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  You didn’t realise that the shapefile you downloaded last year has been superseded by an updated version?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 ing 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 Minerals industry Resource management Joe Public Government Universities Petroleum industry Shapefile BGS data Mapinfo NTGS data Arc Export NRC data Download data Proprietary formats Local data structures Shapefile SGu data Mapinfo GA data Mapserver ArcIMS FTP Online GIS FTP Proprietary formats Local data structures No ability to view others data in web client Web services Convert proprietary format Rationalise attribute data structure Convert data

Heterogeneities System Use Different operating systems to store and process the data, vendor databases. Representational Different Formats (shape files, BLOB, binary, spatial data objects etc.). Structural Different 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 Asia Australia Federal NT SA WA NSW Qld Tas. Victoria Japan Korea France Sweden Czech Finland Netherlands Poland UK Germany Denmark “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… I n USA and Canada… North American Data Model (1996-present) - a comprehensive geological model - conceptual, theoretical, difficult to implement I n 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 rules or automatically from UML (via XMI) using ShapeChange application Refer to:  ISO TS – Geographic Information: Conceptual Schema Language  ISO – Geographic Information: Rules for Application Schema  ISO DIS – 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 (Geographic Markup 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 GAFrance Databases, digital maps with local data structures Data sources GSC client (Phoenix) Desktop client (eg: Gaia) BRGM client (Ionic) Web clients Display, query, download Map local data structures to GeoSciML data structure Web services Geoserver ArcIMS Cocoon Ionic GeoSciML Mapserver Cocoon ArcIMS Cocoon Geoserver GeoSciML Mapserver GA client (IMF) GeoSciML

BRGM USGS BGS NRC SA WA GA SGU Databases and digital maps with local data structures Data sources Environment Minerals industry Resource management Joe Public Government Universities Petroleum industry Shapefile USGS data Mapinfo NTGS data Arc Export BGS data Download data Proprietary formats Local data structures Shapefile SGU data Mapinfo GA data Mapserver ArcIMS FTP Online GIS FTP Proprietary formats Local data structures No ability to view another state’s data in web client Web services Convert proprietary format Rationalise attribute data structure Convert data A goal for Surveys… from this

… to this BRGM USGS BGS NRC SA WA GA SGU Databases, digital maps with local data structures Web services GeoserverMapserverArcIMS Ionic survey clients (ArcIMS) Desktop clients (Gaia, ArcMap) Federal client (IMF) Web clients GeoSciML Data sources Display, query, download Map local data structures to GeoSciML Environment Minerals industry Resource management Joe Public Government Universities Petroleum industry

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 logical model: GML-UML Granite, syenite, volcanogenic sandstone, conglomerate, minor trachyte lava Mount Leinster Igneous Complex typicalNorm <value codeSpace=" cgi.org/geologicAgeVocabulary">Triassic <value codeSpace=" cgi.org/geologicAgeVocabulary">Triassic <value codeSpace=" cgi.org/geologicAgeEventVocabulary">intrusion 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

Interest Community (IC) Interoperability Working Group 1. Request Feature 3. Review comment 4. Change Request 2. Deliver Specification GeoSciML 2.0 Design Task Group GeoSciML Service Deployment Group GeoSciML Test Bed Task Group GeoSciML Service Architecture Task 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: