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

Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au
Mon Oct 19 23:14:49 EDT 2009


Perhaps an O&M oversight? - Well, maybe, but there are other places in O&M where domains like us are expected to extend the basic O&M model, and I think this is just one of those places.

O&M ProcessModel is an empty stub which we have to extend for our sampling and processing methods.  So, I suppose we could put something like GeologicSpecimenType in our extension of ProcessModel.  But would I still prefer it as an attribute of a GeologicSpecimen.

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 1:56 PM
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [Auscope-geosciml] GeologicSpecimen (Which O&M version for GeoSciML - a follow up) [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]


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<http://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.

[cid:image001.gif at 01CA518F.AE833CD0]

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:
[cid:image002.jpg at 01CA518F.AE833CD0]

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


-----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<mailto: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<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

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

________________________________
Ÿԟiǀ&,ޘڭǿ㓔㓲ܥx[1](dNPЂ8}4ӀQSLSNȳ{aN57ڱૉS+‑jwZ&!魲fr��❺+b{ajجꬢvr߉ק&^eʚ⾩^皝ߨʩʸ߅8ԅ8ԟiǀ&6Zڟۡ靭Ꞧǝi֩稭ʦ颱^w񎵱N57ڱૉpبۡz⢼+۞ʧ魡ayʩʸڰ꿔㓼SO󏔣S,ޘSM����⪒-ˡz쉸ܨ~؞碦'ڜ社ڝڞ޾*?㓼SO󏔣S}‑[1]ȳ{b­ʋj����筆+‑w镦zz-랝׫o*޶ꧺfץzע蛪.̬隝מڨɩ򲊢zƨޞZب+‑vڮ稚kƭz뺜؞w讦ܢ{Zw{aǦj)㓼󅸔ߩǀ&rhM<Ӎ,7>W稞ȝzay鯊'魭稭꫊{b
aǦj)㓼󅸔ߩǀ&,ޛ񎵹۲Ͼv짳ϝ)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20091020/af3976f2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 54745 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20091020/af3976f2/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 25510 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20091020/af3976f2/attachment.jpg>


More information about the GeoSciML mailing list