A comment by Steve Ludington about
(a) Can we really develop common science-language standards on a continent-wide basis? *** Yes, their degree of acceptance is the difficult question. (b) Can we really do this at a level deeper than "granite versus basalt" or "glacial versus deltaic" or "geologic contact versus fault", etc? *** Yes, we do it all the time for specific purposes, so we should be able to develop something useful. (c) What role do regional geologic differences and geologic-mapping traditions play in the development of science-language standards? *** They make it more difficult (but not impossible) (d) Should there be one single terminology standard, or multiple standards linked by translators and equivalency tables? *** A standard is not a law. If the standard is well-documented, a single one can be used. (e) What kinds of scientific queries should be supported by standard terminologies at the National, Regional, and Local levels, and should a single science-language structure support each and all levels? *** It's not a matter of structure; a single set of definitions should work at all levels. (f) To what audience(s) will the data-model science language speak on behalf of our various agencies? Technical only? Hybrid technical and non-technical? One language for technical, a second language for non-technical *** Perhaps there will have to be some non-technical equivalence definitions, but our first duty is to the technical audience. We need this language to analyze and exchange databases. (g) What does each map-producing agency expect to query (search for and retrieve) from geologic-map data bases produced by the data model? (agency point of view) *** The primary need is lithology and other physical parameters. (h) What kind of geologic information will the typical geologist expect to put INTO the data model and retrieve FROM it? (geologist point of view) *** I don't think the 'typical' geologist will be building a database. (i) What kinds of interdisciplinary science should be incorporated into the data model science language? Or, put differently, how should the data model be structured and populated to ensure its utility to the geophysics, geo-engineering, earthquake, geochemical, and hydrogeologic communities? *** This is a question that comes after we have a working vocabulary that can be used by petrologists and regional geologists. (j) What kinds of feature-level locational-accuracy issues should be addressed by our science language, as these bear on agency accountability? *** These locational issues are really the responsibility of the creator of individual databases. If a particular map unit varies considerably in lithology from one edge of a map to the other, it is up to the author to make that information available. (k) What kinds of feature-level scientific-confidence issues should be addressed by our science language, as these bear on agency accountability? *** Again, I don't see this as a language issue, but one for the database author. (l) What kinds of feature-level data-origination issues should be addressed in our science language, as these bear on agency accountability? *** Again, I don't see this as a language issue, but one for the database author.
Further discussion of Response to 20 April 2000 Memo (this page):
(No comments about this document have been posted.)