[auscope-geosciml] Quantity vs QuantityRange [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Simon.Cox at csiro.au Simon.Cox at csiro.au
Fri Jun 17 23:29:19 EDT 2011

I agree with Eric. 
If SWE Common can do it, then we should get rid of CGI_Value etc. 

However, I also think that we should still review all the class attributes and convert them to Measure and references to dictionary entries. 
The primary goal of geosciml is data transfer for plotting and analysis, it is not for transfer of all musings from a field notebook. 
It would be so much easier on clients to just collapse all the values to scalars. 
Yes, this requires the data provider to make some decisions about what they tell the client. 
Commitment is sometimes good and useful. 

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 Boisvert, Eric [Eric.Boisvert at RNCan-NRCan.gc.ca]
Sent: Friday, 17 June 2011 10:58 PM
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] Quantity vs QuantityRange [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

>2) use CGI_TermRange in those cases where CGI_Term (1..*) is really meant to indicate a range (eg, for particle sorting and metamorphic facies?) rather than a set of random single values

A range should only have 2 terms right (assuming the terms are ordinal) ?

I already expressed my opinions about this.  Since GeoSciML imports O&M and O&M imports swe, we end up with 2 value representations that overlaps.
As far as terms are concerned, there are Category and CategoryRange that could replace CGI_Term and CGI_TermRange, and QuantityRange can replace CGI_NumericRange.

What's left are the specialised numerical representation (NumericalAgeRange and PlanarOrientation).
They could be simulated with swe:DataRecord.  Maybe it's a bit of a stretch ?


De : auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au [mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] De la part de Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au
Envoyé : 16 juin 2011 22:01
À : auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Objet : Re: [auscope-geosciml] Quantity vs QuantityRange [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Hi Eric,

peakPressureValue and peakTemperatureValue must, by the nature of being a “peak” value, be only one number and not a range.  That one number may have an error associated with it.   There is a subtle difference between a range (2 numbers, upper and lower values, both of which may have errors – like NumericAge), and a single value number with an error.  The chemical assay is an example of a single number (swe:quantity) with an error (swe:quality) –  the pattern works for me.

On a related point, I was recently mulling over the various places in the model that we use either a term range (eg, AlterationDescription/alterationDegree) or multiple single values (eg, MetamorphicDescription/metamorphicFacies, and ParticleGeometryDescription/sorting).  I think there is scope for more consistent use of ranges or multiple values.  Typically in the model, we are using CGI_Term (1..*) for cases where more than one term is allowed, including where those multiple terms imply a range.  AlterationDescription/alterationDegree is the only place in the model where we still use CGI_TermRange.

This suggests to me that we should either:    1) stop using CGI_TermRange altogether and remove it from the model, or
2) use CGI_TermRange in those cases where CGI_Term (1..*) is really meant to indicate a range (eg, for particle sorting and metamorphic facies?) rather than a set of random single values



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 Boisvert, Eric
Sent: Friday, 17 June 2011 1:09 AM
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: [auscope-geosciml] Quantity vs QuantityRange

I see (for example) that MetamorphicDescription has peakPressureValue and preakTemperatureValue as swe:Quantity and not as swe:QuantityRange

But I also noticed that Olllie used that pattern

                       <swe:Quantity gml:id="GAGeochemAnalysis_1526753_SiO2_Result" definition="SiO2 concentration">
                            <swe:uom code="%25" xlink:href="http://www.opengis.net/def/uom/UCUM/0/%25" xlink:title="percent"/>

                            <swe:quality>     <!-- Analytical Error -->
                                <swe:Quantity gml:id="GAGeochemAnalysis_1526753_SiO2_Error" definition="SiO2 analytical error">

                                    <swe:uom code="%25" xlink:href="http://www.opengis.net/def/uom/UCUM/0/%25" xlink:title="percent"/>


The error band is stored in the swe:quality.  I suppose a range can be expressed the same way (swe:quality can be a QuantityRange and swe:value can be absent) - is this the pattern ?


Eric Boisvert
Expert  TI-GI / IT-IM Expert
Eric.Boisvert at rncan.gc.ca, 418-654-3705, facsimile/télécopieur
490, rue de la Couronne, Québec (Québec), G1K 9A9
490, rue de la Couronne, Quebec, Quebec, G1K 9A9

Laboratoire de cartographie numérique et de photogrammétrie (LCNP)
Digital Cartography and Photogrammetry Laboratory (DCPL)
Commission géologique du Canada (Québec) / Geological Survey of Canada (Quebec)
Ressources naturelles Canada / Natural Resources Canada
Gouvernement du Canada / Government of Canada
http://cgc.rncan.gc.ca/dir/index_f.php?id=4186 / http://cgc.rncan.gc.ca/dir/index_e.php?id=4186

More information about the GeoSciML mailing list