1. geology, mining, groundwater, landscape and soils The ‘Earth Science’ domains Bruce Simons Spatial Information Modelling Community of Practice workshop, Canberra, 15 April, 2013 LAND AND WATER

2. The problem…data access is not standardised across organisations The ‘Earth Science’ domains| Bruce Simons| Page 2 Data Structures Proprietary Software Versions of Software Client

3. The ‘Earth Science’ domains | Bruce Simons | Page 3 Interoperability Requirements Systems (Data Services) Syntax (Data Language) Schematic (Data Structure) Semantic (Data Content) GeoSciML, EarthResourceML (UML, XML schema) CGI-IUGS Vocabularies (SKOS, RDF, OWL) GML, XML WCS, WFS, WMS CGI-IUGS ‘World’

4. GML 3.x modelling in the earth sciences XMML – Developed by CSIRO, with support from Australian-NZ Government Geoscience Information Committee (GGIC) – Covers mineral exploration, boreholes, specimens, observations – Replaced by Observations and Measurements, GeoSciML, EarthResourceML GeoSciML – Developed by IUGS Commission for Geoscience Information (CGI-IUGS) – Based on North American Data Model (NADM) – Covers data shown on geological maps (geology, boreholes) – INSPIRE standard, moving to OGC standard (version 4) – GeoSciML is WFS 1.1 SF-1; GeoSciML-Portrayal is WFS 1.1 SF-0 EarthResourceML – Developed by GGIC now governed by CGI-IUGS – Extension of GeoSciML – Covers mineral occurrences, mining activities, mineral exploration – INSPIRE standard – WFS 1.1 SF-1 The ‘Earth Science’ domains | Bruce Simons | Page 4

5. GML modelling in related domains GroundWaterML – Developed by Natural Resources Canada (NRC) – Based on GeoSciML patterns with links to GeoSciML – Covers groundwater, water wells – Moving to OGC standard Soil domain – Multiple related activities SoTerML ISO TC210 SoilML INSPIRE-SoilML ANZSoilML – Covers soils, landscapes – ‘Harmonising’ IUSS Soil Standards meeting 5-8 May, 2013, Wageningen The ‘Earth Science’ domains | Bruce Simons | Page 5

6. North American Science Language Technical Team each provided 20 questions to ask a hypothetical geological database; The ~1200 queries covered: 1.academic queries relating to the lithology, genesis, geometry, and age of geologic materials and structures, 2.pragmatic queries targeting what information geologic-map units and geologic structures contain about natural resources, fluids, geologic hazards, and land-use planning. Used to determine how the geologic data might be structured and organized from the point of view of concepts and vocabulary; NADM – requirements and use cases The ‘Earth Science’ domains| Bruce Simons| Page 6 Portals alone will not meet all user requirements The spatial properties are not special

7. Simple (SF-0) vs Community Schema (SF-1) The ‘Earth Science’ domains| Bruce Simons| Page 7 (Portrayal vs Analysis) Data can be easily exchanged within communities where meaning is understood and humans are involved Property = temperature, Value = “15-20” For use in wider communities more precise definitions are required that reflect the complexity of the real world Property = temperature, Value = 15 UoM = C Instrument = thermometer Value = 17 UoM = C Instrument = thermocouple Value = 65 UoM = F Instrument = temperature sensor OR Property = temperature, MinValue = 15 Unit = C MaxValue = 20 Unit = C Community schema enable data to be used by others

8. 200 years of geological map-making Stable shared scientific model  Geologic units, faults, contacts, age, rock types Standard ‘formal representation’ – geological maps  Interpretive and observational  Spatial, textual, numerical and provenance data  Multiple spatial and dimensional representations Geology data – a strong conceptual basis The ‘Earth Science’ domains | Bruce Simons | Page 8 Provides a community endorsed domain view

9. North American Data Model (NADM) Committee (1996-2003) – Association of American State Geologists, USGS, Natural Resources Canada Aims: – “Develop a conceptual model for storing data... in a... database environment” – “Develop methodologies and techniques for exchanging datasets having different structures and formats” Attempted to deploy databases to various organisations and concluded: – “Since v.4.3 was released more than 30 months ago, various NADM variants have arisen. These variants became necessary during the numerous attempts in the various agencies to implement the conceptual data model.“ Formalising the NADM conceptual model The ‘Earth Science’ domains| Bruce Simons| Page 9 A single database design will not suit all data providers Requires tracking changes or an exchange standard

10. The geological map ‘ontology’ The ‘Earth Science’ domains | Bruce Simons | Page 10 Geometries O&M:samplingFrame Earth’s surface Vertical section Geological unit descriptions Geological structure descriptions Geological descriptions GeoSciML:MappedFeature GeoSciML:GeologicUnit GeoSciML:GeologicFeature GeoSciML:GeologicStructure

11. The ‘Earth Science’ domains | Bruce Simons | Page 11 GeoSciML – re-use of standards ISO 19109 Feature Model ISO 19107 Geometry ISO 19115 Metadata ISO19156 Observations and Measurements 1 SF_SpatialSamplingFeature «FeatureType» GeologicFeature +observationMethod [1..*] +purpose = instance MD_Metadata {n} shape samplingFrame specification 1 Description occurrence0..* metadata 0..1 +resolutionScale Re-use existing standards and patterns

12. The ‘Earth Science’ domains | Bruce Simons | Page 12 WFS Clients OneGeology portal AuScope portal Groundwater Information Network Visualising Victoria’s Groundwater 3D GeoModeller

13. Challenges – Software Tools The ‘Earth Science’ domains | Bruce Simons | Page 13 Domain experts often unfamiliar with the tools Variety of tools required:  Modelling (UML) – Enterprise Architect, Visio, Rational Rose, … – HollowWorld, SolidGround  Versioning – Tortoise, Subversion  XML schema generation – ‘hand code’, FullMoon, Enterprise Architect  XML validation – XMLSpy, oXygen, Schematron,…  Middleware – Cocoon, GeoServer, Deegree, SnowFlake, SISSVoc,...  Vocabularies (RDF, OWL, SKOS) – TopBraid, Protege, SISSVoc,...

14. 1.Standardise the exchange layer, not the persistence layer 2.Portals alone will not meet all user requirements 3.Information models require community endorsement 4.Community schema enable data to be used by others 5.The spatial properties are not especially ‘special’ 6.Re-use existing standards and patterns 7.Domain experts are often unfamiliar with the tools 8.Generating the exchange model is (relatively) easy,... establishing the services is hard,... and the end-user take up problematic Lessons from the Earth Sciences The ‘Earth Science’ domains| Bruce Simons| Page 14

15. Thank you Environmental Information Systems Bruce Simons SDI Information Modeller t+61 3 9252 6514 ebruce.simons@csiro.au wwww.csiro.au/science/Environmental-Information-Systems LAND AND WATER