期刊文献+

地图综合中语义质量的度量方法研究 被引量:5

An Approach for Evaluation of Semantic Quality in Map Generalization
下载PDF
导出
摘要 从地图综合前、后语义变化的角度,建立了一种地图综合中语义质量的度量方法。从语义变化的4个方面分别提出了相应的语义质量元素,即语义准确性、一致性、完整性和内容相似性;从目标层次、目标类层次和地图层次分别建立了以上4个语义质量元素的度量指标。在此基础上,给出1个地图语义质量综合指标,即通过对提出的4个语义质量元素分别赋予1个权重得到。最后,通过实例分析了语义质量元素在GIS环境下的实现方法。 Semantic change inevitably occurs with operations of map generalization (e. g. merging). In this paper, an approach for evaluation of semantic quality in map generalization is presented from the point of view of semantic change. In this approach, four basic elements are first of all put forward, which correspond to different aspects of semantic quality, including semantic accuracy,semantic consistency, semantic completeness and semantic similarity. Quantitative indicators are further developed to measure these four quality elements, from three l evels,i, e. object level, class level and map level. On this basis,a comprehensive indicator is presented for evaluation of the whole map after generalization,which may be obtained by giving the user-specified weight values to the proposed indicators. Finally,a practical example is provided to illustrate the proposed approach in the paper.
出处 《地理与地理信息科学》 CSCD 北大核心 2008年第5期11-15,20,共6页 Geography and Geo-Information Science
基金 国家自然科学基金项目(40871180、40501053) 湖南省自然科学基金项目(07JJ6075)
关键词 语义质量 准确性 一致性 完整性 相似性 semantic quality accuracy consistency completeness similarity
  • 引文网络
  • 相关文献

参考文献14

  • 1BERG M D,KREVELD M V,SCHIRRA S. A new approach to subdivision simplification[A]. PEUQUET D. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Computer--Assisted Cartography[C]. Charlotte, North Carolina, 1995. 79--88.
  • 2BRAZILE F. A generalization machine design to incorporate quality assessment[A].POIKER T K, BURNABY N C. Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling[C]. 1998. 349--360.
  • 3WEIBEL R,DUTTON G H. Constraint--based automated map generalization[A]. POIKER T K, CHRISMAN N. Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling[C]. 1998. 214-224.
  • 4BARD S, RUAS R. Why and how to evaluate generalized data [A]. FISHER P. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling[C]. Berlin.. Springer, 2004. 327--342.
  • 5JOAO E M. The importance of quantifying the effects of generalization[A]. MULLER J C, LAGRANGE J P,WEIBEL R. GIS and Generalization: Methodology and Practice[C]. London: Taylor Francis, 1995. 183-- 193.
  • 6PAINHO M. The effects of generalization on attribute accuracy in natural resource maps[A]. MULLER J C, LAGRANGE J P, WEIBEL R. GIS and Generalization: Methodology and Practice [C]. London:Taylor & Francis, 1995. 194--206.
  • 7BREGT A, BULENS J. Application--oriented generalization of area objects[A]. MOLENAAR M. Methods for the Generalization of Geo-- Databases[C].Delft, Netherlands; Geodetic Commission, 1996. 57--64.
  • 8LI Z L, OPENSHAW S. A comparative study of the performance of manual generalization and automated generalization of line features[J]. Geographical Information, 1992. 501 --514.
  • 9SKOPELITI A, TSOUI.OS L. A methodology for the assessment of generalization quality[A]. Proeeedings of the Fourth Workshop on Progress in Automated Map Generalization[C]. Beijing,China, 2001.
  • 10BARD S. Quality assessment of cartographic generalization[J]. Transactions in GIS, 2004,8(1) : 63--81.

同被引文献44

引证文献5

二级引证文献8

;
使用帮助 返回顶部