[auscope-geosciml] GeoSciML Thematic View schema - call for feedback

Alistair Ritchie alistair.bh.ritchie at gmail.com
Sun Sep 26 22:53:12 EDT 2010

Hi John

I'll add a type_uri (or faultType_uri, see below) property (point 1.) to the
ShearDisplacementStructure type and update the documentation (the notes
column) to refelct the current majority consensus (2 of 2 repsonses) for
point 3.

For point 2: the GeologicUnit gsmltv:type property *is* holding the unit
type information as a label. Values like 'lithodemic unit' are expected

Would it be clearer if the names of the gsmltv:type property was changed
across all the feature types to gsmltv:geologicUnitType,
gsmltv:contactType,  gsmltv:faultType? If thematic mapping of a type is
required then then there will be corresponding gsmltv:geologicUnitType_uri,
gsmltv:contactType_uri or  gsmltv:faultType_uri properties.


*Alistair Ritchie*
Department of Primary Industries | Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Tel: +61 3 9658 4512 | Fax: +61 3 9658 4555

On 23 September 2010 19:58, Laxton, John L <jll at bgs.ac.uk> wrote:

>  Hi Alistair,
> A couple of comments on this as requested:
> 1.      I think we need a faultType thematic map class in the
> ShearDisplacementStructure view
> 2.      I think in the GeologicUnit view gsmltv:type would be better named
> gsmltv:title as that it what it is as I understand it – it isn’t really
> holding information on the type of GeologicUnit
> 3.      I agree that gsmltv:identifier should be unique to the thematic
> view – areas are likely to be combined in thematic views so won’t
> necessarily relate directly to the originating MappedFeatures.
> Could you clarify what you mean when you say this is not for setting up a
> simple GeoSciML WFS? Surely it is for setting up a simple WFS amongst other
> things.
> John
> *From:* auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au [mailto:
> auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] *On Behalf Of *Alistair
> Ritchie
> *Sent:* 15 September 2010 02:43
> *To:* AuScope-GeoSciML
> *Subject:* [auscope-geosciml] GeoSciML Thematic View schema - call for
> feedback
> 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.
> 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*
> Department of Primary Industries | Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
> *Tel:* +61 3 9658 4512 | *Fax*: +61 3 9658 4555
> --
> 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/20100927/3062ef2f/attachment.htm>

More information about the GeoSciML mailing list