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

Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au
Wed Apr 20 22:15:48 EDT 2011


> Remember: MappedFeature is already in the model to cope with spatially discrete occurrences.



I think Simon has hit the nail on the head here.  After reading a lot of discussion over the last few days, and being swayed one way and then another, I support GeologicEvents being GeologicFeatures.



My definition of a GeologicFeature would be simply “any gml:Feature that is specifically relevant to geology”.  If a GeologicEvent meets the criteria to qualify as a gml:Feature (which we apparently agree on), then I see no reason that it can’t qualify as a GeologicFeature too.  If a GeologicFeature has a spatial aspect to it, then that is represented through its associated gsml:MappedFeature (or associated GeologicUnit.  If a particular GeologicFeature does not have a spatial aspect to it, then it won’t have an associated MappedFeature.



Examples:

1.       a seismic GeologicEvent (the Sendai Japan March 9th earthquake) might be associated with a mapped earthquake locus (a point at 38.424°N, 142.836°E), or it might just be described as an unlocated temporal feature.

2.       an orogenic GeologicEvent (the Delamarian Orogeny) might be associated with a mapped DeformationUnit (a polygon covering an area of Victoria and South Australia), or it might be described as an unlocated Cambrian temporal feature.



Cheers,

Ollie

_______________________________________________________________________

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 ---




-----Original Message-----
From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au [mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of Simon.Cox at csiro.au
Sent: Thursday, 21 April 2011 11:34 AM
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] FW: RE : RE : Sequence of Events [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]



My hunch is that Percy's GIS background is influencing his opinion here.

But geology is a historical science, and everything is temporally transient on the timescales of interest.

If the scope of GeoSciML is strictly geological maps - being the current state of the geology - then this might have merit.

But if Geological Events are part of our model at all, then I can't see how they are not Geological Features.



Remember: MappedFeature is already in the model to cope with spatially discrete occurrences.

We do not need to promote its scope  up to the GeologicFeature class, else why make the distinction?



Simon Cox

Research Scientist

CSIRO Earth Science & Resource Engineering



Phone: +61 8 6436 8639 | Fax: +61 8 6436 8555 | Mobile: 0403 302 672

simon.cox at csiro.au | www.csiro.au

Address: ARRC, PO Box 1130, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia

________________________________________

From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au [auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au [Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au]

Sent: Thursday, 21 April 2011 7:33 AM

To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au

Subject: [auscope-geosciml] FW:  RE :  RE :  Sequence of Events [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]



forwarding a comment from Percy that got bounced from the email list….



________________________________

From: Percy [mailto:percy at pdx.edu]

Sent: Thursday, 21 April 2011 3:28 AM

To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au

Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] RE : RE : Sequence of Events



un-cloaking for a moment :-)



I agree with John, events and features are different. a crater is a feature caused by an impact event.

I can't imagine trying to describe an earthquake as a feature...it's temporally transient. am I missing something obvious there?



<back to lurk mode>

Percy



On 4/20/11 4:33 AM, Laxton, John L. wrote:



Maybe the definition of GeologicFeature needs to say something like 'The abstract GeologicFeature class represents a conceptual feature that is hypothesized to have substance and exist coherently in the world'. I'm sure the philosophers have a better way of putting it - isn't this what the ancient Greeks spent a lot of time thinking about??







John



________________________________________

From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au<mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au> [auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au<mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au>] On Behalf Of Simon.Cox at csiro.au<mailto:Simon.Cox at csiro.au> [Simon.Cox at csiro.au<mailto:Simon.Cox at csiro.au>]

Sent: 20 April 2011 10:04

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

Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] RE :  RE :  Sequence of Events



Sorry - I read what I imagined, not what you wrote.



OK - if you want to keep cause and effect separate, give them better names.

If feature is a superset including event, excluding GeologicEvent from GeologicFeature is inconsistent.



But I think the earthquake example is a clincher. It is observable, spatially locatable, but clearly an event.

So I can't come up with a definition of 'feature' that would exclude it. Can you?



Simon



-----Original Message-----

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 Laxton, John L.

Sent: Wednesday, 20 April 2011 4:52 PM

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

Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] RE : RE : Sequence of Events



Hi Simon,



I don't understand this commment. I said that the reason I would prefer GeologicEvent not to be a GeologicFeature is not because GeologicEvent isn't spatially bounded (it is as you say) but because I think it is worth keeping physical objects separate from the processes that created/altered them. This seems to me a pretty significant distinction but if I am in a minority on that I'll let it go!



John



________________________________________

From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au<mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au> [auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au<mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au>] On Behalf Of Simon.Cox at csiro.au<mailto:Simon.Cox at csiro.au> [Simon.Cox at csiro.au<mailto:Simon.Cox at csiro.au>]

Sent: 20 April 2011 09:31

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

Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] RE :  RE :  Sequence of Events



"My concern is not so much to keep GeologicFeature to things which are spatially bounded"



Why? And even if, then geologic events are generally spatially bounded (the Alice Springs Orogeny was confined to Australia I think), so I don't see a conflict here.



Is this to fit in with some INSPIRE limitation?



Simon



-----Original Message-----

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 Laxton, John L.

Sent: Wednesday, 20 April 2011 3:49 PM

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

Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] RE : RE : Sequence of Events



Hi Gilly,



My concern is not so much to keep GeologicFeature to things which are spatially bounded (I take your point about Earthquakes), but rather to keep it to physical objects rather than the operation of a process (which takes place at a particuar time in a particular place). The problem is that in geology the process and its resultant product often get entwined as we can only understand the GeologicEvent in which process occurred (which happened in the past) by studying its products (some feature of the rocks). Nevertheless I think they are worth keeping separate in the model.



However, like you, I'll go with the majority view. I do think we need to get this fixed in version 3 one way or another.



John



________________________________________

From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au<mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au> [auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au<mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au>] On Behalf Of Guillaume.Duclaux at csiro.au<mailto:Guillaume.Duclaux at csiro.au> [Guillaume.Duclaux at csiro.au<mailto:Guillaume.Duclaux at csiro.au>]

Sent: 20 April 2011 08:02

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

Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] RE :  RE :  Sequence of Events



John,



Nice discussion!



I understand the distinction you make between causes and consequences and I agree that these need to be separated concepts at the data level.

We also agree that both cause and effect are 'features' (in the sense of the GML Application level) and in the GeoSciML app schema both are instances of GF_Feature class.



>At present GeologicFeature is for geological 'things' in the real world and it seems to me useful to have something that covers that class of objects.



Is your concern that GeologicFeatures should be spatial features only?



Earthquakes are real world geological things and to me these are perfect examples of geologic events.



http://www.earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/earthquakes/education/uk_earthquakes.htm



Would you argue that this is not a map of geologic events?



In the current implementation of GeoSciML, I don't think GeologicEvent breaches the definition of GeologicFeature (the top level concept of the model), as it represent a real-world phenomena, that is bounded (in time) and can be represented as a legend item.

 - Other examples of legend items could be in a map the extension of the Messinian Salinity Crisis event in the Mediterranean basin, or the extent of a particular glaciation event (not the deposition of any moraines). -





If GeologicEvent is a type of GeologicFeature we could use GeologicFeatureRelation to express relationships (sequence of events - back to the initial point of this discussion) without much refactoring the model and adding new classes, just clarifying some definitions.

To me this sounds conceptually correct and would keep the model simple, but I will not fight much more for this..





Cheers



Gilly





On 19/04/2011, at 7:13 PM, Laxton, John L. wrote:



Hi Eric,



We could do that but my reservation is that such a broad definition of GeologicFeature would be less useful. At present GeologicFeature is for geological 'things' in the real world and it seems to me useful to have something that covers that class of objects. I think GeologicEvent is something very different (the causes that formed/altered the geological 'things'). I think we have to be careful of big buckets into which everything fits, even if this makes the modelling simpler....



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><mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au> [auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au<mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au>] On Behalf Of Boisvert, Eric [Eric.Boisvert at RNCan-NRCan.gc.ca<mailto:Eric.Boisvert at RNCan-NRCan.gc.ca>]

Sent: 19 April 2011 11:10

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

Subject: [auscope-geosciml] RE : RE : Sequence of Events



Is the argument that events that no longer exist cannot be GeologicFeature ?.



> I'm not sure a GeologicEvent can be said to 'exist coherently in the world'



I see your point, but, is this just a case where we need to adjust the definition of GeologicFeature to include events ? (or is this a blasphemy to suggest that ?)



 Eric



________________________________

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><mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au> de la part de Laxton, John L.

Date: mar. 2011-04-19 05:47

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

Objet : Re: [auscope-geosciml] RE : Sequence of Events



Folks,



I'm not sure a GeologicEvent can be said to 'exist coherently in the world' (unless it is a current GeologicEvent). Gilly's map of Western Australia is a map of GeologicUnits that have been affected by one or more GeologicEvents (orogenies etc) - it is not really a map of those events (which no longer exist). For example a period of erosion is a GeologicEvent and it may have given rise to an unconformity, but I don't think it is correct to say that a map of the unconformity is a map of erosion. One is cause and one is effect and I think we need to keep these separate. gml:feature is a much broader concept so I think a GeologicEvent can be a gml:feature without being a GeologicFeature.



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><mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au> [auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au<mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au>] On Behalf Of Boisvert, Eric [Eric.Boisvert at RNCan-NRCan.gc.ca<mailto:Eric.Boisvert at RNCan-NRCan.gc.ca>]

Sent: 19 April 2011 10:07

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

Subject: [auscope-geosciml] RE : Sequence of Events



same here.



I can't see why a GeologicEvent can be a Feature without being a GeologicFeature.



________________________________

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><mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au> de la part de Simon.Cox at csiro.au<mailto:Simon.Cox at csiro.au><mailto:Simon.Cox at csiro.au><mailto:Simon.Cox at csiro.au>

Date: mar. 2011-04-19 03:20

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

Objet : Re: [auscope-geosciml] Sequence of Events



OK. I’d say yes – why not?



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><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<mailto:Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au><mailto:Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au><mailto:Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au>

Sent: Tuesday, 19 April 2011 3:13 PM

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

Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] Sequence of Events



GeologicEvent is already a gml:feature.  The question is whether it is a GeologicFeature.





----------------------------------------------------

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:        <Simon.Cox at csiro.au<mailto:Simon.Cox at csiro.au><mailto:Simon.Cox at csiro.au><mailto:Simon.Cox at csiro.au>>

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

Date:        19/04/2011 05:11 PM

Subject:        Re: [auscope-geosciml] Sequence of Events

Sent by:        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><mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au>

________________________________







It has a name and is a coherent conceptual entity from the real world.

Geological Event is a feature.



-----Original Message-----

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><mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au> [mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of Guillaume.Duclaux at csiro.au<mailto:Guillaume.Duclaux at csiro.au><mailto:Guillaume.Duclaux at csiro.au><mailto:Guillaume.Duclaux at csiro.au>

Sent: Tuesday, 19 April 2011 10:11 AM

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

Subject: [ExternalEmail] Re: [auscope-geosciml] Sequence of Events



Hi GeoSciMLers,



Interesting discussion going here!



According to the definition John extracted from the model, I don't understand why a GeologicEvent can't be a GeologicFeature...



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

I have on my wall a geologic map of the Western Australian Mines where the items in the legend are defined by both rock types and ages.

The legend displays an Archaean 'granite and gneiss' and also a Paleoproterozoic 'granite and gneiss', same rock types but different geleogic events. In fact, most legend item in geologic maps relate to geologic events or periods. The example Bruce used ('Delamerian orogeny') is a conceptual feature that exist in the real world.



* while the bounding coordinates of a Geologic Feature may be described, its shape is not.'

Correct me again if I'm wrong, but bounding coordinates could refer both to spatial or temporal bounds, unless specified. GML defines  a gml:TimeCoordinateSystem class so a temporal CRS is a valid coordinate system. A GeologicEvent  has bounding coordinates.



Actually, the first proposition Bruce made seems better to me.



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?

I support this view.  A map presenting all rocks occurrences  that have been affected by the Delamerian Orogeny seems a valid request. GeologicEvent should be a type of GeologicFeature.



Cheers



Gilly







On 19/04/2011, at 6:14 AM, <Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au<mailto:Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au><mailto:Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au><mailto:Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au>> <Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au<mailto:Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au><mailto:Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au><mailto:Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au>> wrote:



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<mailto:jll at bgs.ac.uk><mailto:jll at bgs.ac.uk><mailto:jll at bgs.ac.uk>>

To:        "auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au<mailto:auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au><mailto:auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au><mailto:auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au>" <auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au<mailto:auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au><mailto:auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au><mailto: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<mailto: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>

________________________________







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<mailto: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> [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<mailto:Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au><mailto:Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au><mailto:Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au> [Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au<mailto:Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au>]

Sent: 18 April 2011 01:57

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

Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] Sequence of Events



Hi John,



GeologicEvents arenâ•?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<mailto:jll at bgs.ac.uk><mailto:jll at bgs.ac.uk><mailto:jll at bgs.ac.uk>>

To:        "auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au<mailto:auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au><mailto:auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au><mailto:auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au>" <auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au<mailto:auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au><mailto:auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au><mailto: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<mailto: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>

________________________________







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><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<mailto:Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au><mailto:Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au><mailto:Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au>

Sent: 15 April 2011 05:40

To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au<mailto:auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au><mailto:auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au><mailto: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<mailto:jll at bgs.ac.uk><mailto:jll at bgs.ac.uk><mailto:jll at bgs.ac.uk>>

To:        "auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au<mailto:auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au><mailto:auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au><mailto:auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au>" <auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au<mailto:auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au><mailto:auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au><mailto: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<mailto: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>





________________________________











Folks,



There is a note attached to GeologicEvent in the model stating that the sequence of GeologicEvents can be handled with GeologicFeatureRelation. Iâ•?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<mailto:jll at bgs.ac.uk><mailto:jll at bgs.ac.uk><mailto:jll at bgs.ac.uk>

Web site: www.bgs.ac.uk<http://www.bgs.ac.uk><,DanaInfo=nercowa.ad.nerc.ac.uk,SSL+UrlBlockedError.aspx><http://www.bgs.ac.uk/><http://www.bgs.ac.uk/>

Internet Shop: www.thebgs.co.uk<http://www.thebgs.co.uk><,DanaInfo=nercowa.ad.nerc.ac.uk,SSL+UrlBlockedError.aspx><http://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<mailto:auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au><mailto:auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au><mailto:auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au>

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



________________________________

ŸԃiÇ•&,??Ú–Ç¿ㄉㄔܥx[1](dNP‹?8}4Ó•QSLSNÈ“{aN57ڱ૘S+â•ŒjwZ&!é–”frâ?º+b{ajجꬢvrߘ?§&^eÊ°â=©^ç°?ߨʩʸß?8Ô?8ÔƒiÇ•&6ZÚƒ€¡é?–êiœÇ?i֩稖ʜ颱^w?N57ڱ૘pب€¡zâ¢p+€iʧ閡ayʩʸڰ꿉ã„pSO?S,??SM⪂-Ë¡z옸ܨ~Øi碜'Ú?ç¤=Ú?Úi?=*?ã„pSO?S}â•Œ[1]È“{b–ʗjç–?+â•Œwé?œzz-ëi??«o*?¶ê§ºf?¥z?¢è?ª.̬é°??iڨɩ?zƨ?iZب+â•Œvڮ稰kÆ–zëº?Øiw讜ܢ{Zw{aÇœj)ã„p?ß©Ç•&rhMWç¨iÈ?zay鯅'閖稖꫅{b

aÇœj)ã„p?ß©Ç•&,???€”Ï=v짓Ï?)_______________________________________________

auscope-geosciml mailing list

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

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



?ï¿?8ï¿?ï¿?iÇ•ï¿?&ï¿?ï¿?,ï¿?ï¿?ï¿?-ï¿?Ç¿?ï¿?S?ï¿?Sï¿?Ü¥x??(dNPï¿?ï¿?8ï¿?ï¿?}ï¿?4ï¿?@Qï¿?Sï¿?LSï¿?NÈ“{aN57ï¿?qï¿?+ï¿?ï¿?Sï¿?+?ï¿?ï¿?ï¿?jwZï¿?&ï¿?ï¿?ï¿?!ï¿?ï¿?ï¿?fï¿?rï¿?ï¿?j)ï¿?ï¿?+ï¿?ï¿?bï¿?{ajجï¿?ï¿?ï¿?vï¿?rï¿?ߘ?§ï¿?&ï¿???^ï¿?ï¿?eÊ°ï¿?)^ï¿?ï¿?Zï¿?ï¿?ï¿?ï¿?)ʸï¿?ï¿?ï¿?ï¿?8ï¿?ï¿?8ï¿?ï¿?iÇ•ï¿?&ï¿?6ï¿?Zï¿?ï¿??ï¿?ï¿?!ï¿?ï¿?]mï¿??œï¿??ï¿?Ç?iÖ©ï¿?ï¿?hï¿?ï¿?&ï¿?ï¿?ï¿?qï¿?^wï¿?N51N57ï¿?qï¿?+ï¿?ï¿?pï¿?ï¿?hï¿?ï¿?azï¿?â¢p+ï¿?ï¿?^ï¿?ï¿?'ï¿?ï¿?ï¿?ï¿?ayï¿?)ʸï¿?ï¿?ï¿?0ï¿?ï¿?ï¿ ??ï¿?Sï¿?Sï¿?Oï¿?ï¿??ï¿?Sï¿?,ï¿?ï¿?Sï¿?Mï¿?ï¿?x ï¿?jR-ï¿?ï¿?azï¿?ï¿?ï¿?ï¿?옸ï¿?ï¿?ܨ~ï¿?^ï¿?ï¿?"ï¿?'ï¿?ï¿?ï¿??ï¿?ï¿?$~ï¿?Ú?ï¿??°ï¿??=*ï¿?ï¿???ï¿?Sï¿?Sï¿?Oï¿?ï¿??ï¿?S}ï¿???ï¿?ï¿?ï¿?È“{b?Ê—ï¿?jï¿?ï¿?yÇ¢ï¿?ï¿?mï¿?+?ï¿?ï¿?ï¿?ï¿?wï¿?ï¿?ï¿?ï¿?ï¿?zz-ï¿?ï¿?ï¿?ï¿?ï¿??ï¿??«o*?¶ï¿?ï¿?zfï¿?ï¿??¥z?¢ï¿?ï¿?ï¿?*.ï¿?̬ï¿?é°?ï¿?^ï¿?ï¿?ï¿?É©ï¿?rï¿?bzï¿?(ï¿?ï¿??iï¿?Zï¿?ï¿?hï¿?+?vï¿?.ï¿?ï¿?(ï¿?kï¿?ï¿?Æ–zï¿?ï¿?z\ï¿?ï¿?ï¿?^ï¿?wï¿?fï¿?ï¿?ï¿?Ü¢{Zï¿?wï¿?ï¿?{aï¿?Çœj)?ï¿?Sï¿?ï¿?ï¿?8ï¿?ï¿?iÇ•ï¿?&ï¿?rï¿?hï¿?M<ï¿?M,ï¿?7ï¿?>Wï¿?ï¿?ï¿?(ï¿ ?È?zï¿?ayï¿?ï…º'ï¿?ï¿?ï¿?mï¿?ï¿?ï¿?kï¿?{bï¿? aï¿?Çœj)?ï¿?Sï¿?ï¿?ï¿?8ï¿?ï¿?iÇ•ï¿?&ï¿?ï¿?,ï¿?ï¿?ï¿?N59€”ï¿?ï¿?>vï¿?ï¿?Ï?ï¿?)ï¿?_______________________________________________

auscope-geosciml mailing list

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

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



________________________________

Å8ÔßiÇ•®&¥”,?ØÚ-˜Ç¿?ãS?ãS”Ü¥x[1](dNP‹Â8“Œ}‡4Ó@QüSŸLSŸNÈ“{aN57Úqà+˜©S?+-?¨¥jwZƒ&–µ§!?éí”f”r˜íj)â?ú+?«b¢{ajج¥êì¢v¥r˜ß˜?§¶&¥^™©eÊ°â=)^™çZ?ßè–Ê)ʸ ?ßÅ8ÔÅ8ÔßiÇ•®&¥6…Z®Ú…€!¢é]mê?œº’Ç?iÖ©µçh–Ê&°éâq«^wñN51N57Úqà+˜©p…Øhº€az°â¢p+…€^?Ê'±éí¡ûayÊ)ʸ ?Ú0?êÿ?ãSüSŸOóÏ?ãS”,?ØSŸMö?x âjR-…Ëaz·¬œ˜ì˜¸¥…ܨ~Ø^–ç"œ'§¶Ú??ç$~…Ú?Ú?°—?=*î±ë??ãSüSŸOóÏ?ãS}§-[1]¸°ˆÈ“{bÊ—¡j÷«yÇ¢?çm?+-?¨¥…w«®…é?æ¬zz-˜ü–?ë-??«o*?¶êçzf¢??¥z?¢µúè?*.®Ì¬µé°??^”ÚèÉ©òr…bzÆ(’ª?i—ZºØh®+-vÚ.±ç(°k§˜Æ–z…ëz\¨iØ^…wè®f–…˜Ü¢{Z…w?…{a…Çœj)?ãSüóÅ8ÔßiÇ•®&¥r˜h¯M<ÓM,—7¶>W°±ç(iÈ?z»ayéï…º'?éímçè–êk…{bi a…Çœj)?ãSüóÅ8ÔßiÇ•®&¥”,?€ñN59€”ƒÏ>vì§óÏ?»)ü_______________________________________________

auscope-geosciml mailing list

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

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





Dr Guillaume Duclaux



Mineral Down Under Flagship & AuScope Grid

CSIRO Earth Science and Resource Engineering



Phone: +61 8 6436 8728  | Fax: +61 8 6436 8559  | Mobile:  +61 422 289 732



guillaume.duclaux at csiro.au<mailto:guillaume.duclaux at csiro.au><mailto:guillaume.duclaux at csiro.au><mailto:guillaume.duclaux at csiro.au> | www.csiro.au<http://www.csiro.au><,DanaInfo=nercowa.ad.nerc.ac.uk,SSL+UrlBlockedError.aspx><http://www.csiro.au/><http://www.csiro.au/> |

Address: Australian Resources Research Centre, 26 Dick Perry Avenue, Kensington WA 6151



PLEASE NOTE

The information contained in this email may be confidential or privileged. Any unauthorised use or disclosure is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete it immediately and notify the sender by return email. Thank you. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO does not represent, warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained or that the communication is free of errors, virus, interception or interference.



Please consider the environment before printing this email.







_______________________________________________

auscope-geosciml mailing list

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

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

_______________________________________________

auscope-geosciml mailing list

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

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



? ?-[1]?{ch'-SLSN??9CC????G񎵱N5;"?8?i|&Nzf?|?g??'w ??b??~'^??ez?*kzjw(*????-[1]?jh~+luz?-uZ?(k?y?8?8?i|&«a? ?𮫭zw(g? (*?h·SO񎵿?SN?{aN57??H+-?'&?raz?r+jwkzj/zOSO񎵿?SM???"?*.? ???zf)?+W?'򶗬zw^z??W^??l2?jw]z?&?)??z-j?y?ui'?? {az)?*'r??)?-SO󏔣S}-[1]?4󍴲,?^ju{"u??*?) ?-+-SO󏔣S}-[1]?{oŸ?n?



_______________________________________________

auscope-geosciml mailing list

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

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





Dr Guillaume Duclaux



Mineral Down Under Flagship & AuScope Grid

CSIRO Earth Science and Resource Engineering



Phone: +61 8 6436 8728  | Fax: +61 8 6436 8559  | Mobile:  +61 422 289 732



guillaume.duclaux at csiro.au<mailto:guillaume.duclaux at csiro.au><mailto:guillaume.duclaux at csiro.au><mailto:guillaume.duclaux at csiro.au> | www.csiro.au<http://www.csiro.au><http://www.csiro.au/><http://www.csiro.au/> |

Address: Australian Resources Research Centre, 26 Dick Perry Avenue, Kensington WA 6151



PLEASE NOTE

The information contained in this email may be confidential or privileged. Any unauthorised use or disclosure is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete it immediately and notify the sender by return email. Thank you. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO does not represent, warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained or that the communication is free of errors, virus, interception or interference.



Please consider the environment before printing this email.







_______________________________________________

auscope-geosciml mailing list

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

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

_______________________________________________

auscope-geosciml mailing list

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

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

_______________________________________________

auscope-geosciml mailing list

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

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

_______________________________________________

auscope-geosciml mailing list

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

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

_______________________________________________

auscope-geosciml mailing list

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

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











_______________________________________________



auscope-geosciml mailing list



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



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



_______________________________________________

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/20110421/38b84415/attachment.htm>


More information about the GeoSciML mailing list