[GeoSciML] [ExternalEmail] Re: [GTWG-list] Geologic History Relationship terms [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Laxton, John L. jll at bgs.ac.uk
Wed Jan 22 05:23:36 EST 2014


Hi Bruce,

There is no updated version of the model - the proposed Geologic History Relationship vocabulary would be used to constrain the GeologicHistory.relationship property.

My argument for changing the model was that after consideration of the values that should be used to populate the GeologicHistory properties (relationship, sourceRole, targetRole) no substantive information is being provided by these, and therefore the modelling of GeologicHistory as a type of GeologicRelation is adding complexity for no benefit. Similarly modelling GeologicEvent as a type of GeologicFeature adds properties for observationMethod, purpose, occurrence, shape etc which either have no meaning or are unknown in the context of a GeologicEvent. For example, although a GeologicEvent must have had a spatial extent (shape) this is now unknown and can only be inferred through the extent of other GeologicFeatures on which the event acted. There is a key difference between GeologicFeatures which exist in the present, the geometry and other properties of which can be measured, and GeologicEvents which existed in the past with properties that can only be inferred through examining other types of GeologicFeature on which they acted.

As to typing GeologicEvents - this might be worthwhile but we would need to be sure this isn't just replicating information that could be derived from the EventProcess vocabulary (eg orogenicProcess). Particular events, such as orogenies, can of course also be named.

John

From: Bruce.Simons at csiro.au [mailto:Bruce.Simons at csiro.au]
Sent: 22 January 2014 01:29
To: Laxton, John L.
Cc: steve.richard at azgs.az.gov; Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au
Subject: FW: [ExternalEmail] Re: [GeoSciML] [GTWG-list] Geologic History Relationship terms [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Hi John,
I'm not sure you saw my response to the GeologicHistoryRelationship discussion (see below). Is there an updated version of the model with GeologicHistoryRelationshipTerm?
The version 4.0 I have is missing it:
[cid:image001.png at 01CF1757.289CEC00]

Cheers
Bruce Simons
SDI Information Modeller
Land and Water/ Environmental Information Systems
CSIRO
E bruce.simons at csiro.au<mailto:bruce.simons at csiro.au> T +61 3 9252 6514 M +61 429 177155
PO Box 56, Highett, Victoria, 3190
www.csiro.au<http://www.csiro.au> | www.csiro.au/science/Environmental-Information-Systems<http://www.csiro.au/science/Environmental-Information-Systems>

PLEASE NOTE
The information contained in this email may be confidential or privileged. Any unauthorised use or disclosure is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete it immediately and notify the sender by return email. Thank you. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO does not represent, warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained or that the communication is free of errors, virus, interception or interference.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.

From: GeoSciML [mailto:geosciml-bounces at lists.opengeospatial.org] On Behalf Of Bruce.Simons at csiro.au<mailto:Bruce.Simons at csiro.au>
Sent: Monday, 13 January 2014 1:15 PM
To: geosciml at lists.opengeospatial.org<mailto:geosciml at lists.opengeospatial.org>; GTWG at googlegroups.com<mailto:GTWG at googlegroups.com>
Subject: [ExternalEmail] Re: [GeoSciML] [GTWG-list] Geologic History Relationship terms [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Hi all,
Although not involved in the 'philosophical decision' that resulted in the latest incarnation of geological history, I'm not convinced this version is any more flawed. My understanding of GeoSciML v3 was that GeologicEvents also had EventProcessTerms, as well as GeologicFeatureRelation:relationship, sourceRole and targetRole terms.

The only thing is that I can't see the GeologicHistoryRelationshipTerm that Steve refers to. Am I missing something in the model?

Before proposing further changes, the modelling group should consider:

·         GeologicEvents are GeologicFeatures: - the Benambran Orogeny is an event with identity that existed in time;



·         The EventProcessTerms allow describing the processes that occurred during the GeologicEvent, such as 'compression', 'tectonic uplift', 'regional metamorphism', 'erosion', ... Note that GeologicEvents do not have a type property because of this multiplicity of processes. Whether there needs to be a typing to capture for example 'orogenic event' is debatable.



·         Re-using GeologicRelation for GeologicHistory will perhaps necessarily make the relationship, sourceRole and targetRole terms be generic and involve some redundancy. How these are used will depend on what is being described.



·         If a relationship is between two GeologicEvents then Steve's proposal "geologic history" with subtypes "originating event" and 'modifying event' makes sense, unless there are more specific terms that link for example uplift - erosion, volcanism - nuee ardent, global cooling - glaciations etc. If so, GeologicRelation:relationship, sourceRole and targetRole allows describing the associations between specific events, whereas the general eventProcess only specifies what happened at each GeologicEvent. I would expect the terms to be the same or very similar. Note however, that currently there is a constraint in the model that specifies the relationship must be between a GeologicEvent and a GeologicUnit orGeologicStructure or GeomorphicUnit. I think this is wrong.



·         If a relationship is between a GeologicEvent and a GeologicStructure, or GeologicUnit, then the GeologicRelation relationship and role terms will be different. The GeologicEvent might be plate boundary convergence with eventProcesses of 'subduction', 'volcanism', 'uplift', 'folding' etc, the GeologicUnit might be 'Wimpy Volcanics' and the GeologicRelation:relationship 'rock forming', sourceRole 'volcanism' and targetRole 'resultant geologic unit'

My end of the stick - wrong tho' it may be.

Cheers
Bruce Simons
SDI Information Modeller
Land and Water/ Environmental Information Systems
CSIRO
E bruce.simons at csiro.au<mailto:bruce.simons at csiro.au> T +61 3 9252 6514 M +61 429 177155
PO Box 56, Highett, Victoria, 3190
www.csiro.au<http://www.csiro.au> | www.csiro.au/science/Environmental-Information-Systems<http://www.csiro.au/science/Environmental-Information-Systems>

PLEASE NOTE
The information contained in this email may be confidential or privileged. Any unauthorised use or disclosure is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete it immediately and notify the sender by return email. Thank you. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO does not represent, warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained or that the communication is free of errors, virus, interception or interference.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.

From: GeoSciML [mailto:geosciml-bounces+bruce.simons=csiro.au at lists.opengeospatial.org] On Behalf Of Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au<mailto:Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au>
Sent: Monday, 13 January 2014 12:10 PM
To: GTWG at googlegroups.com<mailto:GTWG at googlegroups.com>; geosciml at lists.opengeospatial.org<mailto:geosciml at lists.opengeospatial.org>
Subject: Re: [GeoSciML] [GTWG-list] Geologic History Relationship terms [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Hi John, Steve, et al

In hindsight, I feel we did fall into the trap here of implementing what is basically a conceptual model as a physical delivery model without due consideration of the complexity that it imposes on the delivery model.  Definitely needs to be addressed in version 4.

Cheers,
Ollie


From: GTWG at googlegroups.com<mailto:GTWG at googlegroups.com> [mailto:GTWG at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve Richard
Sent: Saturday, 11 January 2014 7:26 AM
To: GTWG at googlegroups.com<mailto:GTWG at googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [GTWG-list] Digest for GTWG at googlegroups.com<mailto:GTWG at googlegroups.com> - 2 Messages in 2 Topics


Wasn't making geologicEvent one of those philosophical decisions...   We'll revisit in OGC V4





T-Mobile. America's First Nationwide 4G Network



"GTWG at googlegroups.com<mailto:GTWG at googlegroups.com>" <GTWG at googlegroups.com<mailto:GTWG at googlegroups.com>> wrote:


  Today's Topic Summary

Group: http://groups.google.com/group/GTWG/topics
§  Geologic History Relationship terms [1 Update]
§  MineralDepositTypeValue for review [1 Update]
 Geologic History Relationship terms<http://groups.google.com/group/GTWG/t/eb710b78edbcacf0>
"Laxton, John L." <jll at bgs.ac.uk<mailto:jll at bgs.ac.uk>> Jan 10 05:10PM

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.

John

From: GTWG at googlegroups.com<mailto: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<mailto: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'

Steve



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.


 MineralDepositTypeValue for review<http://groups.google.com/group/GTWG/t/d6f6d10b1421e32>
"Heaven, Rachel E." <reh at bgs.ac.uk<mailto:reh at bgs.ac.uk>> Jan 10 10:35AM

Hi Mike

Many thanks for that. Having consulted with our minerals guys here, we think your comments are entirely valid and improve on the previous BGS classification. Deposits of this type are much better known in Australia than in Europe!

Regards,

Rachel Heaven
Senior Scientific Officer, Geoinformatics
British Geological Survey, Environmental Science Centre
Nicker Hill, Keyworth, Nottingham, NG12 5GG
+ 44 (0)115 963382 | reh at bgs.ac.uk<mailto:reh at bgs.ac.uk> | www.bgs.ac.uk<http://www.bgs.ac.uk>



From: GTWG at googlegroups.com<mailto:GTWG at googlegroups.com> [mailto:GTWG at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike.Craig at ga.gov.au<mailto:Mike.Craig at ga.gov.au>
Sent: 17 December 2013 00:16
To: Heaven, Rachel E.; GTWG at googlegroups.com<mailto:GTWG at googlegroups.com>
Subject: [GTWG-list] RE: MineralDepositTypeValue for review [DLM=For-Official-Use-Only]

Hi All,
With regard to two of the Terms proposed in the MineralDepositTypeValue_RH-TM;

I am intrigued by the use of the word "laterite". This is a highly misused and abused term throughout the literature and I cannot help but wonder what a laterite deposit actually is - at least by your (RH-TM) understanding.

I would be grateful if you could explain, at least for my benefit, what a "laterite deposit" is.

For me "laterite" represents a weathering effect - and a host of weathering features which may or may not be present at a specific location. But just how is "laterite deposit" a mineral deposit.

Although I avoid using the term "laterite" because of the confusion it tends to generate, I expect that when you refer to a "lateritic" (bauxite/nickel) you are referring to the weathering process (using laterite (whatever it actually means) as an adjective) that presumably was involved in the mineral deposit (bauxite) generative process.

If you wish to see just how confused the perceptions of this term really are just go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laterite

If I were pressed quickly to suggest and alternative terms I would prefer to see something like:

1.4 weathering products
1.4.1 residual deposits
1.4.1.1 bauxite (lateritic) - if you really want to refer to the weathering process thought
to be responsible the mineral deposit itself)
1.4.1.2 bauxite (karstic)
1.4.1.3 nickel (lateritic)
1.4.2 transported deposits
1.4.2.1 pisolites (lateritic - gold)
1.4.2.2 pisolites (lateritic - bauxite)

Cheers,
MikeC

Dr Michael A Craig
Senior Research Scientist | Regolith/Geomorphology | Data Acquisition and Stewardship
Minerals and Natural Hazards Division | GEOSCIENCE AUSTRALIA
____________________________________________________________
Phone: +61 2 6249 9453 Fax: +61 2 6249 9999 Mobile: +61 (0) 409443669
Email: Mike.Craig at ga.gov.au<mailto:Mike.Craig at ga.gov.au<mailto:Mike.Craig at ga.gov.au%3cmailto:Mike.Craig at ga.gov.au>> Web: www.ga.gov.au<http://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
From: GTWG at googlegroups.com<mailto:GTWG at googlegroups.com<mailto:GTWG at googlegroups.com%3cmailto:GTWG at googlegroups.com>> [mailto:GTWG at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Heaven, Rachel E.
Sent: Monday, 16 December 2013 9:52 PM
To: GTWG at googlegroups.com<mailto:GTWG at googlegroups.com<mailto:GTWG at googlegroups.com%3cmailto:GTWG at googlegroups.com>>
Subject: [GTWG-list] MineralDepositTypeValue for review

Hi all

Tim had also uploaded this vocabulary a few weeks ago, here is the formal notification:


Vocabulary: MineralDepositTypeValue_RH-TM
Shepherd: Rachel Heaven / Tim McCormick
Context Diagram: http://www.earthresourceml.org/earthresourceml/2.0/doc/ERML_HTML_Documentation/ <<Leaf>> MineralOccurrence -> Context Diagram: MineralDepositModel
Description: A grouping of mineral deposits defined by generic characteristics e.g. host rock, host structure, commodity, association with similar mineral processes e.g. porphyry. Regional, national and more universal lists e.g. Cox and Singer 1986 (modified by GA)"
Status: For review
Review period: until 9 January 2014
Location: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApMrAq8foNTgdFdDVVVkNjloUmwyRFZ4YmJHMF9ZZkE
File/page https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApMrAq8foNTgdFdDVVVkNjloUmwyRFZ4YmJHMF9ZZkE&usp=drive_web#gid=0


Regards,

Rachel


From: GTWG at googlegroups.com<mailto:GTWG at googlegroups.com<mailto:GTWG at googlegroups.com%3cmailto:GTWG at googlegroups.com>> [mailto:GTWG at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Vuollo Jouni (GTK)
Sent: 16 December 2013 10:16
To: GTWG at googlegroups.com<mailto:GTWG at googlegroups.com<mailto:GTWG at googlegroups.com%3cmailto:GTWG at googlegroups.com>>
Cc: Mark Rattenbury
Subject: RE: [GTWG-list] [GTWG list] Streamlining the vocabulary review process

Dear GTWG members!

Thanks Mark for your message! I agree your worries about our tight schedule for reviewing process just before Season Break all over the globe! Xmas is coming and now I will do a proposal that only two (Earth Resource Form value and Environmental Impact Value) we will have reviewed and vote before Xmas. Rachel and Tim lists (EarthResourceExpressionValue - EarthResourceShapeValue - EndUsePotentialValue - MineralOccurrenceTypeValue - MiningActivityTypeValue) official message came out 13.12 and there are so many who did not realize that these were actually proposed!! Therefore I will propose a new review schedule to 9.1.2014 for all Rachel and Tim's lists??? It means that we will have ten vocabularies at the same time ready for vote and finalizing these then!

The rest four lists are as red - hopefully we will have Commodity code proposal ready beginning of this week and then the there are these two ones - really difficult ones - MineralDepositGroupType and Procuct - we will discuss at Minerals4EU project about product code - how to synchronize Commodity/product lists! Hopefully this last one - MineralDepositGroupType could have a proposal soon, which would be comprehensive enough but not too detailed?? If you don't have notice before - there is a collection of proposal at our google drive Mineral_deposit_type_group_Surveys_Data_Models - > https://drive.google.com/#folders/0B9rsojdRTdw_MUJRcjViZ3NnNGM

TABLE BELOW - LEGEND

You can find all the EarthResourceML v. code lists below ( list name) the there is Status and review period to all code lists and Green row - the first vote row - Earth Resource Form! The final column of table have all the links to shepherds proposals and now I have add Red column to all "Shepherds_proposal" spreadsheets - please add your comments there and you can also sign it like "Ok for me - JIV" like Mark was hoping (a "have had a look and have no changes" response).

[cid:image001.png at 01CF0DEF.89BE5210]


I will send update messages to you during the month following - so that all you can follow - what is going ?

Best wishes,

Jouni


List name

Status- CGI

Review period start

Review period stop

Vote adopting

Shepherds proposal - Google drive address<https://drive.google.com/#folders/0B-5zXOYZ_JMIcDlCMDZPOU5GMzg>

Classification Method Used

Adopted







EarthResourceMaterialRoleValue

Adopted







Importance

Adopted







Mine Status

Adopted







RawMaterialRoleValue

Adopted







Reserve Category

Adopted







Resource Category

Adopted







WasteStorageTypeValue

Adopted





















Commodity Code

GGIC proposal - BGS/GTK - new proposal coming soon









Earth Resource Expression

Vote after 9.1.2014

13.12.2013

09.01.2014



https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Au5zXOYZ_JMIdE95cTZvQ3RFNzNhc3RkeFd1allOR3c#gid=5

Earth Resource Form

Vote ongoing

13.11.2013

13.12.2013

Start today

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Au5zXOYZ_JMIdHRSVmttczZFSmlpLS0wUDN4S25hZHc&usp=drive_web#gid=4

Earth Resource Shape

Vote after 9.1.2014

13.12.2013

09.01.2014



https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Au5zXOYZ_JMIdE9UX3hRMlJ3cHZfQ3JYU3c3a3VsMlE&usp=drive_web#gid=4

Enduse Potential

Vote after 9.1.2014

13.12.2013

09.01.2014



https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Au5zXOYZ_JMIdGlaREdLM3ZhZGN1OWpUYVVrSFRDN0E&usp=drive_web#gid=4

EnvironmentalImpactValue

Vote after 15.12.2013

20.11.2013

20.12.2013



https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Au5zXOYZ_JMIdHlOX190RlBzc3RPMDhZcS00QUh6UkE&usp=drive_web#gid=4

Exploration Activity Type

Vote after 15.12.2013

16.12.2013

09.01.2014



https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Au5zXOYZ_JMIdDJ0VVllSlFSeWV6X3NVTHl1YkRranc&usp=drive_web#gid=5

Exploration Result

Vote after 16.1.2014

16.12.2013

09.01.2014



https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Au5zXOYZ_JMIdHRDZS1tQ3BaQWNpakRDTEJWdE15Mnc&usp=drive_web#gid=4

Mineral Deposit Group

Waiting shepherds proposal - BGS









Mineral Deposit Type

Waiting shepherds proposal - BGS









Mineral Occurrence Type

Vote after 9.1.2014

13.12.2013

09.01.2014



https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Au5zXOYZ_JMIdGdWSjlGWHdzaldNQkVfekVIMVlNa3c&usp=drive_web#gid=5

Mining Activity Type

Vote after 9.1.2014

13.12.2013

09.01.2014



https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Au5zXOYZ_JMIdHdLMklvVUZaTkpCTnNVaXNuS1lBeXc&usp=drive_web#gid=4

MiningWasteTypeValue

Vote after 9.1.2014

09.12.2013

09.01.2014



https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Au5zXOYZ_JMIdHVNNjFLMXR3WWhWTmI1cXExcXdyMUE&usp=drive_web#gid=5

Processing Activity Type

Vote after 9.1.2014

09.12.2013

09.01.2014



https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Au5zXOYZ_JMIdC1aQ2FUSENHd3lPa09MOFRFeGJDb1E&usp=drive_web#gid=4

ProductValue

In progress - WP4 and WP5 (Minerals4EU)









UNFC Value

Vote after 9.1.2014

09.12.2013

09.01.2014



https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ak6nY2-AOzj4dEl0X1did25ULTB4NWdqS3EzVjhYNGc&usp=drive_web#gid=1







From: GTWG at googlegroups.com<mailto:GTWG at googlegroups.com<mailto:GTWG at googlegroups.com%3cmailto:GTWG at googlegroups.com>> [mailto:GTWG at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark Rattenbury
Sent: 15. joulukuuta 2013 22:03
To: GTWG at googlegroups.com<mailto:GTWG at googlegroups.com<mailto:GTWG at googlegroups.com%3cmailto:GTWG at googlegroups.com>>
Subject: [GTWG-list] [GTWG list] Streamlining the vocabulary review process

Dear GTWG,

I thought I'd add the other current review candidate vocabularies to Rachel's list in due date order below. Keeping track of what vocabularies are in review and when their deadlines are is challenging, at least for me. I may have missed some already here.

I propose the creation of a new folder "VocabulariesForReview" in which ready for review candidates are moved (not copied) from "DraftVocabularies". Once adopted these vocabularies should be moved (not copied) in the existing "AdoptedVocabularies" folder. I also suggest adding the review date to the vocabulary file name e.g. 2013-12-13_earth-resource-form whilst in the "VocabulariesForReview" folder.

To implement this on existing review candidate vocabularies will break the file/page links we've established. Can we first agree on whether to adopt this "VocabulariesForReview" folder and maybe use it for future review candidates? Or is there a better way to keep on track?

Having now been through the review process I was grateful for feedback received on the vocabulary, even it is was a "have had a look and have no changes" response. So please send an email to the shepherd if you've looked at their vocabulary under review, cc the group if you have changes or issues with it or comment directly on to the google spreadsheet so others can see what you've suggested for change,

Thanks,
Mark

Vocabulary: EarthResourceFormValue_MR
Shepherd: Mark Rattenbury
Context Diagram: http://www.earthresourceml.org/earthresourceml/2.0/doc/ERML_HTML_Documentation/ <<Leaf>> MineralOccurrence -> Context Diagram: MineralOccurrence
Description: The orebodies typical physical and structural relationship to wallrocks and associated rocks
Status: For review
Review period: until 13 December 2013
Location: https://drive.google.com/?usp=folder&authuser=0#folders/0B-5zXOYZ_JMIcDlCMDZPOU5GMzg<https://drive.google.com/?usp=folder&authuser=0>
File/page https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Au5zXOYZ_JMIdHRSVmttczZFSmlpLS0wUDN4S25hZHc&usp=drive_web#gid=4

Vocabulary: EnvironmentalImpactValue_CC
Shepherd: Carlo Cipolloni
Context Diagram: http://www.earthresourceml.org/earthresourceml/2.0/doc/ERML_HTML_Documentation/ <<Leaf>> MiningWaste -> Context Diagram: MiningWaste
Description: The environmental impact of the mining waste.
Status: For review
Review period: until 20 December 2013 ?
Location: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Au5zXOYZ_JMIdHlOX190RlBzc3RPMDhZcS00QUh6UkE<https://drive.google.com/?usp=folder&authuser=0>
File/page https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Au5zXOYZ_JMIdHlOX190RlBzc3RPMDhZcS00QUh6UkE&usp=drive_web#gid=0<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Au5zXOYZ_JMIdHRSVmttczZFSmlpLS0wUDN4S25hZHc&usp=drive_web#gid=4>

Vocabulary: EarthResourceExpressionValue_RH-TM
Shepherd: Rachel Heaven / Tim McCormick
Context Diagram: http://www.earthresourceml.org/earthresourceml/2.0/doc/ERML_HTML_Documentation/ <<Leaf>> MineralOccurrence -> Context Diagram: EarthResource
Description: Terms to specify whether an EarthResource has a surface expression or has been detected under cover rocks.
Status: For review
Review period: until 20 December 2013 ?
Location: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Au5zXOYZ_JMIdE95cTZvQ3RFNzNhc3RkeFd1allOR3c
File/page https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Au5zXOYZ_JMIdE95cTZvQ3RFNzNhc3RkeFd1allOR3c#gid=5

Vocabulary: EarthResourceShapeValue_RH-TM
Shepherd: Rachel Heaven / Tim McCormick
Context Diagram: http://www.earthresourceml.org/earthresourceml/2.0/doc/ERML_HTML_Documentation/ <<Leaf>> MineralOccurrence -> Context Diagram: EarthResource
Description: Terms characterizing the typical geometrical shape of the Earth Resource (e.g. lenticular, pipelike, irregular etc). Note should share terms with geologicUnit Morphology vocabulary
Status: For review
Review period: until 20 December 2013 ?
Location: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Au5zXOYZ_JMIdE9UX3hRMlJ3cHZfQ3JYU3c3a3VsMlE
File/page https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Au5zXOYZ_JMIdE9UX3hRMlJ3cHZfQ3JYU3c3a3VsMlE&usp=drive_web#gid=4

Vocabulary: EndUsePotentialValue_RH-TM
Shepherd: Rachel Heaven / Tim McCormick
Context Diagram: http://www.earthresourceml.org/earthresourceml/2.0/doc/ERML_HTML_Documentation/ <<Leaf>> MineralOccurrence -> Context Diagram: MineralOccurrence
Description: Terms to specify the end-use potential of the mineral (eg for energy, fertilizer, building raw material etc)
Status: For review
Review period: until 20 December 2013 ?
Location: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Au5zXOYZ_JMIdGlaREdLM3ZhZGN1OWpUYVVrSFRDN0E
File/page https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Au5zXOYZ_JMIdGlaREdLM3ZhZGN1OWpUYVVrSFRDN0E&usp=drive_web#gid=4

Vocabulary: MineralOccurrenceTypeValue_RH-TM
Shepherd: Rachel Heaven / Tim McCormick
Context Diagram: http://www.earthresourceml.org/earthresourceml/2.0/doc/ERML_HTML_Documentation/ <<Leaf>> MineralOccurrence -> Context Diagram: MineralOccurrence
Description: Term to categorize the type of mineral occurrence. Examples are prospect, occurrence, mineral deposit, ore deposit, field, district, lode, mineralized zone(?).
Status: For review
Review period: until 20 December 2013 ?
Location: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Au5zXOYZ_JMIdGdWSjlGWHdzaldNQkVfekVIMVlNa3c
File/page https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Au5zXOYZ_JMIdGdWSjlGWHdzaldNQkVfekVIMVlNa3c&usp=drive_web#gid=5

Vocabulary: MiningActivityTypeValue_RH-TM
Shepherd: Rachel Heaven / Tim McCormick
Context Diagram:


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Geoscience Terminology Working Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to GTWG+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com<mailto:GTWG+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Geoscience Terminology Working Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to GTWG+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com<mailto:GTWG+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

________________________________
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/20140122/59618148/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 46143 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/geosciml/attachments/20140122/59618148/attachment-0001.png>


More information about the GeoSciML mailing list