[Auscope-geosciml] Proposed GeologicSpecimen amendments following Quebec [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Wed Oct 7 00:05:51 EDT 2009

Hi Ollie,
All the proposed changes seem appropriate to me.

Re: Almost all the provenance examples you give (windmill, water bore, 
monitoring bore, RC drill hole, outcrop) are SamplingFeatures and thus can 
be related to the GeologicSpecimen by the generic 
sa:relatedSamplingFeature/SamplingFeatureRelation.  But this doesn’t work 
for relating specimens to non-SamplingFeature features, like a mine site. 
We could use the sa:sampledFeature association like we have already done 
for Specimens -> GeologicUnits.  But I don’t know if this is a good 
solution for mine sites - I’d prefer that EarthResourceML schema model a 
link from EarthResourceML features (like EarthResource or MiningFeature, 
or both) to Boreholes and GeologicSpecimens.  Bruce, what do you think? - 
this would allow you to discover boreholes and specimens from a mineral 
deposit or mine.

Are you saying that the SamplingFeatureRelation can't relate for instance 
er:Mine or er:MineralOccurrence to om:specimen?  I would have thought it 
was no difference to the examples  you list  eg 6. relate a specimen to 
its parent borehole.

Cheers
Bruce

GeoScience Victoria
EARTH RESOURCES DIVISION
Department of Primary Industries
Melbourne, Victoria
AUSTRALIA
Ph: +61-3-9658 4502
Fax: +61-3-9658 4555 
Mobile: +61 429 177155

<Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au> 
Sent by: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au
07/10/2009 01:25 PM
Please respond to
auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au

To
<auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au>
cc
Neal.Evans at ga.gov.au, Keith.Sircombe at ga.gov.au, Terry.Mernagh at ga.gov.au, 
Richard.Lane at ga.gov.au
Subject
[Auscope-geosciml] Proposed GeologicSpecimen amendments following Quebec 
[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Hi Gilly et al,

Following discussions at Quebec, there are a few issues to be addressed 
with the proposed GeologicSpecimen model - mostly they concern the use of 
existing generic O&M/Sampling elements.  I have attached a class diagram 
with notes which summarises the points below.

1.  GeologicSpecimen should be a specialisation of sa:LocatedSpecimen.

2.  If GeologicSpecimen was a specialisation of LocatedSpecimen, it would 
inherit the materialClass property from sa:Specimen, so there is no need 
for a new GeologicSpecimen/materialClass property.

3.  sa:LocatedSpecimen/materialClass is a GenericName (effectively 
ScopedName) which means we can control it with a controlled vocabulary, so 
there is no need for the GeologicSpecimen/materialClass/materialClassCode 
codelist.

In the absence of any scope notes, there is a lack of clarity as to 
exactly what sa:materialClass means.  I prefer that it describes strictly 
only the type of earth material that is being sampled (eg; whole rock, 
mineral, glass, groundmass, sediment, restite, solid inclusion, fluid 
inclusion, melt inclusion, pore water, surface water, vapour, etc). 

Then we can use a new property, called GeologicSpecimenType, to describe 
the gamut of specialised geological specimen types (eg: outcrop specimen, 
float specimen, drill core, rock chips, drilling mud, dredge sample, thin 
section, powder, mineral separate, mineral grain, mineral grain mount, 
probe burn spot, etc)

4.  There was a little confusion at Quebec as to exactly what you meant by 
ProvenanceType (apparently not a widely used terminology globally?). 
Almost all the provenance examples you give (windmill, water bore, 
monitoring bore, RC drill hole, outcrop) are SamplingFeatures and thus can 
be related to the GeologicSpecimen by the generic 
sa:relatedSamplingFeature/SamplingFeatureRelation.  But this doesn’t work 
for relating specimens to non-SamplingFeature features, like a mine site. 
We could use the sa:sampledFeature association like we have already done 
for Specimens -> GeologicUnits.  But I don’t know if this is a good 
solution for mine sites - I’d prefer that EarthResourceML schema model a 
link from EarthResourceML features (like EarthResource or MiningFeature, 
or both) to Boreholes and GeologicSpecimens.  Bruce, what do you think? - 
this would allow you to discover boreholes and specimens from a mineral 
deposit or mine.

5.  The new GeologicSpecimenParent class is not needed.  The generic 
sa:relatedSamplingFeature/SamplingFeatureRelation/../Specimen handles this 
already, with role = “parent specimen”.

6.  The property GeologicSpecimenParent/preparation is also not needed 
because it is already handled by sa:Specimen/samplingMethod.  For example, 
your example of “parent sample is split in three” is handled by using a 
sa:Specimen/samplingMethod = “one-third sample split of parent specimen”. 
Sampling methods should be modelled as extensions of the existing 
ProcessModel class.

So, in summary, only one extra class (GeologicSpecimen) and one property 
(GeologicSpecimenType) are needed.

Could I have comments (agree or disagree) from everyone as soon as 
possible please so I can get the GeologicSpecimen package bedded down for 
GSML v3 beta.

Thanks,
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
Google Map 

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

 _______________________________________________
Auscope-geosciml mailing list
Auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20091007/ba0b95c9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GeologicSpecimen (ammendments).jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 227703 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20091007/ba0b95c9/attachment.jpg>