European Commission logo
INSPIRE Community Forum

Group activity

  • Tim Duffy
    Issues found to be common between the 5 themes or sub-groups of the Earth Science Cluster
  • Carlo CIPOLLONI
    Carlo CIPOLLONI created a page test page from Carlo
    Here we are shown some examples of Geology Maps (from Geological Survey of Italy) using INSPIRE GE data model and/or GeoSciML data model. Resources: Geological Map 1:1,000,000 GE INSPIRE...
  • Tim Duffy
    Tim Duffy added a new discussion topic Web Coverage Services in the Geology theme - for HydrogeologicalSurface
    Web Coverage Services in the Geology theme - for HydrogeologicalSurface
  • Carlo CIPOLLONI
    Carlo CIPOLLONI added a new discussion topic For Borehole part of the Data Specification
    For Borehole part of the Data Specification
    • Uffe LARSEN

      Just for information

      A group of people from  TNO from the Netherlands, The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate,  BGS, The Department of Energy and Climate Change (also UK)  and  Common Data Access, CDA (also UK),  The Danish Energy Agency and the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland  is currently working on the common problems and challenges related to the data management of hydrocarbon exploration and production.

      One of the things we are working with is an extension to the borehole purpose list.  We have not agreed on the terms and the definitions yet but the preliminary list with terms that we want to add look like this:

      • Injection
      • storage observation
      • hydrocarbon storage
      • scientific research
      • salt production
      • storage
      • hydrocarbon development
      • wildcat
      • CO2 injection
      • CO2 disposal
      • shallow gas
      • pilot
  • Tim Duffy
    Tim Duffy added a new discussion topic For Hydrogeology part of the Data Specification
    For Hydrogeology part of the Data Specification
  • Tim Duffy
    Tim Duffy added a new discussion topic For Geomorphology part of the Data Specification
    For Geomorphology part of the Data Specification
  • Tim Duffy
    Tim Duffy added a new discussion topic For Geophysics part of the Data Specification
    For Geophysics part of the Data Specification
    • 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

       

  • Tim Duffy
    Tim Duffy added a new discussion topic For Geology part of the Data specification
    This discussion topic to be used for the Geology part of the Data specification
  • Matthew HARRISON
    Matthew HARRISON added a new discussion topic Are you using the data specification?
    Give the community some guidance
    • Matthew HARRISON

      By Matthew HARRISON

      A new paper about the usefulness and application of the Data Specification to the domain has been published, via Open Access:

      Robert Tomas, Matthew Harrison, José I. Barredo, Florian Thomas, Miguel Llorente Isidro, Manuela Pfeiffer, Otakar Čerba. Towards a cross-domain interoperable framework for natural hazards and disaster risk reduction information. Natural Hazards. 2015 DOI 10.1007/s11069-015-1786-7

  • Matthew HARRISON
    Matthew HARRISON created a page Resources
    I will add some links to existing projects here shortly
  • Jouni VUOLLO
    I am MIG-T contact person from Estonia. In our Geological department have question about "Mineral resources" theme harmonization. Because there is no webpage or forum yet available, where to post their question, I will send it directly...
    • Uffe LARSEN

      We have the same problem with our deposits of sand and gravel. The sizes of the occurrences and amount of produced material are all reported in cubic meters. Up till now I have used a density of 1.7 tons/cubic meters for all sand and gravel deposits. It is not based on any elaborate deduction or statistics but on product lists from sand and gravel producers. 1.7 should be the density of natural sand and gravel and is quite high compared to other sand and gravel products that have a density down to 1.4.  When I think about it, I should have chosen a lower density because it would be safer to underestimate the size of the deposit rather than to overestimate the size.

    • Jouni VUOLLO

      Hi!

      We discuss this issue at GTK yesterday and we have the same situation and plan to do this same kind of calculation from cubic metres to tons/density like 1.7tons!

  • Karen Fullerton
    I’m sharing with you the implementation issue reported to us by Tomas Lindberg from the Geological Survey of Sweden related to the SOIL data specification and more precisely:   To change the  association...
    • Einar EBERHARDT

      By Einar EBERHARDT

      The suggestion seems reasonable, a change of the data specification would be helpful.

    • Amelia BAPTIE

      Following the discussion above this proposed change to the data specification has been added to the MIG-T corrigenda for approval or otherwise in December 2015,

      https://ies-svn.jrc.ec.europa.eu/issues/2209

      If you have any comments to add before this is put forward please add them here before the 20th of October.

    • Amelia BAPTIE

      Dear all,

      The change of the ‘association soilDerivedObjectObservation between SoilDerivedObject and OM_Observation from 1 to 0..*’ within the Soil UML diagram (figure 11 in the Soil Data Specifications) was discussed at the recent thematic cluster facilitators meeting in Rome and will be put forward for approval to the MIG-T shortly.

      (Please note the original request was to change the association from 1 to 0..*, however following further discussion it was agreed that the request should to change 1 to 1..* to ensure that if you provide a (or several) SoilDerivedObject(s), then a value is attached to it.)

      So it is proposed that we put forward the following change to the MIG-T,

      To change the association soilDerivedObjectObservation between SoilDerivedObject and OM_Observation from 1 to 1..*

      This change would allow multiple observations on a soilDerivedObject

      We don’t believe this change would have an impact on current implementations of the data model as current implementations will still be valid. However, we are looking for feedback from the community to confirm this prior to submission of this change to the MIG-T.

      Please can you post your comments here as to whether this change would or would not affect your implementation of the soil data specification?

      Thank you.

  • Tim Duffy
    Click the web-links below to download the documents: 1). How to use an existing OneGeology-Europe dataset to setup INSPIRE and OneGeology conformant WMS' and WFS' (Link updated 23rd May 2016 to point to second draft with summary...
    • Tim Duffy
      Tim Duffy
      The document 1). How to use an existing OneGeology-Europe dataset to setup INSPIRE and OneGeology conformant WMS' and WFS' Has been updated on 23rd May 2016 to point to a second draft with some clarifications based on experience so far...
    • Marcus SEN
      Marcus SEN
      The document 3). How To Serve a GeoSciML Version 4.0 Web Feature Service (WFS) Using GeoServer was updated on 18th August 2016 to point to v1.3 which covers supplying faults as ShearDisplacementStructure features.
    • Marcus SEN
      Marcus SEN
      The documents: 2). GeoSciML 4.1 Encoding Cookbook for OneGeology and INSPIRE and 3). How To Serve a GeoSciML Version 4.1 Web Feature Service (WFS) Using GeoServer were updated on 7th September 2017 to point to newer versions which use...
  • INSPIRE Community Forum published a news post EULF Survey on Energy and location
    The key objective of this survey is to collect information on the actual and foreseen use of location data related to energy policies. The questionnaire is set-up to gather not only descriptive information on the current situation but also to...
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