specification of the rules for selection of district and landmark-based destination
descriptions (Section 6.4.1). Consecutively, the path references are considered
in the integrated model, and the results assessed for plausibility (Section 6.4.2).
The behaviour of the model is discussed on several model test cases. Additional
test cases can be found in Appendix D.
111
CHAPTER 6. MODEL IMPLEMENTATION
Universität Hannover
Katasteramt
Staatstheater-Oper
Rathaus
Figure 6.1: The route (highlighted in gray) between the Universität Hannover
(H097TLK) and the Staatstheater-Oper (H01FM8E), composed of level 2 refer-
ence regions. Referents identified for destination descriptions are labelled.
The route generated cuts across the city and intersects the reference regions of
several global landmarks. These are landmarks that are not directly en-route,
their reference regions cover parts of the route. Applying the rules for selection of
district and landmark-based references in destination descriptions, the following
references are retrieved for the first definition of the route:
directions = [ H06Y0NB , H04PTS0 ]
112
M. TOMKO 6.4. MODEL VERIFICATION
The destination is found in the proximity of the first landmark specified, the
global landmark Rathaus (H06Y0NB). The context of the route is restricted to the
general area specified by the reference region of the landmark, and consecutive
references of finer granularity are provided (the Katasteramt (H04PTS0)). In
this manner, the destination descriptions proceed from a general reference to a
landmark with a reference regions covering major parts of the city to a more local
landmark. Global landmarks may have no spatial overlap with the route or the
destination as such, but they provide a description of the destination from the
approaching direction of the wayfinder. The route description could be completed
with the reference to the destination itself, Staatstheater-Oper (H01FM8E).
Due to the duality of landmarks with districts, the following expression to
districts can be considered equivalent (see Appendix A):
directions = [ Hannover Mitte , Kroepcke ]
113
CHAPTER 6. MODEL IMPLEMENTATION
Figure 6.2: Turn-based route directions for the route between the Universität
Hannover and the Staatstheater-Oper as provided by ©2007, Google Maps. Note
that the directions generated are for the Mövenpick Restaurant in front of the
Staatstheater-Oper main entrance, a point-of-interest contained in the Google
Maps database.
Figure 6.3: Map of the route between the Universität Hannover and the
Staatstheater-Oper (©2007, Google Maps).
114
M. TOMKO 6.4. MODEL VERIFICATION
The references retrieved for the route suggested by Google Maps are identical to
those retrieved for the direct, pedestrian route from the Universität Hannover to
the Staatstheater-Oper:
This shows how the content of purely landmark and district-based destination
descriptions is primarily influenced by the granular structure of the city in the
proximity of the destination, instead of the route considered by the speaker. Of
course, the preference given to local en-route landmarks influences the content
of the resulting destination descriptions, but the primary influence is that of the
overall structure of space. The resulting set of references was assessed as plausible
by a local expert.
Consider a different route, in the reverse direction from the centre of the city
to the outskirts of the area covered by the dataset. A destination description of a
route from the Staatstheater-Oper to the Universität Hannover consist of a single
reference, identical with the destination: Universität Hannover (Appendix D,
example 4). It is not possible to find a more prominent landmark than Universität
Hannover itself in this part of the city. If the wayfinder is not satisfied with the
direct reference to the University main building, only turn-based direction will
satisfy their information needs. Such a wayfinder has no sufficient a-priori spatial
knowledge of Hannover to be able to process inferential destination descriptions.
Again, a route from Staatstheater-Oper to the Universität Hannover, gener-
ated by Google Maps was used as input for the model of destination descriptions.
This route avoids the centre of the city once again, and is therefore complex and
its turn-based directions consist of eight references. The resulting set of refer-
ences provided by the model of destination descriptions implements is, however,
unchanged: Universität Hannover (Appendix D, Example 5). This shows how
the size of destination descriptions is dependent exclusively on the hierarchical
structure of the environment in the proximity of the destination. The content
may change if a different route is selected, due to the consideration of en-route
landmarks, but the overall destination description remains constant.
Consider an extension of the route to the Institute for Chemistry at the
University (H05MF0G). It is one of the buildings adjacent to the very promi-
nent main building of Universität Hannover (H097TLK). The route taken covers
the same suburbs as the route from the Universität Hannover building, with an
extension to the Institute (Appendix D, Example 6):
115
CHAPTER 6. MODEL IMPLEMENTATION
116
M. TOMKO 6.4. MODEL VERIFICATION
Example 7).
route = [ h2_H097TLK , h2_H063YJC , h2_H074YH2 , h2_H03PO3Z , h2_H04SBR1 , h2_H01BHXG ,
h2_H01P2HN , h2_H04PTS0 , h2_H01FM8E ]
117
CHAPTER 6. MODEL IMPLEMENTATION
Universität Hannover
se
r as
au sst
eh Staatstheater-Oper
end
Sta
Rathaus
Figure 6.4: References selected for the destination description for the route from
Universität Hannover to the Staatstheater-Oper. The route is shown in gray shad-
ing. The references retrieved: Rathaus, Katasteramt and the Ständehausstraße
are labeled.
118
M. TOMKO 6.4. MODEL VERIFICATION
the environment in the proximity of the destination largely determines even the
content of destination descriptions containing references to paths. In general,
only the structure of the final parts of the route impacts on the selection of path
references. This will be demonstrated on the following examples.
Consider once more the direct route from the Staatstheater-Oper to the
Institute for Chemistry. The references retrieved are as follows:
directions = [ H097TLK , N01FUPO ]
119
CHAPTER 6. MODEL IMPLEMENTATION
Allianz-Hochhaus
rasse
Katasteramt
t
rschs
a
Karm
Figure 6.5: References selected for the destination description for the route from
Allianz-Hochhaus to the Katasteramt. The route is shown in gray shading. The
references: Katasteramt and the Karmarschstraße are labeled.
120
M. TOMKO 6.5. OBSERVATIONS OF THE MODEL OUTPUTS
• The number of references retrieved is small and shows similar patterns (dis-
cussed below);
• The alteration of the threshold defining the set of prominent paths in the
destination descriptions does not influence the overall length of the results
significantly, but changes the contents pattern of the results.
121
CHAPTER 6. MODEL IMPLEMENTATION
Pattern 1 2 3 4 5
1st reference D/LG D/LG L = LL
G
L = LL
G
P P rom
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
nd
2 reference D/LL P P rom
P P rom
P t
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
3rd reference P D/LL
Optional reference t t t t
122
M. TOMKO 6.5. OBSERVATIONS OF THE MODEL OUTPUTS
123
CHAPTER 6. MODEL IMPLEMENTATION
124
Chapter 7
Conclusions
7.1 Summary
The communication of spatial information has been the object of intensive study
of cognitive scientists, linguists, spatial information scientists and geographers,
computer scientists and researchers in the field of human-computer interaction.
Most of this research was based on the classical model of communication pre-
sented by Shannon and Weaver (1949). A common example is turn-based route
directions, encoding every action the recipient of the information needs to unam-
biguously follow the route and reach the destination. Classical communication
theory fails, however, to explain the communication of spatial and non-spatial in-
formation among people. While messages exchanged in everyday communication
and dialogs contain only a small part of the information necessary to perform a
task required, people receiving this information are able to interpret the meaning
conveyed.
Pragmatic information theories have been devised by linguists to explain
this observed discrepancy, but remained largely neglected by researchers in the
field of spatial information communication. Among notable exceptions are the
works of Frank (2003) and Worboys (2003). These works point to the importance
of a-priori information as an important part of the context in which the hearer
interprets the message received. Furthermore, Dale et al. (2005) introduced the
concept of referring expression generation to the generation of route directions.
These works were based on the interpretation of Gricean conversational maxims
(Grice, 1989). Among pragmatic information theories, the relevance theory of
communication has recently gained prominence by its ability to explain in a
plausible manner the inferential interpretation of the meaning of messages in
relation to the context of their communication.
Spatial information is often an essential part of information communicated in
125
CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSIONS
This thesis presents an analysis of the principles by which the structure of the
environment determines the content of destination descriptions exchanged in in-
ferential communication. It shows that the hierarchical structure of the environ-
ment, and the spatial context in which the destination descriptions are commu-
126
M. TOMKO 7.2. MAIN CONTRIBUTIONS
1. The resulting set of references is short, and does not increase linearly with
the length and complexity of the route. The inclusion of several types
of referents further decreases the cognitive workload they impose on the
127
CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSIONS
128
M. TOMKO 7.3. DISCUSSION
7.3 Discussion
129
CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSIONS
130
M. TOMKO 7.3. DISCUSSION
and lengthy route in an utterance that fits the short-term memory span of the
hearer. The diversity of references enables to increase this span sufficiently to
accommodate the increased information content. The three types of elements of
the city tested offer a diversity of referents enabling to construct efficient route
directions of considerable length, even in complex urban environments. Rele-
vance based selection grounded in hierarchical granulation of spatial features into
chunks, together with the alteration of the type of references, provides efficient
means to increase the amount of information to be communicated.
As shown, the shared context between the hearer and the speaker in inferential
communication is a major influence on the choice of referents. But how does
the selection of referents from experiential hierarchies influence the success of
communication? In Chapter 4, the distribution of the experiential rank values in
the urban network, following a power law, was shown. Similarly, the total number
of landmarks and districts is exponentially higher than the number of prominent
landmarks and districts. This is understandable, as prominence is a function of
salience and uniqueness, i.e. the function of rarity of a phenomenon.
If the hierarchies of the spatial knowledge of two communicators have a
similar structure, and the speaker have means to infer this, the speaker will refer
to only a small subset of his or her spatial knowledge of high prominence. Consider
the hierarchically organized spatial knowledge of the speaker as S and the spatial
knowledge of the hearer as H. This prominent knowledge of the speaker and
the hearer are denoted as S prom and H prom , respectively. The speaker selects a
referent r, such that r ∈ S prom , and composes the utterance. The hearer relates
r to her prominent knowledge H prom , and interprets r, i.e. retrieves the meaning
of r in the given context.
Imagine that r ∈ / H prom . If there is common knowledge of r, but it is not
considered a prominent reference by the hearer (r ∈ H), a reference to such
knowledge requires high cognitive effort of the hearer during interpretation. In
real communication situations, if the interpretation requires excessive cognitive
effort, the hearer seeks confirmation of the interpretation of r or additional sup-
porting information.
Due to the distribution of prominence in experiential hierarchies following
power laws, a relatively low number of trips through the street network should
provide a relatively good coverage of the knowledge for successful communication
131
CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSIONS
132
M. TOMKO 7.4. OUTLOOK
structural and visual properties of the elements of the city are paramount in their
assessment of prominence. The experience of visual and structural prominence
is common among the population with similar spatial behaviour. The shared
experience is further strengthened by secondary experience of these prominent
features, through indirect sources such as maps, news articles and Web resources.
The inference of semantic prominence of an element, on the other hand,
is problematic and highly subjective (i.e., individual to a person). Semantic
properties of spatial elements can, however, be used in destination descriptions in
an indirect manner. A hearer can be sensitized, or primed, to a specific semantic
characteristic of a landmark by the speaker or the navigation system. Once seen,
the landmark will be perceived as salient. This mechanism allows hearers to
successfully use destination descriptions containing references which may not be
usually perceived as prominent by the hearers.
7.4 Outlook
133
CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSIONS
structural properties of the route, such HORDE complement well the more general
referents provided by the model presented. Furthermore, Richter (2007b) explores
the construction of so-called overview route directions by taking the bottom-up
perspective and starting with the structure of the route itself, extending the work
of Richter (2007a); Richter and Klippel (2005). The combination of destination
descriptions with HORDE-based or overview route directions presents a transition
from a purely hierarchical approach to a turn-based perspective on direction,
restricting the wayfinder to a specific route (Figure 7.1). Recent work of Srinivas
and Hirtle (to appear, 2007) attempts to provide a conceptual analysis of the
content of such route directions from the point of view of occurrence of familiar
and novel knowledge.
134
M. TOMKO 7.4. OUTLOOK
The model proposed focuses on the selection of relevant references for inclusion in
destination descriptions. A navigation service providing destination descriptions
following the model proposed will need to externalize the information in a form
adapted to the users of the system. Externalization methods, such as natural
language generation or schematic visualization interfaces need to be devised to
communicate the references selected in an appropriate manner.
Furthermore, the user may not be, for various reasons, satisfied by the
model’s selection of references. The information provided may be judged excessive
or insufficient. While people are good at handling omissions and imperfections in
route directions (MacMahon, 2005), well designed user interfaces should cater for
such situations. The visualization of the references provided in destination de-
scriptions is possible through hierarchical collapsing structures, enabling the dis-
closure of more or less information for a specific part of the route. Such interfaces
provide a user with means to transit between destination descriptions and turn-
based direction at will. Dialog based systems (see, e.g. www.talk-project.org)
may provide such possibilities in speech-based interfaces.
135
CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSIONS
Customization of route directions for users familiar with the environment was,
until now, a largely neglected area of research. The inferential model of selection
of references for destination descriptions provides an alternative solution to per-
sonalization of route directions through agent-based systems. Such systems relied
on storing personal profiles of users to adapt the content of future route direction
requests to the preferences of the users, such as speed vs. length of the route
(Rogers et al., 1999; Wagner et al., 2002). Agent based systems rely on a learn-
ing software embedded in personal mobile devices, such as mobile phones. These
agents sense the actions of the users as they navigate in a given environment,
store, and use this historic information for optimized, personalized information
provision in the future (Patel et al., 2006).
When first initialized, the agent has no previous knowledge of the user’s
knowledge (unless the user explicitly declares some knowledge in their profile),
and thus the information retrieved is not personalized. As the user continues
to use the device with the software agent tracking their (spatial) behaviour, the
agent learns more about the user and is able to use this information to provide
more and more customized information, such as route directions with familiar
landmarks. Ultimately, the information provided is fully customized. At this
stage, if a different user would use the device with the mobile agent, the infor-
mation provided may not be customized to his or her needs at all, to the extent
of possibly being insufficient or even misleading.
On the other hand, the model presented infers the relevance of references
to spatial features without prior explicit personalization. The inferential model
proposed provides information customized to a wider audience from the very
first use. Thus, if compared with agent-based systems, the results provided by
the model of destination descriptions presented will be better adapted for the
information needs of the local from the very beginning of its usage. The relative
difference between the two approaches will decrease with usage and ultimately
the agent-based system will be able to provide more relevant, better adapted
information to its user than the model of destination descriptions presented in
this thesis. Ultimately, the combination with the mentioned mobile agent-based
systems would provide a fully adaptive system.
136
M. TOMKO 7.5. CONCLUDING SCENARIO
The morning after her business trip, Stephanie wakes up and, while eating break-
fast, reads her emails. A friend is curious about how her overseas business trip
went and invites Stephanie for lunch to a new café in the city. The email in-
cludes the address of the café. As Stephanie does not know the place, she selects
the address with the cursor and press a hot-key combination querying her on-line
navigation service of choice. As it happens, her preferred system is just testing
a novel algorithm generating destination descriptions. The system returns a de-
scription of the location of the café satisfying Stephanie’s information needs, as
she has been living in the city for the past few years and is familiar with its lay-
out. The destination description is brief and easy to remember, eliminating the
necessity to write down the navigation information on a piece of paper. Stephanie
also appreciates how the system protects her privacy, by not requiring her to enter
her full address to generate route directions. The system only detects the suburb
from which Stephanie connects to the Internet service provider.
Stephanie sets on her way to the café. An accident changes the traffic con-
ditions and requires Stephanie to take a detour. Stephanie is confident of finding
an alternative route on her own, even managing to avoid the most congested
streets. The destination descriptions provided by her navigation system remain
usable even though the traffic conditions changed. She reaches the café just in
time. And to top it off, the food is excellent!
137
CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSIONS
138
Appendix A
Landmark Names
Table A.1: Common names of the landmarks of central Hannover. The names of
their most prominent reference regions are in parenthesis, where applicable.
Landmark ID Landmark Name
H05V49E Bar at the Maschteich
H06Y0NB Rathaus (Hannover Mitte, Südstadt)
H09DX6M Kindertagesstätte
H097TLK Universität Hannover – Welfenschloss (Hannover Nordstadt)
H06KOBS Geodtisches Institut, Universitt Hannover
H05T3WR Wilhelm-Busch-Museum Georgenpalais
H063YJC Universitätsbibliothek
H05RN6G WC and Kiosk at the Herrenhäuser Allee
H05TWH4 Parkhaus
H05JJHO Univ. Hannover Institut
H05IWO5 Mensa
H05V43Q Allianz-Hochhaus
H03WTT1 N/A
H03PNBO Polizeidirektion 11
H01F6M0 Marktkirche
H03NG5F Maritim-Hotel (Hannover Mitte)
H04SBR1 Sparkasse Bank
H03PO1O Anzeiger - Hochhaus
H03WUC7 Kreuzkirche
H03PO3Z Univ. Hannover Institut, Chimu Restaurant
H074YH2 Nds. Landesbibliothek
H03P85A Christuskirche
H05MF0G Institute of Chemistry
H03Q6S0 Postverwaltung
H01BHXG ALLBANK
H05V4AW Postamt
H03NGBE Volkshochschule
H04PTS0 Katasteramt (Kröpcke)
H06E9I7 Hauptbahnhof
H01P2HN Bratwurst Glöckle
H01FM8E Nds. Staatstheater–Oper
H01O23Z Parking garage
139
APPENDIX A. LANDMARK NAMES
140
Appendix B
-- D e f i n i t i o n of v a r i a b l e names of type D i s t r i c t
h7_H06Y0NB , h6_H06Y0NB , h5_H06Y0NB , h4_H06Y0NB , h3_H06Y 0NB , h2_H06Y0NB , h6_H03NG5F ,
h5_H03NG5F , h4_H03NG5F , h3_H03NG5F , h2_H03NG5F , h5_H097 TLK , h4_H097TLK , h3_H097TLK ,
h2_H097TLK , h4_H01F6M0 , h3_H01F6M0 , h2_H01F6M0 , h3_H05T 3WR , h2_H05T3WR , h3_H06KOBS ,
h2_H06KOBS , h3_H09DX6M , h2_H09DX6M , h3_H05V43Q , h2_H05V 43Q , h3_H03PO1O , h2_H03PO1O ,
h3_H063YJC , h2_H063YJC , h3_H04PTS0 , h2_H04PTS0 , h2_H05V 49E , h2_H05RN6G , h2_H05TWH4 ,
h2_H05JJHO , h2_H05IWO5 , h2_H03WTT1 , h2_H03PNBO , h2_H04S BR1 , h2_H03WUC7 , h2_H03PO3Z ,
h2_H074YH2 , h2_H03P85A , h2_H05MF0G , h2_H03Q6S0 , h2_H01B HXG , h2_H05V4AW , h2_H03NGBE ,
h2_H06E9I7 , h2_H01P2HN , h2_H01FM8E , h2_H01O23Z :: Distri ct
141
APPENDIX B. INPUT DATASET OF HANNOVER
n01FVLJ , n01FVM0 , n01FVV2 , n01FUT6 , n01H2IX , n01FVQH , n207T0T , n20257C , n2025VG , n20C8RN ,
n20256R , n01FULB , n01FVOR , n01FULQ , n01FVP1 , n01FVO6 , n01H2PL , n01FVTK , n01FVPQ , n01FUH0 ,
n01FUJX , n20256M , n01FUJR , n01FVPR , n01FUOF , n01FVO8 , n01FVYZ , n01H2X0 , n01FUME , n01FVQC ,
n20GR5B , n01FVYM , n01FVU2 , n01FVTQ , n01FUPS , n01H2FY , n01FUEE , n20DDIQ , n01H2RB , n20GR5C ,
n01FUOC , n00E2TA , n00E643 , n00E64D , n00E64G , n00E66G , n00E66J , n00E66L , n01788P , n01789A ,
n01789B , n01789D , n01789E , n01789F , n01789L , n01789R , n01789S , n01789T , n01789U , n01789V ,
n01789W , n01789Y , n01789Z , n0178A0 , n0178A1 , n0178A2 , n0178A3 , n0178A4 , n0178A5 , n0178A7 ,
0178 A8 , n0178AA , n01AB6A , n01AB6B , n01AB6C , n01AB6D , n01AB6E , n01AB6G , n01AB6M , n01AB6N ,
n01AB6O , n01AB6R , n01AB6S , n01ABD8 , n01ABDD , n01ABDF , n01ABDG , n01ABDH , n01ABDI , n01ABDJ ,
n01ABDK , n01ABDL , n01ABDM , n01ABDN , n01ABDO , n01ABDP , n01ABDQ , n01ABDS , n01ABDT , n01ABDW ,
n01ABDZ , n01ABE0 , n01ABE1 , n01ABE4 , n01ABE5 , n01ABE7 , n01ABE9 , n01ABED , n01ABEO , n01ABES ,
n01ABET , n01ABEV , n01ABEW , n01ABEX , n01ABEY , n01ABF0 , n01ABF1 , n01ABF3 , n01ABF4 , n01ABJ8 ,
n01ABJJ , n01ABJK , n01ABJX , n01ABJY , n01ABJZ , n01ABK2 , n01ABK3 , n01ABK4 , n01ABKC , n01ABKF ,
n01ABKG , n01ABKI , n01ABKN , n01ABKO , n01ABL3 , n01ABL4 , n01ABL5 , n01ABL6 , n01ABL7 , n01ABLE ,
n01ABLF , n01ABOX , n01ABP6 , n01ABPC , n01ABPD , n01ABPM , n01ABPP , n01ABPR , n01ABPU , n01ABPW ,
n01ABPZ , n01ABQ0 , n01ABQ2 , n01ABQ3 , n01ABQ6 , n01ABQ8 , n01ABQ9 , n01ABQB , n01ABQE , n01ABQF ,
n01ABQG , n01ABQI , n01ABQJ , n01ABQL , n01ABQP , n01ABQQ , n01ABQS , n01ABQY , n01ABQZ , n01ABR0 ,
n01ABR1 , n01ABV1 , n01ABV2 , n01ABV3 , n01ABV4 , n01ABV5 , n01ABVA , n01ABVU , n01ABVV , n01AC10 ,
n01ADGP , n01ADH6 , n01ADHA , n01ADHB , n01ADHC , n01ADHD , n01ADHE , n01ADHH , n01FUL8 , n01FUSL ,
n01FUTR , n01FUV1 , n01FUVA , n202566 , n202568 , n20256D , n20256P , n20256S , n20256U , n207SXP ,
n207SXQ , n207SXS , n207T02 , n207T5T , n207T5V , n207T5W , n207T5X , n20B4C4 , n20C9F0 , n20DDFW ,
n20DDIH , n20GR4W , n01FU8L , n01FUCA , n202562 , n01HX6G , n01FULP , n01FUT8 , n01FVRI , n20GR51 ,
n01FVZA , n01FUE6 , n01FUFE , n01FVQI , n01FVR6 , n01FVZ8 , n01FUGU , n01FVQ5 , n01FUAZ , n01FVZ6 ,
n01FUP9 , n01FVPZ , n01FULE , n01H2PS :: Path
-- D e f i n i t i o n of the list of D i s t r i c t s
areas :: [ District ]
areas = [ h7_H06Y0NB , h6_H06Y0NB , h5_H06Y0NB , h4_H06Y0NB , h3_H06Y0NB , h2_H06Y0NB ,
h6_H03NG5F , h5_H03NG5F , h4_H03NG5F , h3_H03NG5F , h2_H03N G5F , h5_H097TLK , h4_H097TLK ,
h3_H097TLK , h2_H097TLK , h4_H01F6M0 , h3_H01F6M0 , h2_H01F 6M0 , h3_H05T3WR , h2_H05T3WR ,
h3_H06KOBS , h2_H06KOBS , h3_H09DX6M , h2_H09DX6M , h3_H05V 43Q , h2_H05V43Q , h3_H03PO1O ,
h2_H03PO1O , h3_H063YJC , h2_H063YJC , h3_H04PTS0 , h2_H04P TS0 , h2_H05V49E , h2_H05RN6G ,
h2_H05TWH4 , h2_H05JJHO , h2_H05IWO5 , h2_H03WTT1 , h2_H03P NBO , h2_H04SBR1 , h2_H03WUC7 ,
h2_H03PO3Z , h2_H074YH2 , h2_H03P85A , h2_H05MF0G , h2_H03Q 6S0 , h2_H01BHXG , h2_H05V4AW ,
h2_H03NGBE , h2_H06E9I7 , h2_H01P2HN , h2_H01FM8E , h2_H01O 23Z ]
142
M. TOMKO
n01FUSL , n01FUTR , n01FUV1 , n01FUVA , n202566 , n202568 , n20256D , n20256P , n20256S , n20256U ,
n207SXP , n207SXQ , n207SXS , n207T02 , n207T5T , n207T5V , n207T5W , n207T5X , n20B4C4 , n20C9F0 ,
n20DDFW , n20DDIH , n20GR4W , n01FU8L , n01FUCA , n202562 , n01HX6G , n01FULP , n01FUT8 , n01FVRI ,
n20GR51 , n01FVZA , n01FUE6 , n01FUFE , n01FVQI , n01FVR6 , n01FVZ8 , n01FUGU , n01FVQ5 , n01FUAZ ,
n01FVZ6 , n01FUP9 , n01FVPZ , n01FULE , n01H2PS ]
h7_H06Y0NB = ( " h7_H06Y0NB " , 7 , " H06Y0NB " , [ " h6_H06Y0NB " , " h6_H03NG5F " ] , [])
h6_H06Y0NB = ( " h6_H06Y0NB " , 6 , " H06Y0NB " , [ " h5_H06Y0NB " , " h5_H03NG5F " ,
" h5_H097TLK " ] , [ " h6_H03NG5F " ])
h5_H06Y0NB = ( " h5_H06Y0NB " , 5 , " H06Y0NB " , [ " h4_H06Y0NB " , " h4_H03NG5F " ,
" h4_H01F6M0 " ] , [ " h5_H03NG5F " ])
h4_H06Y0NB = ( " h4_H06Y0NB " , 4 , " H06Y0NB " , [ " h3_H06Y0NB " , " h3_H03NG5F " ,
" h3_H01F6M0 " , " h3_H04PTS0 " ] , [ " h4_H03NG5F " ])
h3_H06Y0NB = ( " h3_H06Y0NB " , 3 , " H06Y0NB " , [ " h2_H05V49E " , " h2_H06Y0NB " ,
" h2_H03PNBO " , " h2_H03NG5F " , " h2_H03NGBE " , " h2_H03WTT1 " , " h2_H01F6M0 " ,
" h2_H05V4AW " ] , [ " h3_H03NG5F " ])
h2_H06Y0NB = ( " h2_H06Y0NB " , 2 , " H06Y0NB " , [] , [ " h2_H05V49 E " , " h2_H03PNBO " ,
" h2_H03NG5F " , " h2_H03NGBE " ])
h6_H03NG5F = ( " h6_H03NG5F " , 6 , " H03NG5F " , [ " h5_H097TLK " , " h5_H03NG5F " ] ,
[ " h6_H06Y0NB " ])
h5_H03NG5F = ( " h5_H03NG5F " , 5 , " H03NG5F " , [ " h4_H097TLK " , " h4_H01F6M0 " ,
" h4_H03NG5F " ] , [ " h5_H06Y0NB " , " h5_H097TLK " ])
h4_H03NG5F = ( " h4_H03NG5F " , 4 , " H03NG5F " , [ " h3_H05V43Q " , " h3_H01F6M0 " ,
" h3_H03NG5F " , " h3_H03PO1O " , " h3_H04PTS0 " ] , [ " h4_H06Y0N B " , " h4_H01F6M0 " ])
h3_H03NG5F = ( " h3_H03NG5F " , 3 , " H03NG5F " , [ " h2_H03WTT1 " , " h2_H03PNBO " ,
" h2_H01F6M0 " , " h2_H03NG5F " , " h2_H03WUC7 " , " h2_H05V4AW " , " h2_H04PTS0 " ,
" h2_H01P2HN " , " h2_H03NGBE " , " h2_H01FM8E " ] , [ " h3_H06Y0N B " , " h3_H01F6M0 " ,
" h3_H04PTS0 " ])
h2_H03NG5F = ( " h2_H03NG5F " , 2 , " H03NG5F " , [] , [ " h2_H06Y0N B " , " h2_H03PNBO " ,
" h2_H01F6M0 " , " h2_H05V4AW " , " h2_H03NGBE " ])
h5_H097TLK = ( " h5_H097TLK " , 5 , " H097TLK " , [ " h4_H097TLK " , " h4_H01F6M0 " ] ,
[ " h5_H097TLK " ])
h4_H097TLK = ( " h4_H097TLK " , 4 , " H097TLK " , [ " h3_H097TLK " , " h3_H05T3WR " ,
" h3_H06KOBS " , " h3_H09DX6M " , " h3_H063YJC " , " h3_H05V43Q " ] , [ " h4_H01F6M0 " ])
h3_H097TLK = ( " h3_H097TLK " , 3 , " H097TLK " , [ " h2_H09DX6M " , " h2_H097TLK " ,
" h2_H06KOBS " , " h2_H05IWO5 " , " h2_H05MF0G " , " h2_H05T3WR " , " h2_H063YJC " ,
" h2_H05JJHO " , " h2_H05RN6G " , " h2_H05TWH4 " , " h2_H05V43Q " , " h2_H074YH2 " ,
" h2_H03P85A " ] , [ " h3_H05T3WR " , " h3_H06KOBS " , " h3_H09DX6 M " , " h3_H063YJC " ])
h2_H097TLK = ( " h2_H097TLK " , 2 , " H097TLK " , [] , [ " h2_H09DX6 M " , " h2_H06KOBS " ,
" h2_H05T3WR " , " h2_H063YJC " , " h2_H05MF0G " ])
h4_H01F6M0 = ( " h4_H01F6M0 " , 4 , " H01F6M0 " , [ " h3_H05V43Q " , " h3_H01F6M0 " ,
" h3_H03PO1O " , " h3_H04PTS0 " , " h3_H063YJC " ] , [ " h4_H097TL K " , " h4_H03NG5F " ])
h3_H01F6M0 = ( " h3_H01F6M0 " , 3 , " H01F6M0 " , [ " h2_H05V43Q " , " h2_H03WTT1 " ,
" h2_H03PNBO " , " h2_H01F6M0 " , " h2_H04SBR1 " , " h2_H03WUC7 " , " h2_H01BHXG " ,
" h2_H01P2HN " , " h2_H05V4AW " , " h2_H04PTS0 " , " h2_H06E9I7 " , " h2_H01FM8E " ,
" h2_H01O23Z " ] , [ " h3_H05V43Q " , " h3_H03NG5F " , " h3_H03PO1 O " , " h3_H04PTS0 " ])
h2_H01F6M0 = ( " h2_H01F6M0 " , 2 , " H01F6M0 " , [] , [ " h2_H03WTT 1 " , " h2_H03PNBO " ,
" h2_H03NG5F " , " h2_H03WUC7 " , " h2_H05V4AW " , " h2_H04PTS0 " , " h2_H01P2HN " ])
h3_H05T3WR = ( " h3_H05T3WR " , 3 , " H05T3WR " , [ " h2_H05T3WR " , " h2_H05RN6G " ,
" h2_H05TWH4 " , " h2_H05JJHO " ] , [ " h3_H097TLK " , " h3_H06KOB S " ])
h2_H05T3WR = ( " h2_H05T3WR " , 2 , " H05T3WR " , [] , [ " h2_H097TL K " , " h2_H06KOBS " ,
" h2_H05RN6G " , " h2_H05TWH4 " , " h2_H05JJHO " ])
h3_H06KOBS = ( " h3_H06KOBS " , 3 , " H06KOBS " , [ " h2_H06KOBS " , " h2_H05T3WR " ,
" h2_H05TWH4 " , " h2_H05JJHO " , " h2_H05IWO5 " ] , [ " h3_H097TL K " , " h3_H05T3WR " ,
" h3_H09DX6M " ])
h2_H06KOBS = ( " h2_H06KOBS " , 2 , " H06KOBS " , [] , [ " h2_H09DX6 M " , " h2_H097TLK " ,
" h2_H05T3WR " , " h2_H05JJHO " , " h2_H05IWO5 " ])
h3_H09DX6M = ( " h3_H09DX6M " , 3 , " H09DX6M " , [ " h2_H09DX6M " , " h2_H06KOBS " ,
" h2_H05JJHO " , " h2_H05IWO5 " , " h2_H05MF0G " ] , [ " h3_H097TL K " , " h3_H06KOBS " ])
h2_H09DX6M = ( " h2_H09DX6M " , 2 , " H09DX6M " , [] , [ " h2_H097TL K " , " h2_H06KOBS " ,
" h2_H05IWO5 " , " h2_H05MF0G " ])
h3_H05V43Q = ( " h3_H05V43Q " , 3 , " H05V43Q " , [ " h2_H063YJC " , " h2_H05V43Q " ,
" h2_H03WTT1 " , " h2_H04SBR1 " , " h2_H03PO3Z " , " h2_H074YH2 " , " h2_H03PO1O " ,
" h2_H03WUC7 " , " h2_H01BHXG " , " h2_H03P85A " ] , [ " h3_H01F6M 0 " , " h3_H03PO1O " ,
" h3_H063YJC " ])
143
APPENDIX B. INPUT DATASET OF HANNOVER
h2_H05V43Q = ( " h2_H05V43Q " , 2 , " H05V43Q " , [] , [ " h2_H03WTT 1 " , " h2_H04SBR1 " ,
" h2_H03PO3Z " , " h2_H074YH2 " ])
h3_H03PO1O = ( " h3_H03PO1O " , 3 , " H03PO1O " , [ " h2_H04SBR1 " , " h2_H03PO1O " ,
" h2_H03PO3Z " , " h2_H03P85A " , " h2_H03Q6S0 " , " h2_H01BHXG " , " h2_H06E9I7 " ,
" h2_H01O23Z " , " h2_H03WUC7 " , " h2_H01P2HN " ] , [ " h3_H05V4 3Q " , " h3_H01F6M0 " ,
" h3_H063YJC " , " h3_H04PTS0 " ])
h2_H03PO1O = ( " h2_H03PO1O " , 2 , " H03PO1O " , [] , [ " h2_H04SBR 1 " , " h2_H03PO3Z " ,
" h2_H03P85A " , " h2_H03Q6S0 " , " h2_H01BHXG " ])
h3_H063YJC = ( " h3_H063YJC " , 3 , " H063YJC " , [ " h2_H063YJC " , " h2_H03PO1O " ,
" h2_H03PO3Z " , " h2_H074YH2 " , " h2_H03P85A " , " h2_H05MF0G " , " h2_H03Q6S0 " ] ,
[ " h3_H097TLK " , " h3_H05V43Q " , " h3_H03PO1O " ])
h2_H063YJC = ( " h2_H063YJC " , 2 , " H063YJC " , [] , [ " h2_H097TL K " , " h2_H074YH2 " ,
" h2_H03P85A " , " h2_H05MF0G " ])
h3_H04PTS0 = ( " h3_H04PTS0 " , 3 , " H04PTS0 " , [ " h2_H03Q6S0 " , " h2_H04PTS0 " ,
" h2_H06E9I7 " , " h2_H01FM8E " , " h2_H01O23Z " , " h2_H05V4AW " , " h2_H01BHXG " ,
" h2_H01P2HN " ] , [ " h3_H01F6M0 " , " h3_H03NG5F " , " h3_H03PO1 O " ])
h2_H04PTS0 = ( " h2_H04PTS0 " , 2 , " H04PTS0 " , [] , [ " h2_H01F6M 0 " , " h2_H05V4AW " ,
" h2_H06E9I7 " , " h2_H01P2HN " , " h2_H01FM8E " , " h2_H01O23Z " ])
h2_H05V49E = ( " h2_H05V49E " , 2 , " H05V49E " , [] , [ " h2_H06Y0N B " , " h2_H03PNBO " ])
h2_H05RN6G = ( " h2_H05RN6G " , 2 , " H05RN6G " , [] , [ " h2_H05T3W R " , " h2_H05TWH4 " ])
h2_H05TWH4 = ( " h2_H05TWH4 " , 2 , " H05TWH4 " , [] , [ " h2_H05T3W R " , " h2_H05RN6G " ,
" h2_H05JJHO " ])
h2_H05JJHO = ( " h2_H05JJHO " , 2 , " H05JJHO " , [] , [ " h2_H06KOB S " , " h2_H05T3WR " ,
" h2_H05TWH4 " , " h2_H05IWO5 " ])
h2_H05IWO5 = ( " h2_H05IWO5 " , 2 , " H05IWO5 " , [] , [ " h2_H09DX6 M " , " h2_H06KOBS " ,
" h2_H05JJHO " , " h2_H05MF0G " ])
h2_H03WTT1 = ( " h2_H03WTT1 " , 2 , " H03WTT1 " , [] , [ " h2_H05V43 Q " , " h2_H03PNBO " ,
" h2_H01F6M0 " , " h2_H04SBR1 " , " h2_H03WUC7 " ])
h2_H03PNBO = ( " h2_H03PNBO " , 2 , " H03PNBO " , [] , [ " h2_H05V49 E " , " h2_H06Y0NB " ,
" h2_H03WTT1 " , " h2_H01F6M0 " , " h2_H03NG5F " ])
h2_H04SBR1 = ( " h2_H04SBR1 " , 2 , " H04SBR1 " , [] , [ " h2_H05V43 Q " , " h2_H03WTT1 " ,
" h2_H03PO1O " , " h2_H03WUC7 " , " h2_H03PO3Z " , " h2_H01BHXG " ])
h2_H03WUC7 = ( " h2_H03WUC7 " , 2 , " H03WUC7 " , [] , [ " h2_H03WTT 1 " , " h2_H01F6M0 " ,
" h2_H04SBR1 " , " h2_H01BHXG " , " h2_H01P2HN " ])
h2_H03PO3Z = ( " h2_H03PO3Z " , 2 , " H03PO3Z " , [] , [ " h2_H05V43 Q " , " h2_H04SBR1 " ,
" h2_H03PO1O " , " h2_H074YH2 " , " h2_H03P85A " ])
h2_H074YH2 = ( " h2_H074YH2 " , 2 , " H074YH2 " , [] , [ " h2_H063YJ C " , " h2_H05V43Q " ,
" h2_H03PO3Z " , " h2_H03P85A " ])
h2_H03P85A = ( " h2_H03P85A " , 2 , " H03P85A " , [] , [ " h2_H063YJ C " , " h2_H03PO1O " ,
" h2_H03PO3Z " , " h2_H074YH2 " ])
h2_H05MF0G = ( " h2_H05MF0G " , 2 , " H05MF0G " , [] , [ " h2_H09DX6 M " , " h2_H097TLK " ,
" h2_H063YJC " , " h2_H05IWO5 " ])
h2_H03Q6S0 = ( " h2_H03Q6S0 " , 2 , " H03Q6S0 " , [] , [ " h2_H03PO1 O " , " h2_H01BHXG " ,
" h2_H06E9I7 " , " h2_H01O23Z " ])
h2_H01BHXG = ( " h2_H01BHXG " , 2 , " H01BHXG " , [] , [ " h2_H04SBR 1 " , " h2_H03PO1O " ,
" h2_H03WUC7 " , " h2_H03Q6S0 " , " h2_H01P2HN " , " h2_H01O23Z " ])
h2_H05V4AW = ( " h2_H05V4AW " , 2 , " H05V4AW " , [] , [ " h2_H01F6M 0 " , " h2_H03NG5F " ,
" h2_H03NGBE " , " h2_H04PTS0 " , " h2_H01FM8E " ])
h2_H03NGBE = ( " h2_H03NGBE " , 2 , " H03NGBE " , [] , [ " h2_H06Y0N B " , " h2_H03NG5F " ,
" h2_H05V4AW " ])
h2_H06E9I7 = ( " h2_H06E9I7 " , 2 , " H06E9I7 " , [] , [ " h2_H03Q6S 0 " , " h2_H04PTS0 " ,
" h2_H01FM8E " , " h2_H01O23Z " ])
h2_H01P2HN = ( " h2_H01P2HN " , 2 , " H01P2HN " , [] , [ " h2_H01F6M 0 " , " h2_H03WUC7 " ,
" h2_H01BHXG " , " h2_H04PTS0 " , " h2_H01O23Z " ])
h2_H01FM8E = ( " h2_H01FM8E " , 2 , " H01FM8E " , [] , [ " h2_H05V4A W " , " h2_H04PTS0 " ,
" h2_H06E9I7 " ])
h2_H01O23Z = ( " h2_H01O23Z " , 2 , " H01O23Z " , [] , [ " h2_H03Q6S 0 " , " h2_H01BHXG " ,
" h2_H04PTS0 " , " h2_H06E9I7 " , " h2_H01P2HN " ])
n20248P = ( " N20248P " , [ " h2_H06Y0NB " , " h2_H05V4AW " , " h2_H 03NGBE " ] , 0.00012742)
n01FVOB = ( " N01FVOB " , [ " h2_H03NGBE " ] , 0.00005190)
n01FVU1 = ( " N01FVU1 " , [ " h2_H01FM8E " ] , 0.00000176)
n01FUI0 = ( " N01FUI0 " , [ " h2_H05TWH4 " ] , 0.00003570)
n01FUHY = ( " N01FUHY " , [ " h2_H05TWH4 " ] , 0.00007140)
n01FUSH = ( " N01FUSH " , [ " h2_H03WTT1 " , " h2_H03PNBO " ] , 0.00 064386)
n20255V = ( " N20255V " , [ " h2_H03WTT1 " ] , 0.00049183)
n01FUP2 = ( " N01FUP2 " , [ " h2_H063YJC " , " h2_H03P85A " ] , 0.00 020312)
n202575 = ( " N202575 " , [ " h2_H03WTT1 " ] , 0.00085250)
144
M. TOMKO
n01FUPR = ( " N01FUPR " , [ " h2_H063YJC " , " h2_H05MF0G " ] , 0.00 039174)
n01FVOV = ( " N01FVOV " , [ " h2_H01F6M0 " ] , 0.00007486)
n01FUKW = ( " N01FUKW " , [ " h2_H097TLK " ] , 0.00013896)
n01FUPN = ( " N01FUPN " , [ " h2_H063YJC " ] , 0.00010767)
n01HX6C = ( " N01HX6C " , [ " h2_H03PNBO " ] , 0.00072974)
n01H2AO = ( " N01H2AO " , [ " h2_H04SBR1 " , " h2_H01BHXG " ] , 0.00 138521)
n01FUUN = ( " N01FUUN " , [ " h2_H03PO3Z " , " h2_H074YH2 " ] , 0.00 053495)
n01H2IZ = ( " N01H2IZ " , [ " h2_H03PNBO " ] , 0.00126691)
n202564 = ( " N202564 " , [ " h2_H03P85A " ] , 0.00014345)
n01FUFF = ( " N01FUFF " , [ " h2_H05RN6G " ] , 0.00000000)
n01FUOQ = ( " N01FUOQ " , [ " h2_H05V43Q " ] , 0.00009544)
n01FVP7 = ( " N01FVP7 " , [ " h2_H04PTS0 " , " h2_H01O23Z " ] , 0.00 207503)
n01FUFM = ( " N01FUFM " , [ " h2_H05TWH4 " , " h2_H05MF0G " , " h2_H 05JJHO " , " h2_H05IWO5 " ] ,
0.00032825)
n20255W = ( " N20255W " , [ " h2_H03WTT1 " , " h2_H03PNBO " ] , 0.00 128772)
n01FVTJ = ( " N01FVTJ " , [ " h2_H05V4AW " ] , 0.00009124)
n01H2IU = ( " N01H2IU " , [ " h2_H05V49E " ] , 0.00000000)
n01FUPK = ( " N01FUPK " , [ " h2_H05MF0G " ] , 0.00000960)
n20DDG6 = ( " N20DDG6 " , [ " h2_H05V49E " ] , 0.00000000)
n01FVU7 = ( " N01FVU7 " , [ " h2_H06E9I7 " ] , 0.00001490)
n01FVVR = ( " N01FVVR " , [ " h2_H04PTS0 " , " h2_H06E9I7 " ] , 0.00 005116)
n01FUBD = ( " N01FUBD " , [ " h2_H03WUC7 " ] , 0.00012582)
n01H2CR = ( " N01H2CR " , [ " h2_H05V4AW " ] , 0.00118043)
n01FVTV = ( " N01FVTV " , [ " h2_H03PNBO " , " h2_H05V49E " ] , 0.00 015203)
n01FUJN = ( " N01FUJN " , [ " h2_H05RN6G " ] , 0.00000000)
n01H2IY = ( " N01H2IY " , [ " h2_H03PO3Z " , " h2_H05V43Q " ] , 0.00 012986)
n202577 = ( " N202577 " , [ " h2_H01FM8E " ] , 0.00000176)
n01H2AW = ( " N01H2AW " , [ " h2_H06Y0NB " ] , 0.00000513)
n01H2RI = ( " N01H2RI " , [ " h2_H05TWH4 " , " h2_H05JJHO " ] , 0.00 007140)
n01FUI5 = ( " N01FUI5 " , [ " h2_H01F6M0 " ] , 0.00013211)
n01H2CI = ( " N01H2CI " , [ " h2_H03PNBO " ] , 0.00015203)
n01FUKX = ( " N01FUKX " , [ " h2_H05V4AW " , " h2_H03NGBE " ] , 0.00 045636)
n01H2CT = ( " N01H2CT " , [ " h2_H03PNBO " , " h2_H05V49E " ] , 0.00 075001)
n01FW21 = ( " N01FW21 " , [ " h2_H03PO1O " , " h2_H03Q6S0 " ] , 0.00 034766)
n01FUOH = ( " N01FUOH " , [ " h2_H03P85A " , " h2_H074YH2 " ] , 0.00 147766)
n01FVVY = ( " N01FVVY " , [ " h2_H03WTT1 " , " h2_H01F6M0 " , " h2_H 03WUC7 " ] , 0.00295238)
n01FUTN = ( " N01FUTN " , [ " h2_H05RN6G " ] , 0.00000000)
n202569 = ( " N202569 " , [ " h2_H03WTT1 " ] , 0.00859061)
n01FUI3 = ( " N01FUI3 " , [ " h2_H05TWH4 " , " h2_H05MF0G " , " h2_H 05JJHO " , " h2_H05IWO5 " ] ,
0.00018402)
n20B4C7 = ( " N20B4C7 " , [ " h2_H03Q6S0 " ] , 0.00577930)
n202561 = ( " N202561 " , [ " h2_H03WTT1 " ] , 0.00095087)
n01FVOP = ( " N01FVOP " , [ " h2_H03WUC7 " ] , 0.00018301)
n20GR7U = ( " N20GR7U " , [ " h2_H06Y0NB " , " h2_H03PNBO " , " h2_H 05V49E " , " h2_H03NG5F " ] ,
0.01016487)
n01FUT7 = ( " N01FUT7 " , [ " h2_H03WTT1 " ] , 0.00049183)
n20248Q = ( " N20248Q " , [ " h2_H03NGBE " ] , 0.00003892)
n01FUOX = ( " N01FUOX " , [ " h2_H063YJC " ] , 0.00010767)
n20DDHG = ( " N20DDHG " , [ " h2_H06E9I7 " ] , 0.00014789)
n01FUT2 = ( " N01FUT2 " , [ " h2_H03WTT1 " ] , 0.00085250)
n202579 = ( " N202579 " , [ " h2_H06E9I7 " ] , 0.00000798)
n01FUSV = ( " N01FUSV " , [ " h2_H063YJC " , " h2_H074YH2 " ] , 0.00 060820)
n20256X = ( " N20256X " , [ " h2_H05MF0G " ] , 0.00000320)
n01FUO7 = ( " N01FUO7 " , [ " h2_H06Y0NB " ] , 0.00000296)
n01FVYK = ( " N01FVYK " , [ " h2_H05T3WR " ] , 0.00001711)
n01FUL6 = ( " N01FUL6 " , [ " h2_H05V4AW " ] , 0.00120324)
n01FVPP = ( " N01FVPP " , [ " h2_H05V4AW " , " h2_H03NGBE " ] , 0.00 024892)
n01FUUG = ( " N01FUUG " , [ " h2_H05V43Q " ] , 0.00026088)
n01FULD = ( " N01FULD " , [ " h2_H05MF0G " , " h2_H05IWO5 " ] , 0.00 000320)
n207SYO = ( " N207SYO " , [ " h2_H05V49E " ] , 0.00000000)
n01FUUA = ( " N01FUUA " , [ " h2_H03WUC7 " ] , 0.00012963)
n20256O = ( " N20256O " , [ " h2_H03PO1O " ] , 0.00003772)
n01H2TY = ( " N01H2TY " , [ " h2_H04PTS0 " , " h2_H01O23Z " ] , 0.00 192356)
n01H2G7 = ( " N01H2G7 " , [ " h2_H01F6M0 " , " h2_H03WUC7 " ] , 0.00 012325)
n01FVP5 = ( " N01FVP5 " , [ " h2_H01F6M0 " , " h2_H04PTS0 " ] , 0.00 009005)
n01FUVG = ( " N01FUVG " , [ " h2_H03P85A " ] , 0.00034758)
n20248N = ( " N20248N " , [ " h2_H05V49E " ] , 0.00000000)
n01FUJV = ( " N01FUJV " , [ " h2_H03Q6S0 " ] , 0.00007817)
n01FVUC = ( " N01FVUC " , [ " h2_H05MF0G " ] , 0.00000363)
n2025UZ = ( " N2025UZ " , [ " h2_H01F6M0 " ] , 0.00007046)
n01FVOX = ( " N01FVOX " , [ " h2_H03PNBO " ] , 0.00030406)
n01H2TL = ( " N01H2TL " , [ " h2_H05V43Q " ] , 0.00009544)
n01FUP4 = ( " N01FUP4 " , [ " h2_H03PO3Z " ] , 0.00003442)
n01FUQM = ( " N01FUQM " , [ " h2_H01FM8E " ] , 0.00000340)
145
APPENDIX B. INPUT DATASET OF HANNOVER
n01H2TX = ( " N01H2TX " , [ " h2_H04PTS0 " , " h2_H01P2HN " ] , 0.00 090820)
n01H2Q2 = ( " N01H2Q2 " , [ " h2_H06Y0NB " ] , 0.00000296)
n01FUKU = ( " N01FUKU " , [ " h2_H05TWH4 " , " h2_H063YJC " , " h2_H 097TLK " , " h2_H05RN6G " ,
" h2_H05JJHO " , " h2_H06KOBS " ] , 0.00428415)
n20C8MD = ( " N20C8MD " , [ " h2_H05TWH4 " ] , 0.00051885)
n01FUFK = ( " N01FUFK " , [ " h2_H05TWH4 " , " h2_H05RN6G " ] , 0.00 504333)
n20C8Q0 = ( " N20C8Q0 " , [ " h2_H01O23Z " , " h2_H03Q6S0 " ] , 0.00 012990)
n01FVPX = ( " N01FVPX " , [ " h2_H01O23Z " , " h2_H03Q6S0 " ] , 0.01 091186)
n01FVUB = ( " N01FVUB " , [ " h2_H01F6M0 " ] , 0.00006606)
n01FUUD = ( " N01FUUD " , [ " h2_H01F6M0 " ] , 0.00061213)
n01FUPO = ( " N01FUPO " , [ " h2_H063YJC " , " h2_H05MF0G " , " h2_H 097TLK " ] , 0.00027940)
n01FUT5 = ( " N01FUT5 " , [ " h2_H03WTT1 " ] , 0.00049183)
n20C8N3 = ( " N20C8N3 " , [ " h2_H05T3WR " ] , 0.00015611)
n01FUQO = ( " N01FUQO " , [ " h2_H063YJC " , " h2_H097TLK " , " h2_H 074YH2 " , " h2_H05T3WR " ,
" h2_H06KOBS " ] , 0.02648398)
n20C8KV = ( " N20C8KV " , [ " h2_H01FM8E " , " h2_H06E9I7 " ] , 0.00 004934)
n01FVUA = ( " N01FVUA " , [ " h2_H01FM8E " ] , 0.00000176)
n01FUOE = ( " N01FUOE " , [ " h2_H01O23Z " , " h2_H01P2HN " ] , 0.00 018751)
n01FUSC = ( " N01FUSC " , [ " h2_H05V49E " ] , 0.00000000)
n01FUJS = ( " N01FUJS " , [ " h2_H01F6M0 " , " h2_H04PTS0 " ] , 0.00 225736)
n01FUB0 = ( " N01FUB0 " , [ " h2_H03Q6S0 " ] , 0.00007817)
n20DDHX = ( " N20DDHX " , [ " h2_H03PO3Z " , " h2_H03PO1O " ] , 0.00 008176)
n01FUEC = ( " N01FUEC " , [ " h2_H01P2HN " ] , 0.00010452)
n01FVYL = ( " N01FVYL " , [ " h2_H03WTT1 " ] , 0.00049183)
n20255Y = ( " N20255Y " , [ " h2_H05MF0G " ] , 0.00000320)
n20DDB4 = ( " N20DDB4 " , [ " h2_H05JJHO " ] , 0.00003570)
n01H2U5 = ( " N01H2U5 " , [ " h2_H01F6M0 " , " h2_H03WUC7 " , " h2_H 01P2HN " ] , 0.00057702)
n01FVP3 = ( " N01FVP3 " , [ " h2_H05V4AW " , " h2_H03NG5F " ] , 0.00 009038)
n01FVVP = ( " N01FVVP " , [ " h2_H01F6M0 " ] , 0.00012331)
n01FUKI = ( " N01FUKI " , [ " h2_H01FM8E " , " h2_H06E9I7 " ] , 0.00 019994)
n01FVTY = ( " N01FVTY " , [ " h2_H01F6M0 " ] , 0.00007046)
n01FVR4 = ( " N01FVR4 " , [ " h2_H03WUC7 " ] , 0.00006100)
n01H2R6 = ( " N01H2R6 " , [ " h2_H03WUC7 " ] , 0.00005719)
n20DDIT = ( " N20DDIT " , [ " h2_H04PTS0 " ] , 0.00003680)
n01FUV6 = ( " N01FUV6 " , [ " h2_H04SBR1 " , " h2_H01BHXG " , " h2_H 01O23Z " , " h2_H06E9I7 " ] ,
0.00551266)
n01H2PP = ( " N01H2PP " , [ " h2_H05V49E " ] , 0.00000000)
n01FVYX = ( " N01FVYX " , [ " h2_H03P85A " ] , 0.00779571)
n01FU95 = ( " N01FU95 " , [ " h2_H03P85A " , " h2_H074YH2 " ] , 0.14 710451)
n01FUVF = ( " N01FUVF " , [ " h2_H05V4AW " , " h2_H01FM8E " ] , 0.00 008730)
n01FUSM = ( " N01FUSM " , [ " h2_H04SBR1 " , " h2_H03PO3Z " ] , 0.00 126402)
n01FVQS = ( " N01FVQS " , [ " h2_H01FM8E " ] , 0.00001851)
n20255X = ( " N20255X " , [ " h2_H05V49E " ] , 0.00000000)
n01FUU3 = ( " N01FUU3 " , [ " h2_H03NGBE " , " h2_H01F6M0 " , " h2_H 03NG5F " ] , 0.00196941)
n01H2GJ = ( " N01H2GJ " , [ " h2_H06Y0NB " ] , 0.00000296)
n01H2Q3 = ( " N01H2Q3 " , [ " h2_H063YJC " , " h2_H03P85A " , " h2_H 097TLK " ] , 0.00023478)
n01FUOK = ( " N01FUOK " , [ " h2_H01P2HN " ] , 0.00011846)
n20C8N2 = ( " N20C8N2 " , [ " h2_H063YJC " ] , 0.00320856)
n01FW2N = ( " N01FW2N " , [ " h2_H01FM8E " , " h2_H06E9I7 " ] , 0.00 001947)
n01H2RE = ( " N01H2RE " , [ " h2_H03WTT1 " , " h2_H04SBR1 " ] , 0.00 063798)
n01FVRO = ( " N01FVRO " , [ " h2_H05V4AW " ] , 0.00413435)
n01FUGX = ( " N01FUGX " , [ " h2_H05V4AW " , " h2_H03NGBE " , " h2_H 01F6M0 " , " h2_H03NG5F " ] ,
0.00026048)
n01FVO5 = ( " N01FVO5 " , [ " h2_H03P85A " ] , 0.00012138)
n01FUVH = ( " N01FUVH " , [ " h2_H06Y0NB " , " h2_H05V4AW " , " h2_H 03NGBE " ] , 0.00359318)
n01FUKF = ( " N01FUKF " , [ " h2_H01O23Z " ] , 0.00005173)
n01FUHZ = ( " N01FUHZ " , [ " h2_H05TWH4 " ] , 0.00003570)
n01FUOW = ( " N01FUOW " , [ " h2_H063YJC " ] , 0.00021534)
n01FUPQ = ( " N01FUPQ " , [ " h2_H063YJC " , " h2_H03P85A " ] , 0.00 048241)
n01FVO3 = ( " N01FVO3 " , [ " h2_H03NG5F " ] , 0.00000484)
n01FUTE = ( " N01FUTE " , [ " h2_H03WTT1 " ] , 0.00049183)
n01FUTF = ( " N01FUTF " , [ " h2_H03WTT1 " ] , 0.00049183)
n20C8LF = ( " N20C8LF " , [ " h2_H05TWH4 " , " h2_H063YJC " , " h2_H 097TLK " , " h2_H074YH2 " ,
" h2_H05JJHO " , " h2_H06KOBS " , " h2_H09DX6M " ] , 0.08775562)
n01FUV8 = ( " N01FUV8 " , [ " h2_H03Q6S0 " ] , 0.00017718)
n01FVOQ = ( " N01FVOQ " , [ " h2_H01BHXG " , " h2_H01P2HN " ] , 0.00 030210)
n01FVPV = ( " N01FVPV " , [ " h2_H01BHXG " , " h2_H03Q6S0 " ] , 0.00 015588)
n01FUOR = ( " N01FUOR " , [ " h2_H05V43Q " ] , 0.00009544)
n01FVPM = ( " N01FVPM " , [ " h2_H01FM8E " ] , 0.00000270)
n01FVOF = ( " N01FVOF " , [ " h2_H05V4AW " , " h2_H03NGBE " , " h2_H 01F6M0 " , " h2_H04PTS0 " ,
" h2_H03WUC7 " , " h2_H01P2HN " ] , 0.01504917)
n01FUUL = ( " N01FUUL " , [ " h2_H03PO3Z " , " h2_H05V43Q " , " h2_H 03PO1O " ] , 0.00168698)
n01FVTS = ( " N01FVTS " , [ " h2_H05V49E " ] , 0.00000000)
n01FUQ6 = ( " N01FUQ6 " , [ " h2_H03WTT1 " , " h2_H01F6M0 " , " h2_H 03WUC7 " ] , 0.00176322)
146
M. TOMKO
n01FUGV = ( " N01FUGV " , [ " h2_H06Y0NB " , " h2_H05V49E " ] , 0.00 000867)
n202578 = ( " N202578 " , [ " h2_H01F6M0 " , " h2_H03NG5F " ] , 0.00 235847)
n20256N = ( " N20256N " , [ " h2_H03P85A " , " h2_H03Q6S0 " ] , 0.00 036477)
n01FVOH = ( " N01FVOH " , [ " h2_H05V4AW " ] , 0.00008554)
n01FUBN = ( " N01FUBN " , [ " h2_H05V4AW " , " h2_H01FM8E " ] , 0.00 031427)
n01FVRV = ( " N01FVRV " , [ " h2_H03WTT1 " ] , 0.00049183)
n01FVVX = ( " N01FVVX " , [ " h2_H01FM8E " ] , 0.00001734)
n01FVVL = ( " N01FVVL " , [ " h2_H05MF0G " ] , 0.00000320)
n01FVUW = ( " N01FVUW " , [ " h2_H01BHXG " , " h2_H01P2HN " ] , 0.00 065628)
n01FVPN = ( " N01FVPN " , [ " h2_H03WTT1 " , " h2_H03WUC7 " ] , 0.00 054902)
n01FUTO = ( " N01FUTO " , [ " h2_H05V4AW " , " h2_H01F6M0 " ] , 0.00 015160)
n20249J = ( " N20249J " , [ " h2_H01O23Z " ] , 0.00005173)
n01FVLJ = ( " N01FVLJ " , [ " h2_H03WTT1 " ] , 0.00049183)
n01FVM0 = ( " N01FVM0 " , [ " h2_H03WTT1 " , " h2_H03WUC7 " ] , 0.00 054902)
n01FVV2 = ( " N01FVV2 " , [ " h2_H03WTT1 " ] , 0.00170501)
n01FUT6 = ( " N01FUT6 " , [ " h2_H05V49E " ] , 0.00000000)
n01H2IX = ( " N01H2IX " , [ " h2_H05MF0G " ] , 0.00000619)
n01FVQH = ( " N01FVQH " , [ " h2_H05RN6G " ] , 0.00000000)
n207T0T = ( " N207T0T " , [ " h2_H01O23Z " , " h2_H06E9I7 " , " h2_H 01P2HN " ] , 0.00147813)
n20257C = ( " N20257C " , [ " h2_H03WTT1 " , " h2_H01F6M0 " ] , 0.00 111577)
n2025VG = ( " N2025VG " , [ " h2_H01F6M0 " , " h2_H03WUC7 " , " h2_H 01P2HN " ] , 0.00286993)
n20C8RN = ( " N20C8RN " , [ " h2_H05MF0G " , " h2_H05IWO5 " , " h2_H 06KOBS " , " h2_H09DX6M " ] ,
0.00024213)
n20256R = ( " N20256R " , [ " h2_H04SBR1 " , " h2_H03WUC7 " ] , 0.00 020334)
n01FULB = ( " N01FULB " , [ " h2_H01F6M0 " ] , 0.00011450)
n01FVOR = ( " N01FVOR " , [ " h2_H05V49E " ] , 0.00000000)
n01FULQ = ( " N01FULQ " , [ " h2_H05V49E " ] , 0.00000000)
n01FVP1 = ( " N01FVP1 " , [ " h2_H01F6M0 " , " h2_H04PTS0 " ] , 0.00 009005)
n01FVO6 = ( " N01FVO6 " , [ " h2_H05V4AW " , " h2_H03NGBE " ] , 0.00 012446)
n01H2PL = ( " N01H2PL " , [ " h2_H05V49E " ] , 0.00000000)
n01FVTK = ( " N01FVTK " , [ " h2_H05V4AW " ] , 0.00008554)
n01FVPQ = ( " N01FVPQ " , [ " h2_H01FM8E " ] , 0.00001488)
n01FUH0 = ( " N01FUH0 " , [ " h2_H01FM8E " , " h2_H04PTS0 " ] , 0.00 026441)
n01FUJX = ( " N01FUJX " , [ " h2_H01BHXG " , " h2_H01P2HN " ] , 0.00 015626)
n20256M = ( " N20256M " , [ " h2_H03Q6S0 " ] , 0.00007817)
n01FUJR = ( " N01FUJR " , [ " h2_H01FM8E " ] , 0.00000469)
n01FVPR = ( " N01FVPR " , [ " h2_H03NGBE " ] , 0.00008822)
n01FUOF = ( " N01FUOF " , [ " h2_H03PO3Z " ] , 0.00006884)
n01FVO8 = ( " N01FVO8 " , [ " h2_H01FM8E " ] , 0.00000598)
n01FVYZ = ( " N01FVYZ " , [ " h2_H03WTT1 " , " h2_H03WUC7 " ] , 0.00 054902)
n01H2X0 = ( " N01H2X0 " , [ " h2_H06Y0NB " , " h2_H03NG5F " ] , 0.00 001507)
n01FUME = ( " N01FUME " , [ " h2_H063YJC " , " h2_H03P85A " ] , 0.00 019043)
n01FVQC = ( " N01FVQC " , [ " h2_H03WTT1 " ] , 0.00049183)
n20GR5B = ( " N20GR5B " , [ " h2_H05TWH4 " , " h2_H063YJC " , " h2_H 097TLK " , " h2_H05RN6G " ,
" h2_H05JJHO " , " h2_H06KOBS " ] , 0.00920748)
n01FVYM = ( " N01FVYM " , [ " h2_H05V4AW " ] , 0.00008554)
n01FVU2 = ( " N01FVU2 " , [ " h2_H063YJC " , " h2_H03P85A " ] , 0.00 054589)
n01FVTQ = ( " N01FVTQ " , [ " h2_H03PNBO " ] , 0.00015203)
n01FUPS = ( " N01FUPS " , [ " h2_H03PNBO " ] , 0.00059798)
n01H2FY = ( " N01H2FY " , [ " h2_H063YJC " , " h2_H074YH2 " , " h2_H 05V43Q " ] , 0.00323675)
n01FUEE = ( " N01FUEE " , [ " h2_H063YJC " , " h2_H097TLK " ] , 0.00 015202)
n20DDIQ = ( " N20DDIQ " , [ " h2_H097TLK " , " h2_H05T3WR " ] , 0.00 071868)
n01H2RB = ( " N01H2RB " , [ " h2_H063YJC " , " h2_H074YH2 " ] , 0.00 190569)
n20GR5C = ( " N20GR5C " , [ " h2_H063YJC " ] , 0.00071062)
n01FUOC = ( " N01FUOC " , [ " h2_H06Y0NB " , " h2_H03NGBE " , " h2_H 05V49E " ] , 0.00029316)
n00E2TA = ( " N00E2TA " , [ " h2_H063YJC " , " h2_H097TLK " , " h2_H 074YH2 " ] , 0.09227029)
n00E643 = ( " N00E643 " , [ " h2_H03PNBO " , " h2_H05V49E " ] , 0.00 018244)
n00E64D = ( " N00E64D " , [ " h2_H05V49E " ] , 0.00000000)
n00E64G = ( " N00E64G " , [ " h2_H05V49E " ] , 0.00000000)
n00E66G = ( " N00E66G " , [ " h2_H06Y0NB " ] , 0.00000867)
n00E66J = ( " N00E66J " , [ " h2_H05V49E " ] , 0.00000000)
n00E66L = ( " N00E66L " , [ " h2_H06Y0NB " ] , 0.00000296)
n01788P = ( " N01788P " , [ " h2_H05V49E " ] , 0.00000000)
n01789A = ( " N01789A " , [ " h2_H05V49E " ] , 0.00000000)
n01789B = ( " N01789B " , [ " h2_H05V49E " ] , 0.00000000)
n01789D = ( " N01789D " , [ " h2_H05V49E " ] , 0.00000000)
n01789E = ( " N01789E " , [ " h2_H05V49E " ] , 0.00000000)
n01789F = ( " N01789F " , [ " h2_H05V49E " ] , 0.00000000)
n01789L = ( " N01789L " , [ " h2_H05V49E " ] , 0.00000000)
n01789R = ( " N01789R " , [ " h2_H06Y0NB " ] , 0.00004711)
n01789S = ( " N01789S " , [ " h2_H06Y0NB " ] , 0.00000729)
n01789T = ( " N01789T " , [ " h2_H06Y0NB " , " h2_H05V49E " ] , 0.00 000296)
n01789U = ( " N01789U " , [ " h2_H06Y0NB " ] , 0.00000296)
n01789V = ( " N01789V " , [ " h2_H05V49E " ] , 0.00000000)
147
APPENDIX B. INPUT DATASET OF HANNOVER
148
M. TOMKO
n01ABL3 = ( " N01ABL3 " , [ " h2_H05TWH4 " , " h2_H05JJHO " ] , 0.00 014280)
n01ABL4 = ( " N01ABL4 " , [ " h2_H05TWH4 " ] , 0.00003570)
n01ABL5 = ( " N01ABL5 " , [ " h2_H05TWH4 " ] , 0.00014042)
n01ABL6 = ( " N01ABL6 " , [ " h2_H05TWH4 " , " h2_H05JJHO " ] , 0.00 007140)
n01ABL7 = ( " N01ABL7 " , [ " h2_H05JJHO " , " h2_H05IWO5 " ] , 0.00 003570)
n01ABLE = ( " N01ABLE " , [ " h2_H05IWO5 " ] , 0.00000000)
n01ABLF = ( " N01ABLF " , [ " h2_H05IWO5 " ] , 0.00000000)
n01ABOX = ( " N01ABOX " , [ " h2_H063YJC " , " h2_H097TLK " ] , 0.00 015202)
n01ABP6 = ( " N01ABP6 " , [ " h2_H097TLK " ] , 0.00009757)
n01ABPC = ( " N01ABPC " , [ " h2_H097TLK " ] , 0.00004731)
n01ABPD = ( " N01ABPD " , [ " h2_H097TLK " ] , 0.00004731)
n01ABPM = ( " N01ABPM " , [ " h2_H05JJHO " ] , 0.00005712)
n01ABPP = ( " N01ABPP " , [ " h2_H05JJHO " , " h2_H05T3WR " ] , 0.00 006434)
n01ABPR = ( " N01ABPR " , [ " h2_H05JJHO " ] , 0.00011186)
n01ABPU = ( " N01ABPU " , [ " h2_H05JJHO " ] , 0.00003808)
n01ABPW = ( " N01ABPW " , [ " h2_H05JJHO " ] , 0.00007140)
n01ABPZ = ( " N01ABPZ " , [ " h2_H05JJHO " ] , 0.00006902)
n01ABQ0 = ( " N01ABQ0 " , [ " h2_H05JJHO " , " h2_H05T3WR " , " h2_H 06KOBS " ] , 0.00007766)
n01ABQ2 = ( " N01ABQ2 " , [ " h2_H05JJHO " ] , 0.00003570)
n01ABQ3 = ( " N01ABQ3 " , [ " h2_H05JJHO " ] , 0.00003570)
n01ABQ6 = ( " N01ABQ6 " , [ " h2_H05JJHO " ] , 0.00010472)
n01ABQ8 = ( " N01ABQ8 " , [ " h2_H05JJHO " ] , 0.00003570)
n01ABQ9 = ( " N01ABQ9 " , [ " h2_H05JJHO " , " h2_H06KOBS " ] , 0.00 007140)
n01ABQB = ( " N01ABQB " , [ " h2_H05T3WR " , " h2_H06KOBS " ] , 0.00 008672)
n01ABQE = ( " N01ABQE " , [ " h2_H06KOBS " ] , 0.00003570)
n01ABQF = ( " N01ABQF " , [ " h2_H06KOBS " ] , 0.00004522)
n01ABQG = ( " N01ABQG " , [ " h2_H097TLK " , " h2_H06KOBS " ] , 0.00 011207)
n01ABQI = ( " N01ABQI " , [ " h2_H06KOBS " ] , 0.00003570)
n01ABQJ = ( " N01ABQJ " , [ " h2_H097TLK " ] , 0.00012714)
n01ABQL = ( " N01ABQL " , [ " h2_H06KOBS " ] , 0.00003570)
n01ABQP = ( " N01ABQP " , [ " h2_H06KOBS " , " h2_H09DX6M " ] , 0.00 011700)
n01ABQQ = ( " N01ABQQ " , [ " h2_H097TLK " ] , 0.00004731)
n01ABQS = ( " N01ABQS " , [ " h2_H05IWO5 " , " h2_H09DX6M " ] , 0.00 002647)
n01ABQY = ( " N01ABQY " , [ " h2_H097TLK " ] , 0.00005913)
n01ABQZ = ( " N01ABQZ " , [ " h2_H09DX6M " ] , 0.00002482)
n01ABR0 = ( " N01ABR0 " , [ " h2_H097TLK " ] , 0.00008870)
n01ABR1 = ( " N01ABR1 " , [ " h2_H097TLK " ] , 0.00004435)
n01ABV1 = ( " N01ABV1 " , [ " h2_H097TLK " ] , 0.00006505)
n01ABV2 = ( " N01ABV2 " , [ " h2_H097TLK " ] , 0.00004435)
n01ABV3 = ( " N01ABV3 " , [ " h2_H097TLK " ] , 0.00004435)
n01ABV4 = ( " N01ABV4 " , [ " h2_H063YJC " , " h2_H097TLK " ] , 0.00 034458)
n01ABV5 = ( " N01ABV5 " , [ " h2_H097TLK " ] , 0.00007392)
n01ABVA = ( " N01ABVA " , [ " h2_H097TLK " ] , 0.00005026)
n01ABVU = ( " N01ABVU " , [ " h2_H097TLK " , " h2_H09DX6M " ] , 0.00 011989)
n01ABVV = ( " N01ABVV " , [ " h2_H05MF0G " , " h2_H097TLK " , " h2_H 09DX6M " ] , 0.00007237)
n01AC10 = ( " N01AC10 " , [ " h2_H03PO3Z " , " h2_H074YH2 " ] , 0.00 053495)
n01ADGP = ( " N01ADGP " , [ " h2_H05V49E " ] , 0.00000000)
n01ADH6 = ( " N01ADH6 " , [ " h2_H06Y0NB " ] , 0.00000729)
n01ADHA = ( " N01ADHA " , [ " h2_H06Y0NB " , " h2_H03NGBE " ] , 0.00 004188)
n01ADHB = ( " N01ADHB " , [ " h2_H06Y0NB " ] , 0.00000296)
n01ADHC = ( " N01ADHC " , [ " h2_H06Y0NB " ] , 0.00000296)
n01ADHD = ( " N01ADHD " , [ " h2_H06Y0NB " ] , 0.00000296)
n01ADHE = ( " N01ADHE " , [ " h2_H06Y0NB " ] , 0.00000296)
n01ADHH = ( " N01ADHH " , [ " h2_H06Y0NB " ] , 0.00000296)
n01FUL8 = ( " N01FUL8 " , [ " h2_H06KOBS " ] , 0.00007140)
n01FUSL = ( " N01FUSL " , [ " h2_H03PNBO " , " h2_H03NG5F " ] , 0.01 778883)
n01FUTR = ( " N01FUTR " , [ " h2_H04SBR1 " ] , 0.00226050)
n01FUV1 = ( " N01FUV1 " , [ " h2_H03PO1O " , " h2_H03Q6S0 " ] , 0.00 034766)
n01FUVA = ( " N01FUVA " , [ " h2_H03Q6S0 " ] , 0.00027099)
n202566 = ( " N202566 " , [ " h2_H03WTT1 " , " h2_H04SBR1 " , " h2_H 05V43Q " ] , 0.01227266)
n202568 = ( " N202568 " , [ " h2_H03WTT1 " , " h2_H03PO3Z " , " h2_H 074YH2 " , " h2_H05V43Q " ] ,
0.08341847)
n20256D = ( " N20256D " , [ " h2_H074YH2 " ] , 0.04317889)
n20256P = ( " N20256P " , [ " h2_H04SBR1 " , " h2_H03PO1O " ] , 0.00 122580)
n20256S = ( " N20256S " , [ " h2_H03WTT1 " , " h2_H03PNBO " , " h2_H 01F6M0 " ] , 0.05220246)
n20256U = ( " N20256U " , [ " h2_H03PNBO " ] , 0.00900013)
n207SXP = ( " N207SXP " , [ " h2_H06Y0NB " , " h2_H03NGBE " ] , 0.00 008097)
n207SXQ = ( " N207SXQ " , [ " h2_H06Y0NB " ] , 0.00001597)
n207SXS = ( " N207SXS " , [ " h2_H06Y0NB " , " h2_H03PNBO " ] , 0.00 015499)
n207T02 = ( " N207T02 " , [ " h2_H05RN6G " ] , 0.00000000)
n207T5T = ( " N207T5T " , [ " h2_H05JJHO " ] , 0.00003570)
n207T5V = ( " N207T5V " , [ " h2_H05RN6G " , " h2_H05T3WR " ] , 0.00 005844)
n207T5W = ( " N207T5W " , [ " h2_H05JJHO " , " h2_H05T3WR " ] , 0.00 005875)
n207T5X = ( " N207T5X " , [ " h2_H05JJHO " ] , 0.00003570)
149
APPENDIX B. INPUT DATASET OF HANNOVER
150
Appendix C
Program Code
Haskell module Ddesc implementing the model of selection of references for des-
tination descriptions.
1 -- created 22/11/2006 , by Martin Tomko
2 -- Test data inputs are s e p a r a t e d in data . hs
3
4 module Destdesc where
5 import Data -- data d e f i n i t i o n s and input dataset
6 import List -- Haskell system library for list m a n i p u l a t i o n
7
8 -- d e f i n i t i o n of Object classes and a s s o c i a t e d methods
9 class Elements a where
10 consObject :: a -> Object
11 createWorld :: [ a ] -> [ Object ]
12
13 instance Elements District where
14 consObject (a ,b ,c ,d , e ) = Area a b c d e
15 createWorld [] = []
16 createWorld ( s : sx ) = if length ( s : sx ) == 1
17 then [ consObject ( s ) ]
18 else [ consObject ( s ) ] ++ createWorld ( sx )
19
20 instance Elements Path where
21 consObject (a ,b , c ) = Street a b c
22 createWorld [] = []
23 createWorld ( s : sx ) = if length ( s : sx ) == 1
24 then [ consObject ( s ) ]
25 else [ consObject ( s ) ] ++ createWorld ( sx )
26
27 -- creates World as input data structure , where World = d i s t r i c t s / l a n d m a r k s +
paths ( in lists )
28 world :: [ Object ]
29 world = createWorld ( areas ) ++ createWorld ( paths )
30
31 -- t r a n s f o r m s route input from d i s t r i c t IDs to Objects .
32 route :: [ Object ]
33 route = createWorld ( routeI )
34
35 -- common actions for Objects
36 class Objects a where
37 getType :: a -> String
38 fetchLevel :: a -> Level
39 equalLevel :: a -> a -> Bool
40 fetchID :: a -> String
41 fetchName :: a -> String
42 fetchLandmarks :: a -> [ ObjectID ]
43 fetchSupers :: a -> [ Object ] -> [ Object ]
44 fetchExp :: a -> Double
45 fetchMaxLevel :: a -> Level
46 fetchMySuper :: a -> [ Object ] -> Object
47 fetchNeighbors :: a -> [ ObjectID ]
48
49 instance Objects Object where
151
APPENDIX C. PROGRAM CODE
152
M. TOMKO
107 | otherwise = ( d : dx )
108
109 -- f u n c t i o n for s e l e c t i o n of d i s t r i c t / l a n d m a r k r e f e r e n c e s for d e s t i n a t i o n
descriptions
110 -- returns names of d i s t r i c t s / l a n d m a r k s
111 grdDist :: [ Object ] -> [ Object ]
112 grdDist route = reverse ( makeDistinct xxx )
113 where xxx = ( ordByLevelAsc ( recDirs route ) )
114
115 -- r e c u r s i v e s e l e c t i o n of d i s t r i c t / l a n d m a r k r e f e r e n c e s
116 -- the input is the route
117 recDirs :: [ Object ] -> [ Object ]
118 recDirs ( s : sx )
119 | getRef s t ( s : sx ) == t = [ t ]
120 | otherwise = ( getRef s t ( s : sx ) ) :( recDirs ( subroute ( getRe f s t ( s : sx ) )
( s : sx ) ) )
121 where t = last ( s : sx )
122
123 -- f u n c t i o n for i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of d i s t r i c t / l a n d m a r k r e f e r e n t s
124 -- inputs are start and d e s t i n a t i o n and route
125 -- p e r f o r m s rules 1 and 2
126 getRef :: Object -> Object -> [ Object ] -> Object
127 getRef s t route
128 | ( elem s world && elem t world ) == False = error " At least one of the input
objects doesn ’ t exist "
129 | ( s == t ) = t -- error " Start and D e s t i n a t i o n are the same !!"
130 | otherwise = describe s t route
131
132 -- a u x i l i a r y f u n c t i o n w r a p p i n g c o m p a r e H i e r a r c h i e s
133 describe :: Object -> Object -> [ Object ] -> Object
134 describe a b route = compareHierarchies ( fetchSupersUniqu e a world )
( fetchSupersUnique b world ) route
135
136 -- i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of the t o p o l o g i c a l rules for d i s t r i c t s / l a n d m a r k s
137 compHier :: [ Object ] -> [ Object ] -> [ Object ] -> Object
138 compHier sbranch [] route = error " too coarse input of de stination element ,
input finer element "
139 compHier [] tbranch route = error " too coarse input of st art element , input
finer element "
140 compHier sbranch tbranch route
141 = if length ( t : tx ) ==0
142 then error " change to TBT "
143 else
144 if length [ x |x < -t , y < -s , isNeighbor x y || x == y ] /= 0
145 then compHier ( concat ( sx ) ) ( concat ( tx ) ) route
146 else ( last t )
147 where ( t : tx ) = groupBy ( equalLevel ) ( ordByLevelDesc ([ t | t < - tbranch , ( elem t
sbranch ) == False ]) )
148 ( s : sx ) = groupBy ( equalLevel ) ( ordByLevelDesc ([ s | s < - sbranch , ( elem s
tbranch ) == False ]) )
149
150 -- f u n c t i o n r e t r i e v i n g path r e f e r e n c e s
151 -- the output is the list of p r o m i n e n t paths f i l t e r e d by route context
( c o m p B y R o u t e C T X ) , ordered
152 routePaths :: [ Object ] -> [ Object ]
153 routePaths a = [ fst3 x |x < -( routePathsOrdASC a ) ]
154
155 -- c o m p a r e s paths ( in t r i p p l e s ) by their order of o c c u r e n c e along route !! CTX =
context
156 compByRouteCTX :: ( Object , Object , Object ) -> ( Object , Object , Object ) -> Ordering
157 compByRouteCTX (a ,b , c ) (d ,e , f )
158 |( elemIndex c route < elemIndex e route ) = LT
159 |( elemIndex b route > elemIndex e route ) &&
160 ( elemIndex c route == elemIndex f route ) = LT
161 |( fetchMaxLevel a < fetchMaxLevel d ) = LT
162 |( fetchExp a < fetchExp d ) = LT
163 |(( notElem ( fetchName b ) ( grdDistShow route ) ) ||
164 ( notElem ( fetchName c ) ( grdDistShow route ) ) ) &&
165 (( elem ( fetchName e ) ( grdDistShow route ) ) ||
166 ( elem ( fetchName f ) ( grdDistShow route ) ) ) = LT
167 | otherwise = GT
168
169 -- r e t r i e v e s the list of paths c o n n e c t i n g start and d e s t i n a t i o n of a route ,
ordered by p r o m i n e n c e
153
APPENDIX C. PROGRAM CODE
154
M. TOMKO
155
APPENDIX C. PROGRAM CODE
308
309 -- f u n c t i o n that c o m p a r e s two objects by level . Orders smaller first .
310 compByLevelAsc :: Object -> Object -> Ordering
311 compByLevelAsc a b
312 | fetchLevel a <= fetchLevel b = LT
313 | otherwise = GT
314
315 -- f u n c t i o n that c o m p a r e s two objects by level . Orders greater first .
316 compByLevelDesc :: Object -> Object -> Ordering
317 compByLevelDesc a b
318 | fetchLevel a >= fetchLevel b = LT
319 | otherwise = GT
320
321 -- f u n c t i o n that orders paths by d e s c e n d i n g e x p e r i e n t i a l p r o m i n e n c e
322 ordByPromDesc :: [ Object ] -> [ Object ]
323 ordByPromDesc pathlist = sortBy compByPromDesc pathlist
324
325 -- f u n c t i o n that c o m p a r e s paths by e x p e r i e n t i a l p r o m i n e n c e . Orders more
p r o m i n e n t first .
326 compByPromDesc :: Object -> Object -> Ordering
327 compByPromDesc a b
328 | fetchExp a >= fetchExp b = LT
329 | otherwise = GT
330
331 -- r e t r i e v e s first element of a tripple
332 fst3 :: (a ,a , a ) -> a
333 fst3 (a ,b , c ) = a
334
335 -- fetch most g r a n u l a r object in a set
336 f e t c h C o a r s e s t O b j L i s t :: [ Object ] -> Object
337 f e t c h C o a r s e s t O b j L i s t [] = error " empty list returned by function
fetchCoarsestObjList "
338 f e t c h C o a r s e s t O b j L i s t a = head ( ordByLevelDesc a )
339
340 -- check of e x p e r i e n t i a l p r o m i n e n c e for paths ,
341 defined in module Data
342 isEprom :: Object -> Bool
343 isEprom a = ( fetchExp a ) >= eimean
344
345 -- check of Object type
346 isPath :: Object -> Bool
347 isPath a
348 | getType a == " Area " = False
349 | getType a == " Street " = True
156
Appendix D
A suite of example specifications of routes used for testing the model, along with
generated results.
referenceIDs : [ h2_H097TLK ]
157
APPENDIX D. EXAMPLE TEST CASES
referenceIDs : [ h2_H097TLK ]
158
M. TOMKO
159
APPENDIX D. EXAMPLE TEST CASES
160
References
Agrawala, M., Stolte, C., 2001. Rendering Effective Route Maps: Improving
Usability Through Generalization. In: SIGGRAPH 2001. ACM, Los Angeles,
CA, pp. 241–250.
Alexander, C., 1988. A City is not a Tree. In: Thackara, J. (Ed.), Design After
Modernism: Beyond the Object. Thames and Hudson, London, pp. 67–84.
Allen, G. L., 1997. From knowledge to words to wayfinding: Issues in the pro-
duction and comprehension of route directions. In: Hirtle, S., Frank, A. (Eds.),
Spatial Information Theory: A Theoretical Basis for GIS. Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, pp. 363–372.
Allen, G. L., 1999. Spatial Abilities, Cognitive Maps, and Wayfinding. In:
Golledge, R. G. (Ed.), Wayfinding Behavior. Johns Hopkins University PRess,
Baltimore, pp. 46–80.
Allen, G. L., 2000. Principles and Practices for Communicating Route Knowledge.
Applied Cognitive Psychology 14 (44), 333–359.
Batagelj, V., Mrvar, A., 2006. Pajek—Program for Large Network Analy-
sis, v1.12. Available at: http://vlado.fmf.uni-lj.si/pub/networks/pajek/, social
network analysis software.
Bejan, A., 2000. Shape and Structure, from Engineering to Nature. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Bocaletti, S., Latora, V., Moreno, Y., Chavez, M., Hwang, D.-U., 2006. Complex
Networks: Structure and Dynamics. Physics Reports 424, 175–308.
Caduff, D., Timpf, S., 2005. The Landmark Spider: Representing Landmark
Knowledge for Wayfinding Tasks. In: Barkowsky, T., Freksa, C., Hegarty, M.,
Lowe, R. (Eds.), Reasoning with Mental and External Diagrams: Computa-
tional Modeling and Spatial Assistance. AAAI Press, Stanford, CA, USA.
Car, A., 1997. Hierarchical Spatial Reasoning: Theoretical Consideration and its
Application to Modeling Wayfinding. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Geoinfor-
mation, Technical University Vienna.
161
REFERENCES
Carrera, F., 1997. Theory of City Form. Campo Santa Maria Formosa, Venice,
Italy: A Case Study of the Application of Visual, Dynamic and Scale-Invariant
Analyses for the Description, Interpretation and Evaluation of City Form. Tech.
Rep. MIT 11.330, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Chown, E., Kaplan, S., Kortenkamp, D., 1995. Prototypes, Location, and Asso-
ciative Networks (PLAN): Towards a Unified Theory of Cognitive Mapping.
Journal of Cognitive Science 19, 11–51.
Claramunt, C., Winter, S., 2007. Structural Salience of Elements of the City.
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 34.
Clark, H. H., Carlson, T. B., 1982. Speech Acts and Hearers’ Beliefs. In: Smith,
N. V. (Ed.), Mutual Knowledge. Academic Press, London, pp. 1–36.
Clark, H. H., Marshall, C. R., 1981. Definite Reference and Mutual Knowledge.
In: Joshi, A., Webber, B., Sag, I. (Eds.), Elements of Discourse Understanding.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 10–63.
Clark, H. H., Wilkes-Gibbs, D., 1986. Referring as a Collaborative Process. Cog-
nition 22, 1–39.
Conroy Dalton, R., Bafna, S., 2003. The Syntactical Image of the City: A Recip-
rocal Definition of Spatial Elements and Spatial Syntaxes. In: Hanson, J. (Ed.),
4th International Space Syntax Symposium. University College London, UK,
pp. 59.1–59.21.
Couclelis, H., 1996. Verbal Directions for Way-Finding: Space, Cognition and
Language. In: Portugali, J. (Ed.), The Construction of Cognitive Maps.
Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 133–153.
Couclelis, H., Golledge, R. G., Gale, N., Tobler, W., 1987. Exploring the Anchor-
point Hypothesis of Spatial Cognition. Journal of Environmental Psychology
7, 99–122.
Cowan, N., 2001. The Magical Number of 4 in Short-Term Memory: A Recon-
sideration of Mental Storage Capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (1),
87–185.
Dale, R., 1992. Generating Referring Expressions: Constructing Descriptions in
a Domain of Objects and Processes. ACL-MIT Series in Natural Language
Processing. MIT Press.
Dale, R., Geldof, S., Prost, J.-P., 2002. Generating More Natural Route De-
scriptions. In: Australasian Natural Language Processing Workshop. Canberra,
Australia.
Dale, R., Geldof, S., Prost, J.-P., 2003. Coral: Using Natural Language Genera-
tion for Navigational Assistance. In: Oudshoorn, M. (Ed.), 26th Australasian
Computer Science Conference (ACSC2003). Adelaide, Australia.
Dale, R., Geldof, S., Prost, J.-P., 2005. Using Natural Language Generation in
Automatic Route Description. Journal of Research and Practice in Information
Technology 37 (1), 89–105.
162
M. TOMKO REFERENCES
Dale, R., Reiter, E., 1995. Computational Interpretations of ther Gricean Maxims
in the Generation of Referring Expressions. Cognitive Science 18, 233–263.
Davies, B., 1995. To Cooperate or Not to Cooperate - it that the Question? In:
Edinburgh Linguistics Department Conference ’94.
Denis, M., Pazzaglia, F., Cornoldi, C., Bertolo, L., 1999. Spatial Discourse and
Navigation: An Analysis of Route Directions in the City of Venice. Applied
Cognitive Psychology 13, 145–174.
Downs, R. M., Stea, D., 1977. Maps in Minds: Reflections on Cognitive Mapping.
New Harper and Row, New York.
Duckham, M., Kulik, L., 2003. “Simplest Paths”: Automated Route Selection for
Navigation. In: Kuhn, W., Worboys, M., Timpf, S. (Eds.), Spatial Informa-
tion Theory (COSIT 2003). Vol. 2825 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 169–185.
Edmonds, P. G., 1994. Collaboration on Reference to Objects that are Not Mutu-
ally Known. In: 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics,
COLING-94. Kyoto.
Elias, B., 2003. Extracting Landmarks with Data Mining Methods. In: Kuhn,
W., Worboys, M., Timpf, S. (Eds.), Spatial Information Theory (COSIT 2003).
Vol. 2825 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp.
398–412.
Elias, B., 2006. Extraktion von Landmarken fuer die Navigation. Phd. thesis,
Institut für Kartographie und Geoinformatik, Universität Hannover.
Eppell, V., McClurg, B. A., Bunker, J. M., 2001. A Four Level Road Hierarchy
for Network Planning and Management. In: Jaeger, Vicki (Eds.), 20th ARRB
Conference. Melbourne, Australia.
Figueiredo, L., Amorim, L., 2005. Continuity Lines in the Axial System. In: The
Fifth Space Syntax International Symposium. Delft University of Technology,
Delft, The Netherlands.
163
REFERENCES
Frank, A., 2000. Spatial Communication with Maps: Defining the Correctness of
Maps Using a Multi-Agent Simulation. In: Freksa, C., Brauer, W., Habel, C.,
Wender, K. F. (Eds.), Spatial Cognition II - International Workshop on Maps
and Diagrammatical Representations of the Environment. Vol. 1849 of Lecture
Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 80–99.
Frank, A., 2001. Computational Models for Ontology. Tech. rep., Institute of
Geoinformation, TU Vienna, Austria.
Frank, A., 2003. Pragmatic Information Content: How to Measure the Infor-
mation in a Route Description. In: Duckham, M., Goodchild, M., Worboys,
M. (Eds.), Foundations of Geographic Information Science. Taylor & Francis,
London and New York, pp. 47–68.
Frank, A., Bittner, S., Raubal, M., 2001. Spatial and Cognitive Simulation with
Multi-Agent Systems. In: Montello, D. R. (Ed.), Spatial Information Theory.
Foundations of Geographic Information Science : International Conference,
COSIT 2001 Morro Bay, CA, USA, September 19-23, 2001. Proceedings. Vol.
2205 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 124–
139.
Freksa, C., Barkowsky, T., 1996. On the Relation Between Spatial Concepts and
Geographic Object. In: Burrough, P., Frank, A. (Eds.), Geographic Objects
with Indeterminate Boundaries. Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 109–121.
Freundschuh, S. M., Mark, D. M., Gopal, S., Gould, M. D., Couclelis, H., 1990.
Verbal Directions for Wayfinding: Implications for Navigation and Geographic
Information and Analysis Systems. In: Brassel, K., Kishimoto, H. (Eds.), 4th
International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling. Department of Geography,
University of Zurich, Zurich.
Fussell, S. R., Krauss, R. M., 1991. Accuracy and Bias in Estimates of Others’
Knowledge. European Journal of Social Psychology 21, 445–454.
Gerrig, R. J., Brennan, S. E., Ohaeri, J. O., 2001. What Characters Know: Pro-
jected Knowledge and Projected Co-Presence. Journal of Memory and Lan-
guage 44, 81–95.
Gold, C., Angel, P., 2006. Voronoi Hierarchies. In: Raubal, M., Miller, H., Frank,
A., Goodchild, M. (Eds.), Geographic Information Science. Vol. 4197 of Lecture
Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, pp. 99–111.
Golledge, R. G., Dougherty, V., Bell, S., 1995. Acquiring Spatial Knowledge:
Survey versus Route-Based Knowledge in Unfamiliar Environments. Annals of
the Association of American Geographers 85 (1), 134–158.
164
M. TOMKO REFERENCES
Grice, P., 1975. Logic and Conversation. In: Cole, P., Morgan, J. L. (Eds.),
Speech Acts. Academic Press, New York, pp. 41–58.
Grice, P., 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press, Cam-
bridge, Massachussetts.
Hansen, S., Klippel, A., Richter, K.-F., 2006. Cognitive OpenLS Specification.
Tech. Rep. 012-10/2006, University Bremen / University Freiburg.
Haque, S., Kulik, L., Klippel, A., to appear 2007. Algorithms for Reliable Naviga-
tion and Wayfinding. In: Barkowsky, T., Freksa, C., Knauff, M., Krieg-Brckner,
B., Nebel, B. (Eds.), Spatial Cognition V. Lecture Notes in Computer Science.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Hart, P. E., Nilsson, N. J., Raphael, B., 1968. A Formal Basis for the Heuristic
Determination of Minimum Cost Paths. IEEE Transactions on SSC 4, 100–107.
Hasida, K., 1996. Issues in Communication Game. In: 16th International Confer-
ence on Computational Linguistics COLING’96. ACM, pp. 531–536.
Hasida, K., Nagao, K., Miyata, T., 1995. A Game-Theoretic Account of Collabo-
ration in Communication. In: Lesser, V. (Ed.), ICMAS-95, First International
Conference on Multi-Agent Systems. AAAI Press; MIT Press, San Francisco,
California, pp. 140–147.
Heinzle, F., Anders, K. H., Sester, M., 2006. Pattern Recognition in Road Net-
works on the Example of Circular Road Detection. In: Raubal, M., Miller, H.,
Frank, A., Goodchild, M. (Eds.), Geographic Information Science. 4th Interna-
tional Conference, Giscience 2006, Mnster, Germany, September 20-23, 2006.
Proceedings. Vol. 4197. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 153–167.
Hillier, B., Hanson, J., 1984. The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK.
Hirtle, S., 2003. Neighborhoods and Landmarks. In: Duckham, M., Goodchild,
M., Worboys, M. (Eds.), Foundations of Geographic Information Science. Tay-
lor & Francis, London and New York, pp. 191–203.
Hirtle, S., Jonides, J., 1985. Evidence of Hierarchies in Cognitive Maps. Memory
and Cognition 13, 208–217.
Hobbs, J. R., 1985. Granularity. In: Joshi, A. K. (Ed.), 9th International Joint
Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Angeles, CA, pp.
432–435.
165
REFERENCES
Ishikawa, T., Montello, D. R., 2006. Spatial Knowledge Acquisition from Direct
Experience in the Environment: Individual Differences in the Development of
Metric Knowledge and the Integration of Separately Learned Places. Cognitive
Psychology 52 (2), 93–129.
Jarvella, R. J., Klein, W., 1982. Speech, Place, and Action. John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester, NY.
Jiang, B., Claramunt, C., 2003. A Structural Approach to the Model Generalisa-
tion of an Urban Street Network. Geoinformatica 8 (2), 151–171.
Jiang, B., Claramunt, C., 2004. Topological Analysis of Urban Street Networks.
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 31, 151–162.
Jung, S., Pramanik, S., 2002. An Efficient Path Computation Model for Hierarchi-
cally Structured Topographical Road Maps. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge
and Data Engineering 14 (5), 1029–1032.
Kettani, D., Moulin, B., 1999. A Spatial Model Based on the Notions of Spatial
Conceptual Map and of Objects Influence Areas. In: Freksa, C., Mark, D.
(Eds.), Spatial Information Theory. Cognitive and Computational Foundations
of Geographic Information Science: International Conference COSIT’99, Stade,
Germany, August 1999. Proceedings. Vol. 1661 of Lecture Notes in Computer
Science. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 401–416.
Kim, Y. O., Penn, A., 2004. Linking the Spatial Syntax of Cognitive Maps to the
Spatial Syntax of the Environment. Environment and Behavior 36 (4), 483–504.
Klippel, A., 2003a. Wayfinding Choremes. In: Kuhn, W., Worboys, M., Timpf,
S. (Eds.), Spatial Information Theory: Foundations of Geographic Informa-
tion Science. Vol. 2825 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, pp. 320–334.
Klippel, A., Dewey, C., Knauff, M., Richter, K.-F., Montello, D. R., Freksa, C.,
Loelinger, E.-A., 2004. Direction Concepts in Wayfinding Assistance Systems.
In: Baus, J., Kray, C., Porzel, R. (Eds.), Workshop on Artificial Intelligence
in Mobile Systems (AIMS’04). Vol. SFB 378 Memo 84. Universitaet Bremen,
Saarbrücken, Germany, pp. 1–8.
Klippel, A., Tappe, H., Habel, C., 2003. Pictorial Representations of Routes:
Chunking Route Segments During Comprehension. In: Freksa, C., Brauer,
W., Habel, C., Wender, K. F. (Eds.), Spatial Cognition III — Routes and
Navigation, Human Memory and Learning, Spatial Representation and Spatial
Learning. Vol. 2685 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, pp. 11–33.
166
M. TOMKO REFERENCES
Klippel, A., Winter, S., 2005. Structural Salience of Landmarks for Route Direc-
tions. In: Cohn, A., Mark, D. (Eds.), Spatial Information Theory. International
Conference, COSIT 2005, Ellicottville, NY, USA, September 14-18, 2005. Pro-
ceedings. Vol. 3693 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, Heidleberg, pp. 347–362.
Kuhn, W., Raubal, M., 2003. Implementing Semantic Reference Systems. In:
Gould, M., Laurini, R., Coulondre, S. (Eds.), AGILE 2003 - 6th AGILE Con-
ference on Geographic Information Science. Presses Polytechniques et Univer-
sitaires Romandes, Lyon, France.
Kuipers, B., 2001. The Skeleton in the Cognitive Map. A Computational Hypoth-
esis. In: 3rd International Space Syntax Symposium. Atlanta.
Kuipers, B., Tecuci, D., Stankiewicz, B. J., 2003. The Skeleton in the Cognitive
Map: A Computational and Empirical Exploration. Environment and Behavior
35 (1), 81–106.
Lau, I. Y.-M., Chiu, C.-y., 2001. I Know What You Know: Assumptions about
Others’ Knowledge and their Effects on Message Construction. Social Cognition
19 (6), 587–600.
Lovelace, K. L., Hegarty, M., Montello, D. R., 1999. Elements of Good Route
Directions in Familiar and Unfamiliar Environments. In: Freksa, C., Mark, D.
(Eds.), Spatial Information Theory. Cognitive and Computational Foundations
of Geographic Information Science: International Conference COSIT’99, Stade,
Germany, August 1999. Proceedings. Vol. 1661 of Lecture Notes in Computer
Science. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 65–82.
Lynch, K., 1960. The Image of the City. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massa-
chusetts, USA.
Maass, W., 1993. A Cognitive Model for the Process of Multimodal, Incremental
Route Descriptions. In: Frank, A., Campari, I. (Eds.), Spatial information
theory: A theoretical basis for GIS. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 1–13.
Margolis, E., Laurence, S., 2006. Concepts. In: Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, spring Edition. The Metaphysics Research Lab,
Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University, USA.
URL http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2006/entries/concepts/
Mark, D. M., 1986. Automated Route Selection for Navigation. IEEE Aerospace
and Electronic Systems Magazine 1 (9), 2–5.
167
REFERENCES
Michon, P.-E., Denis, M., 2001. When and Why Are Visual Landmarks Used
in Giving Directions? In: Montello, D. R. (Ed.), Spatial Information Theory.
Foundations of Geographic Information Science : International Conference,
COSIT 2001 Morro Bay, CA, USA, September 19-23, 2001. Proceedings. Vol.
2205 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 292–
305.
Miller, G., 1956. The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two. The Psycho-
logical Review 63, 81–97.
Montello, D. R., 1993. Scale and Multiple Psychologies of Space. In: Frank, A.
(Ed.), Campari, I. Vol. 716. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 312–321.
Montello, D. R., 2003. Regions in Geography: Process and Content. In: Duckham,
M., Goodchild, M., Worboys, M. (Eds.), Foundations of Geographic Informa-
tion Science. Taylor and Francis, London and New York, pp. 173–189.
Montello, D. R., 2005. Navigation. In: Miyake, A., Shah, P. (Eds.), Cambridge
Handbook of Visuospatial Thinking. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
pp. 257–294.
Montello, D. R., Goodchild, M., Gottsegen, J., Fohl, P., 2003. Where’s Down-
town?: Behavioral Methods for Determining Referents of Vague Spatial
Queries. Spatial Cognition and Computation 3 (2-3), 185–204.
Newman, M. E. J., 2005. Power Laws, Pareto Distributions and Zipf’s Law.
Contemporary Physics 46 (5), 323–351.
Nothegger, C., Winter, S., Raubal, M., 2004. Computation of the Salience of
Features. Spatial Cognition and Computation 4 (2), 113–136.
Noveck, I., Sperber, D., 2006. The Why and How of Experimental Pragmatics:
The Case of ‘Scalar Inferences’. In: Burton-Roberts, N. (Ed.), Advances in
Pragmatics. Palgrave Macmillan.
Ogden, C. K., Richards, I. A., 2001. Richards, I. A.: Selected Works, 1919-1938.
Vol. v.2. Meaning of meaning : a study of the influence of language upon
thought and of the science of symbolism. Routledge, London.
Okabe, A., Boots, B., Sugihara, K., Chiu, S. N., 1999. Spatial Tesselations:
Concepts and Applications of Voronoi Diagrams, 2nd Edition. Wiley Series in
Probability and Statistics. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., Chichester, UK.
Paraboni, I., van Deemeter, K., 2002. Generating Easy References: the Case of
Document Deixis. In: Second International Conference on Natural Language
Generation (INLG 2002). New York, USA.
Patel, K., Chen, M. Y., Smith, I., Landay, J. A., 2006. Personalizing Routes.
In: ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. ACM Press,
Montreux, Switzerland.
168
M. TOMKO REFERENCES
Pattabhiraman, T., Cercone, N., 1990. Selection: Salience, Relevance and the
Coupling Between Domain-Level Tasks and Text Planning. In: McKeown,
K., Moore, J., Nirenburg, S. (Eds.), 5th International Workshop on Natural
Langauge Generation. Dawson, Pennsylvania, USA.
Penn, A., Hillier, B., Banister, D., Xu, J., 1998. Configurational Modelling of
Urban Transport Networks. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design
25, 59–84.
Peterson, J., Chitil, O., 2005. Haskell.org – The Haskell Home Page. Available
on: http://www.haskell.org, visited on April, 3rd 2007.
Plumert, J. M., Carswell, C., de Vet, K., Ihrig, D., 1995a. The Content and
Organization of Communication about Object Locations. Journal of Memory
and Language 37, 477–498.
Plumert, J. M., Carswell, C., de Vet, K., Ihrig, D., 1995b. The Content and
Organization of Communication about Object Locations. Journal of Memory
and Language 37, 477–498.
Plumert, J. M., Spalding, T. L., Nichols-Whitehead, P., 2001. Preferences for As-
cending and Descending Hierarchical Organization in Spatial Communication.
Memory and Cognition 29 (2), 274–284.
Porta, S., Crucitti, P., Latora, V., 2006. The Network Analysis of Urban Streets:
A Dual Approach. Physica A 369 (2), 853–866.
Raubal, M., Winter, S., 2002. Enriching Wayfinding Instructions With Local
Landmarks. In: Egenhofer, M. J., Mark, D. M. (Eds.), Geographic Information
Science: Second International Conference, GIScience 2002, Boulder, CO, USA,
September 25-28, 2002. Proceedings. Vol. 2478 of Lecture Notes in Computer
Science. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 243–259.
Reiter, E., Dale, R., 1992. A Fast Algotithm for the Generation of Referring
Expressions. In: The 17th ACL (COLING-92). Nantes, France.
Richter, K.-F., Klippel, A., 2005. A Model for Context-Specific Route Directions.
In: Freksa, C. (Ed.), Spatial Cognition IV. Vol. LNAI 3343. Springer-Verlag,
Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 58–78.
Rogers, S., Fiechter, C.-N., Langley, P., 1999. An Adaptive Interactive Agent for
Route Advice. In: Etzioni, O., Mller, J. P., Bradshaw, J. M. (Eds.), Agents
’99: Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference on Autonomous Agents. ACM
Press, New York, NY, USA, Seattle, Washington, United States, pp. 198–205.
169
REFERENCES
Rosch, E., 1978. Principles of Categorization. In: Roach, E., Lloyd, B. B. (Eds.),
Cognition and Categorization. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ,
pp. 27–48.
Schelling, T. C., 1960. The Strategy of Conflict. Harvard University Press, Cam-
bridge, Massachusetts.
Shanon, B., 1979. Where Questions. In: 17th Annual Meeting of the Association
for Computational Linguistics. ACL, University of California at San Diego, La
Jolla, California, USA.
Singh, R., 1997. Sketch Planning with GIS. In: UCGIS Annual Assembly.
Smith, B., Varzi, A. C., 2000. Fiat and Bona Fide Boundaries. Philosophy and
Phenomenological Research 60 (2), 401–420.
Sorrows, M. E., Hirtle, S., 1999. The Nature of Landmarks for Real and Elec-
tronic Spaces. In: Freksa, C., Mark, D. (Eds.), Spatial Information Theory.
Cognitive and Computational Foundations of Geographic Information Science:
International Conference COSIT’99, Stade, Germany, August 1999. Proceed-
ings. Vol. 1661 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
pp. 37–50.
Sperber, D., Wilson, D., 1982. Mutual Knowledge and Relevance in Theories of
Comprehension. In: Smith, N. V. (Ed.), Mutual Knowledge. Academic Press,
London, pp. 61–85.
Sperber, D., Wilson, D., 1986. Relevance. Basil Blackwell Ltd, Oxford, UK.
Sperber, D., Wilson, D., 2004. Relevance Theory. In: Horn, L., Ward, G. (Eds.),
Handbook of Pragmatics. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 607–632.
Stell, J. G., Worboys, M., 1999. Generalizing Graphs Using Amalgamation and
Selection. In: Gueting, R. H., Papadias, D., Lochovsky, F. (Eds.), Advances
in Spatial Databases: 6th International Symposium, SSD’99, Hong Kong,
China, July 1999. Proceedings. Vol. 1651 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 19–32.
170
M. TOMKO REFERENCES
Stevens, A., Coupe, P., 1978. Distortions in Dudged Spatial Relations. Cognitive
Psychology 10, 422–437.
Timpf, S., Volta, G., Pollock, D., Egenhofer, M. J., 1992. A Conceptual Model
of Wayfinding Using Multiple Levels of Abstraction. In: Frank, A., Campari,
I., Formentini, U. (Eds.), Theories and Methods of Spatio-Temporal Reason-
ing in Geographic Space. International Conference GIS From Space to Ter-
ritory: Theories and Methods of Spatio-Temporal Reasoning Pisa, Italy, Sep-
tember 2123, 1992 Proceedings. Vol. 639 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidleberg, pp. 348–367.
Tomko, M., August 23, 2004 2004a. Analysis of Wayfinding Scenarios. Internal
project report, CRC-SI Australia.
Tomko, M., 2004b. Case Study - Assessing Spatial Distribution of Web Resources
for Navigation Services. In: Claramunt, C., Boujou, A., Kwon, Y. J. (Eds.),
4th International Workshop on Web and Wireless Geographical Information
Systems W2GIS 2004. Goyang, Korea.
Tomko, M., Winter, S., 2006b. Initial Entity Identification for Granular Route
Directions. In: Kainz, W., Riedl, A., Elmes, G. (Eds.), Progress in Spatial Data
Handling. 12th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling. Springer-
Verlag, Vienna, Austria, pp. 43–60.
Tomko, M., Winter, S., 2006c. Recursive Construction of Granular Route Direc-
tions. Journal of Spatial Science 51 (1), 101–115.
Tomko, M., Winter, S., Claramunt, C., to appear 2007. Experiential Hierarchies
of Streets. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems .
171
REFERENCES
Turner, A., Penn, A., Hillier, B., 2005. An Algorithmic Definition of the Axial
Map. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 32, 425–444.
Tversky, B., 1993. Cognitive Maps, Cognitive Collages, and Spatial Mental Mod-
els. In: Frank, A., Campari, I. (Eds.), Spatial Information Theory A Theoret-
ical Basis for GIS. European Conference, COSIT’93 Marciana Marina, Elba
Island, Italy September 1993, Proceedings. Vol. 716 of Lecture Notes in Com-
puter Science. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 14–24.
Tversky, B., 2003. Points, Planes, Paths, and Portions. In: van der Zee, E.,
Slack, J. (Eds.), Representing Direction in Language and Space. No. 01 in
Explorations in Language and Space. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp.
132–143.
Wagner, M., Balke, W.-T., Hirschfeld, R., Kellerer, W., 2002. A Roadmap to
Advanced Personalization of Mobile Services. In: Industrial Program of the
10th International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems (CoopIS
2002). Irvine, CA, USA.
Weissensteiner, E., Winter, S., 2004. Landmarks in the Communication of Route
Directions. In: Egenhofer, M. J., Miller, H., Freksa, C. (Eds.), Geographic
Information Science. Third International Conference, GIScience 2004, Adelphi,
MD, USA, October 20-23, 2004. Proceedings. Vol. 3234 of Lecture Notes in
Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidleberg, pp. 313–326.
Wiener, J. M., Mallot, H. A., 2003. ’Fine-to-Coarse’ Route Planning and Naviga-
tion in Regionalized Environments. Spatial Cognition and Computation 3 (4),
331–358.
Winter, S., Klippel, A., Tomko, M., May 2, 2005 2005. Deliverable 3.3/2: Exper-
iments on Usability. Internal report, CRC-SI Australia.
Winter, S., Raubal, M., Nothegger, C., 2004. Focalizing Measures of Salience
for Wayfinding. In: Meng, L., Zipf, A., Reichenbacher, T. (Eds.), Map-Based
Mobile Services - Theories, Methods and Design Implementations. Springer-
Verlag Geosciences, Berlin, pp. 127–142.
Winter, S., Tomko, M., 2004. Shifting the Focus in Mobile Maps. In: Morita,
T. (Ed.), Joint Workshop on Ubiquitous, Pervasive and Internet Mapping UP-
IMap2004. Tokyo, Japan.
Winter, S., Tomko, M., 2005. Route Directions of Varying Granularity. In: Sem-
inar on Spatial Cognition. Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany.
Winter, S., Tomko, M., 2006. Translating the Web Semantics of Georeferences.
In: Taniar, D., Wenny Rahayu, J. (Eds.), Web Semantics and Ontology. Idea
Group Publishing, Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA, pp. 297–333.
Winter, S., Tomko, M., Elias, B., Sester, M., to appear 2007. Landmark Hierar-
chies in Context. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design .
Worboys, M., 2003. Communicating Geographic Information in Context. In:
Duckham, M., Goodchild, M., Worboys, M. (Eds.), Foundations of Geographic
Information Science. Taylor & Francis, London and New York, pp. 33–45.
172
M. TOMKO REFERENCES
173