geoscience information network stephen m richard arizona geological survey national geothermal data...

Geoscience Information Network

Stephen M RichardArizona Geological Survey

National Geothermal Data System

US Geoscience Information Network

• Make data accessible through standardized web-accessible interfaces

• Web map services

• GeoSciML Web Feature services

• OGC catalog services

National Geothermal Data System: Data acquisition

• Collaboration with Boise State project: system architecture and infrastructure

• Access to data for exploration for and assessment of geothermal resources

• Data from all states• Catalog of resources is central• Development focus is on service and protocol

definitions, getting data online

Who are the customers• Geological surveys provide information for

broad community– Resource exploration, Engineering– Environmental regulation and mitigation– Education, Research

• Application oriented

• Scope less ‘expert’ in general

Geologic data• Commonly costly to obtain (drilling, field

work, complex laboratory processing)

• Repeat observations are uncommon

• Observations may not be repeatable

• Doesn’t change very rapidly (rocks…)

• Lifetime of data is long

Architecture• Decouple components of system

–Repository–Metadata registry–Clients for searching–Search service–Access service

• Goal: Reusable components

What are the resources?• Need clear understanding of identity

of actual repository object • Useful resource categorization:

– Determines metadata requirements– Helps users to get what they need– Guides repository management

Decoupled view of metadata registry

What kind of interfaces are available to search for resources

Metadata content sufficient for: Discovery of resouces Evaluation of fitness for purpose Access to get and use

Described resources may reside in multiple repositories

Metadata vs Data service

• Impossible to standardize assessment details across multiple domains

• Standardized cross domain metadata is necessarily generalized (use free text)

• Analytical and instrumental detail should be in data service, determined by user community (xlink from metadata...)

Who defines metadata standards?

• Why reinvent the wheel. Use one of the existing specifications.

• Essential requirement: enable machine processing (sufficient structure, documented vocabulary)

• Interoperability: – application profile for domain– community of practice: agree on, document,

and use same conventions

Community of practice: agree on, document, and use same

conventions