North American Data Model Steering Committee

Notes of meeting March 24-25, 1999, Reston Virginia

Attending:

Notes:

  1. The meeting began with introductions, a general discussion of issues and technical challenges related to development of a standard geologic map data model, and the history of data model development since formation in 1996 of the AASG/USGS data model working group.

  2. Steering Committee Charter -- recommended changes to the charter were discussed. Dave will revise the document and circulate it to committee members for approval.

  3. Functional overview of the data model -- To facilitate the discussion, Bruce and Peter distributed a handout that diagrammed the proposed functional requirements. A useful discussion ensued, occupying several hours; many useful questions were raised, allowing the Committee to approach a common understanding of the technical challenges ahead.

  4. Will the current data model (version 4.3) be the basis for tool development, or will additional revisions (e.g., to a "v.5" briefly described by Boyan) be considered? It was decided that, for the near-term, we will accept v.4.3 as our standard, and design tools compatible with it. Revisions to the data model may be considered by a technical group.

  5. Digital Mapping Techniques (DMT'99) meeting (May 19-22, Madison, WI) -- At the DMT'98 meeting, several members of this Committee provided an overview of the data model and tools. At this year's meeting, Dave may (if the number of volunteered papers on the subject warrants) organize a special session focusing on efforts to evaluate and implement the draft data model. All Committee members are invited to participate (written papers, posters, and/or presentations are encouraged). At a minimum, we will provide to DMT'99 attendees a brief update of progress in the past year, including mention of the Steering Committee, description of charges to the Technical Groups, and the potential for participation in Technical Groups.

  6. Technical groups -- Near the conclusion of the meeting's first day, we listed some scientific and technical challenges that could be addressed by technical groups. These are:

    • Design of the model (which fields, tables to add or change, grammar)
    • Scientific terminology (rock descriptions (lithology), boundaries (contacts, faults), structures, relationships, stratigraphy
    • Presentation of the model (packaging and promotion)
    • Metadata interchange
    • Universal transfer format, or Data interchange (which format?, build translators)
    • Tool development (should we?, which?, guidelines and specs vs. actual tools)

  7. How will the technical groups function? (a process-oriented discussion) -- Each group will need a facilitator, to ensure group succuss and to communicate with the Steering Committee. Generally, the facilitator will be a Committee member, but this should not be required. A technical group should be of modest size, so that all members are actively involved in the discussions, both by e-mail and at the occasional meetings. Preliminary results or products can be sent to a broader group of consultants for comment and revision, prior to reporting the results to the Committee. If consultants are used, the group is encouraged to cast the net widely, so that academics and industry professionals are included if possible.

  8. Over the next several months (first year?), we will form four technical groups, as described below.

    1. Scientific terminology, or Geologic classification -- in the coming weeks, a draft charge to a technical group will be written by Jon, Tom, Bruce, and Dave. The draft charge will be completed and ready for discussion at our next Committee meeting, and at DMT'99. At our next meeting, the facilitator and group members will be nominated.
    2. Data model design -- in the coming weeks, a draft charge to a technical group will be written. The draft charge will be completed and ready for discussion at our next Committee meeting, and at DMT'99. At our next meeting, the facilitator and group members will be nominated. Possible candidates for this group (and for proposing the charge) are: Boyan, Bruce, Loudon, Gary, Steve Richard (AZ), and Todd Fitzgibbon (USGS). Bruce will talk to Gary about his participation, Dave will contact Steve Richard, and Jon will contact Todd Fitzgibbon. It was anticipated that two to four 2-day meetings would be needed in the first year, and that funding support would be required for some participants.
    3. Tool development -- three subdivisions of this task may be needed: a) software architecture (can we build tools that are integrated and compatible, with a similar look&feel, common approach?), b) functional requirements (what do we want each tool to do for us?, do we need different sets of tools for different users?), and c) tool development/implementation. In the coming weeks, a draft charge to a technical group (or groups) will be written by Boyan, Bruce, Peter, Scott, and ?Gary?. The draft charge will be completed and ready for discussion at our next Committee meeting, and at DMT'99. At our next meeting, the facilitator and group members will be nominated.
    4. Data interchange -- includes consideration of a Universal transfer format. In the coming weeks, a draft charge to a technical group will be written by Peter, Bruce, and Boyan. The draft charge will be completed and ready for discussion at our next Committee meeting, and at DMT'99. At our next meeting, the facilitator and group members will be nominated.

  9. The Committee will next meet on May 19, in Madison, WI, just prior to the DMT'99 meeting. In the coming weeks, Dave will send you details of the meeting location.