[auscope-geosciml] Testbed 4: Schematron rules, instance documents and model review

Sen, Marcus A. mase at bgs.ac.uk
Tue May 3 11:17:18 EDT 2011

> -----Original Message-----
> From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au [mailto:auscope-
> geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of Tellez-Arenas Agnes
> Sent: 02 May 2011 09:20

> Rules with some comments about the rules that would be required to
> apply filter on age and lithology. 
Would it be appropriate to define these rules as belonging to a specific

I.e. the general model is flexible and allows the association of a number
of different ages and lithologies with a geologic unit but we would like
to provide some services which allow applications to highlight or colour
mapped features according to a single nominal age or lithology. So we
could define restricted profiles for the use of simple querying clients
that only had a single age or lithology.

>     * In order to be able to request the "main" lithology, we must
> define one lithology per compositionPart, and use the proportion of the
> composition part to determine the main one
Do we also need to ensure only one composition property per geologic unit?

>     * But, as the proportion is now defined using numbers, it will be
> difficult (or even impossible) to extract the "main". We can only use
> cgu:estimatedValue, swe:value (considering that uom is always %), to
> propose filter searching for lithology "more than 50%" (for instance).
> But if we have several lithology (20%, 20%, 20M, 40%), the main one
> won't match this filter.
I'm a bit confused over when you might have more than one composition
property on a GeologicUnit and whether there is any implied dominance
between several lithology properties of a RockMaterial. The proportion property
of the CompositionPart refers to proportion of a particular CompoundMaterial/RockMaterial
that might have several lithologies itself. So we could say we want
just one GeologicUnit/composition property and that the RockMaterial
should have just one lithology property. Or if we allowed several
GeologicUnit/composition properties then require one with a proportion
of > 50% / 75% or something. What seems the best idea to everyone?

> Age
>     * Without preferred age (if we have several GeologicEvent in the
> GeologicHistory), how to determine what age should be requested?
>     * If we are able to know what geologicEvent should be request,
>           o we could use <gsml:olderNamedAge
> xlink:href="urn:cgi:classifier:ICS:StratChart:200908:UpperOrdovician"/>,
> so it is required to give an olderNamedAge using the controlled
> vocabulary.
So shall we make a profile which requires just one GeologicUnit/geologicHistory
property where the olderNamedAge = youngerNamedAge? Any comments?


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.

More information about the GeoSciML mailing list