Moved to Geology group: LithologyValue - terms with no parent
The INSPIRE Community Forum is now part of the INSPIRE helpdesk system, based on GitHub (https://github.com/INSPIRE-MIF), so please start there any new discussions.
The current platform will remain available in read only mode in its current form and URL address until 31/01/2021, then its content will be archived and then published in a different URL which will be announced when it becomes available.
Tags:
Hello,
in the extended LithologyValue codelist from the technical guidelines the terms
- bitumen
- buildingRubble
- concrete
- mineDumpMaterial
- sewageSludge
- slag
- sludge
- soilImprover
- topsoil
- waste
have no parent.
These terms could be categorized under consolidated or unconsolidated anthropogenicMaterial, or under "anthropogenicMaterial" itself.
My suggestion would be to categorize those terms (that is, set their parent value to):
( c - anthropogenicConsolidatedMaterial, u - anthropogenicUnconsolidatedMaterial, a - anthropogenicMaterial)
- bitumen - a
- buildingRubble - a
- concrete - c
- mineDumpMaterial - a
- sewageSludge - u
- slag - a
- sludge - u
- soilImprover - u
- topsoil - u
- waste - a
Please review those suggestions and discuss!
Best regards,
Tilman Brock-Hesse
This discussion is closed.
This discussion is closed and is not accepting new comments.
Hi Tilman,
I think that sounds a good proposal. My only reservation would be over topsoil which isn't really an anthropogenic material - this might be better with naturalUnconsolidateMaterial as a parent.
John
Hi all,
I agree, topsoil should be naturalUnconsolidatedMaterial. Otherwise I think your proposal makes sense.
But it may have some implications on the Lithology style as it is represented in the GE specification (page 110, 11.3.1). There all of the terms except topsoil (which I can't find at all) are categorized as either consolidated or unconsolidated. I would prefer your categorization before the one in the style.
So one issue is the hierarchy in the codelist that you have a solution for, then we should adjust the style accordingly in the next step.
I haven't looked at the style in detail, but I think there are more differences and terms that I don't find in the codelist (if that was the intention).
Tomas
Hi all,
thanks for the pointer to the style specification, I missed that one.
It seems that the color tables are sourced from OneGeologyEurope, so probably we should use the parent values encoded in the color table.
Here is a table of the differences:
anthropogenicMaterial
I am tempted to propose using the 1GE values from the color tables, though. They are, after all, an established standard.
Regarding matching terms from the code list to terms in the color table: will have a look into that.
Thanks,
Tilman
There is a 'soil, undifferentiated' category in the style table which can be used for topsoil.
John
This may lead away from the original question, but while we are discussing the style, I would add a category "Rock, undifferentiated" as for soil to my wishlist. In our "quaternary/superficial" data we only map outcrops as unspecified bedrock. Can't find a good way to separate this from soil covered areas as it is. Any suggestion...some users think this is the only interesting thing in our soil maps
?
The lithology style sheet is based on that developed in the OneGeology-Europe project and reflects a simplified version of the lithology vocabulary with fewer terms (because there is a practical limit to the number of distinct styles). Generally you can map from the vocabulary to the style sheet by navigating up the vocabulary hierarchy until you reach a term given in the style sheet - but this doesn't always work and this is an example of that. While there is a term for 'rock, undifferented' in the INSPIRE lithology vocabulary its parent is 'compound material' which covers everything including soil. I think in a case like this you have to use your own styles - those given in the specification are recommended, not required, and won't meet all use cases.
John
To John LAXTON who replied to the discussion topic LithologyValue - terms with no parent in the group Earth Science Cluster:
John: What about interoperability if everyone tries to solve their problems by using their own term when something is missing in the INSPIRE LithologyValue?
Per
I agree there should be a common mapping from the Portrayal Rules recommended style to the actual recommended LithologyValue code list values.
We should continue that discussion in the thread https://themes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/discussion/view/13708/mapping-of-lithologyvalue-terms-to-1ge-style-colors .
Per,
I wasn't suggesting using a value missing from LithologyValue. Not all values in LithologyValue map directly to the recommended style table - generally a style for a LithologyValue not in the style table can be derived by navigating up the LithologyValue hierarchy until a term with a style is reached. There were simply too many terms in LithologyValue for each to have a specific style so there had to be some generalisation for portrayal - this doesn't affect interoperability. However navigating up the hierarchy to find a style doesn't work for all use cases (it will depend on what it is you are trying to show/distinguish) so in these cases using a different style table may be appropriate. That is why the style table was recommended rather than mandatory.
However there may need to be agreed extensions to the recommended style table if it is found there are common use cases (eg distinguishing bedrock from soil) which cannot be accommodated.
John
This discussion has been moved to https://themes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/discussion/view/14559/lithologyvalue-terms-with-no-parent-discussion-continuation