[auscope-geosciml] GeologicUnit/composition/CompositionPart/role vocabulary [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Stephen M Richard steve.richard at azgs.az.gov
Tue Jan 25 11:04:10 EST 2011

there were originally two vocabularies for the two part types, but there 
was so much overlap they got merged.

Here's the longish discussion from the vocabulary concept scheme header 
discussing this:

> This file contains the 200811 version of CGI Geologic Unit Part role 
> vocabulary. This vocabulary includes terms to specify the role of a 
> geologic unit as part of another geologic unit, the role of a 
> CompositionPart in a geologic unit. These terms may be used to 
> populate GeologicUnit.part.GeologicUnitPart.role, and 
> GeologicUnit.composition.CompositionPart.role. There are terms in This 
> vocabulary that only apply to one or the other of these properties, 
> but after an effort to create two separate vocabularies, it was 
> decided to use a single vocabulary in order to avoid having the same 
> concept in more than one closely related vocabulary. The duplication 
> of applicable concepts in the two contexts 
> (GeologicUnit.part.GeologicUnitPart.role and 
> GeologicUnit.composition.CompositionPart.role) arises because the 
> model allows representation of complex geologic unit descriptions in 
> more than one way. A complex geologic unit like a migmatite complex or 
> a lithologically heterogeneous Pennsylvanian cyclothem stratigraphic 
> unit will have many different lithologic components. The simplest 
> approach to representing the lithologic heterogeneity is to report a 
> single GeologicUnit element with compositionParts for each lithologic 
> component; the role on these compositionParts provides information 
> about what kind of parts they are and perhaps something about their 
> relationship, along with the kinds of rock they are composed of. A 
> more complex alternate approach is to represent the various components 
> each as GeologicUnit elements, each with compositionPart links to the 
> rock type(s) composing that part. These component GeologicUnit 
> elements are aggregated by GeologicUnit.part.GeologicUnitPart 
> elements, with roles in the aggregation for each GeologicUnit part. 
> The benefit of the more complex approach is that additional 
> descriptive properties provided by the GeologicUnit content model can 
> be assigned to each part, as well as GeologicRelations between the 
> parts. The role of the compositionParts in these more 'disaggregated' 
> GeologicUnit elements would be a simpler 'composition' kind of role, 
> because the heterogeneous 'whole' unit would be described in 
> GeologicUnitParts that are more lithologically homogeneous. Its a 
> standard trade off between simplicity and expressiveness. As far as 
> the vocabulary for these 'role' properties, the decision to merge the 
> compositionPart.role and GeologicUnitPart.role vocabularies into one 
> was based on the idea that from a user point of view, one would not 
> want to have to use terms from two different vocabularies to search 
> for the same concept. For instance, if one wanted 'all geologicUnits 
> that have parts whose role is 'Tectonic block', a merged vocabulary 
> allows construction of a single xpath where "role = 
> 'CGI....:Tectonic_block'" (or something like that). The single 
> vocabulary also simplifies maintenance. A context column is added in 
> the spreadsheet to distinguish terms for 'compositionPart', 
> 'geologicUnitPart' or 'both'.


On 1/24/2011 7:17 PM, Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au wrote:
> Hi all,
> Does anybody have a vocabulary that I could use for GeologicUnit/composition/CompositionPart/role for Testbed4?
> We have a CGI vocabulary for CompoundMaterial-ConstituentPart-Role and for GeologicUnitPart-Role, but not for CompositionPart-Role.
> There were various local vocabs referred to in Testbed3 instance docs (GSV, GSC, BGS, etc) for this attribute and it would be nice if we could wrap them up into a CGI vocab.
> Cheers,
> Ollie
> ______________________________________________________________________________________
> Ollie Raymond
> National Geological Maps and Data Standards Project
> Geoscience Australia<blocked::http://www.ga.gov.au/minerals/research/national/nat_maps/nat_geol_maps.jsp>
> Interoperability Working Group
> IUGS Commission for the Management and Application of Geoscience Information
> <blocked::https://www.seegrid.csiro.au/wiki/bin/view/CGIModel/InteroperabilityWG>______________________________________________________________________________________
> 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<blocked::mailto:oliver.raymond at ga.gov.au>  | Google Map<blocked::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>
> Geoscience Australia web services  -  http://www.ga.gov.au/resources/applications/ogc-wms.jsp<blocked::http://www.ga.gov.au/resources/applications/ogc-wms.jsp>
> ______________________________________________________________________________________
> --- This message was created with 100% recycled electrons ---
> _______________________________________________
> auscope-geosciml mailing list
> auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
> http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml

Stephen M. Richard
Arizona Geological Survey
416 W. Congress St., #100
Tucson, Arizona, 85701
phone: 520 209-4127
AZGS Main: (520) 770-3500.  FAX: (520) 770-3505
email: steve.richard at azgs.az.gov

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20110125/65a1c345/attachment.htm>

More information about the GeoSciML mailing list