[auscope-geosciml] [ExternalEmail] Re: Quantity vs QuantityRange [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Guillaume.Duclaux at csiro.au Guillaume.Duclaux at csiro.au
Sat Jun 18 01:44:37 EDT 2011


I fully agree with Eric and Simon on this.
ISO and OGC standards certainly offer equivalents for most of the CGI_* class attributes.

Cheers
Gilly

Dr Guillaume Duclaux 
Mineral Down Under Flagship | AuScope Grid
CSIRO Earth Science and Resource Engineering
guillaume.duclaux at csiro.au  
Address: Australian Resources Research Centre, 26 Dick Perry Avenue, Kensington WA 6151



On 18/06/2011, at 11:29 AM, <Simon.Cox at csiro.au> <Simon.Cox at csiro.au> wrote:

> 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 ?
> 
> Eric
> 
> ________________________________
> 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
> 
> 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 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"/>
> 
>                                    <swe:value>0.1</swe:value>
>                                </swe:Quantity>
>                            </swe:quality>
>                            <swe:value>76.4</swe:value>
>                        </swe:Quantity>
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> ================================================================
> Eric Boisvert
> Expert  TI-GI / IT-IM Expert
> Eric.Boisvert at rncan.gc.ca, 418-654-3705, facsimile/télécopieur
> 418-654-2615
> 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/org/quebec
> http://cgc.rncan.gc.ca/dir/index_f.php?id=4186 / http://cgc.rncan.gc.ca/dir/index_e.php?id=4186
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> auscope-geosciml mailing list
> auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
> http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml




More information about the GeoSciML mailing list