[auscope-geosciml] RE : GeologicFeatureRelation - a vote [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Boisvert, Eric Eric.Boisvert at RNCan-NRCan.gc.ca
Mon May 16 20:32:10 EDT 2011


> Point 4a (that most seem to have voted for to date) shows that we are not entirely soft-typing - we are still naming at least the most common associations.
 
I prefered 4a over 4b because assigning different constrains was a valid justification to specialise.  But I have a "soft" opinion here (pun intended)

Eric

 


________________________________

De: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au de la part de Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au
Date: lun. 2011-05-16 20:20
À: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Objet : Re: [auscope-geosciml] GeologicFeatureRelation - a vote [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]



Hi Eric,

 

This little task is only to make consistent the treatment of associations between GeologicFeatures for the moment.  I don't want to extend it further at least for now - otherwise we'll never get the next version out.  

 

Point 4a (that most seem to have voted for to date) shows that we are not entirely soft-typing - we are still naming at least the most common associations.

 

Cheers,

Ollie

 

________________________________

From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au [mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of Boisvert, Eric
Sent: Tuesday, 17 May 2011 2:47 AM
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] GeologicFeatureRelation - a vote[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

 

It's all good, so I would also favor Yea,Yea,Yea,a,Yea.  

 

We bascially soft type association between GeologicFeatures   

May I ask why those two cases in particular ?  There are other relationships between features in the model (occurence/specificaton for instance)

Is the pattern limited to GeologicFeatures only to harmonise all associations between GeologicFeatures?

 

Eric

P.S. In the good old days of NADM, I joked that progressive soft typing will eventually result in just 3 classes <Thing>,<Assocation> and <Property> (oh, wait.. this is OGC meta model !).

 

________________________________

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 mai 2011 09:39
À : auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Objet : [auscope-geosciml] GeologicFeatureRelation - a vote[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Dear Data Model Task Group,

 

There has been substantial discussion regarding redesign of the geologicHistory and GeologicFeatureRelation area of the model.  I would like us to come to some consensus so we can generate the Release Candidate #3 schemas which will address a range of issues identified since the release of RC2.

 

I think we have boiled the GeologicFeatureRelation issue down to 5 issues on which I hope everyone can vote on (at the bottom of this email):

 

1.	GeologicEvent is a GeologicFeature and, as such, can be related to other GeologicEvents, GeologicUnits and GeologicStructures using the GeologicFeatureRelation class.
	
	
2.	The geologicHistory and definingStructure associations are effectively special subtypes of GeologicFeatureRelation.  The geologicHistory and definingStructure associations will be removed from their current location in the model and incorporated into the GeologicFeatureRelation model.
	
	
3.	The GeologicFeatureRelation class can (should) be modelled as an Association Class and should not be stereotyped as a FeatureType. 
	
	(For an example of this UML pattern, see SF_Specimen/processingDetails in ISO19156 O&M v2, like this:
	 <https://email.nrcan.gc.ca/exchange/eboisver/Drafts/RE%C2%A0:%20[auscope-geosciml]%20GeologicFeatureRelation%20-%20a%20vote%20[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED].EML/1_multipart/image001.jpg>  
	The UML to XML encoding pattern for association classes is shown in OGC documentation: http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=34158&version=1 <http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=34158&version=1> .)
	
	The GeoSciML UML would change from this (RC2):
	 <https://email.nrcan.gc.ca/exchange/eboisver/Drafts/RE%C2%A0:%20[auscope-geosciml]%20GeologicFeatureRelation%20-%20a%20vote%20[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED].EML/1_multipart/image002.jpg> 
	
	to this (RC3):
	 <https://email.nrcan.gc.ca/exchange/eboisver/Drafts/RE%C2%A0:%20[auscope-geosciml]%20GeologicFeatureRelation%20-%20a%20vote%20[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED].EML/1_multipart/image005.jpg at 01CC13E1.22E082D0> 
	
	Example XML serialisation would change from this in RC2: 

<GeologicUnit gml:id="unit1"> 
     <geologicHistory> 
                 <GeologicEvent> 
                           <eventProcess xlink:href="http://resource.geosciml.org/classifier/eventProcess/6789" xlink:title="deposition"/> 
                           <olderNamedAge xlink:href="http://resource.ics.org/stratChart/stratChart2009/Silurian" xlink:title="Silurian"/> 
                </GeologicEvent> 
     </geologicHistory> 
</GeologicUnit>

to this (in RC3)....
<GeologicUnit gml:id="unit1"> 
     <relatedFeature> 
            <GeologicFeatureRelation> 
                        <relationship xlink:href="http://resource.geosciml.org/classifier/geologicRelationship/xyz001" xlink:title="primary depositional age"/> 
                        <sourceRole xlink:href="http://resource.geosciml.org/classifier/relationRole/zzz001 xlink:title="dated geologic unit"/> 
                        <targetRole xlink:href="http://resource.geosciml.org/classifier/relationRole/xxx001 xlink:title="depositional event"/> 
                        <relatedFeature>     
                                    <GeologicEvent>
                                                <eventProcess xlink:href="http://resource.geosciml.org/classifier/eventProcess/6789" xlink:title="deposition"/> 
                                                <olderNamedAge xlink:href="http://resource.ics.org/stratChart/stratChart2009/Silurian" xlink:title="Silurian"/> 
                                    </GeologicEvent> 
                        </relatedFeature>
                   <!--  There is no "source" element here .  Source is implied by the containing GeologicUnit element. -->
            </GeologicFeatureRelation> 
     </relatedFeature> 
</GeologicUnit>


also from this in RC2.... 

<GeologicUnit gml:id="unit1"> 
     <targetLink>
            <GeologicFeatureRelation>
                        <relationship xlink:href="http://resource.geosciml.org/classifier/geologicRelationship/123456" xlink:title="igneous intrusive relationship"/> 
                        <sourceRole xlink:href="http://resource.geosciml.org/classifier/relationRole/3456" xlink:title="is intruded by"/> 
                        <targetRole xlink:href="http://resource.geosciml.org/classifier/relationRole/56789" xlink:title="intrudes"/> 
                        <target xlink:href="#graniteUnit2>                                                
                        <source xlink:href="#unit1/>
            </GeologicFeatureRelation>
     </targetLink>            
</GeologicUnit>

to this in RC3....
<GeologicUnit gml:id="unit1"> 
    <relatedFeature>
            <GeologicFeatureRelation>
                        <relationship xlink:href="http://resource.geosciml.org/classifier/geologicRelationship/123456" xlink:title="igneous intrusive relationship"/> 
                        <sourceRole xlink:href="http://resource.geosciml.org/classifier/relationRole/3456" xlink:title="is intruded by"/> 
                        <targetRole xlink:href="http://resource.geosciml.org/classifier/relationRole/56789" xlink:title="intrudes"/> 
                   <relatedFeature xlink:href="#graniteUnit2>     
                     <!--  There is no "source" element here .  Source is implied by the containing GeologicUnit element. -->
            </GeologicFeatureRelation> 
     </relatedFeature> 
</GeologicUnit>

 

4.	I would like a conclusion on whether a) GeologicFeatureRelation should be subtyped to explicitly name special geologic feature relations (like GeologicHistory, DefiningStructure, BoundaryRelationship), with specific constraints for those specialised relationship classes. eg, 
	 <https://email.nrcan.gc.ca/exchange/eboisver/Drafts/RE%C2%A0:%20[auscope-geosciml]%20GeologicFeatureRelation%20-%20a%20vote%20[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED].EML/1_multipart/image003.jpg> 
	
	or b) GeologicFeatureRelation should not have any subtypes.  This means that the relationships between certain geologic feature types would have to be established in vocabularies of GeologicRelationshipTerm and RelationRoleTerm to constrain appropriate use of relationships between features. 
5.	Previous cardinality rules on the geologicHistory association from GeologicUnit and GeologicStructure (mandatory, but nillable) could be handled by adding constraints to the GeologicUnit and GeologicStructure classes (eg, GeologicUnits and GeologicStructures must have at least one related GeologicEvent.  That event may be of unknown age - ie, nilled with an appropriate nilReason.)  Likewise a constraint would be added to GeologicUnit indicating that if unit type = DeformationUnit, then there must be a related (ie, defining) GeologicStructure.
	 <https://email.nrcan.gc.ca/exchange/eboisver/Drafts/RE%C2%A0:%20[auscope-geosciml]%20GeologicFeatureRelation%20-%20a%20vote%20[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED].EML/1_multipart/image004.jpg> 

 

Could you please vote on each of the above points.  If you have no firm conviction either way, please indicate that too.

	1.   YES or NO

	2.   YES or NO

	3.   YES or NO

	4.   a. or b.

	5.   YES or NO

Thanks,

Ollie

 

 

PS, My personal votes are:

	1. yes

	2. yes

	3. yes

	4. a, but I can live with b.

	5. yes

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

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 ---

 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 161089 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20110516/075a126d/attachment.bin>


More information about the GeoSciML mailing list