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

Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au
Wed Oct 7 00:09:13 EDT 2009


SamplingFeatureRelation can only relate one sa:SamplingFeature to another sa:SamplingFeature.  Mines and MineralOccurrences are not sa:SamplingFeatures, so can’t use the SamplingFeatureRelation.

Cheers,
Ollie


-----Original Message-----
From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au [mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au
Sent: Wednesday, 7 October 2009 3:06 PM
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Cc: Sircombe Keith; Lane Richard; Mernagh Terry; Evans Neal
Subject: Re: [Auscope-geosciml] Proposed GeologicSpecimen amendments following Quebec [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]


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<http://www.ga.gov.au/geoscience/national>

Google Map<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>

-- 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

㓽‑[1]ȳ{ch'‑SLSN˲9CC⎅����G񎵱N5;"ͭ8ԟiǀ&Nzfݪ|֜gɚɊ'w讦텫bڕʧ~'^ؚez*kzjw(*ₛ㓔㓽‑[1]کjh~+luz趧‑uZם(kƭy߅8ԅ8ԟiǀ&«a뭅꫊𮫭zw(ǧ텧(*ₛh·SO񎵿ϼSNȳ{aN57ڱૉH+-Ʝ'&▫razۨr+jwkzj/zǬSO񎵿ϼSM����⪛"ͭ*.ޭ瞊����zf)ޮ+W騶'򶗬zw^z۫隊W^랊׫l2צjw]z˫&Ɋ)똢櫺z-j롢yۨǜi'ꫭ鲢{az)ߢ*'r��޶)톫‑SO󏔣S}‑[1]ʥ4󍴲,ޘ^jǜ{"uꭅ秾*螧)트-+‑SO󏔣S}‑[1]ȳ{oŸԧnʿ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20091007/1946b4d4/attachment.htm>


More information about the GeoSciML mailing list