Comments on SLTT Charter Document

1. I think it's totally unfeasible to have the same group looking at
structural and lithologic nomenclature. The interests hardly overlap, and
most people having an interest and expertise in one field will be able (and
willing) to contribute little to the other. Speaking personally, I am
absolutely inappropriate to deal with standards relating to structural
geology.

2. The first task, determination of scope, is impossible to come to anything
like consensus on. We could argue about that and the factors that might
contribute to a solution, from now till doomsday. I think what we need to do
is simply choose something that we will develop standards for. The most
pressing need is lithology. Let's do that, and take up the rest of this if
and when it becomes critical.

3. Ditto with factor no. 4. It doesn't matter if it's 'amenable' to a
hierarchy. We need a working hierarchy to proceed with enhanced digital maps.

4. The second goal is to develop "one or more strawman
classifications"...several already exist. I think we need to choose
something that works. Many of these have been available for peer review for
years - and nothing is happening. We are the peers.

I am simply concerned that the description in this charter document doesn't
seem aimed at timely results. We need results now.

• Previous comment: Some generic issues to consider
• Next comment: Classification standard at the Ontario Geological Survey

Further discussion of Comments on SLTT Charter Document (this page):

(No comments about this document have been posted.)