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

Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au
Mon Apr 18 20:39:28 EDT 2011


Succinctly put.


----------------------------------------------------
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:   "Boisvert, Eric" <Eric.Boisvert at RNCan-NRCan.gc.ca>
To:     <auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au>
Date:   19/04/2011 10:23 AM
Subject:        [auscope-geosciml] RE :  [QUAR] Re: Sequence of Events 
[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Sent by:        auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au



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??) 

[attachment "image001.jpg" deleted by Bruce Simons/DPI/VICGOV1] 
_______________________________________________
auscope-geosciml mailing list
auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml


Notice:
This email and any attachments may contain information that is personal, 
confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright.No part of it should be reproduced, 
adapted or communicated without the prior written consent of the copyright owner. 

It is the responsibility of the recipient to check for and remove viruses.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by return email, delete 
it from your system and destroy any copies. You are not authorised to use, communicate or rely on the information 
contained in this email.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20110419/9ffe1031/attachment.htm>


More information about the GeoSciML mailing list