[auscope-geosciml] FW: OneGeology Schematron rules

Steve Richard steve.richard at azgs.az.gov
Wed May 23 13:19:12 EDT 2012


Can we update the schematron rules to use the 201202 versions of the
vocabularies, and put them in the 3.0.0 tag?  Has anybody tested them?

steve

 

From: Clemens Portele [mailto:portele at interactive-instruments.de] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 7:38 AM
To: Boisvert, Eric
Cc: steve.richard at azgs.az.gov; Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au; jll at bgs.ac.uk
Laxton; Serrano Jean-Jacques; Ian Jackson; Geoff Wade; Satish Sankaran;
Roberto Lucchi
Subject: Re: OneGeology Schematron rules

 

Thanks, my understanding was that anything in the 3.0.0 branch would be
untested/inofficial and only those in the 3.0.0 tag would be official. Maybe
we should confirm with Tim which rules they are using in the clients. Should
I do this?

 

>From the two Schematron files the right one is probably
https://www.seegrid.csiro.au/subversion/GeoSciML/branches/3.0.0/schematron/G
eoSciML_v3_Testbed_4.sch. Correct?

 

Does this mean that we have to use the 201012 vocabulary instead of the
201202 one as this includes URIs with numeric codes, e.g.
http://resource.geosciml.org/classifier/cgi/geologicunittype/0005? 

 

Is my understanding correct that we will not have any Chronostratigraphic
units or Deformation units? Both have assertions that require relatedFeature
properties and as far as I can see these are not part of the profile we have
defined.

 

Clemens

 

 

Am 23.05.2012 um 15:50 schrieb Boisvert, Eric:

AFAIK, these
(https://www.seegrid.csiro.au/subversion/GeoSciML/branches/3.0.0/schematron/
) are the rules written in Edinburgh last summer 

 

I'm not aware of any other schematron files.

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20120523/fbed1d43/attachment.htm>


More information about the GeoSciML mailing list