[auscope-geosciml] The status of GeoSciML v3 - repackaging [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Simon.Cox at csiro.au Simon.Cox at csiro.au
Wed Jun 15 23:50:32 EDT 2011


I just wanted to check there are no cycles in the dependencies.
Looks OK. Will be better still if GeolAge collapsed into Core.

From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au [mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au
Sent: Thursday, 16 June 2011 10:37 AM
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] The status of GeoSciML v3 - repackaging [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Happy to leave GeologicAge in Core.  What do others think about the re-packaging?

  >> What does the package dependency diagram look like?

Like the work of a demented spider on crack.  (and that's without showing any of the ISO/SWE schema dependencies!)

[cid:image001.jpg at 01CC2C18.0A5176D0]

________________________________
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: Wednesday, 15 June 2011 5:13 PM
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] The status of GeoSciML v3 - repackaging [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Sweet.

4. 'Collection' is a convenience class (and package) that is not really a conceptual class so does not belong in GeoSciML Core.
It should have its own package, like you found.

5., 6. I'd be inclined to leave GeologicAge inside the core. Geology is a fundamentally historical science, with events and ages at its core.

Otherwise, it looks a big improvement to me.
What does the package dependency diagram look like?

Simon

From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au [mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au
Sent: Wednesday, 15 June 2011 2:59 PM
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] The status of GeoSciML v3 - repackaging [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Hi Simon,

I'm OK with handling the repackaging proposals.  I have spent most of the afternoon going over the options, and here are my findings...


 1.  Bruce's repackaging proposal of separating GeologicRelation and GeologicFeature, won't work because of mutual dependency between GeologicFeatureRelation and GeologicFeature (the GeologicFeatureRelation association class is encoded as having links both to and from GeologicFeature).  This makes the GeologicFeature and GeologicRelation packages inseparable.

[cid:image002.jpg at 01CC2C18.0A5176D0]
 2.  Separating out the GeologicUnit package from GeoSciML-Core is no problem.
 3.  Simon and Bruce's repackaging proposal to separate GeologicStructure from GeoSciML-Core will work if we make a small amendment to the model to insert a GeologicStructure:DisplacementEvent class as a subtype of GeologicAge:GeologicEvent  (something that looks eerily like what we had in GSML v2)

[cid:image003.jpg at 01CC2C18.0A5176D0]
 4.  Simon's proposal to separate EarthMaterial from GeoSciML-Core:(GeologicAge & Collection) has a mutual dependency hitch.  GeoSciML-Core:Collection:GSMLItem imports EarthMaterial, and EarthMaterial:(metamorphicDescription & alterationDescription) imports GeoSciML-Core:GeologicEvent.
    *   I looked at moving metamorphicDescription and alterationDescription to another package like GeologicUnit, but that just introduces problems with dependencies for GeologicUnit.
    *   Separating out the Collection package from GeoSciML-Core would allow EarthMaterial to be made into a valid separate schema.
 5.  The GeologicAge package can validly sit outside of GeoSciML-Core only if EarthMaterial is also outside of GeoSciML-Core.
 6.  GeologicAge can sit inside or outside of GeoSciML-Core if EarthMaterial as a separate schema outside of GeoSciML-Core
 7.  The picture below shows what it would look like if GeoSciML-Core was split to the full.  The package dependencies for this model structure are all valid.

[cid:image004.jpg at 01CC2C18.0A5176D0]

_______________________________________________________________________

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 Simon.Cox at csiro.au
Sent: Wednesday, 15 June 2011 1:22 PM
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] The status of GeoSciML v3 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Ollie -

Do you need me to fully complete the re-packaging proposal, or can you work from my suggestions?

Simon

From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au [mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au
Sent: Wednesday, 15 June 2011 10:17 AM
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: [auscope-geosciml] The status of GeoSciML v3 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Hi all,

The continued discussions around various parts of GeoSciML v3 this close to Edinburgh indicate to me that we still have issues with v3, and I have stopped doing any work on the current v3 RC3 schemas.  Generating a new set of schemas at this point (eg, after finalising discussion/acceptance/modelling of Simon and Bruce's suggestions) would take us almost right up to Edinburgh.  I realise that the v3 schemas have been a long time in gestation, but the testing of the RC1 and RC2 release candidates, and use of the GSMLv2 and O&Mv2 schemas in production environments have raised some valid points that needed addressing before final release of v3 .

I propose that the model discussions for v3 be halted once and for all at Edinburgh in 2 weeks time.  I will compose the model meeting agenda so that we draw a line under absolutely everything with the model at Edinburgh.  Any model changes not finalised at Edinburgh will be TOO LATE, so if you want issues dealt with, please submit fully modelled solutions to your issue immediately.

Francois and I have a pretty good system for generating and checking schemas now (only editing the nillable tags on non-feature classes still takes up some time) and we could have new RC3 schemas done by the end of July.  The RC3 schemas will be designed to be the final release schemas for v3.0.0.

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 ---

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20110616/cc53c92c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 38157 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20110616/cc53c92c/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 18119 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20110616/cc53c92c/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 34882 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20110616/cc53c92c/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 46922 bytes
Desc: image004.jpg
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20110616/cc53c92c/attachment-0003.jpg>


More information about the GeoSciML mailing list