[auscope-geosciml] RE : [QUAR] Re: Sequence of Events [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Boisvert, Eric Eric.Boisvert at RNCan-NRCan.gc.ca
Mon Apr 18 20:23:31 EDT 2011


I've been trying to follow the discussion.
 
The proposal is to create a new "GeologicEventRelation" (subtype of GeologicRelation ?)  to link/chain events because GeologicFeatureRelation cannot be used (because GeologicFeatureRelation only links GeologicFeatures and GeologicEvent are not sub types of GeologicFeature).
 
The alternate proposition (that seems to be rejected) was to have GeologicEvent  to be a sub type of GeologicFeature to allow usage of GeologicFeatureRelation .  This has been rejected on the basis that GeologicEvent does not fit the definition of a GeologicFeature.
 
Do I get this correctly ?

________________________________

De: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au de la part de Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au
Date: lun. 2011-04-18 19:21
À: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Objet : Re: [auscope-geosciml] [QUAR] Re: Sequence of Events [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]



I am happy to support John's proposal.

 

Could I please have a show of support (or otherwise) from the other Model Design team members and I will add GeologicEventRelation to the trunk model as a type of GeologicRelation.

 

Cheers,

Ollie

 <https://email.nrcan.gc.ca/exchange/eboisver/Drafts/RE%C2%A0:%20[auscope-geosciml]%20[QUAR]%20Re:%20Sequence%20of%20Events%20[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED].EML/1_multipart/image001.jpg> 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

Ollie Raymond

 

Project Leader

National Geological Maps and Data Standards Project <http://www.ga.gov.au/minerals/projects/current-projects/geological-maps-standards.html> 

Geoscience Australia

 

Interoperability Working Group <https://www.seegrid.csiro.au/wiki/bin/view/CGIModel/InteroperabilityWG> 

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 62479992  |  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>  

_______________________________________________________________________

 

--- 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 Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au
Sent: Tuesday, 19 April 2011 8:14 AM
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: [QUAR] Re: [auscope-geosciml] Sequence of Events
Importance: Low

 

Hi John, 
I'm not sure I'll be able to get to Edinburgh and so may miss out on a healthy debate with you and the others on this. 

Is the spatial extent of the effect of the GeologicEvent, for example the "Delamerian Orogeny", the spatial representation of a GeologicEvent that has affected multiple GeologicUnits, therefore making a GeologicEvent a type of GeologicFeature?   
Or is it the spatial extent of  a type of GeologicUnit, a "Deformation Unit", that is defined by a single GeologicEvent?  This GeologicUnit being made up of many different LithostratigraphicUnits that have been affected differently by the same GeologicEvent? 

Alistair also supports your view that it is the latter, so in the light of no other support for my view I'm happy to agree to your suggestion. 

>I think we should aim to fix this in version 3 as the current model note is clearly wrong. 
I agree. 

Cheers 
Bruce 

----------------------------------------------------
Bruce Simons 
Senior Information Geoscientist
IUGS-Commission for Geoscience Information Oceania Councillor
GeoScience Victoria/Australian Spatial Research Data Commons 
Level 9, 55 Collins St 
PO Box 4440 
Melbourne, Victoria, 3001 
Australia 

Ph: +61-3-9658 4502
Fax: +61-3-9658 4555 
Mobile: +61 429 177155 



From:        "Laxton, John L." <jll at bgs.ac.uk> 
To:        "auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au" <auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au> 
Date:        18/04/2011 07:07 PM 
Subject:        Re: [auscope-geosciml] Sequence of Events 
Sent by:        auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au 

________________________________




Hi Bruce, 
  
The definition we have of GeologicFeature is: 'The abstract GeologicFeature class represents a conceptual feature that is hypothesized to exist coherently in the world. 
* this corresponds with a "legend item" from a traditional geologic map 
* while the bounding coordinates of a Geologic Feature may be described, its shape is not.' 
  
 I don't think a GeologicEvent really falls within this definition which is talking about real-world geological 'things' as I understand it. On that basis I think the GeologicEventRelation approach would be better. 
  
I think we should aim to fix this in version 3 as the current model note is clearly wrong. 
  
John 

________________________________

From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au [auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au [Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au]
Sent: 18 April 2011 01:57
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] Sequence of Events

Hi John, 

GeologicEvents aren't GeologicFeatures 
Sorry, my mistake, you are quite correct. They are gml Features and therefore we can't use the GeologicRelationship as I outlined. 

Rather than having a GeologicEventRelation as you suggest, an alternative is to have GeologicEvents as sub-types of GeologicFeatures. I think this would work better but am happy to hear the arguments for and against. 

Cheers 
Bruce 

----------------------------------------------------
Bruce Simons 
Senior Information Geoscientist
IUGS-Commission for Geoscience Information Oceania Councillor
GeoScience Victoria/Australian Spatial Research Data Commons 
Level 9, 55 Collins St 
PO Box 4440 
Melbourne, Victoria, 3001 
Australia 

Ph: +61-3-9658 4502
Fax: +61-3-9658 4555 
Mobile: +61 429 177155 



From:        "Laxton, John L." <jll at bgs.ac.uk> 
To:        "auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au" <auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au> 
Date:        15/04/2011 06:59 PM 
Subject:        Re: [auscope-geosciml] Sequence of Events 
Sent by:        auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au 

________________________________




Hi Bruce, 
 
Thanks for that.  Your statement that 'The two GeologicEvents are two GeologicFeatures....' is the bit I don't understand. GeologicEvents aren't GeologicFeatures so I don't see how the target/source associations can point to GeologicEvents? It was to overcome this that I suggested we needed GeologicEventRelation with target/source associations to GeologicEvent. 
 
John 
 
From: 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> ] On Behalf Of Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au
Sent: 15 April 2011 05:40
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] Sequence of Events 
 
Hi John, 
Sorry for the delay but I've been trying to get the instance documents to validate in order to produce an example (without success so far - so no example produced). 

> Surely GeologicFeatureRelation is describing the relationship between two GeologicFeatures, not two GeologicEvents applying to the same GeologicFeature? 

The two GeologicEvents are two GeologicFeatures that relate to the same GeologicUnit (they may also relate to other GeologicUnits). The GeologicFeaturerelation is describing the relationship between these two events in terms of the enclosing GeologicUnit.  The following captures that: 

<gsml:GeologicUnit> 
... 
      <gsml:geologicHistory> 
              <gsml:GeologicEvent gml:id="Event 1"> 
... 
      <gsml:geologicHistory> 
              <gsml:GeologicEvent gml:id="Event2"> 
... 
              <gsml:targetLink> 
                              <gsml:GeologicFeatureRelation gml:id="Relation1"> 
                                      <gsml:relationship codeSpace="http=URI for event relationships">Preceding Event</gsml:relationship> 
                                      <gsml:sourceRole codeSpace="http-URI for event roles">precedes</gsml:sourceRole> 
                                      <gsml:targetRole codeSpace="http-URI for event roles">succeeds</gsml:targetRole> 
                                      <gsml:target xlink:href="Event 1"/> 
                                      <gsml:source xlink:href="Event 2"/> 
                              </gsml:GeologicFeatureRelation> 
              </gsml:targetLink> 
... 

Ideally the relationship between the GeologicEvents external to the GeologicUnit would be consistent with the relationship between the GeologicEvents within the GeologicUnit. 

So an alternative is to describe the relationships between all the GeologicEvents (a GeologicEvent WFS) and then refer to these byReference from within the GeologicUnit (this would need testing). 

Of course neither adequately covers specifying the ordering of GeologicEvents, which it should, but was left out as being too hard in Ottawa. 

Bruce 


----------------------------------------------------
Bruce Simons 
Senior Information Geoscientist
IUGS-Commission for Geoscience Information Oceania Councillor
GeoScience Victoria/Australian Spatial Research Data Commons 
Level 9, 55 Collins St 
PO Box 4440 
Melbourne, Victoria, 3001 
Australia 

Ph: +61-3-9658 4502
Fax: +61-3-9658 4555 
Mobile: +61 429 177155 



From:        "Laxton, John L." <jll at bgs.ac.uk> 
To:        "auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au" <auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au> 
Date:        08/04/2011 09:04 PM 
Subject:        [auscope-geosciml] Sequence of Events 
Sent by:        auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au 

 

________________________________






Folks, 

There is a note attached to GeologicEvent in the model stating that the sequence of GeologicEvents can be handled with GeologicFeatureRelation. I'm not quite clear how this will work. Surely GeologicFeatureRelation is describing the relationship between two GeologicFeatures, not two GeologicEvents applying to the same GeologicFeature? Do we not need a GeologicEventRelation subtype of GeologicRelation with source/target links to GeologicEvent? 

John 


John Laxton
British Geological Survey
Murchison House
West Mains Rd
Edinburgh, EH9 3LA
United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0)131 667 1000
Fax: +44 (0)131 668 1535
email: jll at bgs.ac.uk
Web site: www.bgs.ac.uk <http://www.bgs.ac.uk/> 
Internet Shop: www.thebgs.co.uk <http://www.thebgs.co.uk/>  




-- 
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 <http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml> 

________________________________

Y?i?&,??????x[1](dNP?8}4?QSLSN?{aN57??S+-jwZ&!?fr?+b{aj??vr??&^e??^?????8?8?i?&6Z?????i????^w?N57??p??z?+???ay?????SO?S,?SM?-?z??~??'?????*???SO?S}-[1]?{b­?j?+-w?zz-??o*??f?z??.??????z??Z?+-v??k?z??w??{Zw{aGj)????&rhMW??zay?'???{b
aGj)????&,????v??)_______________________________________________
auscope-geosciml mailing list
auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml <http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml> 

??8??i??&??,???-????S??S??x??(dNP??8??}?4?@Q?S?LS?N?{aN57?q?+??S?+????jwZ?&???!???f?r??j)??+??b?{aj????v?r????&???^??e??)^??Z????)?????8??8??i??&?6?Z?????!??]m??????i???h??&???q?^w?N51N57?q?+??p??h??az??+??^??'????ay?)????0?????S?S?O????S?,??S?M??x ?jR-??az????????~?^??"?'??????$~??????*?????S?S?O????S}???????{b???j??y???m?+?????w?????zz-????????o*???zf???z????*.?????^?????r?bz?(????Z??h?+?v?.??(?k???z??z\???^?w?f????{Z?w??{a?Gj)??S???8??i??&?r?h?M<?M,?7?>W???(??z?ay??'???m???k?{b? a?Gj)??S???8??i??&??,???N59???>v????)?_______________________________________________
auscope-geosciml mailing list
auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml <http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml> 


________________________________

Y?i?&,??????x[1](dNP?8}4?QSLSN?{aN57??S+-jwZ&!?fr????+b{aj??vr??&^e??^?????8?8?i?&6Z?????i????^w??N57??p??z?+???ay?????SO??S,?SM???????-?z??~??'?????*???SO??S}-[1]?{b­?j???????+-w?zz-??o*??f?z??.???????z??Z?+-v??k?z??w??{Zw{aGj)?????&rhM<?,7>W??zay?'???{b
aGj)?????&,?????v??) 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 94370 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20110418/8b2472f5/attachment.bin>


More information about the GeoSciML mailing list