European Commission logo
INSPIRE Community Forum

Group activity

  • Tomas LINDBERG
    Tomas LINDBERG replied on the discussion topic How to provide a ObservableProperty in a valid GML-file for the SOIL theme?
    Hi Kathi, Thanks a lot, really appreciate it! I am still not sure I understand this model completely, but that's my problem and I can live with that:) We are planning to deliver observedProperty like indicated below for now, and I would... view reply
  • Katharina SCHLEIDT
    Hi Tomas, a short pragmatic note on the background of ObservableProperties in INSPIRE - if you go down to the UML level of the data spec, you'll find that the observedProperty association on O&M Observation references a metaclass of... view reply
  • Tomas LINDBERG
    Dear all, we are having trouble to deliver SoilDerivedObject results using the codelist SoilDerivedObjectParameterNameValue. Looking at the model it should be delivered in the ObservableProperty attribute basePhenomenon, something like...
    • Katharina SCHLEIDT

      By Katharina SCHLEIDT

      Hi Tomas,

      Very NICE!!! :)

      And yes, for your Use Case I very much understand that you're not modelling the higher level features (one could consider providing this sort of data as a coverage, but as currently all INSPIRE Coverage Models are corrupted so that they cannot be provided via WCS, this is more something for the future!)

      One question on your FoIs - is only the pH being measured on these samples, or also other things? Is there only the one sample from the location (in the Observation you provided with sampledHorizonOrDepth = "1meter") or do you take multiple samples from different depths at the same location? If it's only the one, nesting the observation makes sense, if there are multiple observations on the same location, you may want to disaggregate and link)

      I do find your process parameters very interesting as I'm still coming to understand the complexity of soil and geological measurements, all the reagent and other chemical tricks y'all do. Do you have a complete list of process parameters you've found necessary in your work? I'm assuming that most MS will have very similar requirements so it would make a lot of sense to start collecting these while finding a registry to host them (I've also been running into similar issues with the FAO GLOSIS work, ideally we'd get these bits sorted at the FAO level)

      A few do worry me a bit though:

      • percentCV: what is expressed by this value? In the Observation, the value is "+-0.02 pH-units", to me this looks like data quality information (the Observation has a slot for this!)
      • sampledHorizonOrDepth: here I'm wondering if it wouldn't be better to use a 3d CRS and provide the depth in the feature Geometry, but think both options are equally valid

      :)

      Kathi

    • Tomas LINDBERG

      By Tomas LINDBERG

      Hi Kathi,

      thanks for your comments!

      Sorry to say we don't have a complete list of process parameters covering different processes we are using. For now we have tried to translate parameters described in documentation and attributes in "excel-data" for this dataset only to make a reasonable O&M mapping.

      You point out two parameters that could need further improvements. You are probably right that percentCV would be better represented in data quality. sampledHorizonOrDepth is only a general indication on where in the sample is taken, other values includes "C-horizon" and "topsoil" so it is not a only a depth. This paramerer also should probably be further developed.

      We  normally only sample at one depth, but analyze a lot of chemical elements on that sample. Right now the model allows only for one observation on a SoilDerivedObject which we think is problematic (and as we dicussed elsewhere on this forum). 

      We will publish our first version of the SOIL theme very much like the file I published, and hopefully improve as we move along to other datasets and get some means to create and publish more official registers.

      Thanks again,

      Tomas

       

       

       

       

    • Katharina SCHLEIDT

      By Katharina SCHLEIDT

      Hi Tomas,

      one O&M insight for you on the issue "the model allows only for one observation on a SoilDerivedObject"

      While this is definitely problematic pertaining to the link from the SoilDerivedObject, the O&M standard does give you further support here based on the following 2 facts:

      • There is no limit to the number of Observations that reference the same spatial feature (in your case SoilDerivedObject) as featureOfInterest
      • The O&M Observation is a feature in its own right, and can thus be provided separately from the featureOfInterest

      At the end of the day, the soilDerivedObjectObservation association is redundant as the symetrical featureOfInterest association is mandatory anyway so the essential information is provided. Not having the soilDerivedObjectObservation association will require a bit more query functionality on your servers for complete data access, i.e. it would be nice to provide a stored query allowing access to an Observation based on it's featureOfInterest, but the data is still correct and consistent.

      And a final note on your process parameters - could you please once you've defined a consistent set that your organization will be using please post that list here?

      Many thanks!

      :)

      Kathi

  • Johanna Ott
    Johanna Ott replied on the discussion topic SoilPlot
    Hi Einar, Are there already any news on how to store the geometry of a SoilPlot if the exact location should not be published due to data protection reasons? Should the grid cell, in which a SoilPlot is located really be described by... view reply
  • Heiko ZUMSPREKEL
    Heiko ZUMSPREKEL added a new discussion topic Transforming contour depths of subsurface maps in DS Geology
    Dear all, some of our data we try to transform at our geological survey to INSPIRE are geological subsurface maps. These maps show the distribution, structural style, thickness and depth of certain lithostratigraphic units or horizons (e.g. base...
  • Tomas LINDBERG
    Tomas LINDBERG replied on the discussion topic missing associations to OM_Observation in xsd
    Dear Michael, you understand me correctly:) How can we make this change in the draft schema happen? Can you put this through the formal change request process, or reopen the proposal that this forum did a few years ago? view reply
  • Michael LUTZ
    Michael LUTZ replied on the discussion topic missing associations to OM_Observation in xsd
    If I understand Tomas' request well, he would like to directly associate observations to a SoilDerivedObject, rather than having to create SoilProfile objects as intermediaries. If the source data does not contain data on soil profiles, you... view reply
  • Katharina SCHLEIDT
    Katharina SCHLEIDT replied on the discussion topic missing associations to OM_Observation in xsd
    Taking a deeper look at the soil model, I'm starting to wonder if the cardinality of the soilDerivedObjectObservation association between SoilDerivedObject and the related Observation is correct with 1 I still don't quite understand the... view reply
  • Tomas LINDBERG
    Tomas LINDBERG replied on the discussion topic missing associations to OM_Observation in xsd
    Dear Michael, It seems like Johanna Ott tested the draft schema (see reply from 02.01.2019) and provided feedback with good results. I can also test the draft schema  during december, but it would be more rewarding to test it with the change... view reply
  • Tomas LINDBERG
    Tomas LINDBERG replied on the discussion topic missing associations to OM_Observation in xsd
    Dear all, Can anyone see a valid reason for SoilDerivedObject  to have another cardinality than the other associations to OM_Observation? We will have to deliver a geometry for every observation (+ 50 in our case). We are in the... view reply
  • Michael LUTZ
    Michael LUTZ replied on the discussion topic missing associations to OM_Observation in xsd
    Dear Kathi, Tomas, the idea of the draft schemas is to provide a resource for testing. If we get positive feedback on the changes made (both from reviewing the XSD and from using it in practice), we will migrate it into the official... view reply
  • Katharina SCHLEIDT
    Katharina SCHLEIDT replied on the discussion topic missing associations to OM_Observation in xsd
    Dear Michael, sorry for not looking at the draft version, question to this: are the draft versions also legal for provision, at least in cases such as this one where the draft version is closer to the IRs than the official one? With about a year... view reply
  • Tomas LINDBERG
    Tomas LINDBERG replied on the discussion topic missing associations to OM_Observation in xsd
    Dear Michel, Thanks for looking into this! Will you notify here on the forum when it is formally decided whether it is accepted as corrigendum? view reply
  • Michael LUTZ
    Michael LUTZ replied on the discussion topic missing associations to OM_Observation in xsd
    Dear Kathi, the changes are already made in the proposed schema update that we published at https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/draft-schemas/so/4.0/Soil.xsd. You probably looked at the official schema at... view reply
  • Michael LUTZ
    Michael LUTZ replied on the discussion topic missing associations to OM_Observation in xsd
    Dear Thomas, unfortunately, the change agreed in https://themes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/discussion/view/3421/inspire-soil-theme-change-of-the-multiplicity-of-the-soilderivedobjectobservation was never formally implemented as a corrigendum to the Soil... view reply
  • Katharina SCHLEIDT
    Katharina SCHLEIDT replied on the discussion topic missing associations to OM_Observation in xsd
    OK, while it seems that the cardinalities mentioned by Johanna above are partially fixed, I cannot find any of the associations to OM_Observation in the V4.0 XSD of the soil data model. Pertains to the following: SoilSite - missing... view reply
  • Tomas LINDBERG
    Tomas LINDBERG replied on the discussion topic missing associations to OM_Observation in xsd
    Hello, does anyone know if  the request described at https://ies-svn.jrc.ec.europa.eu/issues/2209  is also fixed in this schema? I was sure it had been fixed by can't seem to find the documentation now (not very good at reading... view reply
  • László SŐRÉS
    Dear Wideke, In INSPIRE you can handle this by wrapping the original observation into a SamplingFeature and link it to the Borehole as relatedSamplingFeature. In GeoSciML Borehole is subclassed from SamplingFeature so you can just add any... view reply
  • Enrico Iredi
    Enrico Iredi uploaded the file GML Example Soil (so)
    GML file ETF valid. Soil.xsd first schema in which resolving to inlined objects works perfectly. I use deegree.
  • Enrico Iredi
    Enrico Iredi uploaded the file Change in GeologyCore.xsd
    Deegree resolves the object references only to one percent correct to inlined objects. With the changes in GeologyCoreDelta.xsd, the inlined objects become additional objects. That's how it works for me.
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