[GeoSciML] Geologic History Relationship terms

Laxton, John L. jll at bgs.ac.uk
Fri Jan 10 12:10:24 EST 2014

Hi Steve,

I think this is probably illustrating a problem with the way GeologicHistory is modelled.

If we agree the GeologicHistoryRelationshipTerm refers to the kinds of relationships between GeologicEvents and GeologicFeatures then the terms in the original proposal are valid. An erosionEvent describes the relationship between a GeologicEvent with an eventProcess of erosion and some GeologicFeature which is being eroded. That said I agree this isn't adding much to the sum of human understanding and what you propose is a more pragmatic approach.

However I do think this raises the question of why GeologicHistory is modelled as a type of GeologicRelation, and why GeologicEvent is a type of GeologicFeature (so I'm copying this to the modelling list). In my experience this aspect of the model is very difficult to explain to the community and is adding complexity without delivering any more information - if we agree that all the GeologicRelation properties have to be hard-coded when applied to GeologicHistory. In INSPIRE we had geologicHistory as a simple association from GeologicFeature to GeologicEvent, as we had in earlier versions of GeoSciML, and which I think we should consider reverting to.


From: GTWG at googlegroups.com [mailto:GTWG at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve Richard
Sent: 20 December 2013 17:39
To: gtwg mailing list (GTWG at googlegroups.com)
Subject: [GTWG-list] Geologic History Relationship terms

Sorry about getting to the game late...

There is a bit of a conceptual problem trying to figure out the best way to encode geologic history
We've got {GeologicUnit/Structure/GeomorphFeature} < -- sourceRole(RelationRoleTerm) < -- GeologicHistory(GeologicRelationshipTerm) -- > targetRole (RelationRoleTerm) -- > GeologicEvent(EventProcessTerm)

There are 4 possible places to put terms.  It's hard to figure a useful way to use RelationRoleTerms in this context other than something pretty generic like sourceRole = 'subject of history', target role = 'event in history'.

The terms we have in the draft geologicHistoryRelationship proposed vocabulary actually specify event processes --deposition, intrusion, eruption, reactivation, deformation, erosion, tectonism, magmatism, weathering, and these are already covered in the EventProcessTerm vocabulary.

By instantiating a concrete 'GeologicHistory' class as a kind of GeologicRelation, we have essentially restricted the GeologicRelationshipTerm to something like 'geologic history' (it's hard-typed). The scope of the GeologicRelationshipTerm in this context should be kinds of relationships between events and geologicFeatures; the only subtypes that occur to me would be something like 'originating event' (first event in genesis of feature) and 'modifying event' (events subsequent to original genesis of the feature).

Given this, I propose that the GeolgoicHistoryRelationship term vocabulary should just include "geologic history" with subtypes "originating event" and 'modifying event'


Stephen M Richard
Arizona Geological Survey
416 W. Congress  #100
Tucson, AZ
AZGS: 520-770-3500
Office: 520-209-4127
FAX: 520-770-3505

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20140110/8b2257c8/attachment.html>

More information about the GeoSciML mailing list