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

Boisvert, Eric Eric.Boisvert at RNCan-NRCan.gc.ca
Tue May 17 08:28:19 EDT 2011


Which essentially turns it into a constrained GF_AssociationType (relationType is the same as the meta class "typeName")  
(attached)
 
We reached singularity ! ;)
 
Eric
 
 
 
________________________________

De : auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au [mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] De la part de Simon.Cox at csiro.au
Envoyé : 17 mai 2011 07:50
À : auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Objet : Re: [auscope-geosciml] RE : GeologicFeatureRelation -a vote [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]



OK – what about a halfway house: add a ‘relationType’ attribute, to make the specialization extensible (like with GeologicUnit). 

 

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 5:13 PM
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: [auscope-geosciml] RE : GeologicFeatureRelation -a vote [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

 

>IF the source is a GeologicUnit AND the target is a GeologicStructure THEN the Relation is a >DefiningStructure 

>ELSE IF the target is a GeologicEvent THEN the Relation is a GeologicHistory

>ELSE IF the source is a GeologicUnit AND the target is a GeologicUnit THEN the Relation is a >BoundaryRelationship

 

Hmm.. this means that ALL relations between GeologicUnit and GeologicStructure MUST be definingStructures, etc.

 

 

 


 

________________________________

De: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au de la part de Simon.Cox at csiro.au
Date: lun. 2011-05-16 20:45
À: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Objet : Re: [auscope-geosciml] GeologicFeatureRelation -a vote [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

The thing that bothers me about the hard-typed relations is that they don’t actually appear to specialize the class. 

There are no additional attributes or associations. 

So it is purely semantic sugar (TM). 

 

Yes, it could be argued that the ‘constraints’ are additional properties, but you could look at those the other way round, and cast them as classifiers rather than constraints. i.e. 

IF the source is a GeologicUnit AND the target is a GeologicStructure THEN the Relation is a DefiningStructure

ELSE IF the target is a GeologicEvent THEN the Relation is a GeologicHistory

ELSE IF the source is a GeologicUnit AND the target is a GeologicUnit THEN the Relation is a BoundaryRelationship

 

Etc etc. 

 

Not sure if I still have a vote. 

If you are prepared to count it I would say 

 

Yes, Yes, Yes, B, Yes. 

 

Simon

 

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: Tuesday, 17 May 2011 8:19 AM
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] GeologicFeatureRelation - a vote [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

 

1.   YES 
2.   YES 
3.   YES 
4.   b. 
5.   YES 

Notes: 
3.    <!--  There is no “source” element here .  Source is implied by the containing GeologicUnit element. --> 
I suggest including the xlink:href back to the containing GeologicUnit (it is mandatory): 
<source xlink:href="#unit1"/> 

4. The hard-typing of GeologicFeatureRelation is potentially limiting. Like Gilly I'd rather see us explore ways we can use the constraints and vocabularies to enforce the rules we require. 

At the risk of going down the OGC Meta model path - soft-typing the GeologiFeatureRelation keeps it more flexible. 

A specific problem with the sub-type proposal is that the GeologicHistory subtype is not really appropriate for relationships between GeologicEvents. The relationship between the Alice Springs Orogeny of Central Australia and the Benambran to Kanimblan orogenies of SE Australia is probably a contemperaneous relationship, not a geologic history. 

I'd suggest following the pattern used in the GeologicStructure classes and add a 'type' property to GeologicFeatureRelation to capture "Defining History", "GeologicHistory" and "BoundaryRelationship" 

----------------------------------------------------
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:        <Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au> 
To:        <auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au> 
Date:        16/05/2011 11:48 PM 
Subject:        [auscope-geosciml] GeologicFeatureRelation - a vote        [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] 
Sent by:        auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au 

________________________________




Sorry for re-sending this message... hopefully all the images make it through this time... 

________________________________

From: Raymond Oliver 
Sent: Monday, 16 May 2011 11:39 PM
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: 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%5bauscope-geosciml%5d%20GeologicFeatureRelation%20-a_x0009_vote_x0009_%5bSEC=UNCLASSIFIED%5d.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%5bauscope-geosciml%5d%20GeologicFeatureRelation%20-a_x0009_vote_x0009_%5bSEC=UNCLASSIFIED%5d.EML/1_multipart/image002.jpg> 

to this (RC3):
 <https://email.nrcan.gc.ca/exchange/eboisver/Drafts/RE%C2%A0:%20%5bauscope-geosciml%5d%20GeologicFeatureRelation%20-a_x0009_vote_x0009_%5bSEC=UNCLASSIFIED%5d.EML/1_multipart/image003.jpg> 

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 <http://resource.geosciml.org/classifier/eventProcess/6789> " xlink:title="deposition"/> 
                          <olderNamedAge xlink:href="http://resource.ics.org/stratChart/stratChart2009/Silurian <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/ <http://resource.geosciml.org/classifier/geologicRelationship/> xyz001" xlink:title="primary depositional age"/> 
                       <sourceRole xlink:href="http://resource.geosciml.org/classifier/relationRole/ <http://resource.geosciml.org/classifier/relationRole/> zzz001 xlink:title="dated geologic unit"/> 
                       <targetRole xlink:href="http://resource.geosciml.org/classifier/relationRole/ <http://resource.geosciml.org/classifier/relationRole/> xxx001 xlink:title="depositional event"/> 
                       <relatedFeature>     
                                   <GeologicEvent>
                                               <eventProcess xlink:href="http://resource.geosciml.org/classifier/eventProcess/6789 <http://resource.geosciml.org/classifier/eventProcess/6789> " xlink:title="deposition"/> 
                                               <olderNamedAge xlink:href="http://resource.ics.org/stratChart/stratChart2009/Silurian <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 <http://resource.geosciml.org/classifier/geologicRelationship/123456> " xlink:title="igneous intrusive relationship"/> 
                       <sourceRole xlink:href="http://resource.geosciml.org/classifier/relationRole/3456 <http://resource.geosciml.org/classifier/relationRole/3456> " xlink:title="is intruded by"/> 
                       <targetRole xlink:href="http://resource.geosciml.org/classifier/relationRole/56789 <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 <http://resource.geosciml.org/classifier/geologicRelationship/123456> " xlink:title="igneous intrusive relationship"/> 
                       <sourceRole xlink:href="http://resource.geosciml.org/classifier/relationRole/3456 <http://resource.geosciml.org/classifier/relationRole/3456> " xlink:title="is intruded by"/> 
                       <targetRole xlink:href="http://resource.geosciml.org/classifier/relationRole/56789 <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%5bauscope-geosciml%5d%20GeologicFeatureRelation%20-a_x0009_vote_x0009_%5bSEC=UNCLASSIFIED%5d.EML/1_multipart/image004.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%5bauscope-geosciml%5d%20GeologicFeatureRelation%20-a_x0009_vote_x0009_%5bSEC=UNCLASSIFIED%5d.EML/1_multipart/image005.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 --- 
 _______________________________________________
auscope-geosciml mailing list
auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml <http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml> 

________________________________

Ÿԟiǀ&,ޘڭǿ㓔㓲ܥx[1](dNPЂ8}4ӀQSLSNȳ{aN57ڱૉS+‑jwZ&!魲fr�❺+b{ajجꬢvr߉ק&^eʚ⾩^皝ߨʩʸ߅8ԅ8ԟiǀ&6Zڟۡ靭Ꞧǝi֩稭ʦ颱^w񎵱N57ڱૉpبۡz⢼+۞ʧ魡ayʩʸڰ꿔㓼SO󏔣S,ޘSM��⪒-ˡz쉸ܨ~؞碦'ڜ社ڝڞ޾*?㓼SO󏔣S}‑[1]ȳ{b­ʋj��筆+‑w镦zz-랝׫o*޶ꧺfץzע蛪.̬隝מڨɩ򲊢zƨޞZب+‑vڮ稚kƭz뺜؞w讦ܢ{Zw{aǦj)㓼󅸔ߩǀ&rhMW稞ȝzay鯊'魭稭꫊{b
aǦj)㓼󅸔ߩǀ&,ޛ񎵹۲Ͼv짳ϝ) 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20110517/b5b79e17/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Context Diagram GF_AssociationType.png
Type: image/png
Size: 36280 bytes
Desc: Context Diagram GF_AssociationType.png
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20110517/b5b79e17/attachment.png>


More information about the GeoSciML mailing list