[Auscope-geosciml] Event type vocabulary? what is it

Stephen M Richard steve.richard at azgs.az.gov
Thu Mar 18 12:15:43 EDT 2010


John--I think the logic is that one would have to pose the 'how old is 
the rock' question by specifying the process of interest that defines 
what 'how old' means. For sedimentary and igneous rocks, the answer is 
generally simple-- deposition, intrusion, or eruption, for altered or 
metamorphic rocks (composite genesis), the answer could be cooling, peak 
metamorphism, or protolith deposition, intrusion, or eruption.

This issues is a good example of use of the interchange format for 
information encoding vs. a geologist-friendly query language. Same issue 
that was the basis for the recent geologic unit morphology discussion. I 
think the stored query approach with a 'common queryable' element (like 
CSW common queryables) for 'preferred age' is a better solution to the 
problem, because preferred age depends on the user in some cases (design 
decision is are there enough of these cases to allow flexibility?).

steve

On 3/18/2010 8:56 AM, Laxton, John L wrote:
>
> Steve,
>
> I think we have got confused somewhere here!
>
> The v2 preferredAge was there to answer the question 'How old is the 
> rock?'. After deprecating preferredAge in order to answer the same 
> question there needs to be a way of flagging one of the events in the 
> geologicHistory as being the one that is deemed to represent the age 
> of the rock. I don't see how this can be achieved with a query on 
> eventProcess and numericAgeDate so I don't see how Action 15 from 
> Quebec follows from the decision to deprecate preferredAge. That said 
> I don't see how a query on eventType would either. I think eventType 
> may have been introduced simply to follow the typing pattern used 
> elsewhere (eg faultType), but faultType was introduced because of the 
> complexity of querying for commonly used concepts such as 'reverse 
> fault' without such a property. I'm not sure there is a similar use 
> case for eventType, and as you say there is a danger of confusion with 
> eventProcess and eventEnvironment. I think the requirement I 
> identified for the ability to relate local events to larger scale 
> events such as orogenies is best met through the use of  a classifier.
>
> So:
>
> 1. I'm unclear of the requirement for eventType and unless there is a 
> clear use case for it it might be best dropped
>
> 2. I'm unclear how we can replicate the preferredAge concept with 
> geologicHistory
>
> John
>
> *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:* 17 March 2010 17:46
> *To:* auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
> *Subject:* Re: [Auscope-geosciml] Event type vocabulary? what is it
>
> Yikes-- We added Classifier on event as well. That would be the 
> logical place to have association of an event with a specific geologic 
> event that might be reused (like Hercynian Orogeny, K-T boundary 
> impact) and have its own GeologicEvent prototype description.
> So what use does that leave for EventType. The only one I can see that 
> doesn't create confusion with eventProcess -  eventEnvironment is to 
> use it in the sense of GeologicUnitType as a category that specifies 
> variations in the content model/intention of the actual GeologicEvent 
> element ('type' in the sense of data type). Examples --extended event 
> (orogeny), instantaneous event (bolide impact, volcanic eruption). 
> Maybe some coherent abstraction of the eventProcess vocabulary could 
> be made to categorize events that have different kinds of prototype 
> descriptions, but the danger is that if the eventTypes are just the 
> broader categories from the eventProcess vocabulary, then its unclear 
> which property to filter for those categories -- eventProcess or 
> eventType.
>
> steve
>
> On 3/17/2010 9:58 AM, Stephen M Richard wrote:
>
>
> EventType property on GeologicEvent feature scope notes currently 
> read: term 'to broadly categorise the type of event (e.g. 
> depositional, tectonic, biological, metallogenic)'. Figuring out what 
> should be in the EventType vocabulary opens a host of questions -- how 
> to categorize events?, what are the use cases?. Kinds of event would 
> be defined by process and environment by my reckoning, so it would 
> appear that EventType would act as a short cut for some combination of 
> eventEnvironment and eventProcess.
>
> ....snip...
>
>
> Does eventType implements this classifier concept?  That seems like a 
> potentially useful interpretation. In that case, something like the 
> OneGeologyEurope OrogenicEvent vocabulary is a gsml:EventType 
> vocabulary, and we get into the 'ontologic level' discussion about 
> names, classifiers, types etc. (see the Dec Twiki summary to review 
> that...). These categories are specific geologic events - they involve 
> geologic process, geologic environment, geologic age, and geographic 
> location.  This looks like a slippery slope. Does one look for the 
> depositional age by specifying the eventProcess or eventType?. Does 
> one look for structures related to the Laramide orogeny by specifying 
> the GeologicEvent/gml.name, or specifying the EventType...
>
> steve
>
>
> snip...
>
>
> -- 
> 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  <mailto:steve.richard at azgs.az.gov>
>
> -- 
> 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. 

-- 
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/20100318/71fc8e04/attachment.htm>


More information about the GeoSciML mailing list