European Commission logo
INSPIRE Community Forum

For Geophysics part of the Data Specification

Tim Duffy
By Tim Duffy Replies (8)

For Geophysics part of the Data Specification

  • Fabio VINCI

    Looking at the GeophysicsCore xsd (http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/schemas/ge_gp/3.0/GeophysicsCore.xsd) I have detected an error for the attribute “distributionInfo”. The data type is not defined for this attribute.

    This error could cause problems during the trasformation step.

    Any feedback is welcome.

    Fabio

  • László SŐRÉS

    By László SŐRÉS

    Dear Fabio,

    Looking at the the geophysics core data model UML
    http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/data-model/approved/r4618/html/EARoot/EA2/EA2/EA2/EA3/EA1/EA7795.png ) you can see that data type should be MD_Distributor.

    For some reason schema generation skipped this definition, leaving the element typeless. Any rubbish here would be validated, but it is safe to use an ISO MD_Distributor element, like here:

    http://geonetwork.mfgi.hu:8080/wXmlDoc/getRecordById?id=SLN2D_HIII-K&format=inspire

    Best regards,

    Laszlo

     

  • Neus QUEROL

    Dear collegues,

    We would like to implement the geophysics data model and we have a doubt when we want to store the result using the GeophysicsExtension. Is it possible to  link "Processes" with "GeophResult"? or there is another way to store the results.

    Thanks in advance and any idea will be more than welcome.

    Neus

  • László SŐRÉS

    By László SŐRÉS

    Dear Neus,

    First of all, it must be noted that the extension schema for geophysics is outdated and should be ignored.
    The UML model available on the INSPIRE web site (http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/data-model/approved/r4618/html/) is correct.
    However, it is not necessary to use the extension model for publishing geophysical results.
    All Geophysical Objects are subclassed from SamplingFeature, so using the generic O&M approach is considered a valid solution.
    For functional examples see the shallow seismics example on the EGDI website.

    http://www.europe-geology.eu/groundwater/groundwater-map/shallow-seismics/

    Clicking on a seismic line you can activate the Download link. The rendered HTML page also have a link to INSPIRE core xml-s.   

    GeophResult and Process are linked together through Observation. Process is a generic container for describing the procedure (e.g: seismic data acquisition).
    It also contains the parameters used in the Observation. As there is no usable schema for GeophResult data is simply published in a gml:ArrayType.
    I hope, it helps,

    Laszlo Sores
     

  • Tim Duffy

    Dear all, this is a reminder of an ad-hoc Geology sub-cluster face-to-face meeting that Tim Duffy (up to now Geology sub-cluster Facilitator) and Carlo Cipolloni (MiG-T Earth science cluster liaison responsible for proposing any IR or Technical Guidance/schema changes to the MIG-T - and then for approval to the MIG-P))

    are hosting at the INSPIRE booth here in Strasbourg from 1-2pm today 08/09/2017 (you indicated at the Geoscience session on tuesday that some of you would be able to come). 

    Carlo and I would like to discuss the draft new INSPIRE Geology Technical Guidance document that we have just posted here https://themes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/file/view/149560/draft-updated-geology-technical-guidance-document-v4. We shall post an improved version for wider discussion here on the cluster later next week. Note that this is the long promised (from MIG-T meeting Rome, December 2016) update for the Geology TG that contains NO legal regulation changes and is NOT a complete review/rewite of the December 2013 first published TG. Robert Tomas requested  in Rome and before that we test and use various parts of the TG and propose any updates required. During this time the EGDI project  (17+ active Geological surveys) last year proposed 19 typographic age and lithology code list changes (and 18 of these have been live and used from the INSPIRE registry since June 2016)and 7+ used the recommended GeoSciML 4 Geology schema to set up INSPIRE compliant WFS using these codes and the more recent EPOS Boreholepurpose review ( 7+ active Geological surveys) here proposes 2 new values and a useful way to display a Borehole WMS. 

    So these updates just refer to these widely tested small changes, having said that, Laszlo just 6 days ago you posted an interesting comment about the geophysics schema - if you can post here a new schema or recommend in a coupel of paragraphs your (we see tested live) O and M approach then we might be able to include that in this update keeping to a necessary timetable of hoping to propose this update to the October 30th 2017 MIG-T meeting at ISPRA.

    Looking forward to seeing some of you later today (just search for and read the track changes - then read in normal mode!) .

    Kind regards,

    Tim Duffy and Carlo Cipolloni.

  • László SŐRÉS

    By László SŐRÉS

    Dear Tim, and All,

    The geophysical part of the recent UML model and the Guidance has not been updated since version 3.0. My comment only refers to the xsd schema. For geophysics extension version 3.0  xsd schema has not been generated by JRC. This is a serious obstacle in testing, but we can survive with pure O&M until it will be done.

    Kind regards,

    Laszlo Sores

     

     

  • Tim Duffy

    Dear Laszlo,

    We had a good Geology sub-cluster meeting at the INSPIRE conference on the Friday  with 5 Geological surveys represented reviewing the long overdue proposed changes to the Geology TG and today I have put up the final V6 here (https://themes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/file/view/158925/final-v6-version-of-inspire-geology-tg-to-go-to-mig-t-at-end-october-2017-for-approval  and deleted the previous v4 version).

    This version includes all the 2008 to 2012 Geochronologic Era older and younger boundary changes that got overlooked when the decision to evolve to use (and specify as a legal requirement in the IR) ICS 2012 values as the first TG version was being written. Kristine and Chris owe me a lot of beer for actually getting round to doing this laborious job (but they have already given that to me I believe in my last visits to Hannover and Vienna!) and I hope that I have gotten it right - it is certainly 99.9% better than has been published - but it will need to be copied across to the INSPIRE registry when the 2 new URI codes and 1 typographic URI correction requests are made live in the registry (Carlo and Chris are both on the registry management board so I am sure they will ensure this is done appropriately). However with the tracked changes in this document it is easy to see the corrected year values.

    It is Carlo's MIG-T role now to propose these (non-IR changing) changes to the MIG-T on 30th October but apparently we do have until the 15th to make any final changes to this v6 document. So I did just want to check with you Laszlo that you did not want to adjust the wording regarding the geophysics schema as you said on this cluster "it must be noted that the extension schema for geophysics is outdated and should be ignored" and in practice this is probably the only chance to refine from experience the actual wording of the Geology TG up to the 2020 implementation deadline. If the schema is not useable and nobody is going to fix it perhaps delete reference to it and there emphasise recommendation to use O and M (which is actually referred to earlier in the document for geophysics?).

    Kind regards,

    Tim, currently Geology sub-cluster facilitator

  • László SŐRÉS

    By László SŐRÉS

    Dear Tim,

    Do you think it is impossible to make JRC to finally create the proper xsd schema for the current version of geophysics extension? At the moment there is nothing to be added to the document, because both the wording and the published UML models are correct.

    Best regards,

    Laszlo

     

Earth Science

Earth Science

Join this group to share your knowledge, learn and collaborate with INSPIRE Earth Science Cluster for Geology, Soils, Natural Risk Zones, Mineral resources, and Energy resources