عنوان مقاله [English]
Modern data storage and communication technology has created an opportunity to rethink the manner in which geosciences information is archived and presented. The Geosciences Database must provide a mechanism to allow rapid access to up-to-date geosciences data in a form tailored to the needs of the user requesting the data. The data model underlying this database must be flexible enough to encompass a wide range of earth science information, storing it in such a fashion that advances in Earth science do not obsolete the database. One of the major goals of a geosciences data model is to simplify the process of generating derivative maps tailored to specific needs e.g. tectonic analysis, hazard assessment, mineral exploration. Such data may need to be based on information from many sources. Presently, in the derivative maps are usually compiled by manually extracting (i.e. tracing on paper) information from a number of printed maps, probably generated by different people with different motivations at different scales, and graphically combining the information (i.e. redrafting) into a single, derivative map. The goal of the geosciences conceptual data model is to provide basic information from a variety of sources in a consistent, flexible, and searchable structure. In this research, regarding the importance of the maps in data interpretation of geosciences, geological maps is the base for the conceptual data models. Using this base, required domains is defined. The model outlined here provides a conceptual framework that could accommodate newly acquired field data or data mined from previously published sources into a common framework.
Bain, K. A. and Giles, J. R. A., 1997- A standard model for storage of geological map data: Computers & Geosciences, v.23, no. 6, pp. 613- 620.
Brodaric, B. and Hastings, J ., 2002- An Object Model for Geologic Map Information, in Richardson, D.E., and van Oosterom, P., eds., Advances in Spatial Data Handling: Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling: New York, Springer-Verlag, ISBN 3540438025. P.55- 68.
GeoSciML (Geosciences Markup Language), 2008- GeoSciML Testbed3, is presented at the 33rd International Geological Congress (IGC 33) in Oslo August.
Giles, J. R. A., Lowe, D. J. and Bain, K. A., 1997- Geological Dictionaries.Critical elements of every geological database: Computers & Geosciences, v. 23, no. 6, pp. 621- 626.
Guarino, N. and Welty, C., 2000- Ontological analysis of taxonomic relationships, in Laender, A., and Storey. V., eds., Proceedings of ER-2000. The 19th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling: Springer- Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science, v. 1920, p.210- 224.
Halpin, T. A., 1995- Conceptual Schema and Relational Database Design, Second Edition: Prentice Hall Australia, 547 p.
Halpin, T. A., 2001- Information Modeling and Relational Databases: From Conceptual Analysis to Logical Design: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 800p.
Johnson, B. R., Brodaric, B. and Raines, G. L., 1998- Digital Geologic Maps Data Model, V. 4.2: http://ncgmp.usgs.gov/ngmdbproject/standards/datamodel/model42.pdf, U. S. Geological Survey.
Johnson, B. R., Brodaric, B., Raines, G. L., Hastings, J. T . and Wahl, R ., 1999- Digital Geologic Maps Data Model, v, 4.3: AASG/USGS Data Model Working Group Report, http://www.nadm-geo.org/dmdt/Model43a.pdf.
Kiani, T., 2010- Modeling for geospatial database: Application to structural geology data. Dissertation, Pierre and Marie Curie University, 295 p.
Matti, J. C., Miller, F. K., Powell, R. E., Kennedy, S. A., Bunyapanasarn, T. P., Koukladas, C., Hauser, R. M. and Cosette, P. M., 1997- Geologic-point attributes for digital geologic-map databases produced by the Southern California Areal Mapping Project (SCAMP), Version 1.0: U. S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97- 859, 37 pages.
NADM )North American Geologic-Map Data Model Steering Committee(, 2004a- NADM Conceptual Model 1.0, A Conceptual Model For Geologic Map Information: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 04-1334, 61 p., (http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1334).
NADM )North American Geologic-Map Data Model Steering Committee(, 2004b- Sedimentary materials: science language for their classification, description, and interpretation in digital geologic-map databases, Version 1.0: Appen-dix to Digital Mapping Techniques'04, Workshop Proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2004-1451, 245p. (http://www. nadm-geo.org/sltt/products.html).
OMG )Object Management Group(, 2001- OMG Unified Modeling Language Specification, v. 1.4: Object Management Group, Inc, available at http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/formal/uml.htm (downloaded September 2002).
OMG )Object Management Group(, 2003- UML. 2.0 Superstructure Specification, OMG Adapted Specification 03-08-02: Object Management Group, Inc., 640 p, (PDF file).
OMG )Object Management Group(, 2007- UML. 2.1.2 Superstructure Specification, OMG Adapted Specification (downloaded May 2019).: Object Management Group, Inc., 722 p, (PDF file). https://www.uml.org/
Open GIS) Consortium Technical Committee(, 1998- The OpenGIS Guide. Third Edition, Buehler, K., and McKee, L, eds.: Open GIS Consortium, Wayland. Massachusetts, USA.
Richard, S. M. and Thieme, J. P., 1997- Data structure for Arizona Geological Survey digital geologic maps: Tucson, Arizona Geological Survey OpenFile Report 97- 5, 15 p.
Richard, S. M., 1998- Digital Geologic Database Model (Web Page): Arizona Geological Survey, http://www.azgs.state.az.us/GeoData_model.pdf, accessed June 2004.
Richard, S. M., 2006- Geoscience concept model, Geoinformatics: Data to knowledge, the Geological society of America, 397 p. 81- 107.
Richard, S. M., Matti, J. and Soller, D. R., 2003- Geoscience terminology development for the National Geologic Map Database in Soller, D.R., ed., Digital Mapping Techniques '03-WorksbopProceedings, US; Geological Survey open-file Report- 471.