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

Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au
Sat Sep 25 04:15:51 EDT 2010


John,
Indeed, but on maps the 'representative age' is usually restricted to a 
single Period (sorry I used Era by mistake), whereas the legend has an 
upper and lower age. So the tension we are trying to resolve is between 
wanting to show the map age vs the legend age. 

As the data consumer (client) doesn't have control over what the data 
provider delivers they could put anything (including a range) in the 
'representativer age', which would make using it in a portrayal very 
difficult.

Similarly we don't have control over what the client application chooses 
to use for display, so it could still portray any of the Lower Age, the 
Upper Age or the Representative Age (or any combination) and the data 
provider has no say in it.

The problem is if you provide all three (lower, upper and representative) 
then different data providers will populate them differently and different 
clients will use them differently - the worst of all possible worlds.

Alternatively, only providing the capacity to deliver a single age, the 
'representative age', will encourage those who have an upper and lower age 
to provide this as a text range, which is not easily portrayed.

It is therefore probably  best to allow for a lower and upper age, which 
makes it explicit what these are. It meets the requirements of those who 
want a minimum and maximum age. Those who want to deliver a single 
representative age can populate both with the same value, forcing clients 
to use this value.  The data provider can decide what age they want 
portrayed, and those clients with the capacity to display the age based on 
various ranges will have the information to do so.

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
23/09/2010 05:55 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






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] 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, TWiki overview). 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 
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\+╨‑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^jǧ؟ʘ^靺
?wj)]zWz+_ꬊ˞ݵ뭮'('b騵Ⱨm랲xjרʉ텨~檘ʧyاzf?ϼSM��⪗(��҈{c幫‑r쉗y
֞~ަ)඘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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20100925/31f3fb6a/attachment.htm>


More information about the GeoSciML mailing list