[Auscope-geosciml] preferredAge

Simon Cox simon.cox at jrc.ec.europa.eu
Wed Mar 24 07:15:14 EDT 2010


Key thing there is with this definition it shifts the onus and thus responsibility to the data provider. 
This might allay Bruce's concern. 
 

--------------------------------------------------------
Simon Cox

European Commission, Joint Research Centre 
Institute for Environment and Sustainability 
Spatial Data Infrastructures Unit, TP 262 
Via E. Fermi, 2749, I-21027 Ispra (VA), Italy 
Tel: +39 0332 78 3652 
Fax: +39 0332 78 6325 
 <mailto:simon.cox at jrc.ec.europa.eu> mailto:simon.cox at jrc.ec.europa.eu 
 <http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/simon-cox> http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/simon-cox 

SDI Unit:  <http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ 
IES Institute:  <http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ 
JRC:  <http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

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

 

Any opinions expressed are personal unless otherwise indicated. 

 


  _____  

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: Wednesday, 24 March 2010 12:04
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [Auscope-geosciml] preferredAge



Yes - exactly!

 

John

 

From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au [mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of Simon Cox
Sent: 24 March 2010 10:59
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [Auscope-geosciml] preferredAge

 

Is the semantic 'recommended age for general purpose geological map display'?

 

--------------------------------------------------------
Simon Cox

European Commission, Joint Research Centre 
Institute for Environment and Sustainability 
Spatial Data Infrastructures Unit, TP 262 
Via E. Fermi, 2749, I-21027 Ispra (VA), Italy 
Tel: +39 0332 78 3652 
Fax: +39 0332 78 6325 
 <mailto:simon.cox at jrc.ec.europa.eu> mailto:simon.cox at jrc.ec.europa.eu 
 <http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/simon-cox> http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/simon-cox 

SDI Unit:  <http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ 
IES Institute:  <http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ 
JRC:  <http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

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

 

Any opinions expressed are personal unless otherwise indicated. 

 

 


  _____  


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: Wednesday, 24 March 2010 11:23
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [Auscope-geosciml] preferredAge

Bruce,

 

If you look at the legend of pretty much any geological map the rocks are classified or grouped by age. If we tell data providers they cannot provide this information using GeoSciML we will be laughed out of court. I know preferredAge is allocated by different people according to different rules. This may be due to inconsistency but may be due to their different understanding of what is significant for their rocks. This is why they need to be able to flag the appropriate GeologicEvent as I don't think it will be possible to construct a query to replicate this, however complex (for example debris flow isn't in fact a child of deposition, it's a child of erosion so would need to be specifically accounted for - there will be endless examples like this which would have to be accounted for in any query, even assuming there are consistent rules to be queried for. Any what if a service is using a data provider's own vocabularies - another set of queries).

 

I think there are only two options:

 

1. Flag a GeologicEvent with 'preferredAge as Ollie as suggested

 

2. Just provide a geologicHistory and leave it to users to work out what GeologicEvent they want.

 

I don't think option 2 is acceptable for lots of use cases. We required preferredAge in OneGeology-Europe - we could not have provided the services we intend to without it. However I don't think a preferredAge flag should be mandatory - if you are providing data for a use case that doesn't need it then you don't need to provide it. There is no such thing as use case independent interoperability. I don't see that the optional use of a preferredAge flag adversely affects any application that doesn't require it so I can't see there is a legitimate objection to the inclusion of this in the model.

 

John

 

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: 24 March 2010 03:21
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [Auscope-geosciml] preferredAge

 


John, 
Your response is an excellent example of why 'preferredAge' has no meaning independent of who declared it the preferredAge. For you the peak metamorphic age is preferred over the deposition age. This is not true for all data suppliers, and I would hazard not even true for all at BGS. 

Knowing the lithology may help sort out what the geologists intent was but I don't think it is necessary given an appropriate eventProcess vocabulary. If  "debris flow" is a child of "deposition" in an eventProcess hierarchical vocabulary then whether it has been coded as debris flow, mass movement, mudflow, avalanche, or deposition, that age will still be returned without recourse to the lithology values. 

Cheers 
Bruce

GeoScience Victoria
AuScope Grid
Australian Spatial Research Data Commons

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


"Laxton, John L" <jll at bgs.ac.uk> 
Sent by: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au 

23/03/2010 08:27 PM 


Please respond to
auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au


To

"steve.richard at azgs.az.gov" <steve.richard at azgs.az.gov>, "auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au" <auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au> 


cc

	

Subject

Re: [Auscope-geosciml] preferredAge

 

		




Steve, 
  
I was thinking of 'all Cambrian Geologic Units' meaning all units which have a preferred age of Cambrian, not just Cambrian in their geologicHistory. I think lithology comes into it for example in metamorphic rocks where 'deposition' could be in the geologicHistory but not necessarily the preferred age - surely you need to know the lithology (at least for some types of lithology) before you know the eventProcess that will give the preferred age if you are trying to query for this. There will always be so many ifs and buts, even if people follow strict coding rules - ancient debris flows might be encoded with debric flow as the eventProcess rather than deposition for example. 
  
I agree standard stored queries would get round this to some extent but that is surely working against interoperability as it means that information is being stored in queries rather than being sent with the data (the queries are not just simple filters, they contain information not available elsewhere - in this case the eventProcess which the geologist considers the one which provides the significant age of a particular type of rock). 
  
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: 22 March 2010 17:51
Cc: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [Auscope-geosciml] preferredAge 
  
John--
the age query wouldn't involve lithology, but it would be messy, something like:

GeologicUnit/geologicHistory[/eventProcess/cgiTerm="uri.cgi....deposition"]/youngerNamedAge/GeochronologicEra/localizedGenericName="uri.cgi...Cambrian"

with likewise for eruption, intrusion, and assuming concept expansion to include any child processes subsumed by deposition, eruption, intrusion...

Alternatively 
GeologicUnit/geologicHistory/youngerNamedAge/GeochronologicEra/localizedGenericName="uri.cgi...Cambrian"

would result in any Unit that has a Cambrian event in its history, and maybe that's what you mean by 'all Cambrian GeologicUnits'. 

I still suspect that dealing with this kind of complexity is best done on the server/application profile side, using standard stored queries with 'common queryable' names like 'preferredAge'.

steve

On 3/22/2010 10:12 AM, Laxton, John L wrote: 
I don't think we need eventType. 
  
Without a preferredAge flag it would be extremely difficult to construct a simple query such as 'get all Cambrian GeologicUnits'. You would need to match a lithology type with an appropriate eventProcess for all possible lithologies. For example in SimpleLithology there are seven direct children of compound_material and you would certainly need to go lower in the hierarchy for some classes like composite_genesis_material (impact_metamorphic_material anyone?) to distinguish different appropriate eventProcess values. To filter for 'all Cambrian GeologicUnits' would require an extremely complex query which in all probability would not get 100% recovery. This isn't a step forward…. 
  
John 
  
From:  <mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au> auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au [ <mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au> mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of Stephen M Richard
Sent: 22 March 2010 16:42
To:  <mailto:auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au> auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [Auscope-geosciml] Event type vocabulary? what is it [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] 
  
Having a preferredAge boolean would be a convenience for some, but to be useful, it would probably need to be required at least at the level of an application profile. If non-expert (or lazy) users come to depend on its presence to use for age assignments, it will break things if its not there. From the data provider point of view, it might then add a little extra work figuring out how to flag one event in each history as 'preferred'. The purpose of a WFS is not map portrayal, but data delivery, so on balance, I think preferredAge is superfluous. Each provider can provide a WMS that displays geologic units based on their idea of preferred age. As far as a WFS filter criteria, people are more likely to get what they expect if they have to decide what they mean by 'preferredAge' when they compose the query.

Are we in agreement that EventType does not serve any purpose that is not already accounted for by eventProcess?

steve

On 3/21/2010 4:55 PM, Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au wrote: 
Hi Bruce, John et al, 
  
> ...  is not to provide additional information, just opinion...... 
How the data is delivered is often a matter of opinion.  One organisation may choose to deliver a simple WFS for one purpose, while another may chose to deliver a highly complex and detailed WFS for a different purpose.  I see John’s request as just another use case.  It’s not wrong, it’s just wanting to use the data for a different purpose (ie, map display for a basic ‘normal’ geological map) 
  
> Clients like OneGeology should provide a view of 'age' based on their criteria (presumably deposition, intrusion, extrusion, peak meatamorphism, but since it uses 'preferredAge' I've no certainty what this means)..... 
But I do have certainty of what it means, because the eventProcess attribute tells me what the event is. And if we write very specific scope notes for preferredAge, we can be certain how preferredAge is to be used (John will need to provide very, very specific scope notes here to satisfy Bruce I think!). 
  
> ...Other portals may choose a different criteria (eg last deformation age). Users who access the data directly can write their own filters to meet their purpose.... 
By having both eventProcess and preferredAge attributes on GeologicEvent, users can perform either of Bruce’s and John’s use cases.  It doesn’t have to be one or the other. 
  
One world in harmony.... :) 

Kumbaya, kumbaya... sing it!



  
Cheers, 
Ollie 
  
  
-----Original Message-----
From:  <mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au> auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au [ <mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au> mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of  <mailto:Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au> Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au
Sent: Monday, 22 March 2010 10:24 AM
To:  <mailto:auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au> auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [Auscope-geosciml] Event type vocabulary? what is it [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] 
  

As you would expect I object! 

>In spite of potential ambiguities age is something that is recorded on pretty much all geological maps. 
Yes, but there is usually additional information, either in the legend (eg depositional environment) or accompanying explanatory notes, to indicate what this age means. 
 
> are the ones that we (as the experts in the geological survey) consider represent the age of the GeologicUnit ... For interoperability all information should be in the data, not embedded in queries. 
To specify that this is a 'preferredAge' of someone in the survey without saying why this age is preferred or what the age represents is not to provide additional information, just opinion. 

>I don't think telling users to work it out for themselves is a sufficient response (we are meant to be the experts), or telling them they can only get this information if the service is accessed through a portal controlled by us with queries constructed by us. 
Its not about telling users to work it out for themselves, its about allowing users and clients to use the data for the purposes they require and providing sufficient information so they can. Clients like OneGeology should provide a view of 'age' based on their criteria (presumably deposition, intrusion, extrusion, peak meatamorphism, but since it uses 'preferredAge' I've no certainty what this means). Other portals may choose a different criteria (eg last deformation age). Users who access the data directly can write their own filters to meet their purpose. 

I repeat:
"The preferredAge property was deprecated because it has no real meaning, it is one age from the rocks geologicHistory, but with no capacity to say why this is the one chosen." 

Cheers 
Bruce

GeoScience Victoria
AuScope Grid
Australian Spatial Research Data Commons

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


 <mailto:Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au> <Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au> 
Sent by:  <mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au> auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au 

22/03/2010 09:56 AM 

 


Please respond to
 <mailto:auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au> auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au

 


To

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


cc

  


Subject

Re: [Auscope-geosciml] Event type vocabulary? what is it [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]


  

 


  

 





How’s this for a compromise option..... 
 
If we add an attribute to GeologicEvent called “preferred” (type = Boolean, 1..1, nillable), would that satisfy John’s needs without having to create a whole new event element?  Then it would be easy to identify which of a series of GeologicEvents is the one intended to map display. 
 
Opinions please? 
 
Cheers, 
Ollie 
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Ollie Raymond 
 
National Advice, Maps and 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:  <mailto:Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au> Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au |  <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> Google Map 
National geological maps   <http://www.ga.gov.au/minerals/research/national/nat_maps/nat_geol_maps.jsp> 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> http://www.ga.gov.au/resources/applications/ogc-wms.jsp 

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

  
--- This message was created with 100% recycled electrons --- 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From:  <mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au> auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au [ <mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au> mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of Laxton, John L
Sent: Friday, 19 March 2010 11:04 PM
To:  <mailto:auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au> auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [Auscope-geosciml] Event type vocabulary? what is it 
 
Bruce, 
 
In spite of potential ambiguities age is something that is recorded on pretty much all geological maps. In GeoSciML age comes with eventProcess and eventEnvironment which gives more information on what the preferredAge represents than has been provided on maps in the past, but maybe we do need to be able to state the reason for selecting an age more specifically. In OneGeology-Europe we are providing a preferredAge for all GeologicUnits as a term range. For many GeologicUnits we will also provide a full geologicHistory. I am not clear how we could do this when preferredAge has been deprecated as there is no way we can say which GeologicEvent(s) in the geologicHistory are the ones that we (as the experts in the geological survey) consider represent the age of the GeologicUnit. I don't think telling users to work it out for themselves is a sufficient response (we are meant to be the experts), or telling them they can only get this information if the service is accessed through a portal controlled by us with queries constructed by us. For interoperability all information should be in the data, not embedded in queries. 
 
What will happen I suspect is that people will simply use geologicHistory as a preferredAge (ie with just one GeologicEvent), but that is then throwing away the ability to record a proper geologicHistory. 
 
John 
 
 
From:  <mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au> auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au [ <mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au> mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of  <mailto:Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au> Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au
Sent: 18 March 2010 22:24
To:  <mailto:auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au> auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Cc:  <mailto:auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au> auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au;  <mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au> auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [Auscope-geosciml] Event type vocabulary? what is it 
 

John, 
The Question "How old is the rock? is meaningless.  It is dependent on the context. Within traditional paper maps we provide that context by the 'type' of geological map and the legend. GSV has different maps where the rocks that make up the Omeo Metamorphic Complex are variously shown as Ordovician (age of deposition), Silurian (age of regional metamorphism), Devonian (age of contact metamorphism) and Tertiary (sic - age of recent uplift).  Which of these represent an age of the rock depends on the end users requirements. 

Presumably a client like the OneGeology portal will want to display an "age" map which represents depositional or intrusive age. The eventProcess/eventAge couplet allows the client to derive this, or if a WMS, derive a legend explaining what age means. 

The preferredAge property was deprecated because it has no real meaning, it is one age from the rocks geologicHistory, but with no capacity to say why this is the one chosen. 

Cheers 
Bruce

GeoScience Victoria
AuScope Grid
Australian Spatial Research Data Commons

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


"Laxton, John L"  <mailto:jll at bgs.ac.uk> <jll at bgs.ac.uk> 
Sent by:  <mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au> auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au 

19/03/2010 03:42 AM 

  

 


Please respond to
 <mailto:auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au> auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au

  

 


To

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


cc

 <mailto:auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au> "auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au"  <mailto:auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au> <auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au> 


Subject

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



  

  

 


  

 





Steve, 

At present data providers generally give a GeologicUnit an age and I would be wary about moving from this to telling users 'these are the ages of all the things that have happened to the rock, pick which age you want'. The latter approach implies that all users wanting the age of a rock will be aware of what the most significant event in the geologicHistory is which I doubt is always the case. We have to assume that our data is not just going to be accessed through clients under our control and with queries created by us. 

Maybe asking how old a rock is isn't as simple a question as it sounds, but it is one we have traditionally answered and I think we need to continue to do so. 

John 

From: Stephen M Richard [ <mailto:steve.richard at azgs.az.gov> mailto:steve.richard at azgs.az.gov] 
Sent: 18 March 2010 16:16
To: Laxton, John L
Cc:  <mailto:auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au> auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [Auscope-geosciml] Event type vocabulary? what is it 

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:  <mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au> auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au [ <mailto: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:  <mailto:auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au> 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:  <mailto:steve.richard at azgs.az.gov> 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:  <mailto:steve.richard at azgs.az.gov> 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. _______________________________________________
Auscope-geosciml mailing list
 <mailto:Auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au> Auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
 <http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml> 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
 <mailto:Auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au> Auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
 <http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml> http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml

"D卌#9ߓM4­Ÿԅ8Ԭ7㓽‑[1]8b隊Vu?rۦk'(֢)ߢ*'ʞʧjW(z{bjPQ蚖\+╨‑uݾܢmSLSM��⪓h�.֞ꫡۜy֝j^vܢi'翔㓔㓽‑[1]*+¸霢{‑ڟm ޯ?ŸԿ<?"ͭ8ԟiǀ&"جzʨțXʇ텪޲*bz{mȞrG譩ݭ騽뢮랳?ŸԿ<?ڱૉl7!zz+޶آ隊Xz讙^jǧ؟ʘ^靺?wj)]zWz+_ꬊ˞ݵ뭮'('b騵Ⱨm랲xjרʉ텨~檘ʧyاzf?ϼSM��⪗(��҈{c幫‑r쉗y֞~ަ)඘zf?ϼSM��⪛"ͭ㓝)? 
  
  
_______________________________________________ 
Auscope-geosciml mailing list 
 <mailto:Auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au> Auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au 
 <http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml> http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml 
  



-- 
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:  <mailto:steve.richard at azgs.az.gov> 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:  <mailto:steve.richard at azgs.az.gov> 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. _______________________________________________
Auscope-geosciml mailing list
Auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml

"D卌#9ߓM4­Ÿԅ8Ԭ7㓽‑[1]8b隊Vu򪛚rۦk'(֢)ߢ*'ʞʧjW(z{bjPQ蚖\+╨‑uݾܢmSLSM��⪓h�.֞ꫡۜy֝j^vܢi'翔㓔㓽‑[1]*+¸霢{‑ڟm ޯ񎵿ŸԿ<񎵻"ͭ8ԟiǀ&"جzʨțXʇ텪޲*bz{mȞrG譩ݭ騽뢮랳񎵿ŸԿ<񎵷ڱૉl7!zz+޶آ隊Xz讙^jǧ؟ʘ^靺򭫮wj)]zWz+_ꬊ˞ݵ뭮'('b騵Ⱨm랲xjרʉ텨~檘ʧyاzf񎵿ϼSM��⪗(��҈{c幫‑r쉗y֞~ަ)඘zf񎵿ϼSM��⪛"ͭ㓝)󧮊


-- 
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. 


-- 
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. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20100324/737cd39d/attachment.htm>


More information about the GeoSciML mailing list