Knowledge-based systems and geological survey

This personal and pragmatic review of the philosophy underpinning methods of geological surveying suggests that important influences of information technology have yet to make their impact. Early approaches took existing systems as metaphors, retaining the separation of maps, map explanations and information archives, organised around map sheets of fixed boundaries, scale and content. But system design should look ahead: a computer-based knowledge system for the same purpose can be built around hierarchies of spatial objects and their relationships, with maps as one means of visualisation, and information types linked as hypermedia and integrated in mark-up languages. The system framework and ontology, derived from the general geoscience model, could support consistent representation of the underlying concepts and maintain reference information on object classes and their behaviour. Models of processes and historical configurations could clarify the reasoning at any level of object detail and introduce new concepts such as complex systems. The up-to-date interpretation might centre on spatial models, constructed with explicit geological reasoning and evaluation of uncertainties. Assuming (at a future time) full computer support, the field survey results could be collected in real time as a multimedia stream, hyperlinked to and interacting with the other parts of the system as appropriate. Throughout, the knowledge is seen as human knowledge, with interactive computer support for recording and storing the information and processing it by such means as interpolating, correlating, browsing, selecting, retrieving, manipulating, calculating, analysing, generalising, filtering, visualising and delivering the results. Responsibilities may have to be reconsidered for various aspects of the system, such as: field surveying; spatial models and interpretation; geological processes, past configurations and reasoning; standard setting, system framework and ontology maintenance; training; storage, preservation, and dissemination of digital records

GeoFault: A well-founded fault ontology for interoperability in geological modeling

Geological modeling currently uses various computer-based applications. Data harmonization at the semantic level by means of ontologies is essential for making these applications interoperable. Since geo-modeling is currently part of multidisciplinary projects, semantic harmonization is required to model not only geological knowledge but also to integrate other domain knowledge at a general level. For this reason, the domain ontologies used for describing geological knowledge must be based on a sound ontology background to ensure the described geological knowledge is integratable. This paper presents a domain ontology: GeoFault, resting on the Basic Formal Ontology BFO (Arp et al., 2015) and the GeoCore ontology (Garcia et al., 2020). It models the knowledge related to geological faults. Faults are essential to various industries but are complex to model. They can be described as thin deformed rock volumes or as spatial arrangements resulting from the different displacements of geological blocks. At a broader scale, faults are currently described as mere surfaces, which are the components of complex fault arrays. The reference to the BFO and GeoCore package allows assigning these various fault elements to define ontology classes and their logical linkage within a consistent ontology framework. The GeoFault ontology covers the core knowledge of faults 'strico sensu,' excluding ductile shear deformations. This considered vocabulary is essentially descriptive and related to regional to outcrop scales, excluding microscopic, orogenic, and tectonic plate structures. The ontology is molded in OWL 2, validated by competency questions with two use cases, and tested using an in-house ontology-driven data entry application. The work of GeoFault provides a solid framework for disambiguating fault knowledge and a foundation of fault data integration for the applications and the users

Harmonization Of Vocabularies For Water Data

Observational data encodes values of properties associated with a feature of interest, estimated by a specified procedure. For water the properties are physical parameters like level, volume, flow and pressure, and concentrations and counts of chemicals, substances and organisms. Water property vocabularies have been assembled at project, agency and jurisdictional level. Organizations such as EPA, USGS, CEH, GA and BoM maintain vocabularies for internal use, and may make them available externally as text files. BODC and MMI have harvested many water vocabularies alongside others of interest in their domain, formalized the content using SKOS, and published them through web interfaces. Scope is highly variable both within and between vocabularies. Individual items may conflate multiple concerns (e.g. property, instrument, statistical procedure, units). There is significant duplication between vocabularies. Semantic web technologies provide the opportunity both to publish vocabularies more effectively, and achieve harmonization to support greater interoperability between datasets. - Models for vocabulary items (property, substance/taxon, process, unit-of-measure, etc) may be formalized OWL ontologies, supporting semantic relations between items in related vocabularies; - By specializing the ontology elements from SKOS concepts and properties, diverse vocabularies may be published through a common interface; - Properties from standard vocabularies (e.g. OWL, SKOS, PROV-O and VAEM) support mappings between vocabularies having a similar scope - Existing items from various sources may be assembled into new virtual vocabularies However, there are a number of challenges: - use of standard properties such as sameAs/exactMatch/equivalentClass require reasoning support; - items have been conceptualised as both classes and individuals, complicating the mapping mechanics; - re-use of items across vocabularies may conflict with expectations concerning URI patterns; - versioning complicates cross-references and re-use. This presentation will discuss ways to harness semantic web technologies to publish harmonized vocabularies, and will summarise how many of the challenges may be addressed

PaCTS 1.0: A Crowdsourced Reporting Standard for Paleoclimate Data

The progress of science is tied to the standardization of measurements, instruments, and data. This is especially true in the Big Data age, where analyzing large data volumes critically hinges on the data being standardized. Accordingly, the lack of community-sanctioned data standards in paleoclimatology has largely precluded the benefits of Big Data advances in the field. Building upon recent efforts to standardize the format and terminology of paleoclimate data, this article describes the Paleoclimate Community reporTing Standard (PaCTS), a crowdsourced reporting standard for such data. PaCTS captures which information should be included when reporting paleoclimate data, with the goal of maximizing the reuse value of paleoclimate data sets, particularly for synthesis work and comparison to climate model simulations. Initiated by the LinkedEarth project, the process to elicit a reporting standard involved an international workshop in 2016, various forms of digital community engagement over the next few years, and grassroots working groups. Participants in this process identified important properties across paleoclimate archives, in addition to the reporting of uncertainties and chronologies; they also identified archive-specific properties and distinguished reporting standards for new versus legacy data sets. This work shows that at least 135 respondents overwhelmingly support a drastic increase in the amount of metadata accompanying paleoclimate data sets. Since such goals are at odds with present practices, we discuss a transparent path toward implementing or revising these recommendations in the near future, using both bottom-up and top-down approaches

PaCTS 1.0: A Crowdsourced Reporting Standard for Paleoclimate Data

The progress of science is tied to the standardization of measurements, instruments, and data. This is especially true in the Big Data age, where analyzing large data volumes critically hinges on the data being standardized. Accordingly, the lack of community-sanctioned data standards in paleoclimatology has largely precluded the benefits of Big Data advances in the field. Building upon recent efforts to standardize the format and terminology of paleoclimate data, this article describes the Paleoclimate Community reporTing Standard (PaCTS), a crowdsourced reporting standard for such data. PaCTS captures which information should be included when reporting paleoclimate data, with the goal of maximizing the reuse value of paleoclimate data sets, particularly for synthesis work and comparison to climate model simulations. Initiated by the LinkedEarth project, the process to elicit a reporting standard involved an international workshop in 2016, various forms of digital community engagement over the next few years, and grassroots working groups. Participants in this process identified important properties across paleoclimate archives, in addition to the reporting of uncertainties and chronologies; they also identified archive-specific properties and distinguished reporting standards for new versus legacy data sets. This work shows that at least 135 respondents overwhelmingly support a drastic increase in the amount of metadata accompanying paleoclimate data sets. Since such goals are at odds with present practices, we discuss a transparent path toward implementing or revising these recommendations in the near future, using both bottom-up and top-down approaches

PaCTS 1.0: A Crowdsourced Reporting Standard for Paleoclimate Data

The progress of science is tied to the standardization of measurements, instruments, and data. This is especially true in the Big Data age, where analyzing large data volumes critically hinges on the data being standardized. Accordingly, the lack of community-sanctioned data standards in paleoclimatology has largely precluded the benefits of Big Data advances in the field. Building upon recent efforts to standardize the format and terminology of paleoclimate data, this article describes the Paleoclimate Community reporTing Standard (PaCTS), a crowdsourced reporting standard for such data. PaCTS captures which information should be included when reporting paleoclimate data, with the goal of maximizing the reuse value of paleoclimate data sets, particularly for synthesis work and comparison to climate model simulations. Initiated by the LinkedEarth project, the process to elicit a reporting standard involved an international workshop in 2016, various forms of digital community engagement over the next few years, and grassroots working groups. Participants in this process identified important properties across paleoclimate archives, in addition to the reporting of uncertainties and chronologies; they also identified archive-specific properties and distinguished reporting standards for new versus legacy data sets. This work shows that at least 135 respondents overwhelmingly support a drastic increase in the amount of metadata accompanying paleoclimate data sets. Since such goals are at odds with present practices, we discuss a transparent path toward implementing or revising these recommendations in the near future, using both bottom-up and top-down approaches

PaCTS 1.0: a crowdsourced reporting standard for paleoclimate data

The progress of science is tied to the standardization of measurements, instruments, and data. This is especially true in the Big Data age, where analyzing large data volumes critically hinges on the data being standardized. Accordingly, the lack of community-sanctioned data standards in paleoclimatology has largely precluded the benefits of Big Data advances in the field. Building upon recent efforts to standardize the format and terminology of paleoclimate data, this article describes the Paleoclimate Community reporTing Standard (PaCTS), a crowdsourced reporting standard for such data. PaCTS captures which information should be included when reporting paleoclimate data, with the goal of maximizing the reuse value of paleoclimate datasets, particularly for synthesis work and comparison to climate model simulations. Initiated by the LinkedEarth project, the process to elicit a reporting standard involved an international workshop in 2016, various forms of digital community engagement over the next few years, and grassroots working groups. Participants in this process identified important properties across paleoclimate archives, in addition to the reporting of uncertainties and chronologies; they also identified archive-specific properties and distinguished reporting standards for new vs. legacy datasets. This work shows that at least 135 respondents overwhelmingly support a drastic increase in the amount of metadata accompanying paleoclimate datasets. Since such goals are at odds with present practices, we discuss a transparent path towards implementing or revising these recommendations in the near future, using both bottom-up and top-down approaches