Download 1GE_WP3_suggestions

Hannover, 30.11. 09
OneGeology-Europe (1GE) Workpackage 3
Subject: Scientific/Semantic Data Specification and Dictionaries
From 2/11.09 – 5/11/09 a discussion with the Chair of the CGI Interoperability Working
Group, the WP 3 Leader Kristine Asch, WP 3 members Marco Klicker and Chris
Schubert took place in Hannover. The aim was to compare the WP3 Scientific/Semantic
Data Specification to the CGI structure, vocabularies and definitions and suggest any
changes to the CGI vocabulary required in order to make both vocabularies fully
compliant. We are intending to provide the OneGeology Europe data providers with a
list of concepts drawn from the CGI vocabularies with definitions that are identical with
those given in the CGI vocabularies. Where definitions depend on the definitions of
other concepts higher in the hierarchy that we are not using then we will add the
definitions of these into the definition of the lower level concept to ensure consistency
with the CGI vocabularies. We intend to use the urns from the GeoSciML vocabularies
for referencing concepts.
Our proposals for new concepts and some queries are listed below:
1. ‘Dyke’ should be reinstated to Body Morphology vocabulary. It is not clear how a
dyke can be unambiguously described using the existing geometric terms - ‘dyke’ is a
term generally used by geologists for intrusions with a particular type of body
morphology.
2. A ‘crater’ class should be added to the ContactType vocabulary with ‘Caldera’ and
‘Impact Crater’ as specific terms in the class.
3. In the second sheet of terms in the new MetamorphicFacies vocabulary (this is our
preferred set of terms) term 12 should be ‘metamorphic facies not specified’ not
‘metamorphic grade not specified’.
4. In certain instances there are differences between the Simple Lithology spreadsheet
(SimpleLithology2009xx.xls) and the rdf file (SimpleLithology2009_rc.rdf) eg
tephrite/basanite etc as types of tephritoid are not in the spreadsheet. Similarly impure
carbonate sedimentary rock has different definitions between rdf and spreadsheet.
Should we assume in these cases that the rdf is always the definitive version?
5. Some definitions are missing from the rdf eg tephrite
6. We suggest that komatitic rock be removed from the current ultramafic class and put
in a new ‘High Magnesium’ class under ‘Fine grained igneous rock’. The ultramafic
class could then be moved under the phaneritic igneous rock class. We think this
would more closely reflect LeMaitre.
7. We think a new concept ‘tuffite’ should be added under fragmental igneous rocks,
defined as a fragmental igneous rock that has been reworked by epiclastic processes
(there seems to be no home for these at present).
8. In the rdf Aplite is under glass rich igneous rocks. We think this should be under
phaneritic igneous rocks as in the spreadsheet.
9. We think doleritic rock should be under phaneritic igneous rocks as it is in the
spreadsheet.
10. We think the classes ‘exotic alkali igneous rock’ and ‘exotic alkaline rock’ are rather
confusing and would suggest renaming the former to ‘kalsilic and melilitic rocks’
11. We think the classes Gravel, Sand and Mud should all be under Clastic sediments as
in the spreadsheet.
12. We had another long discussion about how to separate silt and clay!! We think it
might be useful to have an alternative (additional) division of the Mud concept space
by introducing new classes of ISOClay and ISOSilt (you can probably think of better
names) to reflect the grain size limits given in ISO14688. We think the term
‘Sapropel’ should be added to the organic rich sediment class defined as ‘An
unconsolidated jellylike ooze composed of plant remains, most often algae’.
13. We are unclear what the ooze term includes apart from organic mud (in which case it
should be under organic rich sediment). Carbonate and siliceous sediments appear to
have other homes and what else is there?
14. Conglomerate, Sandstone, Mudstone and Wackestone should be under clastic
sedimentary rock as in the spreadsheet.
15. We would like to add the term ‘Wacke’ under clastic sedimentary rocks defined as
‘An impure sandstone with >10% argillaceous material’
16. We would like to add the term ‘Siltstone’ under the mudstone class defined as ‘A
mudstone that consists of >50% silt sized grains’.
17. The definitions of claystone and silt bearing mudstone are not based on percentage
compositions which seems inconsistent with what is done elsewhere.
18. We think shale should be under the claystone class and include the fact that it should
contain >67% clay sized particles in the definition.
19. We think marlstone should be defined as a synonym for impure carbonate
sedimentary rock.
20. There are commonly used terms such as chert which fall within the concept space of
less common terms used in the vocabulary, in this case ‘non-clastic siliceous
sedimentary rock’. We think terms like chert could be defined as related terms and
then used for retrieval with some caveat eg ‘Chert is a type of non-clastic siliceous
sedimentary rock. All instances of non-clastic siliceous sedimentary rock have been
retrieved’. This would require us to identify all such related terms and of course
assumes the relationship in question is ‘contained within’. What do you think?
21. We suggest adding ‘Category for rocks generally named blueschist’ to the definition
of glaucophane lawsonite epidote metamorphic rock.
22. We think impact metamorphic rock should be under the metamorphic rocks class.
23. We think that biological accumulation should be under “deposition” as 6.3
24. We suggest altering the definition of chemical precipitation to exclude the
accumulation of organic material
25. Observation method: we propose that the definition of ‘published map’ be changed to
“Mapped feature geometry that was derived from a published map either by
digitization or a process of generalization.”
26. We suggest adding to the ProportionTerm vocabulary the term ‘predominant’ defined
as ‘Most abundant component of the Earth Material’. This helps with portrayal for
multi-lithology rocks but also, as defined at present, you can have an EarthMaterial
where every component is subordinant which seems wrong..
27. We have made some proposed editions to the EventEnvironment vocabulary and will
send these to you as a revised version of the CGI 2008 vocabulary spreadsheet.
28. We suggest adding Anthracite to GeoSciML in the same group as coal..
29. We suggest adding ‘siliceous ooze’ and ‘calcareous ooze’ into the ooze class with
definitions of ????. These are needed for marine geology that OneGeology will
contain in the future.
30. For marine geology, and to a minor extent to 1GE, tholeiitic basalt is important, so we
suggest adding this to the basaltic rock Class..
31. We suggest adding ‘Gabbronorite’ and ‘Norite’ to the monzogabbroic rock class
according to the Plag, Px, Hbl triangles from Streckeisen.
32. We suggest adding obduction to become a subtype of tectonic process..
33. We propose that “orogenic process” be made a related term to tectonic process
Hannover, 6. November 2009,
Kristine Asch
WP 3 Leader