[Auscope-geosciml] CGI Value abomination [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Stephen M Richard steve.richard at azgs.az.gov
Wed Sep 2 15:09:48 EDT 2009


The swe abstract data components all have a Quality property, which is a 
union that includes a categoryQuality and textQuality. Can the kind of 
qualifiers we're using (always, common, never, sometimes, rare, equalTo, 
greaterThan, lessThan, approximate, quadratic mean, ...mode, median) be 
accounted for using categoryQuality? CategoryQuality appears in the 
sensorML v.1.0 uml in HollowWorld, but a search of the pdf for SensorML 
(OGC 07-000) gets no hits on categoryQuality, so there's not any 
discussion of the intention of the quality category.

can swe:singleConstraint account for greaterThan, lessThan type bounding 
value declarations?
the quadratic mean, harmonic mean, geometric mean, arithmetic mean, 
mode, median have to do with the observation procedure, but how does swe 
attach those to data?  Using abstractDataComponent.definition URI?
always, common, sometimes seem like possible quality categories.
'Never' is only necessary for defining descriptions where the presence 
of some property precludes membership in a category -- I don't think it 
would appear in any kind of occurrence description. This kind of 
information should be encoded with OWL or something like that anyway, so 
maybe we can deprecate it.

So maybe don't need to change swe?

BUT...
SWE does not appear to have a CategoryRange that would account for 
CGI_TermRange.
We still have the case brought up by Bruce or Ollie of geophysical data 
for which there is a value range and a typical or preferred value

Maybe these could be accounted for with some elements derived from 
swe:dataArray?

steve


Simon Cox wrote:
> But if it is a common requirement, there should be a common slot for it,
> rather than making it part of the tuple definition. 
> The latter is pretty much back to free-text. 
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> mailto:simon.cox at jrc.ec.europa.eu 
> http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/simon-cox 
>
> SDI Unit: http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ 
> IES Institute: http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
> JRC: http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au
> [mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of Boisvert,
> Eric
> Sent: Wednesday, 2 September 2009 19:22
> To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
> Subject: Re: [Auscope-geosciml] CGI Value abomination [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
>
> Can't the qualifier be modelled as a part of the complex value 
>
> Eg:
>
> <gsml:result>123 15 23.5 APPROX</gsml:result>
>
> Just a thought
>
>
> -----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 Simon Cox
> Envoyé : 2 septembre 2009 12:26 À : auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
> Objet : Re: [Auscope-geosciml] CGI Value abomination [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
>
> I was responding to John's mail, where he appeared to be saying 'some fields
> will never be interoperable' (because of institutional reasons). If we
> really think they aren't (and he may have a point here), then there is zero
> benefit and only cost in forcing a data provider to coerce their
> non-ineroperable data into complex structures. 
>
> Eric brought up SWE Common as a (more broadly accepted) alternative, though
> he pointed out that in practice SWE Common is as permissive as CGI_Value
> (but probably has more code to support it - though I think it is only
> maintained by one person (Alex Robin) who does not keep his documentation
> up-to-date). 
>
> If there is interest in looking at SWE Common as a replacement (I agree that
> it probably has more momentum, and Alex is very diligent in publicizing it),
> but are concerned about the absence of _qualifiers_ (or anything else in
> fact) then can I suggest that this requirement is URGENTLY brought to the
> SWE Common v2.0 revision working group in OGC - they are actively working on
> v2.0, and my guess is it will be wrapped up in a matter of months. 
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> mailto:simon.cox at jrc.ec.europa.eu
> http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/simon-cox 
>
> SDI Unit: http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
> IES Institute: http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
> JRC: http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au
> [mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of Stephen M
> Richard
> Sent: Wednesday, 2 September 2009 18:15
> To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
> Subject: Re: [Auscope-geosciml] CGI Value abomination [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
>
> Simon--Interoperability is defined by some community of practice. Sure, some
> group could agree to some free text format for data interchange, but then
> they'd dispense with xml and OGC services entirely and pass around
> tab-delimited text files.  We've been there, and know how well or poorly
> that works.
>
> What is the problem with leaving the xml schema quite general, allowing for
> different value quantification schemes, with the understanding that
> communities wishing to share data using GeoSciML services will have to
> develop an application profile restricting some of the possibilities? 
> The benefit of the model is in establishing patterns for how this is done,
> so that each solution to the same problem is not different.
>
> To me the important question for Quebec is how much we can do using SWE,
> since the value quantification issue is certainly not only a geoscience
> problem! Maybe replace CGI_Value with some element (swe:DataArray?) or
> elements from SWE. We need to analyze the places CGI_Value is used in
> GeoSciML (see list below), and figure out if there is more than one pattern,
> and decide if we need to change it.
>
> steve
>
>   
>> CGI_Value is used for:
>> Bedding thickness
>> Event age
>> part proportion (GUPart, composition, rock constituent part) several 
>> geophyscial properties (magnetic susceptibility, permeability, 
>> porosity, CGI_PhysicalDescription) mapped feature position accuracy 
>> trend, plunge, azimuth and dip on orientation values particle geometry 
>> description properties (grain size, sorting, shape, and aspect ratio)
>>     
>
>
>
> Simon Cox wrote:
>   
>> In that case you can make everything that is not an 'interoperable' 
>> field just free-text.
>> This would still say that CGI-Value could be dispensed with.  
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>> mailto:simon.cox at jrc.ec.europa.eu
>> http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/simon-cox
>>
>> SDI Unit: http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ IES Institute: 
>> http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
>> JRC: http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au
>> [mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of 
>> Laxton, John L
>> Sent: Wednesday, 2 September 2009 11:39
>> To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
>> Subject: Re: [Auscope-geosciml] CGI Value abomination 
>> [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
>>
>> The snag with limiting users to the number of formats they can use is 
>> that the chosen format may not match the user's database. We recently 
>> hit this with unitThickness defined as CGI_Numeric. Fair enough you 
>> might think but in our database unit thickness is a string with 
>> comments like 'c23m in Grantham area'. The unfortunate reality is that 
>> in lots of cases different data providers hold the same property in 
>> different formats. We could remodel them as distinct properties for 
>> different formats (Ollie's option (b)) but this is only going to be 
>> worthwhile where we wish to query against the property. In most cases 
>> all we wish to do is deliver a property value and I'm not convinced it 
>> matters if the way BGS delivers something like 
>> ParticleGeometryDescription.sorting is different from the way AZGS 
>> does - we need to be realistic about the level of interoperability 
>> needed. Particular services can always specify more restrictive
>>     
> requirements if needed as OneGeology-Europe is doing.
>   
>> John
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> 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: 02 September 2009 05:49
>> To: Rob.Atkinson at csiro.au; auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
>> Subject: Re: [Auscope-geosciml] CGI Value abomination 
>> [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
>>
>> I agree with Simon's sentiments.  But Rob's comments have me confused.  
>> I can't see how making CGI_Value a specialisation of another class is 
>> going to make the model more interoperable.  It still leaves users 
>> able to deliver some attribute values as either term values, number 
>> values
>>     
> or ranges.
>   
>> The aim here is to:
>>
>> a) limit users in the number of formats they can use to deliver 
>> attribute values, and
>>
>> b) redefine some model elements (eg: Age) so that they explicitly 
>> state, for example, "this attribute is for a numerical Age only" or 
>> "this attribute is for a term Age only", rather than the existing 
>> "this attribute can be a numeric Age, or a term Age, or a range of 
>> numeric
>>     
> and term Ages".
>   
>> Cheers,
>> Ollie
>>
>>   
>>     
> ...clipped...
>
> --
> Stephen M. Richard
> Section Chief, Geoinformatics
> Arizona Geological Survey
> 416 W. Congress St., #100
> Tucson, Arizona, 85701 USA
>
> Phone: 
> 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
> http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml
>
> _______________________________________________
> Auscope-geosciml mailing list
> Auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
> http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml
> _______________________________________________
> Auscope-geosciml mailing list
> Auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
> http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml
>
> _______________________________________________
> Auscope-geosciml mailing list
> Auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
> http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml
>
>   

-- 
Stephen M. Richard
Section Chief, Geoinformatics
Arizona Geological Survey
416 W. Congress St., #100
Tucson, Arizona, 85701 USA

Phone: 
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...
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20090902/1fcff179/attachment.htm>


More information about the GeoSciML mailing list