[auscope-geosciml] GeoSciML Thematic View schema - callfor feedback

Laxton, John L jll at bgs.ac.uk
Thu Sep 23 03:55:51 EDT 2010


Yes I agree – that is just what I was saying!

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: 23 September 2010 00:56
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] GeoSciML Thematic View schema - callfor feedback


John,
The trouble is that all age representation are ranges (even a single term such as Silurian actually represents a range.) Because of the almost infinite age range combinations possible, the usual practise is to have the geologist pick a single age era term as the representative age for symbolising based on the appropriate age era, irrespective of the actual age range shown in the legend.

Perhaps a Thematic View age labelled "representative age era" would meet the 1GE user requirements and allow the application to know it will be one of the ISC eras?

Cheers
Bruce

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

22/09/2010 06:27 PM
Please respond to
auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au


To

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

cc

Subject

Re: [auscope-geosciml] GeoSciML Thematic View schema        -        callfor        feedback







Hi,

In 1GE this was a portrayal issue. Ages were given as a term range but because we wanted to portray age in one of the services we arbitrarily decided this would be on the basis of lower age, which could clearly give misleading results for units covering a long time period. Alternatives would have been to go up the age hierarchy tree until we had a geochron unit that included the whole time period of the unit, but that could mean loss of a lot of resolution, or a geologist choosing an appropriate representative age. The latter would have been best but we decided against it because of the geologist time involved as I recall. In developing a data structure designed for portrayal a single term ‘representative age’ would be useful.

John

From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au [mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of Tellez-Arenas Agnes
Sent: 22 September 2010 08:27
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] GeoSciML Thematic View schema - callfor feedback


Hi

Thanks for this answer.

Another question/comment.

Regarding gsmltv:representativeLowerAge_uri  and gsmltv:representativeUpperAge_uri, I remember that in 1GEurope project, some partners were not happy with having to choose between upperAge or lowerAge for portraying the data, they would prefere a representativeAge (If I am not wrong...). We had a lot of discussion on that subject. It was an issue also because of the harmonization between several country. I am honnestly not able to explain why and what! I think John would be able to give more explanation.

(or maybe I am totally wrong!)

Agnès


________________________________

De : auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au [mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] De la part de Stephen M Richard
Envoyé : mercredi 15 septembre 2010 16:57
À : auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Objet : Re: [auscope-geosciml] GeoSciML Thematic View schema - callfor feedback
Agnes--
here's some examples of a structured approach to the text strings that might be used in a flat file format to summarize the lithology and geologic history
steve


LITHOLOGY COMPOSITION (Text) – Composition of the mapped unit in terms of rock types from the standard lithology vocabulary, along with a proportion value for each constituent. Encoded as a set of {lithology:proportion} tuples. Rock types will be specified with preferred names from a CGI lithology vocabulary. Proportion values will also be specified from a controlled vocabulary, and definition for these terms will be accessible through the same mechanism as the lithology vocabulary.  The format will be “Lith1:prop1;Lith2:prop2”. The lithology vocabulary includes some hierarchy, and the lithology terms could encode the hierarchy from most general to most specific (granitic rock/granodiorite). The first lithology listed will be considered the most abundant and used for symbolization in a lithology map portrayal.

GEOLOGIC History (Text) – Text string for geologic age of event(s) in genesis of unit.  Specified as “Age(NNN.N)[?][-Age(NNN.N)[?]]:Event” tuples, with multiple values separated by semicolons. If two age values are included, separated by a hyphen, for an event, the event occurred during an age range. Older age bound of range is listed first. If a numeric age is known, it should be added after the corresponding stratigraphic age term in parenthesis. Numeric age values are in millions of years before 1950 (Ma). Hierarchy of stratigraphic ages is indicated from most general to most specific, with the named eras separated by ‘/’. To reduce the likelihood of the age string exceeding 255 characters and being truncated in shapefiles, stratigraphic era names do not need to be repeated if they have already been used. The confidence term is optional, defaulting to ‘std’, indicating that the age is considered reliable with a standard level of confidence. Other values allowed are ‘low’, used to indicate that the associated age assignment is uncertain, and ‘unk’ to indicate unknown reliability. Examples: “Phanerozoic/Mesozoic/Jurassic-Cretaceous:Deposition”, “Phanerozoic/­Cenozoic/­Neogene/­Miocene(12.5):Eruption”, “Precambrian/­Proterozoic/­Paleo­protero­zoic­(1750):­Eruption; Mesoproterozoic(1420):Intrusion; Phanerozoic/­Mesozoic/­Jurassic­(165):­Intrusion; Cenozoic/­Paleogene/Eocene?-Neogene/Miocene:Metamorphism; Miocene:­Cooling”.



On 9/15/2010 12:52 AM, Tellez-Arenas Agnes wrote:
Hi,

A first question.

I understand that gsmltv:geologicHistory (concat value YES) represents several attributes that are concatenated.
But what if there are several geologicHistory?

For gsmltv:lithology, I guess that if there are several compositionPart, all the lithologies are concatenated, without role and proportion?

 Thanks for this work!

Best regards

Agnès


________________________________

De : 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] De la part de Alistair Ritchie
Envoyé : mercredi 15 septembre 2010 03:43
À : AuScope-GeoSciML
Objet : [auscope-geosciml] GeoSciML Thematic View schema - call for feedback
BACKGROUND

The lack of a thematic map or portrayal model that could be easily deployed in the current generation of web map services (be they OGC or Google or ... ? ... services) has long been recognised as a problem in GeoSciML. At the Rome IWG meeting the group moved to develop a schema that defined GeoSciML compatible map layers for simple map services (meeting note<https://www.seegrid.csiro.au/twiki/bin/view/CGIModel/RomeF2FModelDesignMeetingNotes#14_Portrayal_classes_in_GeoSciML>, TWiki overview<https://www.seegrid.csiro.au/twiki/bin/view/CGIModel/GeoSciMLThematicView>). Broadly speaking the intent is to promote:
1.        a consistent interface to web map data;
2.        the widespread us of controlled vocabularies in thematic mapping;
3.        the ability to share thematic mapping tools such as SLDs between map services and clients to allow simple map query and display use cases ('show me all units coloured by their lithology', ' show me all units that contain sandstone');
4.        provide a very simple entry level to the GeoSciML world, introducing the concepts of mapping to community defined vocabularies and understanding the full GeoSciML model.
The primary result of this work will be a GML application schema that conforms to level 0 of the Simple Features Profile for GML (SF). It is a denormalised view of GeoSciML that corresponds to a GIS layer (one record per geometry) and can be used for portrayal and thematic mapping purposes.

While it has been harmonized with GeoSciML (consistent naming conventions, broad mapping of properties) it is a schema in it own right. It  not a SF level 0 profile of GeoSciML, is not intended as a basis for setting up simple GeoSciML Web Feature Services, and is not intended as a simple query interface to GeoSciML. It is solely for representing geological features in simple map clients using simple map services.


REQUEST FOR COMMENT

An initial skeleton of a model has been compiled based on existing WMS layers (GeoScience Victoria and Arizona Geological Survey) and feedback from participants at the Rome meeting. Tables summarising the proposed layers have been posted here:
         https://www.seegrid.csiro.au/twiki/bin/view/CGIModel/GeoSciMLThematicViewModelDiscussion

We need feedback from a much broader group and invite interested parties to comment on the model and suggest changes where necessary. At the end of October a release candidate schema will be produced and tested as part of Testbed 4.

We look forward to your feedback.

Thanks

Alistair Ritchie
GEOSCIENCE VICTORIA | EARTH RESOURCES DIVISION
Department of Primary Industries | Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Tel: +61 3 9658 4512 | Fax: +61 3 9658 4555
P Pensez à l'environnement avant d'imprimer ce message
       Think Environment before printing
Le contenu de ce mél et de ses pièces jointes est destiné à l'usage exclusif du (des) destinataire(s) désigné(s) comme tel(s).
En cas de réception par erreur, le signaler à son expéditeur et ne pas en divulguer le contenu.
L'absence de virus a été vérifiée à l'émission, il convient néanmoins de s'assurer de l'absence de contamination à sa réception.

The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only.
If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager or  the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to
anyone or make copies.
eSafe scanned this email for viruses, vandals and malicious content.

_______________________________________________
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
P Pensez à l'environnement avant d'imprimer ce message
       Think Environment before printing

Le contenu de ce mél et de ses pièces jointes est destiné à l'usage exclusif du (des) destinataire(s) désigné(s) comme tel(s).
En cas de réception par erreur, le signaler à son expéditeur et ne pas en divulguer le contenu.
L'absence de virus a été vérifiée à l'émission, il convient néanmoins de s'assurer de l'absence de contamination à sa réception.

The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only.
If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager or  the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to
anyone or make copies.
eSafe scanned this email for viruses, vandals and malicious content.


--
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)󧮊
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20100923/69786be8/attachment.htm>


More information about the GeoSciML mailing list