response Response to "some generic issues to consider"

(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.

• Previous comment: Response to "Some generic issues to consider"
• Next comment: Some Initial Concerns

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

(No comments about this document have been posted.)