[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