[Auscope-geosciml] RE : CGI Value SWE
Stephen M Richard
steve.richard at azgs.az.gov
Tue Sep 1 16:12:35 EDT 2009
Eric-- looks like something good for data delivery. Could it work in a
service that you might want to query for values inside the result
elements? For example in the case of PlanarOrientation, ask for
structures with planar orientation having dip greater than 50?
Admittedly our current schema makes the xpath for that pretty heinous...
If we were going to got towards the sort of encoding you show, we should
use swe:DataArray (or something like that)
Boisvert, Eric wrote:
> > It would make things more complex
> I'm not sure it would. Actually, we already discussed this:
> The nice thing (or maybe it's a deadly trap) about SWE encoding is
> that you can define encoding format outside the schema (call it
> We could have a series of geology specific encodings defined as we do
> for vocabularies (in a registry). The rule to use those value encoding
> are essentially _the same_ as the rule that follow when we use
> specific vocabularies.
> <gsml:valueDefinition xlink:href="urn:cgi:...:...:PlanarMeasureWithDisplacement">
> <gsml:result>123 15 23.5</gsml:result>
> I find it less difficult than the CGI_Value contraption . Compare
> this with a CGI_Value representation (granted, not the same kind of
> measure, but you got the picture)
> <value codeSpace="urn:cgi:classifierScheme:CGI:DeterminationMethod">Brunton compass</value>
> <gsml:convention>dip dip direction</gsml:convention>
> <principalValue uom="degree">270</principalValue>
> <gsml:principalValue uom="degree">60</gsml:principalValue>
> The whole set of conventions, units, etc.. are repeated for each measures. This could be defined once and reused.
> *De :* auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au
> [mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] *De la part de*
> Stephen M Richard
> *Envoyé :* 1 septembre 2009 13:32
> *Cc :* auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
> *Objet :* Re: [Auscope-geosciml] RE : CGI Value SWE
> Eric--I agree, the wider use of SWE is the main reason to consider
> replacing CGI_Value with SWE elements. It would make things more
> complex, but if there are tools built for SWE, that would offset the
> added complexity. I don't think it would address the interop problem
> presented by the multiple possible value representations -- still need
> more restrictive app profiles.
> Boisvert, Eric wrote:
>>> but its not at all obvious to me that this would be any simpler or more interoperable than CGI_Value
>> I don't think it will. Actually, I saw CGI_Value reinventing a bit of the SWE wheel. The only benefit I see from SWE is that there are a lot of other communities out there dealing with complex values representation using SWE, stuff we could reuse. The other reason we might consider SWE is that O&M uses SWE and since GeoSciML (and GWML and EarthResourceML,etc.) are claiming to use O&M, we are potentially looking into two distinct values encoding models.
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au [mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] De la part de Stephen M Richard
>> Envoyé : 1 septembre 2009 12:51
>> À : auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
>> Objet : Re: [Auscope-geosciml] RE : CGI Value SWE
>> I've never actually used SWE, but looking at the UML in HollowWorld, it looks like the elements in question are in the simpleTypes package. The conceptual setup makes sense, and I like the use of the Quality property. However, as John L points out, the ability to add qualifiers is useful. This could be accounted for by using something like a SWE DataRecord, but its not at all obvious to me that this would be any simpler or more interoperable than CGI_Value. Interoperability will still depend on a more proscriptive application profile that restricts the possible encodings.
>> Boisvert, Eric wrote:
>>> should we bring the swe encoding back to the table. it has been rejected in Tucson on the basis that we were not ready to deal with it. Or is swe just CGI_Value in another dress ?
>>> De: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au de la part de Laxton,
>>> John L
>>> Date: mar. 2009-09-01 05:08
>>> À: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
>>> Objet : Re: [Auscope-geosciml] CGI Value abomination
>>> I think we have definitely over-used CGI_Value - as I recall it was put in almost ubiquitously on the basis that with experience of the use of GeoSciML we would have a better idea what type of data was actually being used for particular properties. We now have that experience for many, but by no means all, of the properties so we should definitely be able to reduce the use of CGI_Value.
>>> That said a couple of points need to be remembered:
>>> 1. As well as allowing us to be imprecise about the basic type of a property CGI_Value allows us to add a qualifier to the value. I think given the nature of much geoscience data there is requirement for this for many properties, even where we can now allocate a precise data type - this doesn't just apply to field data.
>>> 2. There are definitely some properties (eventAge springs to mind) where the ability to specify the property in a range of different ways is essential.
>>> We should therefore be able to reduce the use of CGI_Value, but not eliminate it.
>> Stephen M. Richard
>> Section Chief, Geoinformatics
>> Arizona Geological Survey
>> 416 W. Congress St., #100
>> Tucson, Arizona, 85701 USA
>> Office: (520) 209-4127
>> Reception: (520) 770-3500
>> FAX: (520) 770-3505
>> email: steve.richard at azgs.az.gov
>> Auscope-geosciml mailing list
>> Auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
> Stephen M. Richard
> Section Chief, Geoinformatics
> Arizona Geological Survey
> 416 W. Congress St., #100
> Tucson, Arizona, 85701 USA
> Office: (520) 209-4127
> Reception: (520) 770-3500
> FAX: (520) 770-3505
> email: steve.richard at azgs.az.gov
Stephen M. Richard
Section Chief, Geoinformatics
Arizona Geological Survey
416 W. Congress St., #100
Tucson, Arizona, 85701 USA
Office: (520) 209-4127
Reception: (520) 770-3500
FAX: (520) 770-3505
email: steve.richard at azgs.az.gov
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the GeoSciML