[auscope-geosciml] FW: MappedFeature [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au Bruce.Simons at dpi.vic.gov.au
Sun May 29 20:18:41 EDT 2011

Hi Marcus,
The "or" is very important and I think the second reason is even more 
explicit for GeoSciML nillable properties than the INSPIRE General 
conceptual Model 'no data' reasons Michael Lutz provides. I would rewrite 
Michael's explanation for GeoSciML nillable properties as:

"the characteristic is not present in the spatial object, but is present 
in the real world."

This is consistent with your summary statement:
"So we are using nillable where some property isn't present in our spatial 
objects ("poorly populated") but is applicable in the real world 
("logically expected")."

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

Ph: +61-3-9658 4502
Fax: +61-3-9658 4555
Mobile: +61 429 177155

From:   "Sen, Marcus A." <mase at bgs.ac.uk>
To:     "auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au" 
<auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au>
Date:   27/05/2011 06:00 PM
Subject:        Re: [auscope-geosciml] FW:  MappedFeature 
Sent by:        auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au

> -----Original Message-----
> 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: 27 May 2011 02:33

> I think the GeoSciML Designers would agree with Clemens' observations.
> However, GeoSciML has (mostly) been designed as an implementation (ie
> physical) information model, not a conceptual or logical model. As such
> GeoSciML is really the schema, not the schema's visual representation
> (the UML). The Design team have agreed that to maximise
> interoperability, properties should be mandatory where it is sensible
> for them to be logically expected.  Due to poorly populated legacy
> datasets often these properties need to be nillable.
I don't follow why you say "However"? The example you give of poorly 
populated legacy datasets seems to accord with the reasons for 
representing two different kinds of "no data" in the INSPIRE General 
Conceptual Model as quoted by Michael Lutz: " The characteristic is not 
present or not applicable in the real world *or* the characteristic is not 
present in the spatial object, but may be present or applicable in the 
real world." (My emphasis as I think that is the *or* between the two no 
data types.) So we are using nillable where some property isn't present in 
our spatial objects ("poorly populated") but is applicable in the real 
world ("logically expected").

> Nillable therefore needs to remain as a tagged value.  Whether we also
> want to maintain the overhead of either <<voidable>> or UML notes is a
> documentation question.
I don't have any particular opinion on the solution but I can't see a 
relevant difference between GeoSciML and INSPIRE here. (Michael Lutz 
comment that "You can automatically apply default values of tagged values 
associated with a stereotype to UML elements carrying the stereotype in 
EA." does sound worth investigating, however.)


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

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/20110530/858793ca/attachment.htm>

More information about the GeoSciML mailing list