[auscope-geosciml] GeologicEvent and GeologicFeature [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au
Thu May 5 20:10:08 EDT 2011


Hi all,



I attach 2 options of what I think the UML could look like given the options presented by Marcus, John, Alistair and Bruce.  Firstly I should say here that the association between Unit/Structure and Event is pretty fundamental to geology and requires an explicitly named association (ie: geologicHistory) rather than using a non-specialised GeologicFeatureRelation and a vocabulary of relation types (sorry Alistair).



Option A.



We retain the geologicHistory association between GeologicUnit/Structure and GeologicEvent.  ie, geologicHistory effectively becomes a special case association between  particular GeologicFeatures, the same as we have already done with the definingStructure association between GeologicUnit and GeologicStructure.  This involves the least amount of change to the model and schemas from Version 2.



[cid:image001.jpg at 01CC0BD2.176CDD70]



Option B.



We make all special associations between GeologicFeatures into constrained subtypes of GeologicFeatureRelation.  This would include GeologicHistory and DefiningStructure, and would make our treatment of associations between all GeologicFeatures consistent.  (Bruce, could you please provide more detail or an example of how to use this type of model in ordering events.  Are the constraints in the GeologicHistory class OK for your idea?)



[cid:image002.jpg at 01CC0BD5.C527A0F0]



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 Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au
Sent: Friday, 6 May 2011 9:39 AM
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] GeologicEvent and GeologicFeature


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



-----Original Message-----
From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au [mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of Laxton, John L.
Sent: Thursday, 5 May 2011 10:37 PM
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] GeologicEvent and GeologicFeature



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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20110506/453a698e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 84092 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20110506/453a698e/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 88640 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20110506/453a698e/attachment-0001.jpg>


More information about the GeoSciML mailing list