GeoSciML Interoperability Working Group
GeoSciML - a progress report
Agenda
Background
Recent progress
Demo
Experience from the testbed2
Don’t you hate it when…
You can’t exchange geological data with your project partners because you use different systems?
You didn’t realise that the shapefile you downloaded last year has been superseded by an updated version?
You know there’s useful information out there, but you can’t find it?
You waste valuable time downloading and converting datasets
You cannot add real-time data from other sources to your information systems?
You keep emailing and burning CDs to publish your data to clients who need it urgently?
YOU NEED A WEB-DELIVERED DATA STANDARD!
Currently…
BRGM
USGS
BGS
NRC
SA
WA
GA
SGU
Databases and digital maps with local data structures
Data sources
Environment
Mineralsindustry
Resourcemanagement
Joe Public
Government
Universities
Petroleumindustry
ShapefileBGS data
MapinfoNTGS data
Arc ExportNRC data
Download data
Proprietary formats
Local data structures
ShapefileSGu data
MapinfoGA data
Mapserver
ArcIMS
FTP
Online GISFTP
Proprietary formats
Local data structures
No ability to viewothers datain web client
Web services
Convertproprietaryformat
Rationaliseattributedatastructure
Convert data
Heterogeneities
SystemUse Different operatingsystems to store andprocess the data, vendordatabases.
RepresentationalDifferent Formats (shapefiles, BLOB, binary,spatial data objects etc.).
StructuralDifferent schema (table)structures.
The challenge: data heterogeneity
Motivation - Interoperability
USA
Canada
availability of open geospatial technologies (OGC, ISO)
commitment to these standards
Europe
North America
AsiaAustralia
Federal NT
SA
WA
NSWQld
Tas.
Victoria
Japan
KoreaFrance
SwedenCzech
Finland
NetherlandsPoland
UK
GermanyDenmark
“the ability of software and hardware on different machines from different vendors to share data”
systems
syntax
schematic
semantic
interoperability
GeoSciML (data structure)
Ontology (data content)
Geoscience
GML (data language)
WFS, WMS, … (data systems)
OpenGIS
Interoperability in OpenGIS
Key Driver: Mineral Industry
Industry input highlighted problems in gaining access to pre-
competitive geoscience information
described existing information as commonly
incomplete and fragmented between
gelogical surveys, each with its own
information management systems and
structures
noted that the disparate systems lead to
inefficiencies causing higher costs, reduced
effectiveness and increased risk incurred by
the industry and its service providers
A short history of some geological data standards…
In USA and Canada…
North American Data Model (1996-present)- a comprehensive geological model- conceptual, theoretical, difficult to implement
In Australia…
GGIPAC data modelling committee- National Geological Data Model (NGDM v.1, 2004)- logical model, more structured than NADM - not comprehensive, never fully implemented
History
BGS and GSC convened an informal meeting in Edinburgh in November 2003 to discuss problem
Attended by representatives of geological surveys from:
UK, Canada, US, France, Germany, Netherlands, Australia (CSIRO), Sweden, Japan, Czech Republic, Poland, Ireland, Finland…..
General agreement on need to address problem
Meeting agreed to set up task groups to:
Develop a conceptual geoscience data model
Map this to an interchange format
Develop a testbed to prove / demonstrate use of the interchange format
Assess vocabulary requirements
Objectives
Initial scope agreed to be:
Information shown on geological maps
Boreholes
Scope
Organisation
IUGS-CGI had been recently set up and it was agreed the initiative would be a working group under the CGI
Participants drawn from organisations willing to participate as no funding!!
Current active participants
CSIRO
Natural Resources Canada
BRGM
British Geological Survey
USGS
Arizona State Geological Survey
Geoscience Australia
Victoria State Geological Survey
SGU
Geological Survey of Japan
Approach
Develop a conceptual data model and from this derive logical data model in UML
Map this to XML for interchange using OGC GML standard – a geoscience exchange language GeoSciML
Draw on previous work Existing geoscience data models in particular NADM
XMML
Use OGC WMS/WFS for delivery
Modelling methodology
• Design using UML class diagrams
• use strict profile of UML, compatible with GML meta-model & mapping rules
• Prove it with Code
• Hand-code sample instance documents according to UML-GML mapping rules – iterate
• Generate XML Schema (GML Application Schema)
• by hand following ISO 19136 rules or
• automatically from UML (via XMI) using ShapeChange application
Refer to:
ISO TS 19103 – Geographic Information: Conceptual Schema Language
ISO 19109 – Geographic Information: Rules for Application Schema
ISO DIS 19136 – Geography Markup Language v 3.2
XMML TWiki: UML-GML mapping rules & UML2GMLAS procedure
First steps
Meeting convened in Perth in December 2004 to assess existing data models and begin development of logical data model
In parallel Testbed 1 developed by BGS & BRGM for demonstration at IGC Florence in 2004 using boreholes in Channel Tunnel area
CSIRO Twiki used for online collaboration
Next steps
Presentations on progress & objectives made at IAMG Toronto in August 2005
Further meeting convened in Ottawa after this to progress model
Agreed to develop a Testbed 2 for demonstration at IAMG Liege in September 2006
Agreed use cases for testbed
Data model consolidated and emphasis on delivery
Canada: Eric Boisvert, Boyan Brodaric (GSC)
UK: Tim Duffy, Marcus Sen, John Laxton (BGS)
USA: Bruce Johnson (USGS), Steve Richard (Arizona)
France: Jean-Jacques Serrano, Dominique Janjou, Christian Bellier, Francois Robida (BRGM)
Sweden: Lars Stolen, Jonas Holmberg, Thomas Lindberg (SGU)
Australia: Simon Cox (CSIRO), Bruce Simons, Alistair Ritchie (GeoScience Victoria) Ollie Raymond, Lesley Wyborn, Dale Percival (Geoscience Australia)
GeoSciML Working Group
GeoSciML ‘Champions’
Ian Jackson (UK), John Broome (Canada), Kristine Asch (Germany)
Geologic units lithological units
Earth Materials rocks
Structures contacts, faults
What is GeoSciML?
Vocabularies lookup tables, authority tables
1. Geological Data Model
scientifically robust structured attribute data based on existing models UML schema version 1.1
What is GeoSciML?
2. GML encoding
extension of XML
builds on GML (GeographicMarkup Language), XMML,and other standard schema
What is GeoSciML?
XMML Boreholes
O&M(Observations & Measurements)
GeoSciML(Geoscience Markup Language)
Links to other modelling
languages
GML(Geography Markup
Language)
GeoSciML Testbed2 architecture
Sweden
UK
USA
Canada
GA
France
Databases, digital mapswith local data structures
Data sources
GSC client (Phoenix)
Desktop client(eg: Gaia)
BRGM client(Ionic)
Web clients
Display, query, download
Map local data structuresto GeoSciML data structure
Web services
Geoserver
ArcIMSCocoon
Ionic
GeoSciML
GeoSciML
GeoSciML
GeoSciML
MapserverCocoon
ArcIMSCocoon
Geoserver
GeoSciML
GeoSciML
MapserverGA client
(IMF)GeoSciML
BRGM
USGS
BGS
NRC
SA
WA
GA
SGU
Databases and digital maps with local data structures
Data sources
Environment
Mineralsindustry
Resourcemanagement
Joe Public
Government
Universities
Petroleumindustry
ShapefileUSGS data
MapinfoNTGS data
Arc ExportBGS data
Download data
Proprietary formats
Local data structures
ShapefileSGU data
MapinfoGA data
Mapserver
ArcIMS
FTP
Online GISFTP
Proprietary formats
Local data structures
No ability to viewanother state’s data
in web client
Web services
Convertproprietaryformat
Rationaliseattributedatastructure
Convert data
A goal for Surveys… from this
… to this
BRGM
USGS
BGS
NRC
SA
WA
GA
SGU
Databases, digital mapswith local data structures
Web services
Geoserver
Mapserver
ArcIMS
Ionic
survey clients (ArcIMS)
Desktop clients(Gaia, ArcMap)
Federal client(IMF)
Web clients
GeoSciML
GeoSciML
GeoSciML
GeoSciML
Data sources
Display, query, download
Map local data structures to
GeoSciML
Environment
Mineralsindustry
Resourcemanagement
Joe Public
Government
Universities
Petroleumindustry
Achievements GeoSciML 1.x defined (but not documented)
Testbed 1 implemented (2 countries, 2 sites)
Testbed 2 implemented (6 countries, 8 sites)
GeoSciML 2.0 in progress, will be finalized late 2007
ChronostratigraphicUnit
BiostratigraphicUnitLithodemicUnit
LithostratigraphicUnit
AllostratigraphicUnit PedostratigraphicUnit
MagnetostratigraphicUnit
LithotectonicUnitPedoderm GeomorphologicUnit
GUPRelationRole
or
CompoundMaterial
GUPRelation
Proportion
GURole
GeologicUnitPart
<<IsA>>
0..*
2..n
0..*
2..n1..11..1
1..11..1
Rank
WeatheringCharacter
OutcropCharacter
GUGenesis
GeologicAge
Extent
Morphology
Color
MetamorphicGrade
GeologicUnit
<<IsA>>
0..10..1
0..10..1
0..10..1
0..*
2
0..*
2
0..*0..1
0..*0..1
1..11..1
0..10..1
0..*0..*
0..10..1
GeologicProcess
0..*
0..*
0..*
0..*
0..*
0..*
0..*
0..*
cd Unit
AbstractFeature
«FeatureType»CGI_Top::GeologicFeature
+ age: GeologicAge [1..*]+ purpose: DescriptionPurpose
«FeatureType»GeologicUnit
+ bodyMorphology: CGI_TermValue [1..*]+ exposureColor: CGI_TermValue [1..*]+ genesis: CGI_TermValue [1..*]+ grossChemistry: ChemicalCompositionClass+ outcropCharacter: CGI_TermValue [1..*]
«FeatureType»LithostratigraphicUnit
+ unitThickness: CGI_Numeric [1..*]+ beddingStyle: CGI_TermValue [1..*]+ beddingPattern: CGI_TermValue [1..*]+ beddingThickness: CGI_Value [1..*]
«FeatureType»LithodemicUnit
«FeatureType»LithologicUnit
+ rank: ScopedName+ weatheringCharacter: CGI_TermValue [1..*]+ structurePresent: CGI_TermValue [0..*]+ metamorphicGrade: CGI_Term [0..*]
logical model: GML-UML
<LithodemicUnit gml:id="GSV53"> <gml:description>Granite, syenite, volcanogenic sandstone, conglomerate, minor trachyte lava</gml:description> <gml:name>Mount Leinster Igneous Complex</gml:name> <purpose>typicalNorm</purpose> <age> <GeologicAge> <value> <CGI_TermRange> <lower> <CGI_TermValue> <value codeSpace="http://www.iugs- cgi.org/geologicAgeVocabulary">Triassic</value> </CGI_TermValue> </lower> <upper> <CGI_TermValue> <value codeSpace="http://www.iugs- cgi.org/geologicAgeVocabulary">Triassic</value> </CGI_TermValue> </upper> </CGI_TermRange> </value> <event> <CGI_TermValue> <value codeSpace="http://www.iugs- cgi.org/geologicAgeEventVocabulary">intrusion</value>physical model: GML-XML
conceptual model: no GML
GeoSciML 1.1
Progress to date
Were we are now
Mapped Features units, structures
Legend unit description
stratigraphic column, other classifications
Geologic timescales
Borehole data
Field observations & measurements
structure measurements, material descriptions
Lab measurements
geochem, geochronology
GeoSciML v1.1(testbed)
GeoSciML v2
OGC sensor-web
~ NADM model,GML encoding
~ XMML, BGS, BRGM
Where we are now
Successful development of Testbed 2 – although clear pushing current technology to limit
Demonstration at IAMG 06 created wider interest in participation (in use rather than development)
GeoSciML still very much in development
What needs to be done (1)
Organised more formally to allow more organisations to participate and move to production system
InterestCommunity
(IC)
Interoperability Working Group
1. Request Feature
3. Review comment
4. Change Request
2. Deliver Specification
GeoSciML 2.0Design Task Group
GeoSciML Service Deployment Group
GeoSciML Test Bed Task Group
GeoSciML Service Architecture Task Group
CGI Interoperability Working Group
CGI Interoperability Working Group
•Steering Committee
•Use-cases and Requirements task group
•GeoSciML Design task group
•Service Architecture task group
•Implementation Testbed task group
•Outreach and technical assistance task group
•Geoscience Concept Definitions task group
Implementation Testbed task group
Successor to the TestBed2 task group.
Chair: Tim Duffy BGS ("project manager")
Members: Alistair Ritchie, Eric Boisvert, Jean Jacques Serrano, Dale Percival, Jonas Holmberg, others nominated by participating geological surveys
Tasks: analyse GeoSciML v2 UseCases and liaise with GeoSciML Design and ServiceArchitecture? task groups to ensure that requirements are satisfied
Coordinate and deliver TestBed3 demonstrating the GeoSciML v2 use-cases
End date: Demo at IGC, August 2008, Oslo
What needs to be done (2)
Produce documentation Formal documentation of GeoSciML as ‘Standard’
Cookbooks
Management overview
Data model needs to be extended, in particular to include observation data in order to exchange a useful amount of information
What needs to be done (3)
Develop vocabularies - at present structure standard but not content Geoscience ontologies
Functionality of WMS/WFS implementation needs to be enhanced OGC standards ahead of implementation technology
Working with a range of implementation options
Liaision and Outreach
OGC Best Practice
National Standards
Reference documents to INSPIRE drafting teams
Eurogeosurveys
GIS Industry (ESRI, SAFE Software)
Mining industry
OneGeology
Use case 1: - load a web service- display a map- query a single feature- return attributes in GeoSciML
Use case 2: - query a group of map features- download features in GeoSciML format
Use case 3: - reclassify (colour) map features based on GeoSciML attributes
Use case 4: - select a set of geologic unit mapped features on the basis of age or
lithology and highlight them
• Canada, USA, Sweden
ESRI ArcIMS, MapServer, Oracle platforms
Cocoon wrapper to handle queries and XML
transformations
• UK, Australia
GeoServer (open source)
serving data from ArcSDE and Oracle sources
• France
Ionic RedSpider WMS server and client
custom development for WFS
Web servers in 6 countries
• Canada
Phoenix
• France
Ionic RedSpider
includes client for borehole
data
• Australia
Moximedia IMF
(prototype for limited use
cases)
• Generic desktop clients
eg: Gaia
for testing
purposes
Web clients
Client in Canada
(Phoenix)
Questions?
For further information on GeoSciML:
https://www.seegrid.csiro.au/twiki/bin/view/CGIModel/GeoSciML
Top Related