Download `Earth Science` domains Bruce Simons

The ‘Earth Science’ domains
geology, mining, groundwater, landscape and soils
Bruce Simons
Spatial Information Modelling Community of Practice workshop, Canberra, 15 April, 2013
LAND AND WATER
The problem…data access is not
standardised across organisations
Proprietary
Software
Versions of
Software
Client
Data
Structures
The ‘Earth Science’ domains| Bruce Simons| Page 2
Interoperability Requirements
CGI-IUGS ‘World’
The ‘Earth Science’ domains | Bruce Simons | Page 3
Semantic
(Data Content)
CGI-IUGS
Vocabularies
(SKOS, RDF, OWL)
Schematic
(Data Structure)
GeoSciML,
EarthResourceML
(UML, XML schema)
Syntax
(Data Language)
GML, XML
Systems
(Data Services)
WCS, WFS, WMS
GML 3.x modelling in the earth sciences
• XMML
– Developed by CSIRO, with support from Australian-NZ
Government Geoscience Information Committee (GGIC)
– Covers mineral exploration, boreholes, specimens, observations
– Replaced by Observations and Measurements, GeoSciML, EarthResourceML
• GeoSciML
– Developed by IUGS Commission for Geoscience Information (CGI-IUGS)
– Based on North American Data Model (NADM)
– Covers data shown on geological maps (geology, boreholes)
– INSPIRE standard, moving to OGC standard (version 4)
– GeoSciML is WFS 1.1 SF-1; GeoSciML-Portrayal is WFS 1.1 SF-0
• EarthResourceML
– Developed by GGIC now governed by CGI-IUGS
– Extension of GeoSciML
– Covers mineral occurrences, mining activities, mineral exploration
– INSPIRE standard
– WFS 1.1 SF-1
The ‘Earth Science’ domains | Bruce Simons | Page 4
GML modelling in related domains
• GroundWaterML
– Developed by Natural Resources Canada (NRC)
– Based on GeoSciML patterns with links to GeoSciML
– Covers groundwater, water wells
– Moving to OGC standard
• Soil domain
– Multiple related activities
•
SoTerML
•
ISO TC210 SoilML
•
INSPIRE-SoilML
•
ANZSoilML
– Covers soils, landscapes
– ‘Harmonising’ IUSS Soil Standards meeting 5-8 May, 2013, Wageningen
The ‘Earth Science’ domains | Bruce Simons | Page 5
NADM – requirements and use cases
• North American Science Language Technical Team each provided
20 questions to ask a hypothetical geological database;
• The ~1200 queries covered:
1.
academic queries relating to the lithology, genesis, geometry, and age of
geologic materials and structures,
2.
pragmatic queries targeting what information geologic-map units and
geologic structures contain about natural resources, fluids, geologic hazards,
and land-use planning.
• Used to determine how the geologic data might be structured and
organized from the point of view of concepts and vocabulary;
• Portals alone will not meet all user requirements
• The spatial properties are not special
The ‘Earth Science’ domains| Bruce Simons| Page 6
Simple (SF-0) vs Community Schema (SF-1)
(Portrayal vs Analysis)
Data can be easily exchanged within communities where
meaning is understood and humans are involved
Property = temperature, Value = “15-20”
For use in wider communities more precise definitions are
required that reflect the complexity of the real world
Property = temperature,
Value = 15 UoM = C Instrument = thermometer
Value = 17 UoM = C Instrument = thermocouple
Value = 65 UoM = F Instrument = temperature sensor
OR
Property = temperature,
MinValue = 15 Unit = C
MaxValue = 20 Unit = C
•
Community schema enable data to be used by others
The ‘Earth Science’ domains| Bruce Simons| Page 7
Geology data – a strong conceptual basis
200 years of geological map-making
Stable shared scientific model
 Geologic units, faults, contacts,
age, rock types
Standard ‘formal representation’ –
geological maps
 Interpretive and observational
 Spatial, textual, numerical and
provenance data
 Multiple spatial and dimensional
representations
•
Provides a community endorsed domain view
The ‘Earth Science’ domains | Bruce Simons | Page 8
Formalising the NADM conceptual model
• North American Data Model (NADM) Committee (1996-2003)
– Association of American State Geologists, USGS, Natural Resources Canada
• Aims:
– “Develop a conceptual model for storing data ... in a ... database
environment”
– “Develop methodologies and techniques for exchanging datasets having
different structures and formats”
• Attempted to deploy databases to various organisations and
concluded:
– “Since v.4.3 was released more than 30 months ago, various NADM variants
have arisen. These variants became necessary during the numerous
attempts in the various agencies to implement the conceptual data model.“
•
•
A single database design will not suit all data providers
Requires tracking changes or an exchange standard
The ‘Earth Science’ domains| Bruce Simons| Page 9
The geological map ‘ontology’
GeoSciML:MappedFeature
Geometries
Geological unit descriptions
GeoSciML:GeologicUnit
Geological
descriptions
GeoSciML:GeologicFeature
Earth’s surface
O&M:samplingFrame
Vertical section
The ‘Earth Science’ domains | Bruce Simons | Page 10
Geological structure
descriptions
GeoSciML:GeologicStructure
GeoSciML – re-use of standards
SF_SamplingFeature
«FeatureType»
SF_SpatialSamplingFeature
samplingFrame
«type»
GM_Object
1
shape
ISO 19109
Feature Model
ISO 19107
Geometry
«FeatureType»
MappedFeature
+
+
+
observationMethod [1..*]
positionalAccuracy
resolutionScale
occurrence
0..*
Description
ISO 19115
Metadata
ISO19156
Observations and
Measurements
•
1
specification
«FeatureType»
GeologicFeature
+
+
observationMethod [1..*]
purpose = instance
Re-use existing standards and patterns
The ‘Earth Science’ domains | Bruce Simons | Page 11
{n}
metadata
0..1
MD_Metadata
{n}
WFS Clients
OneGeology portal
AuScope portal
Groundwater Information Network
Visualising Victoria’s Groundwater
3D GeoModeller
The ‘Earth Science’ domains | Bruce Simons | Page 12
Challenges – Software Tools
Variety of tools required:
 Modelling (UML)
– Enterprise Architect, Visio, Rational Rose, …
– HollowWorld, SolidGround
 Versioning
– Tortoise, Subversion
 XML schema generation
– ‘hand code’, FullMoon, Enterprise Architect
 XML validation
– XMLSpy, oXygen, Schematron,…
 Middleware
– Cocoon, GeoServer, Deegree, SnowFlake, SISSVoc, ...
 Vocabularies (RDF, OWL, SKOS)
– TopBraid, Protege, SISSVoc, ...
•
Domain experts often unfamiliar with the tools
The ‘Earth Science’ domains | Bruce Simons | Page 13
Lessons from the Earth Sciences
1. Standardise the exchange layer, not the persistence layer
2. Portals alone will not meet all user requirements
3. Information models require community endorsement
4. Community schema enable data to be used by others
5. The spatial properties are not especially ‘special’
6. Re-use existing standards and patterns
7. Domain experts are often unfamiliar with the tools
8. Generating the exchange model is (relatively) easy,
... establishing the services is hard,
... and the end-user take up problematic
The ‘Earth Science’ domains| Bruce Simons| Page 14
Thank you
Environmental Information Systems
Bruce Simons
SDI Information Modeller
t +61 3 9252 6514
e [email protected]
w www.csiro.au/science/Environmental-Information-Systems
LAND AND WATER