[auscope-geosciml] GeologicEvent and GeologicFeature

Laxton, John L. jll at bgs.ac.uk
Thu May 5 08:37:06 EDT 2011


You would have to query all targetlinks from a GeologicUnit to find those which targeted GeologicEvents, and then query the targetlinks of those GeologicEvents to get the geological history. It sounds a bit complicated but if you think it is practical.....

John

-----Original Message-----
From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au [mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of Alistair Ritchie
Sent: 05 May 2011 13:11
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Cc: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] GeologicEvent and GeologicFeature

Is such specialization necessary? Events can be sensibly related to all other GeologicFeatures, including themselves.

Seems to be introducing more complexity into the model when GeologicFeatureRelation, and the appropriate vocabularies, would suffice.

On 05/05/2011, at 20:45, "Laxton, John L." <jll at bgs.ac.uk> wrote:

> Yes - I think you are going to have to define a new sub-type of GeologicFeatureRelation (like BoundaryRelationship) specifically targeting GeologicEvent.
> 
> I originally proposed a new sub-type of GeologicRelation and to avoid this that it was proposed to make GeologicEvent a type of GeologicFeature, which still requires a new relation type albeit at one level lower......
> 
> John
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au [mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of Alistair Ritchie
> Sent: 05 May 2011 11:19
> To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
> Cc: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
> Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] GeologicEvent and GeologicFeature
> 
> You would have to replace the geologicHistory association with a relationship defined using GeologicFeatureRelationship, yes?
> 
> This would allow semantic richness using the role properties on the relationship class.
> 
> 
> On 05/05/2011, at 19:45, "Sen, Marcus A." <mase at bgs.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
>> If GeologicEvent is made a GeologicFeature will it still be appropriate to have the geologicHistory property included as a property of GeologicFeature?
>> 
>> Other properties currently in GeologicFeature but not GeologicEvent are:
>> 
>> observationMethod - guess that is applicable to a GeologicEvent as well
>> purpose - can this apply to a GeologicEvent?
>> occurrence - Seems to make sense as e.g. mapping location of epicentre of an earthquake. Distinct from the mapped features delimiting e.g. GeologicUnits that have been affected by certain GeologicEvents.
>> targetLink - the property that people want on GeologicEvent that started the discussion
>> 
>> (classifier and metadata properties are defined separately for both feature types.)
>> 
>> Marcus
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> auscope-geosciml mailing list
> auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
> http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml
> _______________________________________________
> auscope-geosciml mailing list
> auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
> http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml
_______________________________________________
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