Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Geofeature defs #187

Open
wants to merge 9 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Geofeature defs #187

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
9 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
b33233c
Orogen, OrogenicCollage
Feb 21, 2020
4b15851
minor
Feb 21, 2020
48d1606
Craton, Supercraton, hasPart
Feb 21, 2020
8e193c5
Basin -> SedimentaryBasin, Subbasin, Superbasin, Trough
Feb 21, 2020
fe6ed5d
subclasses of GeologicFeature, other class tidy-ups
Feb 21, 2020
26b17a4
update Geopark source
Feb 21, 2020
1a1838f
absorbing PR #186 for GeologicFeature
Feb 21, 2020
58ef0bb
Nick & John added as contributors
Feb 21, 2020
1a739ca
moving core subclasses to core
Feb 21, 2020
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
52 changes: 51 additions & 1 deletion src/realmGeolContinental.ttl
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,21 +1,26 @@
@prefix : <http://sweetontology.net/realmGeolContinental/> .
@prefix matrRockIgneous: <http://sweetontology.net/matrRockIgneous/> .
@prefix biblio: <http://purl.org/net/biblio#> .
@prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
@prefix sorealt: <http://sweetontology.net/realmLandTectonic/> .
@prefix xml: <http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
@prefix sdo: <https://schema.org/> .
@prefix skos: <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#> .
@prefix soma: <http://sweetontology.net/matr/> .
@prefix soreagcont: <http://sweetontology.net/realmGeolContinental/> .
@prefix soreag: <http://sweetontology.net/realmGeol/> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix sohur: <http://sweetontology.net/humanResearch/> .
@prefix sorel: <http://sweetontology.net/rela/> .
@prefix sostrg: <http://sweetontology.net/stateRoleGeographic/> .
@prefix soreagb: <http://sweetontology.net/realmGeolBasin/> .
@prefix sorelch: <http://sweetontology.net/relaChemical/> .
@prefix sorelph: <http://sweetontology.net/relaPhysical/> .
@prefix sorelsc: <http://sweetontology.net/relaSci/> .
@prefix wiki: <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/> .
@base <http://sweetontology.net/realmGeolContinental> .

<http://sweetontology.net/realmGeolContinental> rdf:type owl:Ontology ;
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -127,12 +132,18 @@ soreagcont:Craton rdf:type owl:Class ;
owl:onProperty sorelph:hasPlanetaryStructure ;
owl:allValuesFrom soreagcont:Shield
] ;
rdfs:label "craton"@en .
dcterms:contributor <http://linked.data.gov.au/org/gsq> ;
dcterms:source <http://www.glossaryofgeology.org> ;
skos:definition "A craton is part of Earth's continental crust that has attained stability and has been little deformed for a prolonged period. Cratons include shield areas, where Precambrian rocks are exposed, and platform areas, where Precambrian rocks are overlain by a thin layer of Phanerozoic strata. (Neuendorf et al., 2011)"@en ;
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"little deformed over a prolonged period" is not an ideal part of a definition for craton as it is ambiguous and subjective, not to mention that many cratons are highly deformed at their margins.
Also a craton includes all of the lithosphere, not just the crust. Age, stability, thickness are some of the key criteria here.
Suggested def: A relatively old, stable, and thick part of the Earth's lithosphere that forms the nucleus of a continent.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

restrict to continental lithosphere?
A relatively old, stable, and thick part of the Earth's continental lithosphere that forms the nucleus of a continent.

sort of implicit in 'nucleus of continent' I guess, avoids possible interpretation it could be oceanic lithosphere forming nucleus of continent?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think so. The thickness also implies continental, but there is ambiguity in just 'relatively thick lithosphere' which could be continental lithosphere, cratons, or oceanic plateaux. So the restriction is good.

I now wonder if this def implies that all continents have cratonic nucleii (do they??)

skos:prefLabel "craton"@en .
Copy link
Collaborator

@smrgeoinfo smrgeoinfo Mar 12, 2020 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Restrictions on craton in realmGeolContinental.ttl seem problematic:

  rdfs:subClassOf [      rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
      owl:allValuesFrom matrRockIgneous:Kimberlite ;
      owl:onProperty sorelch:hasSubstance ;     ]

would seem to imply that a craton may only consist of Kimberlite (or a subClass of Kimberlite? That doesn't seem correct.
also there are three separate owl:allValuesFrom restrictions on owl:onProperty sorelph:hasPlanetaryStructure, with different classes as the target. I suspect this will lead to logical validation failure. Without diving into the science question of are these actually the only planetary structures allowed on a craton, I think the restriction should be (in Turtle encoding):

rdfs:subClassOf [       rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
      owl:allValuesFrom [
          rdf:type owl:Class ;
          owl:unionOf (
              soreagb:IntracratonicBasin
              :ContinentalPlatform
              :Shield     ) ;  
        ] ;
      owl:onProperty sorelph:hasPlanetaryStructure ;
    ] ;

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We didn't contribute any restrictions like this, only definitions and sources, so we've not examined the logic of them.

Please can we leave such discussion to a separate PR/Issue? There are enough things to deal with in this one already. Yes, I think the sort of change you suggest @smrgeoinfo is good but let's have that as another PR.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree.



### http://sweetontology.net/realmGeolContinental/Shield
soreagcont:Shield rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf soreag:GeologicProvince ;
dcterms:contributor <http://linked.data.gov.au/org/gsq> ;
dcterms:source <http://www.glossaryofgeology.org> ;
skos:definition "A large area of exposed basement rock in a craton, commonly with a very gently convex surface, surrounded by sediment covered platforms. The rocks of virtually all shield areas are Precambrian. (Neuendorf et al., 2011)"@en ;
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Definition: A large area of exposed basement rock (link to def) in a craton (link to def), commonly with a very gently convex surface, surrounded by sediment covered platforms.

Scope Note: The rocks of virtually all shield areas are Precambrian. (Neuendorf et al., 2011)

is a shield always a part of a craton?, or is it a kind of craton??

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I like the revised def.
Cratonic shields and cratonic platforms are not so fundamentally different, with the distinction being the amount of younger cover on them, or from another perspective, whether the peneplain is exposed (shield) or subsurface (platform).
I can't give a professional opinion here, or even an educated guess, but I have a feeling is that shields and platforms are parts of a craton rather than kinds of cratons.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

From what I can gather, a shield is always part of as craton, but if part of the craton is exposed over a large area, that part of it is termed a shield. Please correct me if I am wrong. Online, you will see reference to the Australian Shield (= Western Australian Shield), but, as far as I can determine, GA does not embrace this usage, and all Australian cratonic regions are referred to by them only as ‘cratons’.

The revised definition is little different to the original definition, the exception being the exclusion of the scope note; and all of it is referred to the Glossary (Neuendorf et al.). I am quite happy with this, but the problem is with the referencing, an issue also raised elsewhere here, several times. From a copyright perspective, we can get away with referencing a definition, in this case for a ‘shield’, to the Glossary. But, to provide a direct link for definition of terms (for all terms in a definition), as has been suggested (and clearly a necessity), becomes a problem. We cannot provide links to Neuendorf et al., as it is not freely available. And, from what we have here in all of this feedback, is that their definitions have issues. Apart from directly linking to free, reputable-source definitions (that we like), do we need to develop our own glossary (which also includes and directly acknowledges the liked definitions)? When you look at the comments here, this is what we are doing (i.e., developing our own definitions)!! To base definitions directly on Neuendorf (or other published glossaries) would breach copyright fair-dealing, without a paid agreement/subscription in place. This, however, brings us to the Glossary of geology — Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_geology

And Wikipedia has also been calling out for monetary contributions too; and, besides, it’s not ‘officially’ published. When I compare the two (obviously not fully), Wikipedia appears to have taken the Glossary definitions and just changed the wording/phraseology, to overcome copyright (at least for the time being).

In developing vocabs, we have been instructed to follow published national and international standards and published definitions (not make up our own). But, this seems to be almost unworkable, without falling foul of copyright laws and having agreements in place with copyright owners. I can see where those of you that don’t want definitions are coming from, but, without definitions, we have disorder. Maybe, considering the scale of what we are doing, it is possible to develop mutually-beneficial relationships (whatever they could be) with publishers, but, then, as also pointed here, the Glossary is not up-to-date either (as likely would be the case for other glossaries/dictionaries). Considering the latter point, I have been disturbed, confused and frustrated by the distinctly different definitions provided for some terms by various reputable sources; and have been astonished by the lack of definitions provided in major references on a number of subjects, e.g., a recently published book on Coal Geology (that I was looking through) that defines coal, but not coal geology!! This is not an isolated instance.

Precis: Revised definition OK, with SKOS note. But published definitions are largely associated with copyright issues and we seem to have issues with them in any case. It further seems to me that we want to develop our own definitions—big job!!

rdfs:label "shield"@en .


Expand All @@ -145,6 +156,21 @@ soreagcont:StableContinent rdf:type owl:Class ;
] ;
rdfs:label "stable continent"@en .

### http://sweetontology.net/realmGeolContinental/Supercraton
soreagcont:Supercraton rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf soreag:GeologicProvince ,
[ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty sorel:hasPart ;
owl:allValuesFrom soreagcont:Craton
] ,
[ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty sorel:hasPart ;
owl:minCardinality "2"^^xsd:int
] ;
dcterms:source <http://doi.org/10.22459/SN.08.2012> ;
rdfs:subClassOf soreag:GeologicProvince ;
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is every Supercraton also a GeologicProvince? Is this true @smrgeoinfo ?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A supercraton consists of two or more (largely Archaean) cratons (Blewett, 2012: https://press.anu.edu.au/publications/shaping-nation), and as cratons are tectonic provinces, a supercraton consists of as many provinces as there are cratons in the supercraton in question. And, if the truth be known, it we dig a little deeper in a craton, we would undoubtedly find provinces within provinces (if they are still recognisable as such, considering their age and complex, multiphase tectonic history). I will leave Nick to deal with how best to approach the multi-province aspect.

Copy link
Collaborator

@smrgeoinfo smrgeoinfo Mar 12, 2020 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

question remains: is a supercraton a craton in which case it should be a subClass, and if a craton is a GeologicProvince, then a supercraton is a GeologicProvince.

As I read the proposed definitions a craton is a "part of Earth's continental crust that has attained stability and has been little deformed for a prolonged period" so it sounds like a supercraton might or might not be a craton. Western North America basement (east of Cordillera) is an amalgamation of Archean through Early Proterozoic terranes, amalgamated by Early Proterozoic time, and certainly behaving as a craton through the Early Paleozoic, so perhaps a 'supercraton'? This 'craton' has seen considerable tectonic activity on the western margin since then, so is it still a 'craton' or has the craton changed extent? is it still a super craton?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A supercraton would be a geological province, but, Stephen, what are you suggesting to be the subclass—the craton or the supercraton? We should not be here to question what others, in published literature, have delineated a supercration to be, and if their usage of the term is valid.
I am no expert on cratons. I am just referring to the Glossary and other sources. But, in terms of the very old ages of the features that we are discussing here, I imagine that a craton can form and be stable and little deformed for a long period of (geological) time, thus satisfying the criteria for being termed a craton. But, then, if after such a long period, this stability is interrupted by tectonism or whatever, causing, say, an amalgamation of cratons, should the amalgamating cratons then cease to be termed cratons? Should the term supercraton be discarded as the once-stable cratons that comprised it have ceased to be cratons (because of tectonic amalgamation), and a new craton (not a supercraton) is formed (which then needs to be stable and little deformed for a succeeding interval)? Again, should we not comply with the published literature.

I also assume that a craton, although stable, would not be isolated from any major tectonic activity, as tectonism even at plate margins can affect a whole plate. Does not the qualification ‘little deformed’ cater for this? I welcome any definition to satisfy all queries. In achieving this, it seems that we may deviate from the published definitions and develop our own. If this is the case, we can overcome issues of copyright and links to copyrighted material (see my comments re this elsewhere here).

Copy link
Collaborator

@smrgeoinfo smrgeoinfo Mar 25, 2020 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree that to the extent possible its good to define terms to be logically consistent with common usage. Problems arise when common usage is inconsistent. I think the role of information resources like SWEET is to provide some way to disambiguate usages (much like wikipedia...) with clear definitions of the various possible interpretations of a term, and identifiers to distinguish the meanings.

As far as Craton/supercraton, perhaps best if they are both kinds of 'tectonic feature', (or 'geologic feature', 'geologic province', 'tectonic entity', all possible labels for what seems to be the same concept), and Supercraton 'hasPart' Craton. This seems compatible with a quick google survey of usage in the literature, e.g. Bleeker and Davis 2004, Smirnov et al 2013, Salminen et al 2018 and the definition (originally?) proposed by Bleeker 2003: "large ancestral landmasses of Archean age with a stabilized core that on break-up spawned several independently drifting cratons" (which is of course close to the proposed definition in the PR :) )

Copy link
Collaborator

@smrgeoinfo smrgeoinfo Mar 25, 2020 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So short answer to @dr-shorthair original question, yes I think every supercraton could be considered a 'geologic province' (pending refinement of definition of 'geologic province')

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Both kinds of 'tectonic entity' is OK with me, rather than classifying under 'province', but along with provinces which are also tectonic entities, as suggested in my previous post??

skos:definition "A large, ancestral (largely Archean) landmass consisting of two or more cratons. (Blewett, 2012)"@en ;
skos:prefLabel "supercraton"@en .

### http://sweetontology.net/realmGeolContinental/Supercontinent
soreagcont:Supercontinent rdf:type owl:Class ;
Expand All @@ -171,5 +197,29 @@ sorealt:Rift rdf:type owl:Class .
### http://sweetontology.net/stateRoleGeographic/Margin
sostrg:Margin rdf:type owl:Class .

<http://doi.org/10.22459/SN.08.2012>
rdf:type sohur:Publication , owl:NamedIndividual ;
dcterms:creator "Richard S. Blewett" ;
dcterms:date "2012"^^xsd:gYear ;
dcterms:identifier "ISBN: 9781921862823" ;
dcterms:publisher "ANU Press" ;
dcterms:title "Shaping a Nation: A Geology of Australia" ;
dcterms:type biblio:Book ;
dcterms:type wiki:Q571 .

<http://www.glossaryofgeology.org>
rdf:type sohur:Publication , owl:NamedIndividual ;
dcterms:creator (
"Klaus K.E. Neuendorf"
"James P. Mehl Jr."
"Julia A. Jackson"
) ;
dcterms:date "2011"^^xsd:gYear ;
dcterms:identifier "ISBN: 978-0-922152-92-6" ;
dcterms:publisher "American Geosciences Institute, Alexandria, Virginia USA" ;
dcterms:title "Glossary of Geology (Fifth Edition Revised)" ;
dcterms:type biblio:Book ;
dcterms:type wiki:Q571 ;
.

### Generated by the OWL API (version 4.5.9.2019-02-01T07:24:44Z) https://github.com/owlcs/owlapi
6 changes: 6 additions & 0 deletions src/rela.ttl
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -73,6 +73,12 @@ sorel:partOf rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty ,
owl:TransitiveProperty ;
rdfs:label "part of"@en .

### http://sweetontology.net/rela/hasPart
sorel:hasPart rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty ,
owl:TransitiveProperty ;
owl:inverseOf sorel:partOf ;
rdfs:label "has part"@en .


#################################################################
# Classes
Expand Down