A comment by Diane E. Lane about
Having finished being occupied much of the last two weeks with our Publishing2000 conference of almost 300 people, I can finally address these generic issues. There have already been so many good answers posted though that I doubt the following are original! (a) Can we develop slt standards on continent-wide basis? Maybe! As someone else in this forum pointed out, we at the USGS have been fairly strict about adhering to standards for stratigraphic nomenclature. It is a matter of deciding on the standards and making a committment to them. The committment is a matter of putting the needs of the organization and the audience ahead of one's personal idiosyncracies, though. (b) Can we do this at a level deeper than "granite vs. basalt"? If the answer to (a) is "maybe," I guess I can't say yes here, but maybe. I think that the need for committment means that the standard cannot be too fine-grained, but if too coarse it won't be worth doing. (c) What role do regional geologic differences and mapping traditions play in the development of slt standards? I think that we should take advantage of these differences and traditions to survey the variety that is out there and choose what seems useful to most of us. (d) One standard or multiple ones? Possibly one standard per sub-discipline. We need to inventory what standards are used for what and then settle on the best or most acceptable. This would result in a library of standards. (e) What kinds of scientific queries should be supported by standard terminologies at the national, regional, and local levels, and should a single slt structure support each and all levels. I really don't see why one would want to make a distinction here. The inquirer probably won't make such a distinction. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the question. (f) To what audiences will the data-model science language speak on behalf of our various agencies? More than one language? Both technical and non-technical! By two languages, I wonder if you mean that a map unit coded very specifically as a rock type detectable only under the microscope might also be coded by a more general field name. Actually, I think this could be a good idea. The database could contain information that the general term x is used to refer to more specific terms y and z. (g) What does each map producing agency expect to query? See 20 questions. (h) What kind of geologic information will the typical geologist expect to put INTO the data model and retrieve FROM it? Lithology (composition, texture, color, weathering, alteration), contact relationships, bedding charactistics, paleontogoical data, ages, structural features, generations of structures, facies relationships,thickness of units, geomorphic characteristics, stratigraphic relationships and correlation, geographic locations, sample locality information, mine and prospect data, mineral resource potential. A look through some typical publications should provide even more information about what is being reported. (i) What kinds of interdisciplinary science should be inforporated into the data model science language? I hope we have some representatives for those disciplines here because they definitely should be included. Many map products include information about geophysical data and geochemical data especially, in addition to meat-and-potatoes geologic data. (j) What kinds of feature-level locational-accuracy issues should be address by our science language? As I said in another post, the USGS has standards for what we mean by "approximate" and "inferred" as those terms are applied to lines on a map. Yes, these terms and their definitions need to be addessed in the model. (k) What kinds of feature-level scientific-confidence issues should be address by our science language? The current metadata standard provides for these statements. (l) Feature-level data-origination issues? Ditto for the metadata, I think.
Further discussion of Response to "Some generic issues to consider" (this page):
(No comments about this document have been posted.)