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

Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au
Tue Sep 28 20:10:58 EDT 2010

"do we mandate a format for these labels, or do we allow each service provider to determine the best way to present their data"  There's nothing wrong with making a recommendation. At least then we might get the majority of free text labels looking the same, which is better than nothing

Ollie Raymond

National Advice, Maps and Data 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<mailto:Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au> | Google Map<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>
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 ---

From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au [mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of Alistair Ritchie
Sent: Wednesday, 29 September 2010 9:56 AM
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] GeoSciML Thematic View schema - call for feedback

Thanks Steve

An example from one of GSV's development WMSs is as follows:

Format: [lithology label], [proportion]; [lithology label], [proportion]; ...
Example: 'mudstone, dominant; sandstone, minor'

Format: [oldest age] to [youngest age], [process] - [environment]; [oldest age] to [youngest age], [process] - [environment]; ...
Example: 'Early Cambrian to Late Cambrian, turbidity current - deep sea, Cambrian to Silurian, orogenic metamorphism - convergent plate boundary'

Question: do we mandate a format for these labels, or do we allow each service provider to determine the best way to present their data? Because they are just labels, not searchable data, I'm inclined towards the latter.


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

On 16 September 2010 00:57, Stephen M Richard <steve.richard at azgs.az.gov<mailto:steve.richard at azgs.az.gov>> wrote:
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

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:

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


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

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:

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.


Alistair Ritchie
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>


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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20100929/4540152b/attachment.htm>

More information about the GeoSciML mailing list