摘要
GIS理论发展到现在逐渐显现出其在理论上的缺陷,GIS的用户正在经历着GIS系统缺乏真实的、潜在的行为解释。用户有着越来越强烈的需求,希望能在系统的用户界面能解释现状和预测未来的发展,进行这个方面的理论研究就显得非常有意义了。现有的关于用户界面问题的文献似乎都在反复告诉我们,在使用系统的过程中,用户有着极大的需要来使得观察和预期一致,并且这种需求经常是不被满足的。事实上有关用户建立系统智能模块的研究已经证实,用户发展了理论(或者模型)来满足这个需要。这种情况让我们想起Thomas Kuhn科学历史上的程序的确定,新鲜的理论总会在常规问题解决行动失败后自然出现。
当用户碰到理论时,怎样帮助他们与空间信息处理之间进行理解和交流,如何将他们看到的和期望的统一起来成为亟待解决的问题。显然这些理论不会成为数据模型和数据结构下面的抽象和复杂的架构。更准确的说应该提供用户一整套直观且易懂的理念,从而生成一个尽可能在使用上简便而不简陋的系统。
本文主张隐喻正好弥补了这种用户标准的理论不足。它们提供了需要的解释性的力量来映射被执行的标准理论及其一系列相关的熟悉的理论。笔者列举了一些在可视化空间查询领域已有的且促进其发展的查询语言,并分析了它们的局限性,接着引入了时空的概念模型,提出了基于隐喻思维的和友好用户界面的GIS可视化查询设计
论文主要从以下几个方面进行研究：
(1)隐喻、语言学、地图学之间的关系。
隐喻(metaphor)作为语言学中的一种修辞手段,一直为人们所关注,是哲学家和语言学家研究的一个热点。隐喻是指我们用较熟悉的、具体的概念去理解、思维和感知抽象的、难以直接理解的概念,其方式就是把源域的结构映射到目标域上,这样的映射是在两个不同的认知域之间实现的,其基础就是经验。隐喻的实质就是通过另一类事物来经历和理解某一类事物。人类对空间的认知,必然映射到自然语言中,其听觉表现为语音,其视觉表现为文字。一直以来,地图是空间信息和自然语言两大符号系统进行信息交换的重要媒介之一,被看作是一种表达空间信息的二维语言。
(2)地图符号的隐喻实质。
随着生产水平的发展和人类对自然与社会环境认识的不断深入,地图上需要表示的客观事物愈来愈多,形象的画法逐渐地难以满足这个需要,再加上数学与测量学的发展,使得地图的表示方法从写景向具有一定数学基础的水平投影的符号方向发展,由此地图表示的内容具有了精确定位的可能。进而又出现了将只能反映客观事物的个体符号向分类、分级方向发展,使地图符号具有了隐喻的实质,即用抽象的具有共性的符号来表示某一类(级)客观事物。由于语言学与符号学具有天然的联系,因而反映在理论地图学中,地图符号学(Carto-semiotics)和地图语言学(Carto-linguistics)两个概念均被引用。不同的地图学家出于不同的研究目的和理念,交替使用它们。Head(1999)这样区别,”地图符号学是采用一些符号学学派的理论取向的地图研究方法,而地图语言学是由语言学思考激发的方法。”对客观事物进行归纳、分类分级后而制订的概念化了的抽象的地图符号,实质上是对客观事物的一次隐喻,这是地图隐喻的基础。地图符号的形成过程,可以说是一种约定过程,任何符号都是在社会上被一定的社会集团所承认和共同遵守的,在某种程度上具有”法定”的意义,正如隐喻是基于用户已有的经验,对世界的认知和得到的培训。尤其是普通地图上所使用的符号已经过很长时间的检验,由约定而达到俗成的程度,为广大用图者所熟悉和承认。
(3)隐喻思维在空间认知领域的作用。
在开拓语言和认知的深度和广度方面,隐喻起到了我们过去没有充分认识到的重要作用。隐喻的作用是在人们用语言思考所感知的物质世界和精神世界时,能从原先互不相干的不同事物、概念和语言表达中发现相似点,建立想象极其丰富的联系。这不是一个量的变化,而是认识上的质的飞跃。新的关系、新的事物、新的观点、新的语言表达方式由是而生,这是难以用规则描写的。隐喻的基础并不是实现存在于两个事物的相似性,也不是在于新事物的命名更不是语言形式的雕饰,而是帮助思维。隐喻思维是与隐喻的形成和理解相关的,是一种大脑的思维过程；由于缺乏清晰的类别概念和抽象的概念语言,人类在能动的认识世界的过程中,只能用已知或熟悉事物的具体意象来表达抽象事物或者新鲜经验,而两类事物间的联系是通过相似性比较和联想来发现它们感性现象之间的某种相似性,从而建立起来的,不同的事物和经验能够凭借偶然的契机相互联系。
(4)空间信息表达中隐喻思维的应用。
对于隐喻在常规的语言和思维方面的作用已经被认知语言学家所理解和发展起来,在这种观点之下,隐喻在人机交互中的作用就是提供一个一致的结构给计算机域,源域必须产生适当的本体论,即一套用户标准理论。隐喻对于信息的传达不是一个随意的修饰,而是在我们的认知方面起到了非常核心的作用,不仅仅表现在语言方面,更加表现在思维和行动方面。如果我们按照这个方式来理解界面隐喻,它就会成为任何用户界面的实质成分和主要的设计考虑因素,而不是那些图像表示方法处理的界面标准问题。隐喻起到了创造性的作用,通过建立与用户标准相一致的、用户熟悉的系统观念,隐喻担任了感官制造者的角色。这样一来这种隐喻的观点对于用户来说就是一种创造性的理论。随着用户界面隐喻理论的出现,桌面隐喻现在都是支配大部分工作站和个人电脑的用户界面的必须要素。这些理论吸引了设计师和用户的注意力,具有十分重要的作用,特别是隐喻对于电脑系统的可用性。隐喻研究的这种新的观点有着非常惊人的创造能力,它就是创造合适的用户标准的理论的基础。在信息系统的使用中,用户与系统的交互都是经过系统操作界面完成的。因此用户界面的友好性对于系统正常操作、保证系统顺利运行具有十分重要的作用。一个界面隐喻必须与用户进行交流,通常最初是通过可视化手段。界面隐喻对于界面语言来说是一种非常重要的可视化修饰。可视化是”隐喻思维”中信息和功能的自然扩展。而更加直观和高效的交互可视化环境(虚拟地理环境)对于海量复杂空间信息的可视化有着日益显著的意义。空间信息理论除了用来服务设计者和执行者以外,还应该面对系统的用户。空间信息理论作为一种科学理论,是为了寻找除了数学精确性以外的特性,这些特性应该提供更强的用户定位。
近年来一些面向应用的人员不断发展地理信息系统,这就是为什么可视化查询在今天显得越来越重要的原因。人们也提出了许多可视化查询的方法或者浏览时空数据的方法。但是由于地理数据库本身表现出来的时空上的连续性,可视化语言必须要综合时间数据处理。笔者提出了基于实例查询思维的针对时空数据的可视化语言。查询通过预先设定的图标的方法来完成,图标绘制了空间和时间对象和算子。在文中笔者应用气球框和锚的可视化隐喻来表达空间和时间标准。在陈述了地理数据库可视化查询的相关技术后,定义了一种时空模型,阐述可视化语言及其使用者。在本文中笔者提出的这种用户友好界面的查询语言,基于实例查询的理论基础,是在可视化语言Cigales的基础上的扩展的一个时空信息系统。笔者专注于语言的扩展来处理时空查询的必要性,所以提出这种时空模型。一方面,这种模型包括时空对象的定义,另一方面包括了空间、时间和时空查询类的定义。也将例如图标、气球框和锚类的可视化隐喻,与查询的可视化表达作为一个整体一并提出。最后陈述了系统的结构设计和用户界面语言并通过实例进行了说明。
As GIS theories developing by this time, its theoretic limitation is gradually emerging. GIS users are suffering from a big trouble, GIS system's lacking of true and potential behavior interpretation. Users have more and more requirement to explain actuality and forecast the future in system's user interface. So we do some study in this field seems very meaningful. Existing literatures about user interface appeared to repeat us a story, when using the system, users have huge need to consist observation and anticipation while the need is not often satisfied.
In fact studies about users building system aptitude module have validated, users developed theories (or module) to satisfy the need. This situation makes us to think of procedure confirmation in Thomas Kuhn scientific history, fresh theory always emerged after the failure of general problem solutions.
When users come up with theories, how to help them with understanding and communication with spatial information processing and how to consist what they see with their anticipant are problems we must handle with. Obviously, these theories will not be abstract and complicated frame of data module and date structure. In exact words, we should supply users with a whole set of theories which are direct and easy to understand to build a system which is easy to use but not rough.
In this thesis the author proposed that metaphors remedy the deficiency of user's criterion theory. They provide needed interpreting power to map executed criterion theory and a set of correlative familiar theories. The author enumerate some languages which existed in this field and promoted its development, analysis their limitation, then import temporal-spatial conception module, present a GIS visual inquerying based on friendly user's interface.
The thesis's study consists of following parts:
(1) Relations between Metaphor, Linguistics, and Cartography
Metaphor as a rhetoric means is always paid much attention on. It's a hotspot of philosophers'and linguistics'research. Metaphor is using our familiar concrete concept to understand, think and apperceive concepts which are abstract, difficult to straightly understand. The mode is mapping the structure in origin area to object area. This mapping is realized in two different cognitive areas, the base is experience. The essence of metaphor is experiencing and understanding a kind of business by another kind of business. Human's cognition about the space must map into natural languages, its audition appeared as speech, and vision appeared as words. At all times, map is one of the most important mediations for exchanging information between two symbol systems-spatial information and natural languages. It is a 2 dimensional language presenting spatial information.
(2) Metaphor essence for map symbols
As production level is developing and people's recognition to nature and social environment is getting increasingly deeper, objective things that need to be expressed on the map is more and more, visual drawing is getting hard to satisfy the requirement. And mathematics and surveying are developing, methods on map expression develop from drawing landscape to symbols that of certain mathematic basement. So the content that expressed in the map can be accurately located. After that individual symbol that reflect objective things developed to classification, which makes map symbols have metaphor essence. That is using abstract and much in common symbols to express a certain kind (or class) of objective things. As a result of natural connection between linguistics and semiotics, both Carto-semiotics and Carto-linguistics two concepts are cited in theoretical cartography. Different cartographers of different research intention and thought alternately use them. Head (1999) distinguished them like this: "Cartographic semiotics is a research method for cartography using some semiotic theories, and cartographic linguistics is exploded from linguistics thinking." Concluding, classifying objective things and then formulating abstract and conceptual cartographic symbols is a metaphor to objective things, this is the base of map metaphor. The forming procession of map symbols is an assumed procession. Any symbol is admitted and abided by some social group; it has legal meaning in a way. Just as metaphor is based on users existing experience, recognition to the world and gotten training. Especially that symbols in common maps have been checked for a long time, they are familiar with common users.
(3) Function of metaphor thinking in spatial cognition fields
In aspects of the depth and breadth of developing language and cognitive, metaphor has played a important role we had not fully recognized before. When people think the material world and the spiritual world with language perception, the role of metaphor is finding similarities from the original separate things, concepts and language and establishing extremely rich imagination. This is not a quantitative change, but a qualitative leap in understanding. New relationships, new things, new ideas and new language are born by the way, which is difficult to describe the rules. The basis of metaphor is not the similarity of two things, is not naming the new thing, nor is the decoration of language forms, but to help thinking. In summary, the metaphor is the thinking processes of formation of metaphor and understanding in the brain; specifically, in the process of cognitive of the world, due to the lack of clear categories concepts and abstract concept language, people can express new things, new experiences only by specific imagery of the known things, the link between the two types of things is established by finding some similarity between their perceptual phenomenon by analog and association of ideas, different things, experience and the phenomenon can contact each other with the opportunity.
(4) Application of metaphor thinking in spatial information expression
Metaphor's function in language and thinking has been understood and developed by cognitive linguistics. Under this opinion, metaphor's function in human-machine alternation is to supply a consisted structure to computer area; original area must produce proper ontology-a set of user criterion theories. For information communication, metaphor is not just a casual decoration, it of center importance to our cognition not only in language but also in thinking and action. If we understand metaphor in this mode, it will be essential part and major considering factor to any user's interface. The function of metaphor is creative, by building system concepts which are consisted with user's criterion and familiar to users, metaphors play a part of sense creator. By the emerging of user's interface metaphor, desktop metaphor is a necessary part of most workstation and personal computer's users'interface. These theories that metaphor studies on have surprising creativities, they are the base to create proper user's priority theory. When using information systems, user and system's interaction is finished by system operation interface. So a friendly users' interface is very important to operate the system and ensure the running of system. An interface metaphor must communicate with users and always by visualizing. Interface metaphor is an important visualizing decoration for interface languages. Visualization is natural extension of information and function under metaphor thinking. Intuitional and effective interactive visualized environment is of increasingly importance to complex and a large amount of date. Spatial information theories should face system's users besides serving designers and executors. Spatial information theory as a scientific theory searches features except for mathematic accuracy. These features must supply stronger user's location.
In recent years, citizen oriented applications have been developed with Geographic Information Systems (GIS). This is the reason why visual querying appears to be crucial. Many approaches for visual querying or browsing spatio-temporal data have been proposed recently. Geographic databases represent a spatio-temporal continuum. This is the reason why visual languages must integrate temporal data handling. We develop a visual language based on a query-by-example philosophy for spatial and temporal data. A query is formulated by means of predefined icons which map spatial and temporal objects and operators. New visual metaphors such as balloons and anchors are proposed in order to express spatial and temporal criteria. After a state of the art of visual querying for geographic databases, we define a spatio-temporal model. The visual language and its user interface are then explained. In the thesis the author proposed a friendly user's interface querying language based on instance querying, and it is an extending spatio-temporal information system based on Cigales. The author proposing this module is absorbed in the necessity of the extension of languages to handle spatio-temporal querying. At one hand, this kind of model included definition of spatio-temporal objects; at the other hand it includes the definition of spatial, temporal and spatio-temporal querying classes. The author also proposed icon, balloon and anchor as visual metaphor along with query visualized expression as a whole. At last, stated system structure design and users'interface languages, explained them with examples and then conclude about our future work.
引文
[1]保罗·利科,活的隐喻,上海：上海译文出版社,2004,02
[2]成军,范畴化及其认知模型,四川外语学院学报,2006,01
[3]杜清运,空间信息的语言学特征及其自动理解机制研究,武汉：武汉大学博士学位论文,2001
[4]冯广艺,2002,汉语比喻研究史,湖北教育出版社
[5]冯晓虎,隐喻思维的基础篇章的框架,对外经济贸易出版社,2004：44
[6]高俊,地理空间数据的可视化,测绘工程,2000,3
[7]胡壮麟,科学理论新发现与语言学新思维[J],外语教学与研究,1999(4)：1-6
[8]胡壮麟,语法·隐喻·认知,现代外语,第4期,1997
[9]胡壮麟,认知隐喻学,北京大学出版社,2004.2
[10]胡明扬,语言和语言学,语文出版社,2004：29-30
[11]黄茂军,杜清运,吴运超,李凤丹,地邻本体及其应用初探,地理与地理信息科学,2004.7
[12]林珲,徐丙立,关于虚拟地理环境研究的几点思考[J],地理与地理信息科学,2007.3
[13]蓝纯,从认知角度看汉语和英语的空间隐喻,外语教学与研究出版社,2003：13
[14]李爱勤,无缝空间数据组织及多比例尺表达和处理研究,武汉：武汉大学博士学位论文,2001
[15]李国南,科技语言中的隐喻,中国科技翻译,第16卷第4期,2003
[16]李胜梅,喻体的假设性,修辞学习,第4期,1997
[17]李红旮,等,地理信息中时空多维数据可视化技术研究,遥感学报,1999,3(2)
[18]刘继岳,哲学与本体论,北京师范大学学报(社会科学版),1996(5)：11-19
[19]若林芳澍,行动地理学之现状和问题,人文地理,1985,37(2)：2-37,52-70
[20]束定芳,隐喻学研究,上海外语教育出版社,2000：29
[21]舒红,等,时空数据模型研究综述,计算机科学,1998,25(6).
[22]涂纪亮,语言哲学比较研究,中国社会科学出版社,1996：238
[23]王希杰,修辞学通论,南京大学出版社,1996：71
[24]王洪刚,杨忠,试论隐喻思维的特点及功能,东北师大学报,第2期(总 第202期),2003
[25]王占馥,思维与语言运用,广东教育出版社,2003：58)
[26]伍铁平,语言与思维关系新探,上海教育出版社,1990。
[27]王晓栋,等,数字地球的时空维实现,地理科学进展,1999,18(2).
[28]肖名丽,隐喻的认知方式及其文化阐释,山东外语教学,第1期(总第78期),2000
[29]俞宣孟,本体论正义,上海社会科学院学术季刊,2000(1)：153-162.
[30]俞吾金,本体论研究的复兴和趋势,浙江学刊,2002(1)：46-52.
[31]约翰·齐曼,知识的力量(译),上海：上海科学技术出版社,1985
[32]曾杰,张树相,社会思维学,人民出版社1996：33
[33]张德,心理学,长春：东北师范大学出版社,1987
[34]张沛,隐喻的生命,北京：北京大学出版社,2004,203
[35]赵艳芳,认知语言学概论,上海外语教育出版社,1991
[36]中国大百科全书·哲学卷,第二册,中国大百科全书出版社1987：828
[37]朱孝岳,艺术设计纵横谈,江西：江西美术出版社,2002：41-46
[38]朱永生,严世清,语法隐喻理论的根据及其贡献,全国第六届功能语法研讨会,复旦大学,1999
[39]朱小安,论隐喻的跨社会文化背景问题,解放军外语学院学报,第2期(总第73期),1995
[40]祝国瑞,地图学,武汉大学出版社,2004
[41]Abrams, M. H.1993. A Glossary of Literary Terms, Fort Worth:Harcourt.
[42]Abler, R.1987. The National Science Foundation National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, Vol. (4),303-326.
[43]Allen J.F.,1983, Maintaining Knowledge about Temporal Intervals, Communications of the ACM, Vol.26, No.11, pp 832-843.
[44]Aristotle. (trans.1991). On rhetoric. A theory of civic discourse (G. Kennedy, Trans.). New York:Oxford University Press.
[45]Ashton, Elizabeth.1994. Metaphor in Context; An Examination of the Significance of Metaphor for Reflection and Communication, Educational Studies,1994 Vol.20(3),357-366
[46]Aufaure, M. A.1995, A High-Level Interface Language for GIS, Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, Academic Press, Vol.6, n°2, pp 167-182.
[47]Aufaure, M. A.,Trepied C., What approach for searching spatial information, Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 12 (4) (2001) 351-373.
[48]Aukstakalnis, S., & Blamer, D. (1992). Silicon Mirage:The Art and Science of Virtual Reality. Peachpit Press.
[49]Beard, K., & Buttenfield, B.1991. Visualization of the Quality of Spatial Data (Position Papers Initiative 7. National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (NCGIA).
[50]Berlin, Brent & Paul Kay.1969. Basic color terms:Their Universality and Evolution, Berkeley:University of California Press
[51]Berlyant, A. M.1994. Theoretical Concepts in Cartography, Mapping Science and Remote Sensing 31/4:279-287
[52]Blakemore, M. J. and Harley, J. B.1980. Concepts in the History of Cartography:A Review and Perspective. Cartographica 17/4(Monograph 26)
[53]Blakemore, M. J. and Harley, J. B.1982. The Authors Reply[to reviewers' comments on Concepts in the History of Cartography] Cartographica 19/1:77-96
[54]Bittner T, Smith B.A taxonomy of granular partitions. DANIEL M. Spatial Information Theory, Proceedings of COSIT 2001. Berlin/New York: Springer,2001.28-43.
[55]Brossier-Wansek A. & Mainguenaud M.M.,1995, Manipulations of Graphs with a Visual Query Language:Application to a Geographical Information System, Proceedings of VDB-3 (Third Working Conference on Visual Database Systems, IFIP 2.6), Lausanne, Switzerland, pp 227-246.
[56]Calcinelli, D. & Mainguenaud, M.1994, Cigales, a Visual Language for Geographical Information System:the User Interface, Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, vol.5, no.2, pp 113-13.
[57]Card, S.T., Mackinmay, J.D., Shneiderman, B.1999, Readings in Information Visualization:Using Vision to Think, Morgan Kaufmann
[58]Cardenas A. F., Ieong I. T., Taira R. K., Barker R. & Breant C. M.,1993, The Knowledge-Based Object-Oriented PICQUERY+ Language, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol.5, no.4, pp 644-657.
[59]Carroll, J. M., Mack, R. L., & Kellogg, W. A.1988. Interface Metaphors and User Interface Design. In M. Helander [eds.], Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction (pp.67-85). North-Holland:Elsevier Science Publishers.
[60]Catarci, T., Costabile, M.F. & Matera, M.1995 Visual Metaphors for Interacting with Databases, SIGCHI Bulletin (Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction), vol.27, no.2, pp 15-17.
[61]Catarci, T., Costabile, M.F., Cruz, I.F., Ioannidis, Y. & Shneiderman, B.1995, Data Models, Visual Representations, Metaphors:How to Solve the Puzzle?, Proceedings of VDB-3 (Third Working Conference on Visual Database Systems, IFIP 2.6), Lausanne, Switzerland, pp 153-156.
[62]Chang Shi-Kuo. Visual Language:A Tutorial and Survey. IEEE Trans on Software Engineering,1987,13(1):29-39
[63]Chang K., Jungert E., A spatial/temporal query language for multiple data sources in a heterogeneous information system environment, International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 7 (2 & 3) (1998) 167-186.
[64]Chen, C.1999, Information Visualization and Virtual Environments, Springer Verlag
[65]Dangermond, J.1986. GIS Trends and Experiences. In D. F. Marble (Ed.), Second International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, (pp.1-4). Seattle, WA; July 5-10,1986.
[66]Davies, C., & Medyckyj-Scott, D.1993. The USIS Project:Surveying User Opinion on GIS User Interfaces. In J. Harts, H. F. L. Ottens, & H. J. Scholten (Ed.), Proc. EGIS'93, 1(pp.474-483). Genoa, Italy:EGIS Foundation.
[67]Eco, U.1984. Role of the Reader:Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts, Bloomington.
[68]Edwards, D.1990. Discourse and Cognition, Routledge.
[69]Egenhofer, M. J., & Herring, J. R.1991. High-level spatial data structures for GIS. In D. Maguire, D. Rhind, & M. Goodchild (Eds.), Geographic Information Systems:Principles and Applications (pp.227-237). Longman Publishing Co.
[70]Egenhofer, M. J., Herring, Categorizing Binary Topological Relationships between Regions, Lines and Points in Geographic Databases, Technical Report, Department of Surveying Engineering, University of Maine, Orono, ME,1990.
[71]Egenhofer, M, Mark D, Frank A, et al. Naive Geography. Spatial Information Theory:A Theoretical Basis for GIS, Lecture Notes in Computer Sciences. Berlin:Springer—Verlag,1995.1-15.
[72]Egenhofer, M. J. & Richards, J. R.1993 Exploratory Access to Geographic Data Based on the Map-overlay Metaphor, Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, vol.4, pp 105-125.
[73]Egenhofer, M. J.1996, Spatial-Query-by-Sketch, Proceedings of VL'96 (IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages), Boulder, USA, pp 60-67.
[74]Egenhofer, M. J., Spatial SQL:a query and presentation language, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 6(1) (1994) 86-95.
[75]Egenhofer, M., Bruns, T., Visual Map Algebra:a direct-manipulation user interface for GIS, in:Proceedings of the third IFIP 2.6 Working Conference on Visual Database Systems, Lausanne, Switzerland,1995, pp.235-253.
[76]Egenhofer M., Query processing in spatial query by sketch, Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 8 (4) (1997) 403-424.
[77]Factic, Aleksandar.1993. The Inter-dynamic Theory of Metaphor and Applied Psychology, Communication and Cognition,1993, Vol.26(3-4), 249-263
[78]Ferri F., Pourabbas E., Rafanelli M., The syntactic and semantic correctness of pictorial configuration query geographic databases by PQL, in: Proceedings of the 17th ACM Annual Symposium on Applied Computing (ACM SAC2002), Madrid, Spain,2002, pp.432-437.
[79]Ferri F., Massari F., Rafanelli M., A pictorial query language for geographic features in an object-oriented environment, Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 10 (6) (1999) 641-671.
[80]Fonseca F., Ontology-driven Geographic Information Systems. The University of Maine,2001
[81]Forceville, Charles.1994. Pictorial Metaphor in Advertisements, Metaphor and Symbolic Activity,1994, Vol.9(1)1-29
[82]Frank, A. U.1987. Towards a spatial theory. In R. T. Aangeenbrug & Y. M. Schiffman (Ed.), International Geographic Information Systems (IGIS) Symposium:The Research Agenda,Ⅱ. Crystal City, VA, November 15-18: NASA
[83]Frank A. U., Different Types of "Times" in GIS, In:Spatial and Temporal Reasoning in Geographic Information Systems, Eds. M.J. Egenhofer & R.G. Golledge, Oxford University Press,1998, pp 40-62.
[84]Frank, A. U., Campari, I., & Formentini, U. (Ed.).1992. Theories and Methods of Spatio-Temporal Reasoning in Geographic Space. Springer Verlag, Lecture Notes in Computer Science vol.639.
[85]Frank, A. U., & Mark, D. M.1991. Language Issues for Geographical Information Systems. In D. Maguire, D. Rhind, & M. Goodchild (Eds.), Geographic Information Systems:Principles and Applications Longman Publishing Co.
[86]Frank A. U., Spatial ontology:a geographical point of view. Stock O. Spatial and Temporal Reasoning. Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers,1997. 135-153
[87]Gaver, William W.2002. Computer Related Design, Royal College of Art. (gaver@rca-crd.demon.co.uk)
[88]Genter, D. & Nielson, J.1996, The Anti-Mac Interface, Communications of the ACM, vol.39, no.8, pp 70-82.
[89]Gibbs, Heather and Wales, Roger.1990. Psychological Responds to the Concreteness Characteristics of Literal and Metaphoric Expressions, Language and Cognitive Processes, Vol. (5),29-52
[90]Gibbs, Raymand W.1992, Categorization and Metaphor Understanding, Psychological Review, Vol.99(3),572-577
[91]Gibbs, Raymand W.1993. Process and Products in Making Sense of Tropes, in Ortony [ed.] Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge University Press.
[92]Gibbs, Raymand.1994. The Poetics of Mind:Figurative Thought Language and Understanding. Cambridge:CUP
[93]Gluckesberg, S. et al.1982. On Understanding Nonliteral Speech:Can People Ignore Metaphors, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 85-98
[94]Gluckesberg, S. & Keyser, B.1990. Understanding Metaphorical Comparisions:Beyond Similarity, Psychological Review, Vol.97(1),3-18
[95]Gluckesberg, S. et al.1992. Metaphor Understanding and Accessing Conceptual Schema:Reply to Gibbs(1992), Psychological Review, Vol. 99(3),578-581
[96]Gluckesberg, S. & McGlone, M.S. & Manfredi, D.A.1997. Property Attribution in Metaphor Comprehension, Journal of Memory and Language, 36,50-67
[97]Goodchild, M. F., & Gopal, S. (Eds.).1989. Accuracy of Spatial Databases. Bristol:Taylor & Francis.
[98]Gould, M. D., & McGranaghan, M.1990. Metaphor in Geographic Information Systems. In K. Brassel & H. Kishimoto [eds.], Fourth International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, (pp.433-442). Zurich, Switzerland; July 1990.
[99]Goyal, P. K., Egenhofer, M., Consistent Queries over Cardinal Directions across Different Levels of Detail, in:Proceedings of 11th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA'00), Greenwich, London, UK,2000, pp.876-880.
[100]Gregory, Monica E.1993. Metaphor Comprehension:From Literal Truth to Metaphoricity, and Back Again, Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, Vol.8(1),1-21
[101]Grice H. P., Logic and Conversation, In:Syntax and Semantics, Vol.3, Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan. New York:Academic Press 1975,41-58
[102]Gruber T. Toward Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing. Human Computer Studies,1994,43(5/6):907-928.
[103]Guarino N, Giaretta P. Ontologies and knowledge bases:towards a terminological clarification. N Mars. Towards very Large Knowledge Bases. Amsterdam:IOS Press,1995.25-32.
[104]Giinther, O., & Schek, H.-J. (Eds.).1991. Advances in Spatial Databases (Second Symposium, SSD'91, Zurich, Switzerland, August 1991). Springer Verlag.
[105]Haarslev V, Wessel M., Querying GIS with animated spatial sketches, in: Proceedings of IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, Capri, Italy,1997, pp.201-208.
[106]Harding J. Geo-ontology Concepts and Issues. Report of a Workshop on Geo-ontology. Illkley UK,2002. http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/.
[107]Harris, Robert.2001. A Selection of Rhetorical Devices and Literary Terms.
[108]Head, C. G. 1984. The'Map as Natural Language:a Paradigm for Understanding Cartographica 21/1:1-32
[109]Head, C. G.1999. Warp and Woof:Carto-semiotics and Carto-linguistics in the English-language Literature, in:Map Semiotics around the World, ICA Publication
[110]Herring, J., Egenhofer, M. J., & Frank, A. U.1990. Using Category Theory to Model GIS Applications. In K. Brassel & H. Kishimoto (Ed.),4th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling,2 (pp.820-829). Zurich, Switzerland:IGU.
[111]ISO/IEC JTC SC21 N10441, SQL Multimedia and Application Packages, Part 3:Spatial,172pp,1996.
[112]Johnson, Janice.1989. Factors Related to Cross-language Transfer and Metaphor Interpretation in Bilingual Children, Applied Psycholinguistics,10, 157-171
[113]Johnson, Janice.1991. Developmental versus Language-based Factors in Metaphor Interpretation, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol.83(4), 470-483
[114]Johnson, Janice & Rosano, Teresa.1991. Relation of Cognitive Style to Metaphor Interpretation and Second Language Proficiency, Applied Psycholinguistics, Vol.14(2),159-175
[115]Johnson, M.1987. The Body in the Mind:The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
[116]John R.Searl. M. In Metaphor and Thought (Andrew Ortony), Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1979,92-123.
[117]Johnson, Samuel.2000. Samuel Johnson- The Major Works, Oxford: OUP.
[118]Jungert E., Graqula-a visual information-flow query language for a geographical information system, Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 4 (4) (1993) 383-401
[119]Kayser, Boaz.1989. On the Functional Equivalence of Literal and Metaphorical Interpretations in Discourse, Journal of Memory and Language, Vol.28(4),375-385
[120]Kaushik S., Rundensteiner E.A., SVIQUEL:A spatial visual query and exploration language, in:Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA'98), Vienna, Austria, 1998, pp.290-299.
[121]Kaushik S., Rundensteiner E. A., SEE:a spatial exploration environment based on a direct-manipulation paradigm, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 13 (4) (2001) 654-670.
[122]Kitchin R. and Dodge M.2002, There's no there there:Virtual reality, space and geographic visualization. In Fisher P.and Unwin D.(eds.) Virtual Reality in Geography, London:Taylor&Francis,pp.341-361
[123]Kolαcny A.1969. Cartographic Information-A Fundamental Concept and Term in Modern Cartography, Cartographic Journal 6/1:47-49
[124]Kokla M., Kavoouras M., Fusion of top-level and geographical domain ontologies based on context formation and complementarity. International Journal of Geographical Information Science,2001,15(7):679-687.
[125]Kuhn, W.1990. From Constructing Towards Editing Geometry. In ACSM/ASPRS Annual Convention,1 (pp.153-164). Denver, CO; March 18-23,1990.
[126]Kuhn, W.1991. Are Displays Maps or Views? In D. Mark & D. White (Ed.), Tenth International Symposium on Computer-Assisted Cartography (Auto Carto 10), (pp.261-274). Baltimore, MD.
[127]Kuhn, W.1992. Paradigms of GIS Use. In Proc.,5th Int. Symp. on Spatial Data Handling,1 (pp.91-103). Charleston, S.C.
[128]Kuhn, W., & Frank, A. U.1991. A Formalization of Metaphors and Image-Schemas in User Interfaces. In D. M. Mark & A. U. Frank [eds.], Cognitive and Linguistic Aspects of Geographic Space (pp.419-434). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[129]Lakoff G. & Johnson M. Metaphors We Live by. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press,1980
[130]Lakoff G.1988. Cogitive Semantics, in Eco, U. & Santambrogio, M. & Violi, P. [eds.] Meaning and Mental Representations, Indiana University Press
[131]Lakoff George.1993. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor, in Ortony[ed.] Metaphor and Thought(2nd ed.), Cambridge:CUP
[132]Lakoff George and Turner, Mark.1989. More than Cool Reason:A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor, The University of Chicago Press
[133]Lakoff G. Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge University Press,1993
[134]Lakoff George, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, University Of Chicago Press,1987,292,368,371
[135]Lee, Y.C., Chin, F.L., An Iconic Query Language for Topological Relationships in GIS. IJGIS,1995,9(1):24-46
[136]Lin H., and Gong J.H.2002, Distributed Virtual Environments for Managing Country Parks in Hong Kong-A Case Study of the Shing Mun Country Park, Photo grammetric Engineering& Remote Sensing,68(4):369-377
[137]Lin H., Gong J.H. and Shi J.J.2003, From Maps to GIS and VGE:A discussion on the Evolution of the Geographic Language, Geography and Geo-Information Science,19(4):18-23.(in Chinese)
[138]Lolise, G. L., Biolsk, K, et al. A Classification of Visual Representations. Communication of ACM,1994,37(12):36-45
[139]Luebke D.,et al.2003, Level of Detail for 3D Graphics, Morgan Kauf-mann Publishers, San Francisco, pp.390
[140]Lyons J. Semantics. Cambridge University Press,1977
[141]Lyutyy A. A.1998. Cartography on the Eve of A New Millennium, Mapping Science and Remote Sensing,35/3:155-165
[142]MacEachren, A.M., Brewer, I., Cai, G., and Chen, J.2003, Visually-Enabled Geocollaboration to Support Data Exploration and Decision-Making. International Cartographic Conference, Durban, South Africa, pp.394-401
[143]Mainguenaud, M. & Portier, M. A.1990, CIGALES:a Graphical Query Language for Geographical Information Systems, Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, Zurich, Switzerland, pp 393-404.
[144]Mark D. M.1992. Spatial Metaphors for Human-Computer Interaction, Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling, Charleston, South Carolina, USA, pp 104-112.
[145]Mark D. M., Freksa C, Hirtle C, et al,1999. Cognitive Model of Geographical Space. International Journal of Geographic Information Science,13(8):747-774
[146]Mark, D. M., & Frank, A. U. (Eds.).1991. Cognitive and Linguistic Aspects of Geographic Space. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[147]Mark, D. M., Frank, A. U., Kuhn, W., & Willauer, L.1992. NCGIA Research Initiative 13, Report on the Specialist Meeting:User Interfaces for Geographic Information Systems. Technical Report 92-3. NCGIA Santa Barbara.
[148]Mark D.M., Egenhofer M., Hornsby K. Formal Models of Commonsense Geographic Worlds. Report on the Specialist Meeting of Research Initiative 21 Sephta Barbara, CA:National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis.1997, Report 97-2.1
[149]Mark, D.M., Gould, M., Interaction with geographic information:a commentary, Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 57 (11) 1991,1427-1430.
[150]Morrison J.1974. A Theoretical Framework for Cartographic Generalization with Emphasis on the Process of Symbolism, International Yearbook of Cartography 14:115-127
[151]MacCormac, Earl R.1985/1989. Cognitive Theory of Metaphor, MIT Press
[152]Mendelson, E.1964. Introduction to Mathematical Logic. D. Van Nostrand.
[153]Meyer, B.1992, Beyond Icons:Towards New Metaphors for Visual Query Languages for Spatial Information Systems, Proceedings of the first International Workshop on Interfaces to Database Systems, Ed. R. Cooper, Springer-Verlag 1993, Glasgow, UK, pp 113-135.
[154]Mullet J. C.1981. Bertin's Theory of Graphics:A Challenge to North American Thematic Cartography. Cartographica 18/3:1-8
[155]Muscari, Paul. G.1992. A Plea for the Poetic Metaphor, Journal of Mind and Behavior, Vol.13(3),233-245
[156]M.J. Egenhofer & J.R. Richards (1993) Exploratory Access to Geographic Data Based on the Map-overlay Metaphor, Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, vol. (4),105-125.
[157]Negroponte, N.1989. An Iconoclastic View beyond the Desktop Metaphor. International Journal on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. (1), 109-113.
[158]Nelson, T. H.1990. The Right Way to Think about Software Design. In B. Laurel [eds.], The Art of Human-Computer Interface Design (pp. 235-243). Addison-Wesley.
[159]Nielsen J, Usability Engineering, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 1994. Norman, D. A.1988. The Design of Everyday Things. Doubleday.
[160]Norman, D. A., & Draper, S. W.1986. User Centered System Design-New Perspectives in Human-Machine Interaction. Hillsdale NJ.:Lawrence Erlbaum.
[161]Onishi, Kristine H. et al.1993. Metaphoric Reference:When Metaphors Are Not Understood as Easily as Literal Expressions, Memory and Cognition, Nov 21(6),763-772
[162]Onsrud, H., & Masser, I. (Ed.).1992. Diffusion and Use of Geograph & Information Technolog&s. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[163]Oosterom, P. v., & Bos, J. v. d.1989. An Object-Oriented Approach to the Design of Geographic Information Systems. Computers & Graphics, 13(4),409-418.
[164]OpenGIS, Simple Features Specification for SQL—Revision 1.1,1999, Open GIS Consortium Inc., http://www.opengis.org/techno/specs/99-049.pdf.
[165]Owen, P. K. (1993). Dynamic Function Triggers in an on-line Topology Environment. In J. Harts, H. F. L. Ottens, & H. J. Scholten (Ed.), EGIS'93,2 (pp.1249-1256). Genoa, Italy:EGIS Foundation.
[166]Pearson, Barbara Z.1990. The Comprehension of Metaphor by Preschool Children, Journal of Child Language, Vol.17(1),185-203
[167]Peuquet, D.J.2002, Representations of space and time, New York: Guilford Press,380 p
[168]Portier M. A. A., Bonhomme C., A high level visual language for spatial data management, in:Proceedings of Visual'99, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 1999, pp.325-332.
[169]Pylshyn, Zenon W.1980. Computation and Cognition:Issues in the Foundation of Cognitive Science, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences,3
[170]Read, Dent & Cathy H.1993. Where do Metaphors Come from? Special Issue:Metaphor and Visual Rhetoric, Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, Vol. 8(3),227-242
[171]Ratasjki L.1975. Some Aspect of the Grammar of Map Language in Terms of Cartographic Communication, First International Symposium on Cartographic Communication
[172]Richards, I. A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric, Oxford University Press, 1967:92
[173]Rosch, Eleanor.1974. Linguistic Relativity, in Human Communication, A. Silverstein [ed.] New York:Halsted Press
[174]Shekhar, S., Chawla, S., Ravada, S., Fetterer, A., Liu, X., C.-T. Lu, Spatial databases-accomplishments and research needs, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 11(1) (1999) 45-55
[175]Schlichtmann, H.1979. Codes in Map Communication, The Canadian Cartographer 16/1:81-97
[176]Schlichtmann, H.1994. Map Symbolism Revisited—Units, Order, and Contents, in:Pravda J. et al.1994. Cartographic Thinking and Map Semiotics, Geographia Slovaca 5,47-62
[177]Schlichtmann, H.1999. An Inventory of Research in Map Semiotics, In: Map Semiotics around the World, ICA Publication
[178]Schlichtmann, H.1985. Characteristic Traits of the Semiotic System 'Map Symbolism', Cartographic Journal 22/1:29-30
[179]Sebillo M., Tortora G, Vitiello G, The metaphor GIS query language, Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 11 (4) (2000) 439-454.
[180]Shepherd, J. W., Masser, I., Blakemore, M., & Rhind, D. W.1989. The ESRC's regional research laboratories:An alternative approach to NCGIA? In E. Anderson (Ed.), Auto-Carto 9, (pp.764-774). Baltimore, MA:ASPRS & ACSM.
[181]Smith, D. C. S., Irby, C., Kimball, R., Verplank, B., & Harslam, E.1982. Designing the Star User Interface. BYTE, p.242-282.
[182]Smith B, Mark D. Ontology and geographic kinds. Poiker T, Chrisman N. Proceedings 8th International Symposiumon Spatial Data Handling (SDH'98). International Geographical Union, Vancouver,1998.308-320
[183]Smith B, Mark D. Ontology with human subjectstesting:an empirical investigation of geographic categories. American Journal of Economics and Sociology,1999,58(2):245-272.
[184]Traynor C., Williams M.G., A study of end-user programming for geographic information systems, in:Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop on Empirical Studies of Programmers, Alexandria, Virginia, USA,1997, pp. 140-156.
[185]Traynor C., Putting power in the hands of end users:a study of programming by demonstration, with an application to geographical information systems, in:Proceedings of Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 98), Los Angeles, California, USA,1998, pp. 68-69.
[186]Tschritzis, D. and Klug, A.1975.Th e A NSI/X3/SPARC DBMS Framework Report of the Study Group on Database Management Systems. A FIPS Press, Montvale, N J
[187]Turbayne, Colin Murray,1970. The Myth of Metaphor, Columbia, South Carolina:University of South Carolina Press
[188]T. Catarci, M. F. Costabile & M. Matera.1995. Visual Metaphors for Interacting with Databases, SIGCHI Bulletin (Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction), vol.27, no.2, pp 15-17.
[189]T. Catarci, M.F. Costabile, I.F. Cruz, Y. Ioannidis & B. Shneiderman. 1995. Data Models, Visual Representations, Metaphors:How to Solve the Puzzle? Proceedings of VDB-3 (Third Working Conference on Visual Database Systems, IFIP 2.6), Lausanne, Switzerland, pp 153-156.
[190]Voisard, A.1995, Mapgets:A Tool for Visualizing and Querying Geographic Information, Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, vol.6, no.4, pp 367-384.
[191]Vosniadou, Stella.1989. Context and the Development of Metaphor Comprehension, Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, Vol.4(3),159-171
[192]Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 3rd Edition, Merriam-Webster,2002
[193]Werner Kuhn, Metaphors Create Theories for Users, Spatial Information Theory A Theoretical Basis for GIS, Lectures Notes in Computer Science, Volume 716/1993
[194]Wessel M., Haarslev V., VISCO:Bringing Visual Spatial Querying to Reality, in:Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, Nova Scotia, Canada,1998, pp.170-177.
[195]Wheelwritht, P.1962. Metaphor and Reality, Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press
[196]Williams, Whitney, et al.1992.Metaphor Production in Creative Writing, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, Vol.21(6),497-509
[197]Wilhelm von Humboldt, On Language:On the Diversity of Human Language Construction and its Influence on the Mental Development of the Human Species, Cambridge University, U.K.1988
[198]Youngblut C., Johnson R. E., Nash S. H., Wien Wilkinson, L.1999.The Grammar of Graphics. New York:Springer. claw R.A.,and Will C.A.1996, Review of Virtual Environment Interface Technology, http://www.hitl.washington.edu/scivw/IDA/
[199]Ziegler, J.,&, Fahrich K. P. (1988). Direct Manipulation. In'M. Helander (Eds.), Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction (pp.123-133). North-Holland:Elsevier Science Publishers.
[200]Zloof M. M., Query-by-example:a database language, IBM Systems Journal 16 (4) (1977) 324-343.