[Auscope-geosciml] GeologicSpecimen (Which O&M version for GeoSciML - a follow up) [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Mon Oct 19 22:55:38 EDT 2009

Perhaps an O&M oversight?  The use case is valid, but can it be obtained 
from 'ProcessModel' (OM_Process)?

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
20/10/2009 01:02 PM
Please respond to
auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au

To
<auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au>
cc

Subject
[Auscope-geosciml] GeologicSpecimen (Which O&M version for GeoSciML - a 
follow up) [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Hi Bruce

My use case for including GeologicSpecimen/geologicSpecimenType is for 
finding specific specimen types, like thin sections, core samples, or 
probe spots.  There is no equivalent “specimen type” attribute in 
sa:Specimen.  I suppose you could infer specimen types from 
samplingMethod, but I’d rather not.  Is my use case useful?

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: Tuesday, 20 October 2009 12:40 PM
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [Auscope-geosciml] Which O&M version for GeoSciML - a follow 
up [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

My point is that there is nothing special about geological specimens that 
distinguishes them from other specimens, so why specialise? 

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 

<Guillaume.Duclaux at csiro.au> 
Sent by: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au 
20/10/2009 12:26 PM 

Please respond to
auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au

To
<auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au> 
cc

Subject
Re: [Auscope-geosciml] Which O&M version for GeoSciML - a        follow   
up        [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Hi guys, 

Bruce, couple of emails have been exchanged on the mailing list in regards 
of the GeologicSpecimen model. 
The discussion isn't resolved but as Ollie addressed the cardinality issue 
I pointed out in my last message, this new version sounds fine with me. 

Also, Ollie gave a clear definition of the geologicSpecimenType property 
he defined in the model. 

Cheers 

Gilly 

________________________________________________ 

Dr Guillaume Duclaux 
Structural Geologist /  Modeller 
CSIRO Exploration and Mining 
Visiting address: ARRC, 26 Dick Perry Av., Kensington WA 6151 
Postal address: PO Box 1130, Bentley WA 6102, Australia 
Ph: + 61 8 6436 8728    Fax: + 61 8 6436 8555    Web: www.csiro.au 

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: Tuesday, 20 October 2009 8:50 AM
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [Auscope-geosciml] Which O&M version for GeoSciML - a follow 
up [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Hi Ollie, 
I'm happy with the change. 

However, was the discussion with Guillame regarding the need for 
GeologicSpecimen resolved? 

The latest .eap model looks like it has replaced Gilly's classes with just 
two GeologicSpecimen and SamplingProcess. I don't recall discussion on 
this decision.  Is therea TWiki page where it is documented? 

I question the need for the GeologicSpecimen class. 

1. As GeologicSpecimen a specialisation of Specimen,  why does 
materialClass need to be specialised?   
2. GeologicSpecimenType - Again I don't see the need for a specific 
GeoSciML property. All specimens should potentially have this property 
which I believe is covered by the samplingMethod property. 

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 
19/10/2009 03:09 PM 

Please respond to
auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au

To
<auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au> 
cc

Subject
[Auscope-geosciml] Which O&M version for GeoSciML - a follow up 
[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Hi Modellers, 

Back in August, I didn’t get any feedback from anyone except Simon about 
the implications of changes for GeologicSpecimens and SurveyProcedure 
between the old OGC and new ISO versions of O&M. 

The one main difference for us I think is that there would be no direct 
link in ISO O&M from GeologicSpecimen to SurveyProcedure.  This means you 
have to encode a related spatial sampling feature (like a sampling point 
outcrop or a sampling curve borehole) to deliver survey details for a 
specimen.  Personally, I have softened my initial concerns with the 
OGC-to-ISO change - a specimen should logically come from an outcrop or a 
borehole or some other related sampling device.   

Is everyone OK with this change, and we can move GeologicSpecimen to the 
new ISO version of O&M? 

Cheers, 
Ollie 

ISO O&M class diagram: 

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

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 -- 

-----Original Message-----
From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au 
[mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of Simon Cox
Sent: Saturday, 1 August 2009 12:37 AM
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [Auscope-geosciml] An O&M question - Survey Details and 
location of Specimen [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] 

1. because the ISO 19156 version of O&M will have a few significant 
changes relative to the OGC O&M, I have rebuilt the OGC O&M as an 
independent package within HollowWorld. 
This allows you to choose which version you use. If you prefer O&M v1.0, 
then you can use that. 
2. ISO 19156 O&M is now in the hands of the ISO 19156 Editting Committee. 
I am the editor, but from now on can only respond to change requests 
submitted formally in response to calls as part of the ISO process, or 
through the OGC O&M v2.0 SWG. SO if there are any changes you would like 
to see, you should realise that there is a formal process to get these in. 

3. As part of the process of updating O&M for submission to ISO, there was 
some refactoring. Specimen and LocatedSpecimen were collapsed into one 
class, with an optional samplingLocation. 
Spatial sampling features were refactored into an independent branch. It 
seemed to make sense to associate the survey procedure with spatial 
samplign features, so as you note it is no longer available on Specimen. I 
don;t have a strong feeling about this, but in general try to minimize the 
appearance of 'optional' properties. 

Simon 

------------------------------------------------------ 
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 
e-mail: simon.cox at jrc.ec.europa.eu 

SDI Unit: http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ 
IES Institute: http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ 
JRC: 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, 29 July 2009 07:43
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: [Auscope-geosciml] An O&M question - Survey Details and location 
of Specimen [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] 
A question mainly for Simon, but others as well.... 

The latest O&M/Sampling schema allows me to encode a samplingLocation of a 
Specimen without the need to locate it using a related 
SpatialSamplingFeature (like an outcrop or drillhole). 

However, Specimen has no direct link to SurveyProcedure (like who 
collected it, location accuracy, datum etc).  To access the 
SurveyProcedure for a located specimen, I still have to encode a related 
SpatialSamplingFeature (eg, a SamplingPoint which also has mandatory 
location data) and repeat the location information that I have just 
encoded for Specimen/samplingLocation.   

Should there be a direct association between Specimen and SurveyProcedure 
to cater for located specimens?  Then you wouldn’t have to encode a 
related SpatialSamplingFeature which I presume was the original idea 
behind adding samplingLocation to Specimen? 

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 

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

<S?M?⪛"ͭ??؜{񎵱N5;-ʗ?"?D卌#?9ߓM4Ÿԅ8Ԭ?7?㓽?‑[1]???8b?隊
V?u?򪛚r??ۦk'(?֢?)ߢ???*'???ʞ?ʧjW(??jPQ?蚖\??+╨‑u?ݾ?ܢ
???m?M?⪓h??�??.?֞?ꫡۜy֝j?^v?ܢi??'?翔㓔㓽?‑[1]??????????*+¸??霢{‑
?ڟ??????m? ޯ񎵿ŸԿ<񎵻"ͭ?8ԟiǀ?&?"ج??zʨ?ț?X?ʇ텪޲*bz{m?ȞrG譩ݭ騽
뢮랳񎵿ŸԿ<񎵷ڱૉ?l?7?!???z+޶آ?隊X?z?讙^jǧ?؟ʘ^?靺
?򭫮?w?j)]zW?z+_????ꬊ˞??ݵ뭮???'(?'?b???騵????Ⱨm?랲???x?jר???ʉ텨?~?檘
??ʧ???yا??zf??񎵿ϼS?M?⪗(???҈?{c幫‑r?쉗??????֞
~?ަ???)඘?zf??񎵿ϼS?M?⪛"ͭ?㓝?)?<?
_______________________________________________
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/zǬ
SO񎵿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
_______________________________________________
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/20091020/5aa31cc5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 54745 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20091020/5aa31cc5/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 25510 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20091020/5aa31cc5/attachment.jpeg>