1. Serving North American Geologic Map Information using Open Geospatial Web Services Eric BoisvertGeological Survey of Canada Bruce JohnsonU.S. Geological Survey Boyan BrodaricGeological Survey of Canada

2. Outline  IUGS group for exchanging geologic map information  Web service architecture for implementing Testbed 2  Case study in Canada and the US

3. Motivation  International geologic map data interoperability  availability of technologies for open geospatial standards (OGC, ISO)  commitment of many national data providers to these standards  international collaboration initiated in Edinburgh 2003, under IUGS-CGI Canada USAUKFrance Germany Korea Japan Denmark Sweden Finland Netherlands AustraliaPolandCzech

4. Goals of IUGS-CGI Workgroup  Geologic map data schematic interoperability  develop a standard GML schema for data transfer in WFS and WMS  conduct a multi-country testbed  demonstrate the need for transfer standards for data content GSC Oracle, ESRI USGS ESRI Etc. WMS WFS WMS WFS WMS WFS USGS schema other schema GSC schema GeoSciML GML Client

5.  International consensus  International consortium of major providers of geologic map data  IUGS Commission for Management and Application of Geoscience Info.  Face-to-face meetings and Twiki  Re-use, revise and extend existing data standards  GML (OGC)  NADM-GML  XMML  others  Test with COTS (where possible) at home agencies  National map databases  Industry partnerships Approach of IUGS-CGI Workgroup

6. Progress to date  Achievements GeoSciML 1.0 defined GeoSciML 1.x in progress Testbed 1 implemented (2 countries, 2 sites) Testbed 2 implementation in progress (6 countries, 8 sites) logical model: GML-UML Granite, syenite, volcanogenic sandstone, conglomerate, minor trachyte lava Mount Leinster Igneous Complex typicalNorm <value codeSpace="http://www.iugs- cgi.org/geologicAgeVocabulary">Triassic <value codeSpace="http://www.iugs- cgi.org/geologicAgeVocabulary">Triassic <value codeSpace="http://www.iugs- cgi.org/geologicAgeEventVocabulary">intrusion physical model: GML-XML conceptual model: no GML GeoSciML 1.0

7. Implementation Problem: Testbed 2  Public  Private schema translation No adequate mechanism to:  convert queries from public schema to private schema  convert query results from private schema to public schema ArcIMS MapServer GSC Oracle, ESRI USGS ESRI WMS WFS WMS WFS USGS schema GSC schema GML Client ArcXML MapServer GML

8. Possible Solution: Architecture (1)  Public  Private schema translation  Thick server: add translation layer to server  Emerging examples: Iconic, GeoServer ArcIMS MapServer GSC Oracle, ESRI USGS ESRI WMS WFS WMS WFS USGS schema MapServer GML Client GSC schema ArcXML GeoSciML

9. Possible Solution: Architecture (2)  Public  Private schema translation  Thin server: independent translation layer  Examples: FME, Cocoon ArcIMS MapServer GSC Oracle, ESRI USGS ESRI WMS WFS WMS WFS USGS schema MapServer GML Client GSC schema ArcXML GeoSciML

10. Our Approach: Cocoon  Public  Private schema translation  Cocoon: sequential XML transformer, Tomcat-based  XSLT transform for: translating WMS and WFS inputs from GeoSciML  XSLT transform for: translating data sources outputs to GeoSciML ArcIMS MapServer GSC Oracle, ESRI USGS ESRI WMS WFS WMS WFS USGS schema MapServer GML Client GSC schema ArcXML GeoSciML Cocoon WMS WFS XSLT Cocoon WMS WFS XSLT GeoSciML

11. Results  Use-case 1: query feature  Query one map feature (e.g. a geologic unit) and return GeoSciML

12. Results  Use-case 2: download features  Download map features in view as GeoSciML

13. Results  Use-case 3: re-classify features  Use standard legend (symbols, terms) for rock types and ages

14. Results  Performance  Co-location of web services for data and translation? Size (kB) Time (s) Distributed Co-located No translator

15. Conclusions  Cocoon solution  Flexible: requires XSLT for inputs and outputs for each data source  Efficient: adequate performance  Open source: non-proprietary, not black-box  Need  More complete support for OGC web service interface  Comparison with other translation approaches  More support for ontology-based translations  Inclusion of the US National Geologic Map Database forthcoming

16. More Information  Web sites  Testbed 2 demo http://pathways.geosemantica.net  CGI-DMC WG home http://www.bgs.ac.uk/cgi_web/tech_collaboration/data_model/data_model.html  CGI-DMC WG twiki https://www.seegrid.csiro.au/twiki/bin/view/CGIModel/

17. Acknowledgements  GeoSciML team:  Eric Boisvert (GSC)  Boyan Brodaric (GSC)  Tim Duffy (BGS)  Simon Cox (CSIRO)  Bruce Johnson (USGS)  John Laxton (BGS)  Steve Richard (AGS-USGS)  Jean-Jacques Serrano (BRGM)  Bruce Simons (GSV)  Lars Stolen (SGU)  Leslie Wyborn (GA)  Testbed 2 team:  Eric Boisvert (GSC)  Tim Duffy (BGS)  Jonas Holmberg (SGU)  Bruce Johnson (USGS)  Dale Percival (GA)  Steve Richard (AGS-USGS)  Alistair Ritchie (GSV)  Marcus Sen (BGS)  Jean-Jacques Serrano (BRGM)  Bruce Simons (GSV)

18.  Questions?

19. Results  Use-case 4: select features  Query for features with a rock type or age attribute