[auscope-geosciml] GeoSciML v3 RC1 Borehole Testbed 4 issues [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au
Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au
Wed Jun 15 01:59:04 EDT 2011
Looking much better. I agree with all your points but will need to test
the proposal. I gather the relatedSamplingFeature will provide the link
between Borehole and SF_Specimen.
A minor niggle. You have boreholeMateialCustodian as 1..* in the diagram
but 0..* in your notes. I suggest removing this property from Borehole if
the SF_Specimen:currentLocation can be used to provide the material
custodian information.
----------------------------------------------------
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: <Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au>
To: <auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au>
Date: 15/06/2011 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] GeoSciML v3 RC1 Borehole Testbed 4
issues [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Sent by: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au
Ok, I have been a bit slow on the uptake, but I think I get it now (thanks
Bruce and John). I propose a update #2 on Bruce’s model…
1. DrillingDetails (ie, those BoreholeDetails attributes that vary
down hole) has a link to GM_Object (not MappedFeature) to deliver the
“from and to” interval location. I prefer it this way because Bruce’s
model links DrillingDetails to MappedFeature which would force a mandatory
“specification/GeologicFeature” link for DrillingDetails which is
undesirable.
2. Bruce’s BoreholeSamples class is covered by the existing
Borehole/relatedSamplingFeature/SF_Specimen model. SF_Specimen has a
samplingLocation/GM_Object link in it already which can link a specimen to
its location within a borehole.
3. I have proposed a 0..* multiplicity for
boreholeMaterialCustodian. This does not specifically identify which
parts of a borehole are housed where, but it is a simple model that I
think would cover both John’s and Bruce’s needs. If you need to
specifically link some borehole material (ie, specimen) to a particular
custodian, then there is already SF_Specimen/currentLocation.
4. John’s idea for multiple Collar Locations is not logical to me – a
borehole has only one collar.
5. I’ve also added “voidable” stereotypes just to indicate where
links are nillable.
Cheers,
Ollie
_______________________________________________________________________
Ollie Raymond
Project Leader
National Geological Maps and Data Standards Project
Geoscience Australia
Interoperability Working Group
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 | Google Map
_______________________________________________________________________
--- 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: Wednesday, 15 June 2011 9:51 AM
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] GeoSciML v3 RC1 Borehole Testbed 4 issues
[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Hi all,
>In most cases boreholes have a single set of DrillingDetails and it
shouldn’t be necessary to have to associate them with every MappedInterval
down the borehole
Indeed. However, my proposal doesn't require this. It allows any
DrillingDetails to have an associated MappedInterval, not require every
MappedInterval to have DrillingDetails (Ollie's proposal that I disagree
with).
>put the DrillingDetails properties into CollarLocation
CollarLocation is a specific concept about the spud location and unrelated
to DrillingDetails, so this would be inappropriate.
>DrillingDetails doesn’t have to coincide with a change in MappedInterval
(which it normally wouldn’t)
The proposal is to continue to use MappedInterval to map linear features,
be they GeologicFeatures (via gsml:specification) in a Borehole or a
mapped section, Borehole length, cored interval, drill diameter, drilling
method etc. None of these properties should actually be on the
MappedInterval, just as we don't have any geologicFeature properties on
MappedFeature.
Cheers
----------------------------------------------------
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: 14/06/2011 06:42 PM
Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] GeoSciML v3 RC1 Borehole Testbed 4
issues [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Sent by: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au
Folks,
My concern here is that (as too often with GeoSciML) it is making it
difficult to do something simple. In most cases boreholes have a single
set of DrillingDetails and it shouldn’t be necessary to have to associate
them with every MappedInterval down the borehole.
Wouldn’t it be simpler to put the DrillingDetails properties into
CollarLocation and allow a borehole to have multiple CollarLocations – the
DrillingDetails aren’t constantly changing, they change at particular
points down the borehole which could be represented by distinct
CollarLocations. This also means a change of DrillingDetails doesn’t have
to coincide with a change in MappedInterval (which it normally wouldn’t).
John
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: 14 June 2011 04:59
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] GeoSciML v3 RC1 Borehole Testbed 4 issues
[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
>
Borehole/downholeDrillingDetails/DrillingDetails/logElement/MappedInterval
and Borehole/logElement/MappedInterval are 2 different paths to get to the
same place.
Different paths for different purposes. You can also get to MappedInterval
from GeologicFeature/occurrence/MappedInterval in order to specify the
GeologicUnit/classifier and GeologicUnit/.../lithology properties.
The issue you raise is if I have a Borehole that is drilled using one
method and nominal diameter (most of them) then you'd need to repeat the
MappedInterval for the Borehole and for the DrillingDetails. I don't have
a problem with that, I think its a good thing. The Borehole
MappedInterval serves a different purpose to the DrillingDetails
MappedInterval.
Re BoreholeSampleType, examples are "core', "cuttings", "sidewall core". I
think this is more useful than the current coredInterval (and on
reflection I think boreholeMaterialCustodian should be a property of
BoreSamples.)
Cheers
----------------------------------------------------
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: <Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au>
To: <auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au>
Date: 14/06/2011 01:46 PM
Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] GeoSciML v3 RC1 Borehole Testbed 4
issues [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Sent by: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au
Hi Bruce,
I’ll evaluate your 4 points in a little while, but I can say right now
that I am really against multiple paths to one class. eg;
Borehole/downholeDrillingDetails/DrillingDetails/logElement/MappedInterval
and Borehole/logElement/MappedInterval are 2 different paths to get to the
same place. Not interoperable modelling in my book.
Cheers,
Ollie
_______________________________________________________________________
Ollie Raymond
Project Leader
National Geological Maps and Data Standards Project
Geoscience Australia
Interoperability Working Group
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 | Google Map
_______________________________________________________________________
--- 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, 14 June 2011 1:39 PM
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: [auscope-geosciml] GeoSciML v3 RC1 Borehole Testbed 4 issues
Just to provide a visual example of where I'm thinking:
----------------------------------------------------
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
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.
_______________________________________________
auscope-geosciml mailing list
auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml
㓽‑[1]ȳ{ch'‑SLSN˲9CC⎅G?N5;"ͭ8ԟiǀ&Nzfݪ|֜gɚɊ'w讦텫bڕʧ~'^ؚ
ez*kzjw(*ₛ㓔㓽‑[1]کjh~+luz趧‑uZם(kƭy߅8ԅ8ԟiǀ&«a뭅?zw(ǧ텧
(*ₛh·SO?ϼSNȳ{aN57ڱૉH+-Ʝ'&▫razۨr+jwkzj/zǬSO?ϼSM⪛"ͭ*.ޭ瞊zf)ޮ
+W騶'?zw^z۫隊W^랊l2צjw]z˫&Ɋ)똢櫺z-j롢yۨǜi'ꫭ鲢{az)ߢ*'r)톫
‑SO?S}‑[1]ʥ4?,ޘ^jǜ{"uꭅ秾*螧)트-+‑SO?S}‑[1]ȳ{oŸԧnʿ
--
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
"D卌#9ߓM4Ÿԅ8Ԭ7㓽‑[1]8b隊Vurۦk'(֢)ߢ*'ʞʧjW(z{bjPQ蚖\+╨‑uݾ
ܢmSLSM⪓h.֞ꫡۜy֝j^vܢi'翔㓔㓽‑[1]*+¸霢{‑ڟm ޯŸԿ<"ͭ8ԟi
ǀ&"جzʨțXʇ텪*bz{mȞrG譩ݭ騽뢮랳ŸԿ<ڱૉl7!zz+آ隊Xz讙^jǧ؟ʘ
^靺wj)]zWz+_ꬊ˞ݵ뭮'('b騵Ⱨm랲xjרʉ텨~檘ʧyاzfϼSM⪗(҈{c幫‑r쉗y
֞~ަ)zfϼSM⪛"ͭ㓝)
_______________________________________________
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/20110615/d4d3e5d7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 89886 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20110615/d4d3e5d7/attachment.jpeg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 39345 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20110615/d4d3e5d7/attachment.gif>
More information about the GeoSciML
mailing list