[auscope-geosciml] EarthMaterial - GeoSciML-Core package dependencies - a major problem [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au
Tue Dec 7 17:37:50 EST 2010


ProtolithLithology is an acceptable property of a GeologicEvent as far as 
I'm concerned. It describes the state of the rock prior to the event, the 
metamorphicFacies/Grade describe the rock after the event.

I'm comfortable that a GeologicEvent causes changes in rocks (as recorded 
in the AlterationDescription and MetamorphicDescription) and it is 
appropriate to describe these changes as part of the GeologicEvent.

However, rather than associating the xDescription classes to 
GeologicEvent, perhaps we a simpler solution is to associate the 
EarthMaterial to GeologicEvent, similar to the GeologicUnit - composition 
association? The xDescriptions on EarthMaterial can then be used to 
describe the various alteration/metamorphic character.



Cheers
Bruce Simons

PS I still think we should move GeologicFeature to its own app schema!


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



From:   <Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au>
To:     <auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au>
Date:   08/12/2010 08:59 AM
Subject:        Re: [auscope-geosciml] EarthMaterial - GeoSciML-Core 
package dependencies - a major problem [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Sent by:        auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au



I think that ProtolithLithology is the only potential attribute in 
AlterationDescription and MetamorphicDescription that could not be applied 
to describe a particular metamorphic event or alteration event.  All the 
other attributes sit fine with me in describing materials/processes/event 
conditions associated with an event.
 
Re Simon's comment, I can't follow the logic that a metamorphic event 
doesn't "know" about the grade, pressure, facies, etc, of the event.  It 
seems to me that these properties are very sensible descriptors of a 
metamorphic event.  Likewise an alteration event "knows" about the 
alteration type that was produced by that event.   As long as we describe 
the association roles appropriately (between metamorphic event and 
MetamorphicDescription, and alteration event and AlterationDescription) I 
don't see a problem apart from the protolith issue mentioned by John.
 
However, having said all that, I am leaning back towards putting EM back 
into Core, as per RC1.
 
Cheers,
Ollie
 
 

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: Tuesday, 7 December 2010 9:46 PM
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] EarthMaterial - GeoSciML-Core package 
dependencies - a major problem [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
 
Folks,
 
Although reversing the direction of the GeologicEvent alteration and 
metamorphic description associations seems the neatest solution I don’t 
think it actually makes sense. The MetamorphicDescription, as currently 
structured, is a description of a GeologicUnit or RockMaterial, not of a 
GeologicEvent (how can protolithLithology describe a GeologicEvent?).
 
I also don’t much like the idea of separating RockMaterial out of 
EarthMaterial as it seems a pretty illogical division. That said I haven’t 
got any better solutions other than to admit defeat and put EarthMaterial 
back into the core (which I think would actually be preferable to 
splitting up EarthMaterial).
 
John
 
==============
 
associations record direction-of-knowledge, not causality.
So I disagree that the event knows about the alteration.
 
Simon Cox
Research Scientist
CSIRO Earth Science & Resource Engineering
 
==============
 
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: 07 December 2010 06:00
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] EarthMaterial - GeoSciML-Core package 
dependencies - a major problem [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
 
Could I please ask for some feedback on the proposals from Simon, me and 
Bruce from the other members of the Data Modelling group.  Otherwise it 
will be up to just me and Bruce to make a decision.
 
Thanks,
Ollie
 
______________________________________________________________________________________


Ollie Raymond

National Geological Maps and Data Standards Project
Geoscience Australia

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


Address: GPO Box 378, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia | ABN: 80 091 799 039
Ph: +61 2 62499575 | Fax: +61 2 62479992 | Email: oliver.raymond at ga.gov.au 
| Google Map 
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: Tuesday, 7 December 2010 8:31 AM
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] EarthMaterial - GeoSciML-Core package 
dependencies - a major problem [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
 
I agree that the EarthMaterial package should be kept together. 

Logically I would like to see a separate Application Schema for 
GeologicFeature (including MappedFeature, GeologicUnit and 
GeologicStructure) with GeoSciML-Core containing EarthMaterial, 
GeologicAge, GeologicRelation, Metadata and Collection. 

This probably doesn't solve the dependency problem but will prove more 
sustainable. 

Regarding the changed direction of the GeologicEvent alteration and 
metamorphic descriptions, yes these are the wrong way. They should be from 
the GeologicEvent to the description as you suggest (see other description 
patterns). They should also be aggregations at the GeologicEvent end (the 
DataType is dependent on the GeologicEvent). 

Cheers
Bruce Simons

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



From:        <Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au> 
To:        <auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au> 
Date:        06/12/2010 04:53 PM 
Subject:        Re: [auscope-geosciml] EarthMaterial - GeoSciML-Core 
package dependencies - a major problem [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] 
Sent by:        auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au 




I'm not comfortable removing RockMaterial from EarthMaterial, especially 
if we leave Mineral behind in EM. 
  
An alternative solution is to leave the classes where they are, but 
reverse the direction of the current alterationEvent and metamorphicEvent 
associations (see highlighted bits in the attached diagram).  ie, rather 
than "alteration type A occurred during alteration event B", it would read 
"alteration event B produced alteration type A".  This would include 
constraints placed on the associations to ensure that only alteration 
events are associated with alteration description, and only metamorphic 
events with metamorphic descriptions (These constraints are required in 
the current situation anyway). 
  
Comments? 
  
Ollie 
  
  
-----Original Message-----
From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au [
mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of 
Simon.Cox at csiro.au
Sent: Friday, 3 December 2010 2:50 PM
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] EarthMaterial - GeoSciML-Core package 
dependencies - a major problem [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] 
  
Move RockMaterial, AlterationDescription, FabricDescription, 
MetamorphicDescription into GeoSciML Core. 
Leave the rest in a 'Material' Package. 
  
That way the geological stuff is in Core, which depends on a more 
generic/abstract Material package. 
  
Simon Cox 
Research Scientist 
CSIRO Earth Science & Resource Engineering 
  
Phone: +61 8 6436 8639 | Fax: +61 8 6436 8555 | Mobile: 0403 302 672 
simon.cox at csiro.au<mailto:lyndelle.broadfoot at csiro.au> | www.csiro.au<
http://www.csiro.au/> 
Address: ARRC, PO Box 1130, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia 
________________________________ 
From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au 
[auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of 
Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au [Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au] 
Sent: Friday, 3 December 2010 9:54 AM 
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au 
Subject: [auscope-geosciml] EarthMaterial - GeoSciML-Core package 
dependencies - a major problem [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] 
  
Dear Model Design group, 
  
There is a problem with mutual dependencies between the EarthMaterial and 
GeoSciML-Core in v3 rc2 that jeopardises the existence of EarthMaterial as 
a separate package.  Moving the AlterationDescription ad 
MetamorphicDescription classes does not solve the problem. 
  
GeologicUnit:CompositionPart imports CompoundMaterial 
GeologicStructure:Layering imports RockMaterial 
AlterationDescription imports GeologicAge and EarthMaterial 
MetamorphicDescription imports GeologicAge and EarthMaterial 
  
Could I get some advice on what people think we should do ASAP please? 
  
Ollie 
  
  
________________________________ 
From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au [
mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of Raymond 
Oliver 
Sent: Friday, 3 December 2010 10:29 AM 
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au 
Subject: [auscope-geosciml] Circular dependency GeoSciMLCore-EarthMaterial 
[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] 
  
I am currently moving AlterationDescription and MetamorphicDescription 
from EarthMaterial into GeoSciML-Core to remove a dependency of EM on 
Core. 
  
Francois, we'll need to run the GeoSciML-Core and EM packages through 
FullMoon again after I have fixed the problem.  (Although it might be 
simpler to hand edit the relevant schemas given all the nillable tags 
would have to be hand-inserted again after a FullMoon run.) 
  
Ollie 
  
________________________________ 
From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au [
mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of Raymond 
Oliver 
Sent: Friday, 3 December 2010 10:10 AM 
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au 
Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] HollowWorld addin package dependencies 
[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] 
  
Please ignore point #2.  problem found. 
  
________________________________ 
From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au [
mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of Raymond 
Oliver 
Sent: Friday, 3 December 2010 10:03 AM 
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au 
Subject: [auscope-geosciml] HollowWorld addin package dependencies 
[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] 
  
Hi Rob, 
  
1.  The HollowWorld addin, when creating a UML package dependency diagram 
creates associations between App Schemas of type "Dependency <<import>>". 
All of the current package dependency diagrams in GoSciML use associations 
called "Package <<import>>".  Thus, if you run the addin if you already 
have Package-import links, it will create duplicate Dependency-import 
links.  Do I need to change all the "Package <<import>>" links to be 
"Dependency <<import>>" instead? 
  
eg: Enterprise Architect menu 
[cid:564583601 at 03122010-27D0] 
  
2.  The HollowWorld addin insists that EarthMaterial has a dependency on 
GeoSciML-Core.  I cannot find where this alleged dependency occurs.  Is 
there a way of finding out exactly what element in EarthMaterial that the 
HW-Addin thinks is dependent on GeoSciML-Core? 
  
Cheers, 
Ollie 
 [attachment "EM-Core.jpg" deleted by Bruce Simons/DPI/VICGOV1] 
_______________________________________________
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.
 
 
 

-- 
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC 
is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents 
of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless 
it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to 
NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
_______________________________________________
auscope-geosciml mailing list
auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20101208/7fe22ed2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 7850 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20101208/7fe22ed2/attachment.gif>


More information about the GeoSciML mailing list