![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Return to Geographic Data Modeling It is well-documented in the literature that geographic data have special characteristics that make the use of extensions to standard modeling languages and techniques, such as the Unified Modeling Language, attractive. Based on a real-world application from the Danish National Survey and Cadastre, this paper presents requirements to geographic data modeling notations. Existing notations are then evaluated against the requirements, and a case study is carried out. The result is an identification of pertinent aspects of geographic data modeling---including roles of geographic objects, constraints on objects, and quality of data---that are not handled satisfactorily by existing proposals. ![]() DiSC'02 © 2003 Association for Computing Machinery |