[auscope-geosciml] GeologicEvent and GeologicFeature

Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au
Thu May 5 19:39:00 EDT 2011


An advantage with creating  a new sub-type of GeologicFeatureRelation for 
GeologicEvents is that it would allow adding a property to deal with the 
'order' of the events. This is specified in the NADM Conceptual Model but 
left out of earlier versions of GeoSciML as being too hard to implement.

Bruce


----------------------------------------------------
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:   05/05/2011 10:37 PM
Subject:        Re: [auscope-geosciml] GeologicEvent and GeologicFeature
Sent by:        auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au



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
_______________________________________________
auscope-geosciml mailing list
auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml


Notice:
This email and any attachments may contain information that is personal, 
confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright.No part of it should be reproduced, 
adapted or communicated without the prior written consent of the copyright owner. 

It is the responsibility of the recipient to check for and remove viruses.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by return email, delete 
it from your system and destroy any copies. You are not authorised to use, communicate or rely on the information 
contained in this email.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20110506/164dade0/attachment.htm>


More information about the GeoSciML mailing list