[auscope-geosciml] problem with RockMaterial and FabricDescription [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au
Mon Aug 9 01:33:30 EDT 2010


I agree Steve, both these attributes should be href vocabularies, not CGI_Terms.  Just an oversight, you didn't miss anything.

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 Guillaume.Duclaux at csiro.au
Sent: Monday, 9 August 2010 3:25 PM
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] problem with RockMaterial and FabricDescription

Steve,

I agree with you and IMHO all codeLists and CGI_Terms should be byReference and point to a controlled vocab.

Cheers

Gilly
On 09/08/2010, at 1:19 PM, Stephen M Richard wrote:

>  What is the logic for use of CGI_Term as the type for
> RockMaterial.lithology or for FabricDescription.fabricType.  In both
> cases the property is asserting a categorization of the described thing,
> and I can't think of how a value qualifer fits. Did I miss some
> discussion of this somewhere along the line?
>
> I suggest that these should be byReference (hrefs to controlled
> Vocabulary concepts), analogous to GeologicUnit.geologicUnitType,
> MaterialRelation.materialRelationshipType, or
> ParticleGeometryDescription.particleType.
>
> steve
>
> --
> Stephen M. Richard
> Arizona Geological Survey
> 416 W. Congress St., #100
> Tucson, Arizona, 85701
> USA
> phone: (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



More information about the GeoSciML mailing list