Digital Mapping Techniques '01 -- Workshop Proceedings
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 01-223

Developing the North American Geologic Map Data Model

By North American Data Model Steering Committee

Members:
Dave Soller (Committee Coordinator; U.S. Geological Survey, drsoller@usgs.gov)
Tom Berg (Ohio Geological Survey, thomas.berg@dnr.state.oh.us)
Boyan Brodaric (Geological Survey of Canada, brodaric@gsc.nrcan.gc.ca)
Bruce Johnson (U.S. Geological Survey, bjohnson@usgs.gov)
Murray Journeay (Geological Survey of Canada, MJournea@nrcan.gc.ca)
Rob Krumm (Illinois State Geological Survey, krumm@zydeco.isgs.uiuc.edu)
Jon Matti (U.S. Geological Survey, jmatti@usgs.gov)
Scott McColloch (West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, mccolloch@geosrv.wvnet.edu)
Peter Schweitzer (U.S. Geological Survey, pschweitzer@usgs.gov)
Loudon Stanford (Idaho Geological Survey, stanford@uidaho.edu)
Jerry Weisenfluh (Kentucky Geological Survey, jerryw@kgs.mm.uky.edu)

Evolution of this cooperatively-developed data model is documented in various informal papers from 1996 to present (for example, Geologic Map Data Model Steering Committee,1999). The data model described in those papers is conceptual in nature, because this work was necessary before the concepts could be evaluated and implemented in various computer systems. Attention has now turned toward testing and implementation; several papers in this and in previous Proceedings volumes describe efforts to begin to implement the concepts, and more certainly will follow in the years ahead. Because the conceptual model could not stipulate the nature of the GIS and database software in which an agency might choose to develop a geologic map database, there have been modifications to the conceptual model as it was test-implemented in various systems across the U.S. and Canada. This is to be expected, as the data model evolves from a conceptual to a physical state.

The geoscience community is composed of diverse agencies and individuals, with a wide range of technical expertise, budgets, and user-support requirements. Therefore, the NADMSC expects that when the various Canadian and U.S. geological surveys evaluate and implement the data model in the coming years, they will modify it as needed to suit their system and user requirements. The role of the NADMSC will be to support these implementations with: 1) technical assistance and data model documentation; 2) modifications to the conceptual model as needed; 3) coordination of software tool development; and 4) the proposal of standard scientific terminology with which to attribute digital geologic maps. To fulfill these roles, the NADMSC formed six Technical Teams, as follows:

• Requirements Analysis (to refine our understanding of the data analysis requirements of various users);
• Data Model Design (to continue refining the conceptual model based on the Requirements Analysis, deliberations of the other technical teams, and user comments);
• Scientific Language (to develop standard terminologies for the various elements that comprise geologic maps, e.g., rock classification);
• Software Tool Development (to design tools that meet user needs as specified in the Requirements Analysis);
• Data Interchange (to develop translators among various implementations of the conceptual model);
• Documentation (to improve public understanding of data model design and software tools).

REFERENCE