[Auscope-geosciml] Composition Category [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Simon Cox simon.cox at jrc.ec.europa.eu
Wed Aug 19 02:20:02 EDT 2009


Ollie suggested: 
> 2.  The vocabulary be restructured into several separate vocabularies so
that the classification system (ie: chemical, mineralogical, sedimentary
etc) can be adequately reflected in the codespace. 
 
This is not such a good idea. If you want to add some additional semantics,
then either the 'compositionCategory' element should be split into different
kinds of composition category, or an additional paramter must be added. Its
not good to overload the codeSpace string, which also requires
micro-parsing. 
 

--------------------------------------------------------
Simon Cox

European Commission, Joint Research Centre, 
Institute for Environment and Sustainability, 
Spatial Data Infrastructures Unit, TP 262 
Via E. Fermi, 2749, I-21027 Ispra (VA), Italy 
Tel: +39 0332 78 3652
Fax: +39 0332 78 6325
 <mailto:simon.cox at jrc.ec.europa.eu> mailto:simon.cox at jrc.ec.europa.eu 
 <http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/simon-cox>
http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/simon-cox 

SDI Unit:  <http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ 
IES Institute:  <http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
JRC:  <http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

--------------------------------------------------------

 

  _____  

From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au
[mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of
Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au
Sent: Wednesday, 19 August 2009 05:48
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Cc: Linda.Bibby at dpi.vic.gov.au
Subject: [Auscope-geosciml] Composition Category [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]



Hi all,

 

Food for thought before Quebec, about the structure of the
CompositionCategory attribute and the associated vocabulary...

 

1.  The cardinality of composition category is 0..1 on geologic units and
0..* on earth materials.  Why?  This is inconsistent, and limiting for
geologic units.  

 

                                i.            Example using the CGI
vocabulary: How can I convey that a granite unit is both "Peralkaline" and
"High silica chemistry", or a sedimentary unit is "Polymictic" and
"Carbonate-bearing"?  

 

                               ii.            Example using other
vocabularies: How can I convey that a granite unit is "calc-alkaline",
"strongly fractionated", "high K2O", and "high silica"?

 

Currently to do this, I have to encode an earth material associated with a
unit, but that begs the question.... if I have to encode an earth material
to do this, why have CompositionCategory on GeologicUnit at all?

 

2.  The vocabulary contains several non-exclusive composition category
concepts - chemical (including specific igneous classifiers and more generic
classifiers), mineralogical, and sedimentary petrological.  In a WFS, a user
could not tell which of these classification systems is being used because
several different classification systems are included within this one
"codespace".  This also potentially leads to mixed type compositional data
being delivered in a WFS within a single GeoSciML element.

 

I propose that:

 

1.  The cardinality of CompositionCategory be changed to 0..* on
GeologicUnits

 

2.  The vocabulary be restructured into several separate vocabularies so
that the classification system (ie: chemical, mineralogical, sedimentary
etc) can be adequately reflected in the codespace. 

 

          eg: something like

 

<gsml:compositionCategory>

    <gsml:CGI_TermValue>

        <gsml:value
codeSpace="urn:cgi:classifierScheme:CGI:CompositionCategory_chemical:200811
">carbonate chemistry</gsml:value> 

    </gsml:CGI_TermValue>

</gsml:compositionCategory>

 

or

 

<gsml:compositionCategory>

    <gsml:CGI_TermValue>

        <gsml:value
codeSpace="urn:cgi:classifierScheme:CGI:CompositionCategory_mineralogical:20
0811 ">mafic</gsml:value> 

    </gsml:CGI_TermValue>

</gsml:compositionCategory>

 

or

 

<gsml:compositionCategory>

    <gsml:CGI_TermValue>

        <gsml:value
codeSpace="urn:cgi:classifierScheme:GA:CompositionCategory_fractionation:200
9 ">strongly fractionated</gsml:value> 

    </gsml:CGI_TermValue>

</gsml:compositionCategory>

 

or

 

<gsml:compositionCategory>

    <gsml:CGI_TermValue>

        <gsml:value
codeSpace="urn:cgi:classifierScheme:GA:CompositionCategory_graniteType:2009
">A-type</gsml:value> 

    </gsml:CGI_TermValue>

</gsml:compositionCategory>

 

Cheers,

Ollie

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------

Ollie Raymond
National Advice,  Maps and Standards Project

Geoscience Australia

 

Address: GPO Box 378, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia | ABN: 80 091 799 039

Ph: (02) 62499575 | Fax: (02) 62499992 | Email: Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au 

Web:
<http://www.ga.gov.au/minerals/research/national/nat_maps/nat_geol_maps.jsp>
http://www.ga.gov.au/minerals/research/national/nat_maps/nat_geol_maps.jsp
<http://www.ga.gov.au/geoscience/national> 

 
<http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=canberra+australia&ie=UTF8
&ll=-35.344028,149.158362&spn=0.007684,0.016404&t=h&z=17&iwloc=addr&om=1>
Google Map 

 

-- This message was created with 100% recycled electrons --

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20090819/bf87bf3d/attachment.htm>


More information about the GeoSciML mailing list