[Auscope-geosciml] boo-boo in GeologicEvent [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Rob.Atkinson at csiro.au Rob.Atkinson at csiro.au
Fri Sep 25 10:58:44 EDT 2009


That is a more fundamental question - are you modelling interoperability of a single implementation or creating a domain model which provides common definitions for multiple implementations to deal with parts of it. 

I know the modelling paradigm does not provide clear guidance on how to separate such concerns. I've just spent a week with Simon Cox exploring this issue and how we might improve it in the future. In the meantime I think you should stay away from implementation concerns in the interests of the most useful domain model, but start to consider simplified implementation profiles required and how they may be mapped to the more abstract types.

Rob Atkinson
Team Leader, Interoperable Systems
CSIRO Land & Water
Ph (mobile) +61 419 202 973

-----Original Message-----
From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au [mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of percy
Sent: Saturday, 26 September 2009 12:47 AM
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [Auscope-geosciml] boo-boo in GeologicEvent [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Why not just use start_event_date and end_event_date fields so that they 
  can be mapped directly to fields in a RDBMS?
Percy

Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au wrote:
> TM_period appears to have a strange structure.  I also can't seem to find an ISO element which has an upper and lower TM_Coordinate (which is what we want).  And the apparent lack of link to from TM elements to DQ elements for denoting error is a show-stopper for using purely a ISO solution.
> 
> Is there any benefit in creating a time-based equivalent of CGI_NumericRange called CGI_TimeRange, with a CGI_TimeMeasure inheriting from TM_Coordinate?
> 
> 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 stephen richard
> Sent: Friday, 25 September 2009 10:00 PM
> To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
> Subject: [Auscope-geosciml] boo-boo in GeologicEvent
> 
> There was some uncertainty on my part yesterday as to whether TM_Period is the correct type for numericAgeDate. After studying the ISO 19108 temporalSchema some more, I conclude its not; it only allows a time coordinate specified by a single number, no uncertainty. I recommend we change TM_Period to CGI_NumericRange; this is more consistent with the rest of the model, represents what we want better, and avoids another proxy for a GML3.2 element for v. 3 testing.
> 
> steve
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 

-- 
David Percy
Geospatial Data Manager
Geology Department
Portland State University
http://gisgeek.pdx.edu
503-725-3373
_______________________________________________
Auscope-geosciml mailing list
Auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml



More information about the GeoSciML mailing list