SLTT Generic Conceptual Issues

Mon Apr 24 19:07:40 2000

A comment by Tom Berg about

Some generic issues to consider

by Jonathan C. Matti

This is in response to Jonathan Matti's Working Memo #1.  Responses are from
Tom Berg, Crusty Field Geologist.

A. Yes.  But it will take a tremendous amount of work and concensus-building.

B. Maybe.  I'm not sure what you mean by "deeper" levels.  Do you mean like
differentiating tholeiitic basalt vs. ferro-basalt?  The "deeper" we go, and
the more we penetrate into subtle distinctions, gradations, and

C. Geologic-mapping traditions and regional differences will play a big role
in development of standards.  For example, the way Illinois has approached
mapping glacial deposits is quite different from the way Pennsylvania has
mapped them.

D. My knee-jerk is to go for a single terminology standard.  A multiple
standard will become a quagmire.

E. I think queries should be supported by standard terminologies at all
levels.  We're working on a National Geologic Map Database here.  That
includes mapping at a local level.

F. The answer to this question rises from the kind of map being consulted. 
The typical geologic map is aimed at a technical audience.  DERIVATIVE maps
are produced for nontechnical and sometimes hybrid technical audiences.

G. We expect to search for and retrieve a plethora of different facts and
interpretations.  This question relates to your 20-questions exercise,
doesn't it?

H. We will put the final geologic map into the model along with all the
background data that was collected to produce the map.  We would also
probably enter the basic assumptions we made when we made our
interpretations that led to the final map.

I. The data model should be structured such that it is clear what the basic
geologic map is and what the derivative products are.

J. I would think we should address locational accuracy as we have in the
past, viz., contacts are exact, approximate, covered, etc.  Obviously scale
is important.

K. Geology is highly interpretive.  There ought to be a methodology for
describing the amount or degree of interpretation that goes into making a

L. This is very important.  We need a scheme for describing our sources of
data used in constructing geologic maps.

Context of this discussion

This page is part of a discussion of Some generic issues to consider:

Further discussion of SLTT Generic Conceptual Issues (this page):