TG Soil - option to extend soilproperty codelists wider then chemical, physical, biological #101
Comments
|
Dear @pvgenuchten, thank you for the issue, we will discuss it in the next sub-group meeting. In the meantime, did you consider the possibility to map any additional parameter, different from chemical, biological and physical, using the “parameter” attribute of the OM_Observation feature type? For the soil derived object feature type, there is a specific requirement that requires this encoding, but the same encoding could also be used for the other feature types.
|
fabiovinci
added
the
for Sub-group
|
@fabiovinci : I fear you're misinterpreting the IRs here.
When an Observation is used to provide data, there must be a link to an observedProperty. The parameter CAN NOT be used for this purpose. @pvgenuchten : on your original issue of extending the initial 3 root elements (chemicalParameter, biologicalParameter, physicalParameter) by the additional 4th category; 'descriptive parameters', I'm trying to understand the rational behind this. To my view, your examples (mottle %, mottle size, color, stoniness etc. ) all look like physicalParameters. If the only reason for differentiation is to split between observations from the field vs. from a lab, I'd advise against this split (pretty sure there are some observedProperty that can be determined both in the field and in the lab). Can you describe the difference between physical parameter and described parameter? Parameter Definition from O&M (ISO 19156): NOTE Parameters that are tightly bound to the procedure may be recorded as part of the procedure description. In some contexts the Observation::procedure (6.2.2.10) is a generic or standard procedure, rather than an event-specific process. In this context, parameters bound to the observation act, such as instrument settings, calibrations or inputs, local position, detection limits, asset identifer, operator, may augment the description of a standard procedure. EXAMPLE A time sequence of observations of water quality in a well may be made at variable depths within the well. While these may be associated with specimens taken from the well at this depth as the features-of-interest, a more common approach is to identify the well itself as the feature-of-interest, and add a “samplingDepth” parameter to the observation (Figure 3). The sampling depth is of secondary interest compared to the temporal variation of water quality at the site. |
|
I’ll check with colleagues, my impression from the meeting was that it was understood physical and chemical refer to measured parameters on samples in a lab, and descriptive parameters would refer to visual observations by experts in the field, such as color, stoniness, vegetation, slope shape. Indeed one can argue that some of these are indeed physical parameters… |
fabiovinci
added
the
impact on registry
|
Below is an inventory of SoilProfileParameterName and SoilSiteParameterName derived from the glosis web ontology, for each of the parameters I'm trying to capture the broader concept, either biological, chemical or physical, to understand the need of alternative broader concepts Goal is to properly extend https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/codelist/SoilProfileParameterNameValue
|
|
Sub-group meeting on 17.04.2023: |
fabiovinci
added
further info required
|
Observable property list for the SoilElement feature, reviewed and annotated by Maria Fantappie (EJP-Soil).
|
|
Just to note that most of the properties in the original list refer to the GloSIS classes |
|
Bringing this issue back on topic, whether we require an additional top level categorization for ObservableProperties within the context of INSPIRE Soil:
Based on these insights, the existing categories for ObservableProperties seem sufficient. However, if/when we set up standardized Procedures, we may want to classify them as follows:
In addition, a link between ObservableProperty and Procedure would be valuable. As to adding the lists of ObservableProperties provided in the posts above to the existing INSPIRE ObservableProperty, for this purpose, we'd need separate issues under the registry repo for this. In addition, such additions should be proposed by a relevant community, e.g. EJP-Soil. As a reminder, pertains to the following 4 codelists:
To my view, this issue can be closed as resolved |
|
Agree @KathiSchleidt, thank you all for the wonderful discussion. @fabiovinci can I close this (as not planned)? |
|
Dear @pvgenuchten, Thank you all for your contribution. |
fabiovinci
added
no longer relevant
Change proposal description
As various players in the soil domain we endorse to allow to extend the codelists of soil properties wider than the current constraint from the TG, to be narrower then chemical, physical and biological. So we can describe also descriptive properties such as color, stoniness, etc.
Addressed TG
D2.8.III.3 Data Specification on Soil – Technical Guidelines
Location
paragraph 5.3.2.3.8.
Issue faced
Currently paragraph 53238 lists 3 categories (chemical, physical, biological) of profile element parameters with an option to extend these categories
narroweronly.Proposed solution
On a recent masterclass on INSPIRE practices in the Soil domain for soil institutes it was suggested to add a 4th category; 'descriptive parameters', which would be able to capture observations from the field, not from a lab. Such as mottle %, mottle size, color, stoniness etc. Another option here would be to allow the codelist to be extended at the rootlevel (relieve the requirement to be narrower then the 3 categories).
Pull request
Additional information
Relevant legislation
Impact on IR
Impact on INSPIRE validator
Linked issue
Impact on INSPIRE code lists
The population of this section of the registry is currently quite limited, no impact is expected.
Linked issue
INSPIRE-MIF/helpdesk#143
Change proposer
References
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: