A comment by Lucy E. Edwards about
(a) can we really develop common science-language standards on a continent-wide basis? Yes No Maybe **Yes, but nobody says it's going to be easy. (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 No Maybe **Yes. In the past, I (and many others before me) have done this with standardized nouns, followed by standardized or free-form adjectives: SAND, glauconitic. (c) what role do regional geologic differences and geologic-mapping traditions play in the development of science-language standards? **They certainly have to be considered. (d) should there be one single terminology standard, or multiple standards linked by translators and equivalency tables? **Whatever it is needs room to grow. We need to make the single best "dictionary" we can but then allow for addition of new terms. (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? **My ideas on this are not well formed yet. Our 20-question exercise needs to be completed and discussed fully. (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? **Must include the non-technical, whether hybrid or second language is still to be decided. (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) **My ideas on this are not well formed yet. Our 20-question exercise needs to be completed and discussed fully. (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) **My ideas on this are not well formed yet. Our 20-question exercise needs to be completed and discussed fully. (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? **I would like a simple way for tabular data (anything from geochemical analysis to paleontological species lists to porosity vs. depth tables) to be "attached" to points on a map. (j) What kinds of feature-level locational-accuracy issues should be addressed by our science language, as these bear on agency accountability? **For paper maps, we have traditionally used dotted and dashed lines. Dotted and dashed lines are hard to assign to specific polygons -- and even harder to assign to specific parts of polygons. One solution that I have seen is to assume that all polygons are approximate and that outcrops or other control points are added to the map so the user can tell where the map IS accurate. This solution is easy for the mapper to understand, but I don't know about the general public. (k) What kinds of feature-level scientific-confidence issues should be addressed by our science language, as these bear on agency accountability? **All data should have discussion of confidence levesl and/or appropriate numeric confidence values reported somehow. (l) What kinds of feature-level data-origination issues should be addressed in our science language, as these bear on agency accountability? **All data should have attributable sources.
Further discussion of response Response to "some generic issues to consider" (this page):
(No comments about this document have been posted.)