[GeoSciML] Schematron rules: gsmlem:lithology for LithostratigraphicUnits

Sen, Marcus A. mase at bgs.ac.uk
Tue Oct 2 08:57:02 EDT 2012


> -----Original Message-----
> From: geosciml-bounces+mase=bgs.ac.uk at lists.opengeospatial.org
> [mailto:geosciml-bounces+mase=bgs.ac.uk at lists.opengeospatial.org] On
> Behalf Of Bruce.Simons at csiro.au
> Sent: 14 August 2012 05:18
> To: geosciml at lists.opengeospatial.org

> I’ve tested
> https://www.seegrid.csiro.au/subversion/GeoSciML/branches/3.0.0/instanc
> es/GSML3_GSV_GeologicUnit_GeologicHistory_January2012.xml and get an
> error message:
> 
> “LithostratigraphicUnit geologic unit
> (gsml.geologicunit.1677754911682918701) must have at least one valid
> gsml:composition property defined.” From the following test:
> 
> test="not($isLithostratigraphicUnit) or $isLithostratigraphicUnit and
> count(gsmlgu:composition) > 0 and count(gsmlgu:composition) =
> count(gsmlgu:composition/gsmlgu:CompositionPart/gsmlgu:material/gsmlem:
> RockMaterial/gsmlem:lithology)">

> 1.     The error message has the incorrect namespace, but the
> schematron test looks like it tests the correct namespace
> (gsmlem:lithology)
Fixed.

> 2.       I think the test is failing because I have two lithologies (a
> GSV and CGI lithology) for each composition (which is valid)

> The test should be re-written so that gsmlem:lithology =>
> gsmlgu:composition.
I see you are using multiple gsmlem:lithology elements to specify terms from alternative dictionaries which is the use case you specified in your email to the list of 19th June, Subject: Re: [GeoSciML] Lithology cardinality [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]. That was the last email in that discussion thread but I'm not sure whether there was an agreed conclusion on the use of multiple gsmlem:lithology elements. 

Do we always allow properties which have dictionary values to be multiple for the purposes of having values from alternative dictionaries? Only for certain properties? Is there a rationale for which properties we treat like this and which we don't? I would like a clear conclusion from the list before modifying this rule. If I change it to allow your instance I assume we would still want to ensure that there was at least one gsmlem:lithology property for lithostratigraphic units?

Marcus

-- 
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.


More information about the GeoSciML mailing list