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

Laxton, John L. jll at bgs.ac.uk
Thu Jun 16 06:22:36 EDT 2011


Hi Ollie,

Answers below in red.

John

________________________________
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: 16 June 2011 02:44
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] The status of GeoSciML v3 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Hi John,

I also would like to incorporate this into a separate package of GeoSciML, but have some queries.

1.  In Australia, our regolith geologists - the guys that map the muck on top of the real rocks ;) - have units called “regolith landform units” which are a kind of combination unit.  They contain geomorphological attributes and regolith materials attributes (ie, landform = dune, material = sand; or landform = estuarine flats, material = mud).  This is effectively a lithological unit which also carries information about the nature of its exposed upper surface.  Is it correct that the INSPIRE model would deliver this as 2 separate units layers – one layer being geomorphological units (or “NaturalGeomorphologicFeatures”) which carries the upper surface information, the other layer being related lithological units which carry the materials information?
Yes we would separate the surface feature from the material. We discussed this quite a bit and obviously there are a lot of examples where the surface form and underlying material are commonly treated together and would have the same geometry (in 2D projection at least) - a recent alluvial fan would be a good example. But  there are a lot of other cases where the geometry doesn't coincide  - for example an alluvial fan in part covered by later alluvial deposits where the deposit would be more extensive than the geomorphological feature (we consider geomorphology to be about current landform, not buried landform as that opens up a whole new can of worms!).

2.  Do you have any more detail of the INSPIRE model…
- any values proposed for the codelists (eg, canyon, slope, dune, plateau, terrace, plain, escarpment, ridge, hill, mountain, delta, channel)
See attached

                - any other attributes for geomorphologic features, like environments of formation (eg, estuarine, intertidal, abyssal, neritic, fluvial), or process (erosion, deposition, weathering), or age?  Or would these attributes be only delivered with a related lithological unit?
GeologicFeature has the geologicHistory association to GeologicEvent so this information can be given directly for a GeomorphologicalFeature.

3.  The relatedUnit link is not required.  We already have GeologicFeatureRelation (which would also allow a lithologic unit to be delivered with a related geomorphologic unit or vice-versa).
We had this as a separate association as we wanted to put some specific meaning on the association (unit formed in conjunction with geomorphological unit etc) rather than just any association to a GeologicUnit. I guess it could be a sub-type of GeologicFeatureRelation (I can't recall where we got with sub-types of GeologicRelation) but we had been trying to keep GeologicRelation out of INSPIRE for simplicity.

4.  I presume there is a typo in the name of the Anthropogenic class and it should be “AnthropogenicGeomorphologicFeature”?
Yes (the names are too long but we couldn't think of anything shorter that was clear)

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 ---

________________________________
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, 16 June 2011 10:52 AM
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] The status of GeoSciML v3 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Presumably, in a separate package?

Simon

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: Thursday, 16 June 2011 6:22 AM
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] The status of GeoSciML v3 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

I support including this in Version 3 if we can do it.
I don't see any issues with including the INSPIRE proposal as is.



----------------------------------------------------
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:        16/06/2011 02:21 AM
Subject:        Re: [auscope-geosciml] The status of GeoSciML v3 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Sent by:        auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au
________________________________



Hi Ollie,

The only significant extension we’ve made to GeoSciML for INSPIRE is for geomorphology. I had assumed the inclusion of this would have to wait until version 4 but if you are still open to changes to v3 then maybe this could be considered.

What we have done is pretty simple as shown on the diagram below. We considered geomorphological features to be areal, either erosional or depositional, and thus types of GeologicFeature rather than GeologicUnit. Depositional features however have an optional relatedUnit association to a GeologicUnit to describe the unit formed in conjunction with the GeomorphologicalFeature (eg river terrace deposit related to a river terrace, a glacial outwash gravel related to an esker etc). GeomorphologicFeatures have two sub-types – natural and anthropogenic, as this was considered a significant enough distinction to warrant separate ‘type’ vocabularies and in future might be extended with different properties (eg ‘purpose’ for anthropogenic).

We thought also that ‘Geomorphological Unit’ should be removed from the vocabulary of GeologicUnit types, on the grounds described above that geomorphology is about surface features not the underlying materials.

Maybe we could discuss this in Edinburgh?

John

[cid:image001.gif at 01CC2C1A.BF235F40]

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: 15 June 2011 03:17
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 ---


--
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

?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꫊𮫭zw(ǧ텧(*ₛh·SO񎵿ϼSNȳ{aN57ڱૉH+-Ʝ'&▫razۨr+jwkzj/zǬSO񎵿ϼSM����⪛"ͭ*.ޭ瞊����zf)ޮ+W騶'򶗬zw^z۫隊W^랊׫l2צjw]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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20110616/60ca98c2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 10677 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20110616/60ca98c2/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Geomorphology_Dics.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 136810 bytes
Desc: Geomorphology_Dics.docx
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20110616/60ca98c2/attachment.bin>


More information about the GeoSciML mailing list