[Auscope-geosciml] preferredAge

Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au
Sun Mar 28 22:18:25 EDT 2010


I still believe that it depends on the purpose of the geological map. This 
information is usually contained in the map title (is it a basement 
geology, metamorphic history, structural history or geomorphological 
geological map) and/or the environmental process column of the legend, 
usually with some additional information on the compilers reasoning in the 
explanatory notes. 

For instance, a geological map of the Victorian structural zones shows the 
age of the various orogenies that have effected the zones, not the 
depositional ages. So for example, we have the Glenelg Zone, which has had 
both the Delamerian Orogeny (514-500Ma) and  Benambran Orogeny 
(490-440Ma). Which of these should be the 'preferredAge'? 

If we must have a boolean on the GeologicEvent to indicate whether it is 
the 'recommended age for general purpose geological map display' or not, 
then I'm not sure  this can be optional. Does a Boolean of Yes/No/Null 
make sense?

Just on: debris flow isn't in fact a child of deposition, it's a child of 
erosion - I believe it can be either the process that resulted in a 
deposit (child of deposition) or a process of erosion and therefore needs 
to be disambiguated. 

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



"Simon Cox" <simon.cox at jrc.ec.europa.eu> 
Sent by: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au
24/03/2010 10:15 PM
Please respond to
auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au


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

Subject
Re: [Auscope-geosciml] preferredAge






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 
http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/simon-cox 

SDI Unit: http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ 
IES Institute: http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ 
JRC: 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 
http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/simon-cox 

SDI Unit: http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ 
IES Institute: http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ 
JRC: 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: 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: 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: 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: Monday, 22 March 2010 10:24 AM
To: 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 

<Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au> 
Sent by: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au 
22/03/2010 09:56 AM 
 


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

 


To
<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: Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au 
| Google Map 
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 --- 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
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: Friday, 19 March 2010 11:04 PM
To: 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: 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: 18 March 2010 22:24
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Cc: auscope-geosciml 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" <jll at bgs.ac.uk> 
Sent by: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au 
19/03/2010 03:42 AM 
 
 


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

 
 


To
"steve.richard at azgs.az.gov" <steve.richard at azgs.az.gov> 
cc
"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] 
Sent: 18 March 2010 16:16
To: Laxton, John L
Cc: 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: 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 

-- 
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 

-- 
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 
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

"D卌#9ߓM4­Ÿԅ8Ԭ7㓽‑[1]8b隊Vu?rۦk'(֢)ߢ*'ʞʧjW(z{bjPQ蚖\+╨‑uݾܢ
mSLSM��⪓h�.֞ꫡۜy֝j^vܢi'翔㓔㓽‑[1]*+¸霢{‑ڟm ޯ?ŸԿ<?"ͭ8ԟiǀ&"جzʨ
țXʇ텪޲*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 
Auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au 
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: 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 

-- 
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\+╨‑uݾܢ
mSLSM��⪓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^j
ǧ؟ʘ^靺򭫮wj)]zWz+_ꬊ˞ݵ뭮'('b騵Ⱨm랲xjרʉ텨~檘ʧ
yاzf񎵿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. 
_______________________________________________
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/20100329/ae2524eb/attachment.htm>


More information about the GeoSciML mailing list