response to "Some generic issues to consider"

Fri May 12 11:41:51 2000

A comment by Peter Warwick about

Some generic issues to consider

by Jonathan C. Matti



(a) can we really develop common science-language standards on a
continent-wide basis?

** Yes, As long as we do not get too complex

(b) can we really do this at a level deeper than granite versus basalt
or glacial versus deltaic or geologic contact versus fault, etc?

** Maybe 
Not everyone can agree in a specialty, much less between 
specialtis of Geology

(c) what role do regional geologic differences and geologic-mapping
traditions play in the development of science-language standards?

** This goes against a national standard.  We should work toward a 
simple model that can be applied everywhere, then start to fit 
local/regional needs

(d) should there be one single terminology standard, or multiple
standards linked by translators and equivalency tables?

** Start simple, then move to complex

(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?

** Letís come up with a general list first, then we can move to the local
regional level.  Our 20 "show me" questions would be a good place to start.

(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?

** Probably Hybrid technical and non-technical, start with something that
will work for all at first.

(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)

** Letís look at our 20 "show me" questions to start with.

(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)

** These should be items in the attribute table and the Metadata files for
GIS covers.  This should also include the information usually found in a map 
legend and description of rock types, references, etc.

(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?

** Data tables work well that are linked to location.  Depends on what
kind of data are available for a particular study/map area.

(j) What kinds of feature-level locational-accuracy issues should be
addressed by our science language, as these bear on agency
accountability?

** Is not this a question of what scale the data were collected?  
This should be explained in the metadata files.

(k) What kinds of feature-level scientific-confidence issues should be
addressed by our science language, as these bear on agency
accountability?

** There is a somewhat standard symbol list used on USGS geologic maps.
Are these adequate?

(l) What kinds of feature-level data-origination issues should be
addressed in our science language, as these bear on agency
accountability?

** This should be addressed by detailed metadata files.  Sources and 
process steps should be explained in the metadata.





Context of this discussion

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

Further discussion of response to "Some generic issues to consider" (this page):

(No comments about this document have been posted.)