[GeoSciML] GeologicUnit vocabulary - how do you treat geological provinces [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Steve Richard steve.richard at azgs.az.gov
Fri Aug 3 15:01:29 EDT 2012


I think the solution of using a local vocabulary is a good one. The local
vocabulary may not even need to import the CGI vocabulary. For data exchange
between communities using different vocabularies, a resource that maps
between vocabularies is required. Ideally in the SKOS for the local
geoUnitType vocabulary you could use the vocabulary match properties
(exactMatch, closeMatch, broaderMatch, relatedMatch etc.) to associate terms
that correspond in some fashion to the CGI geoUnitTypes.  

 

I've never been a big fan of the 'rank' property, because the categorization
of ranks is always done in some local context. In N Am, there are
'formations' in Kansas that are <1 m thick, and 'formations' in other places
that are >1000 m thick.  What a formation rank in any particular region
depends on the kinds of rocks, how good the outcrop is, and whether the
first geologists who worked the area were lumpers or splitters.  If the
purpose of the property is to assist with map generalization, it makes more
sense to categorize units based on their extent (region within which the
unit is mapped), the size (area in map view) of their outcrops, and perhaps
some context-depended assessment of how important they are (e.g. is it the
fossil-rich, gold-, oil-, coal-, copper-. bearing horizon). </end rant>

 

The geologic issue for geo Unit types:  When the content model associated
with the feature becomes different enough from GeologicUnit it become useful
to define different hard typed extensions of GeologicFeature to represent
things like geomorphicFeature. Does metallogenicProvince fall in this
category? Are the properties associated with a craton different enough from
those associated with the other GeologicUnitTypes to merit another
geologicFeature subtype for 'TectonicProvince' or something like that?

 

See y'all soon

steve

From: geosciml-bounces+steve.richard=azgs.az.gov at lists.opengeospatial.org
[mailto:geosciml-bounces+steve.richard=azgs.az.gov at lists.opengeospatial.org]
On Behalf Of Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 6:38 PM
To: geosciml at lists.opengeospatial.org
Subject: Re: [GeoSciML] GeologicUnit vocabulary - how do you treat
geological provinces [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

 

"which imports the CGI vocabulary and extends it with additional terms"

 

Thanks Simon, I didn't realise that I could meld two vocabularies that way.


 

Cheers,

Ollie

 

  _____  

From: geosciml-bounces+oliver.raymond=ga.gov.au at lists.opengeospatial.org
[mailto:geosciml-bounces+oliver.raymond=ga.gov.au at lists.opengeospatial.org]
On Behalf Of Simon.Cox at csiro.au
Sent: Friday, 3 August 2012 11:26
To: geosciml at lists.opengeospatial.org
Subject: Re: [GeoSciML] GeologicUnit vocabulary - how do you treat
geological provinces [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

 

Ollie - 

 

All looks sensible *except* the assumption that the new concepts should be
added to the CGI vocabulary. 

You can define a GA vocabulary, which imports the CGI vocabulary and extends
it with additional terms. 

That way you can manage your own requirements. 

 

Of course, if there is community agreement they can be promoted to CGI, but
I do suggest that you should get used to the idea that some things can and
should be handled more locally. 

 

Simon

 

From: geosciml-bounces+simon.cox=csiro.au at lists.opengeospatial.org
[mailto:geosciml-bounces+simon.cox=csiro.au at lists.opengeospatial.org] On
Behalf Of Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au
Sent: Friday, 3 August 2012 7:08 AM
To: geosciml at lists.opengeospatial.org
Subject: [GeoSciML] GeologicUnit vocabulary - how do you treat geological
provinces [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

 

Hi CGI vocabulary people,

 

1.  I want to use GeoSciML to deliver geological provinces as GeologicUnits.
At GA, we capture: 

.        basins (sedimentary provinces)

.        cratons and orogens (lithotectonic provinces)

.        igneous (magmatic) provinces

.        metallogenic provinces

.        metamorphic provinces

 

The GeologicUnitType currently vocabulary has:

.        lithostratigraphic unit -> I can use this for sedimentary basins

.        lithotectonic unit -> I can use this for cratons and orogens, but
I'd like to be able to have a separate subcategory for each of "craton" and
"orogen"

.        nothing that seems to cover igneous, metallogenic or metamorphic
provinces

 

Do you think it appropriate that we add these geological province types to
the GeologicUnitType vocabulary?

 

2.  Rank 

If we add province types to the list of GeologicUnitTypes, then I'd like to
add some hierarchical province rank terms to the Rank vocabulary.  At GA we
use:

.        Superprovince

.        Province

.        Subprovince  

.        Domain

.        Microdomain

 

I'm happy to hear anyone's thoughts.  What does your geological organisation
capture/deliver?

 

Cheers,

Ollie

 

__________________________________________________________________

Ollie Raymond
Senior Geologist  - Information Management  |  Continental Geology Section
Minerals and Natural Hazards Division  |  GEOSCIENCE AUSTRALIA

Interoperability Working Group

IUGS Commission for the Management and Application of Geoscience Information
__________________________________________________________


Phone:  +61 2 6249 9575    Fax:  +61 2 6249 9971
Email:   <mailto:Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au> Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au    Web:
<http://www.ga.gov.au/> www.ga.gov.au
Cnr Jerrabomberra Avenue and Hindmarsh Drive Symonston ACT
GPO Box 378 Canberra ACT 2601 Australia

Applying geoscience to Australia's most important challenges

 

 

 

Geoscience Australia Disclaimer: This e-mail (and files transmitted with it)
is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you
are not the intended recipient, then you have received this e-mail by
mistake and any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this
e-mail and its file attachments is prohibited. The security of emails
transmitted cannot be guaranteed; by forwarding or replying to this email,
you acknowledge and accept these risks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------

Geoscience Australia Disclaimer: This e-mail (and files transmitted with it)
is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you
are not the intended recipient, then you have received this e-mail by
mistake and any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this
e-mail and its file attachments is prohibited. The security of emails
transmitted cannot be guaranteed; by forwarding or replying to this email,
you acknowledge and accept these risks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20120803/cc51dc38/attachment.htm>


More information about the GeoSciML mailing list