[auscope-geosciml] CGI_Term and qualifier [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au
Wed Aug 11 00:58:23 EDT 2010


Hi Bruce,

I think we are all of one mind now with the use of xlink:href and xlink:title for controlled vocabularies.  I have heard no dissent.

The use of CGI_Term:value everywhere would simplify the model, in that we would not have to support the many specific codelist stubs currently in the model.  Simon's argument for the specific byReference codelists (instead of a generic value codelist) was to introduce a greater degree of explicitness (is that a word?) into the model where qualifier is not appropriate.  Both methods can deliver the same controlled vocabularies via xlink:href, but Simon's method doesn't permit the use of a qualifier for the more specific codelists.

On logic grounds, I am not supportive of a qualifier (optional or otherwise) being associated with attributes such as faultType, contactType, geologicUnitType, instrumentType, etc.

A problem I see with qualifier being optional is one of interoperability (how is a client going to know when to expect delivery of a qualifier?).  Perhaps a mandatory, but nillable, qualifier?

I also notice that the 'qualifier' in CGI_Term is currently byReference in v3RC1 schemas, which means that we need to turn the ValueQualifierCode enumeration into a rdf vocabulary (Steve?) that can be accessed by href.

Cheers,
Ollie


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ollie Raymond

National Advice, Maps and Data Standards Project
Geoscience Australia

GeoSciML Design Group
IUGS Commission for the Management and Application of Geoscience Information

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

Address: GPO Box 378, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia | ABN: 80 091 799 039
Ph: +61 2 62499575 | Fax: +61 2 62499992 | Email: Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au<mailto:Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au> | 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>
National geological maps  http://www.ga.gov.au/minerals/research/national/nat_maps/nat_geol_maps.jsp
Geoscience Australia web services  http://www.ga.gov.au/resources/applications/ogc-wms.jsp
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 --- This message was created with 100% recycled electrons ---

________________________________
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: Wednesday, 11 August 2010 1:14 PM
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] problem with RockMaterial and FabricDescription


>Effectively CGI_Term is a qualifier/reference pair?
I fully support this.
We could use  CGI_Term everywhere, with the qualifier being optional.
The value (reference) shoulf be byReference only, with the URI in the xlink:href and the value in the xlink:title.  This provides a consistent way of delivering content, whether coming from a controlled vocabulary or not.

Cheers
Bruce

Ph: +61-3-9658 4502
Fax: +61-3-9658 4555
Mobile: +61 429 177155

Alistair Ritchie <alistair.bh.ritchie at gmail.com>
Sent by: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au

09/08/2010 04:08 PM
Please respond to
auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au


To

auscope-geosciml <auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au>

cc



Subject

Re: [auscope-geosciml] problem with RockMaterial and        FabricDescription










Is there still a case, even then, for the CGI_Term.value (apologies if I've got the model wrong) to be a reference? Effectively CGI_Term is a qualifier/reference pair?

Alistair Ritchie
GEOSCIENCE VICTORIA | EARTH RESOURCES DIVISION
Department of Primary Industries | Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Tel: +61 3 9658 4512 | Fax: +61 3 9658 4555


On 9 August 2010 16:05, Stephen M Richard <steve.richard at azgs.az.gov<mailto:steve.richard at azgs.az.gov>> wrote:
 Gilly--the issue is that for some term value assignments, we commonly qualify things-- mostly well consolidated, usually red... So for value assignments that may be qualified, we have to use CGI term, because the 'value' of the controlled concept (the term.value, which is byReference) is modified by the qualifier (also byReference).

We need to troll through the model again carefully to make sure the use of CGI_Term is limited to those properties where qualfiers make sense.  I just noticed GeologicFeature.observationMethod is a CGI_Term..., not sure that makes sense.

steve


On 8/8/2010 10:24 PM, Guillaume.Duclaux at csiro.au wrote:
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<mailto:steve.richard at azgs.az.gov>

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


--
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<mailto:steve.richard at azgs.az.gov>

_______________________________________________
auscope-geosciml mailing list
auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au<mailto: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

Notice:
This email and any attachments may contain information that is personal, confidential,
legally privileged and/or copyright. No part of it should be reproduced, adapted or communicated without the prior written consent of the copyright owner.

It is the responsibility of the recipient to check for and remove viruses.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by return email, delete it from your system and destroy any copies. You are not authorised to use, communicate or rely on the information contained in this email.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20100811/f2db141c/attachment.htm>


More information about the GeoSciML mailing list