3.8 Proceedings Paper

Unlocking Textual Content from Historical Maps - Potentials and Applications, Trends, and Outlooks

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG BERLIN
DOI: 10.1007/978-981-10-4859-3_11

关键词

Digital map processing; Text recognition; Optical character recognition; Historical maps; Geographic information system; Natural science; Social science; Biology; Spatial humanity

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [IIS-1564164]
  2. University of Southern California under the Undergraduate Research Associates Program (URAP)
  3. U.S. National Committee (USNC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Digital map processing has been an interest in the image processing and pattern recognition community since the early 80s. With the exponential growth of available map scans in the archives and on the internet, a variety of disciplines in the natural and social sciences grow interests in using historical maps as a primary source of geographical and political information in their studies. Today, many organizations such as the United States Geological Survey, David Rumsey Map Collection, OldMapsOnline.org, and National Library of Scotland, store numerous historical maps in either paper or scanned format. Only a small portion of these historical maps is georeferenced, and even fewer of them have machine-readable content or comprehensive metadata. The lack of a searchable textual content including the spatial and temporal information prevents researchers from efficiently finding relevant maps for their research and using the map content in their studies. These challenges present a tremendous collaboration opportunity for the image processing and pattern recognition community to build advance map processing technologies for transforming the natural and social science studies that use historical maps. This paper presents the potentials of using historical maps in scientific research, describes the current trends and challenges in extracting and recognizing text content from historical maps, and discusses the future outlook.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据