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

Jump to bottom

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 4 commits
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
57 changes: 43 additions & 14 deletions src/realmGeolBasin.ttl
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
@prefix xml: <http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
@prefix skos: <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#> .
@prefix soreag: <http://sweetontology.net/realmGeol/> .
@prefix somarock: <http://sweetontology.net/matrRock/> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -39,50 +40,54 @@ sorelph:hasPlanetaryStructure rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty .

### http://sweetontology.net/realmGeolBasin/BackArcBasin
soreagb:BackArcBasin rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf soreagb:Basin ;
rdfs:subClassOf soreagb:SedimentaryBasin ;
rdfs:label "back arc basin"@en .


### http://sweetontology.net/realmGeolBasin/Basin
soreagb:Basin rdf:type owl:Class ;
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It looks like you are deleting classes rather than deprecating/obsoleting them?

This means that older URLs to soreagb:Basin will no longer resolve, and worse, there will be a referential integrity problem with any external data or triples that reference it, without an easy way to fix this (perhaps I am missing something and there as external set of replacement triples being maintained).

Note that this kind of issue would be solved by opaque IDs, which allows labels to freely change so long as the definition remains the same but when I raised this in #49 the consensus was that terminology in earth sciences was fixed and there was no drift... time to revisit?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hi Chris, we'll wind this one back and retain the original Basin class! Bad practice from us to break URIs.

Not that I really think there actually are any URIs pointing to it out there, do you know of any?

### http://sweetontology.net/realmGeolBasin/SedimentaryBasin
soreagb:SedimentaryBasin rdf:type owl:Class ;
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

As @cmungall points out, probably best not to change the URI for soreagb:Basin, just change the label to disambiguate better from soreahb:Basin. The cows have left the barn at this point using opaque URIs in SWEET....

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

OK

rdfs:subClassOf soreag:GeologicFeature ,
<http://sweetontology.net/reprSpaceGeometry/Depression> ;
rdfs:label "basin"@en .
dcterms:source <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-03999-1> ;
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.

SedimentaryBasin sub-class-of Province is not convincing to me. That implies that every individual SedimentaryBasin is also a Province. 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.

Yes, every individual sedimentary basin is now regarded by GSQ as a ‘province’. The implication is that sedimentary basins are sedimentary provinces. This was not GSQ’s previous position, where the term ‘province’ was applied only to older sedimentary basins that had been strongly tectonised and/or metamorphosed and whose outlines were indefinite (e.g., see Jell, 2013: https://spaces.hightail.com/space/Cdb1o8ieg1).

Provinces, overall, are now taken to embrace the terms: craton, shield, orogen, orogenic collage, sedimentary basin (sedimentary province, as indicated above), tectonised/metamorphosed province, metallogenic (mineral province), igneous (petrographic) province and large igneous province.

In adopting this approach, GSQ is now in full alignment with Geoscience Australia, in that organisation’s approach to Australian geological provinces: http://www.ga.gov.au/applications/provexplorer/australian-geological-provinces

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

OK - my 1970's geology education may need an update ;-)

Copy link
Collaborator

@dr-shorthair dr-shorthair Mar 6, 2020 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

But I guess that begs a question - while it may reflect the consensus in Australia, is that shared throughout the SWEET community?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We can look further afield, at the USGS, albeit via Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_province#/media/File:World_geologic_provinces.jpg

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I have expressed to John before about the Australian usage of terms and the differences to the way terms are used in the broader community. My view is that Australian geologists seem to like smaller spatial subdivisions when defining orogens or provinces, to an extent that is somewhat decoupled from international usage.
Could there be trouble in paradise?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes, the USGS regard regions of extended crust as a province (“Extended crust = A province of thinned crust (>50 %) due to extension—e.g. The Basin & Range, North America”): https://earthquake.usgs.gov/data/crust/definitions.html And they give the example of the B & R.
I did not include extended crust in the list of provinces, but, clearly, it must be added, if we decide that this is the way forward, and I believe this should be the case. So, the B&R Province is regarded as an ‘Extended Crust Province’, with its many sedimentary basins. But, every basin in the B&R (Extended Crust) Province need not be considered an individual province. It is all a matter of scale and how the ontology is applied. A common-sense approach must prevail. It seems to me that there can be no ontological Utopia, and that anything that we develop has to cater for, or adapt to, the geological terminology that exists, as varied and confusing as it is. Also, some of the geological terminology may need to change too. All we can do is aim to bring it together with reasonably well defined terms and associated altLabels, as suggested.

Moreover, in taking the B&R a step or two further, the ranges in the province are known as the Great Basin Ranges, and, importantly, the basins are collectively known as the Great Basin, which is largest region of contiguous endorheic drainage in North America. So, herein lies another question: Should the Great Basin itself be identified as a province: a sedimentary basin province, a geographic province, a hydrogeologic (or hydrographic) province? Thus, we would have one province type overlapping another. As for the individual basins or watersheds, the list is long: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Great_Basin_watersheds

Where do we go from here and how do we/you deal with this (given that the B&R Province, in definition by the USGS, is an existing province)? Are they basins within a basin (The Great Basin)? Or, are they to be regarded as subbasins? That the latter is the case is suggested by the following: https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/boise/research/gis/documents/GBRIHUC4methods3.pdf

But, then you have:
https://www.nps.gov/grba/planyourvisit/the-great-basin.htm where the following is indicated:
‘The Great Basin includes most of Nevada, half of Utah, and sections of Idaho, Wyoming, Oregon, and California. The term "Great Basin" is slightly misleading; the region is actually made up of many small basins.’

So, terminology and usage thereof are just as confused in the USA as they are in Australia (and undoubtedly elsewhere). (And, certainly, let’s definitely not go down the subprovince route here, which has been the case for metamorphosed/tectonised provinces and subprovinces in Queensland. But, they, nonetheless, exist in the literature.)

The Great Basin, as a present-day, internal-drainage, sedimentary-basin and hydrogeologic system, is comparable in its enormity to the present-day Lake Eyre Basin in central Australia, although the latter has quite different tectonics and lacks basin-and-range structural architecture.

As a side note, my wife and I have explored parts of the B&R some years ago, and, in particular, Death Valley. It was amazing to see geology in action: the springs, dunes, salt deposits, scree deposits and fault scarps. The region has little rainfall, but, when it does rain, it causes a huge amount of erosion and sedimentation. We were totally blown away by then-recent images of car almost completely buried by conglomerate, and a fairly large concrete toilet block (both male and female) completely washed well away from its (concrete) foundations.

To precis: We are stuck with provinces, like it or not. We just need to work out how we deal with them. GA and the USGS consider basins to be provinces. Is the B & R extended crust province sufficient to deal with the basins/subbasins therein? Should the Great Basin also be considered to be a province (sedimentary-basin, hydrogeologic or whatever province), with province types overlapping—is this functional or not? Does the Great Basin comprise basins or subbasins?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Perhaps trying to shoehorn the concepts you need into SWEET is the fundamental problem. Rob Raskin was not a geologist, and that is reflected in the SWEET concept hierarchies. If I understand the use case, the challenge is to categorize parts of the Earth at a regional scale, and there are different ways of doing this-- deformation process perspective (thrust belt, extended terrane, craton), sedimentation perspective (foreland basin, forearc basin, intracratonic basin, passive margin embankment), crustal architecture (continent crust, lithosphere, ocean crust), plate tectonics (subduction complex, spreading center, transform margin), magmatic activity (flood basalts, volcanic arc, plutonic arc..).

Seems like the key thing about calling something a 'province' has to do with regional extent, and some unifying tectonic history or processes.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Bottom line-- I don't think 'sedimentary basin' should be a kind of province. Brainstorming here... Distinction could be: a 'province' is a composite of various features related to a shared geologic/tectonic history in a connected (at the time of the defining history) region, not denoting any particular process. A sedimentary basin is an individual feature characterized by processes of subsidence and sedimentation. A sedimentary basin can be partOf a province, but a basin by itself would not be considered a province.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hi Stephen, I thank you and the others for your and their comments—and please except my apologies for my slow reply.

The USGS have used the Glossary definition to define geologic provinces as "any large area or region considered as a whole, all parts of which are characterized by similar features or by a history differing significantly from that of adjacent areas", and they divide geologic provinces into six main categories: shield, platform, orogen, basin, large igneous province, and extended crust.

Your comment: "Seems like the key thing about calling something a 'province' has to do with regional extent, and some unifying tectonic history or processes.”

Let me give an example here to demonstrate why sedimentary basins meet your criteria (those cited directly above): I refer to the Sydney Basin - Gunnedah Basin - Bowen Basin system of eastern Australia, with these basins being generally referred to individually, or, if collectively, simply as the Sydney-Gunnedah-Bowen basin system. Such is the geographic scale of this system (which involved extension/transtension, thermal relaxation, and foreland basin phases), it could be classed as a superbasin. However, it is more massive in geographic coverage than this, as the Bowen Basin was connected to the Galilee Basin to the west (in central Queensland) over the Springsure Shelf, and the Galilee Basin was connected, at times, in its southwest, over the at-times-active Canaway Fault/Ridge, to the Cooper Basin in south-western Queensland and north-eastern South Australia. This entire system occupied much of eastern, central Australia, and north-eastern South Australia during the Permian – Middle Triassic.

The entire system was not only massive (regionally extensive, a criterion of yours, above), but it had quite-complex, unifying tectonic histories and processes (another criterion of yours for a province). These basins formed largely in the late Pennsylvanian, and were certainly underway by the early Permian. Their initial formation followed the change in rotation of Pangaea, at about 300 Ma, from clockwise to anticlockwise. In eastern Australia, associated dextral/right-lateral transtension (resulting from the anticlockwise rotation) led to the formation of magmatic grabens and half-grabens. This represented the initial birth of the system. Magmatic grabens and half-grabens also formed at the same time in the Northern Hemisphere, such was the global nature of this event, with the loop in the pole path featuring in all apparent polar wander paths from the major continents.

In eastern Australia/eastern Gondwana, following a period of thermal subsidence, continuing anticlockwise rotation gave rise to dextral transpression and commencement of the Hunter-Bowen Orogeny, with its episodic compressional pulses that are marked by unconformity in the sedimentary basins (representing the uplift of half-graben infill) and which have been dated by Ar-Ar step-heating analysis in South Africa, where the orogeny is termed the Cape Orogeny. However, this deformation extended right along the Panthalassan margin of southern Gondwana. Each country has its own name for it, but overall it is embraced by the term, Samfrau Geosyncline (or Orogenic Zone) of DuToit (1937).

These compressional pulses deformed the eastern margin of Australia, forming a mountainous thrust belt which gave rise to foreland loading of the sedimentary basin system. Deformation was more pronounced in the north, where the Bowen Basin was more greatly affected by the deformation, to such an extent that Jell (2013; Geology of Queensland, GSQ book publication) actually referred the Bowen Basin to the New England Orogen (i.e., he considered the basin to be part of the orogen; not everyone may agree with this). A major compression at the end of the Middle Triassic uplifted the whole system in eastern Australia and terminated sedimentation. This termination extended further afield into the Galilee and Cooper basins.

The tectonic model for the Bowen Basin involves integration of quite-complex tectonic, structural and depositional histories. The more distal Galilee and Cooper basins, as inferred, had comparable histories, although sedimentation in the former began earlier, in its north-east, likely in the latest Mississippian, because of local foreland loading resulting from the formation of a thrust system following mid-Carboniferous Kanimblan orogenesis.

If you cannot advance another criterion or further criteria to exclude sedimentary basins from geologic provinces, then, as the basinal system described above very clearly meets your criteria for a geologic province, then you must accept the fact that sedimentary basins are indeed geologic provinces, a view, indicated above, that is shared by GA and the USGS.

Your comment: "A sedimentary basin is an individual feature characterized by processes of subsidence and sedimentation".

According to Miall (2000), there are three crustal stress environments in which sedimentary basins are created: extensional basins (in which the axis of maximum shear stress is vertical), contractional basins, and shear basins (where, for the latter two, the axis of maximum shear stress is vertical). These different basin types form in various plate-tectonic settings. Tectonism and sedimentation are intimately related (Miall, 2000), even if at least remotely (Dickson, 1975), and, in the latter case, are associated with mantle thermal processes and dynamic topography or epeirogenesis, the influence of which is now known to be of considerable regional significance, involving either thermal expansion or contraction of the crust (Mail, 2000). Downwelling convection (asthenosphere-flow) currents in regions of cold mantle (generally, if not entirely, corresponding with geoid lows) explain the connection between epeirogeny and cratonic-basin development. Ingersol & Busby (1995) listed five subsidence mechanisms that generate accommodation space for sediment, including asthenospheric-flow downwelling, and, although a number of basin classifications exist, all sedimentary basins can be related to their plate-tectonic setting. As such, sedimentary basins are tectonic entities. Even epeirogenesis causes crustal deformation (tectonic deformation), although this is not as readily as apparent as that on a convergent margin, especially in a foreland setting.

Your comment: "I don't see what the distinction is between soreag:TectonicEntity and soreag:GeologicProvince is anyway".

Yes, Stephen, I agree with you—there is no distinction!! What I did was to exclude from provinces other features that I didn’t classify as provinces.

So, here lies a potential resolution: Even though I have argued above that sedimentary basins are geologic provinces that meet your criteria for being so, let’s not refer to them as provinces, but just as sedimentary basins. This should please both you and Simon.

Sedimentary basins can be classed as tectonic entities, along with other tectonic entitiies that include geologic provinces. I suggest that we eliminate Province as a class and place all under tectonic entities.

Tectonic entities could then embrace:
lithosphere, crust (continental, oceanic) [note that the lithosphere is a tectonic entity as it is subdivided into tectonic plates, which are indisputably tectonic entities; and it will link to other ontologies (layers of Earth), as I think I have seen the inference of this made by Nick?]
tectonic plate
mid-ocean ridge
subduction zone
volcanic arc
present-day continent, ancient continent, supercontinent
craton, shield, platform, supercraton
orogen, orogenic collage
sedimentary basin,subbasin, superbasin
tectonised/metamorphosed province,
igneous (petrographic) province, large igneous province
extended crust province
etc., as other tectonic entities can be further added

Can you accept these proposals? And, can we just define the above provinces under tectonic entities?

skos:definition "A low area in the Earth’s crust, of tectonic origin, in which sediments accumulate. Sedimentary basins range in size from small continental basins to large oceanic basins. The essential element of the concept is tectonic creation of relief, to provide both a source of sediment and a relatively low place for the deposition of that sediment. (After Miall, 2000)"@en ;
skos:prefLabel "sedimentary basin"@en ;
skos:altLabel "basin"@en .


### http://sweetontology.net/realmGeolBasin/FlyschBasin
soreagb:FlyschBasin rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf soreagb:Basin ;
rdfs:subClassOf soreagb:SedimentaryBasin ;
rdfs:label "flysch basin"@en .


### http://sweetontology.net/realmGeolBasin/ForeArcBasin
soreagb:ForeArcBasin rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf soreagb:Basin ;
rdfs:subClassOf soreagb:SedimentaryBasin ;
rdfs:label "fore arc basin"@en .


### http://sweetontology.net/realmGeolBasin/ForelandBasin
soreagb:ForelandBasin rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf soreagb:Basin ;
rdfs:subClassOf soreagb:SedimentaryBasin ;
rdfs:label "foreland basin"@en .


### http://sweetontology.net/realmGeolBasin/IntraArcBasin
soreagb:IntraArcBasin rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf soreagb:Basin ;
rdfs:subClassOf soreagb:SedimentaryBasin ;
rdfs:label "intra arc basin"@en .


### http://sweetontology.net/realmGeolBasin/IntracratonicBasin
soreagb:IntracratonicBasin rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf soreagb:Basin ;
rdfs:subClassOf soreagb:SedimentaryBasin ;
rdfs:label "intracratonic basin"@en .


### http://sweetontology.net/realmGeolBasin/PeripheralForelandBasin
soreagb:PeripheralForelandBasin rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf soreagb:Basin ,
rdfs:subClassOf soreagb:SedimentaryBasin ,
[ rdf:type owl:Restriction ;
owl:onProperty sorelch:hasSubstance ;
owl:allValuesFrom somarock:Molasse
Expand All @@ -96,25 +101,49 @@ soreagb:PeripheralForelandBasin rdf:type owl:Class ;

### http://sweetontology.net/realmGeolBasin/RetroarcForelandBasin
soreagb:RetroarcForelandBasin rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf soreagb:Basin ;
rdfs:subClassOf soreagb:SedimentaryBasin ;
rdfs:label "retroarc foreland basin"@en .


### http://sweetontology.net/realmGeolBasin/Subbasin
soreagb:Subbasin rdf:type owl:Class ;
dcterms:contributor <http://linked.data.gov.au/org/gsq> ;
rdfs:subClassOf soreagb:SedimentaryBasin ;
skos:altLabel "sub-basin"@en ;
skos:definition "A sedimentary basin may be subdivided into two or more subbasins that have separate depocentres and are separated from one another by some tectonic/structural element, such as a fault or basement high. (Definition created here: Paul Blake, John McKellar)"@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.

not a definition.
suggest: a sub-basin is a sedimentary basin that is part of a larger sedimentary basin.

This restriction could(should) be added:
soreagb:Subbasin sorel:partOf soreagb:SedimentaryBasin

ScopeNote: A sedimentary basin may be subdivided into two or more subbasins that have separate depocentres and are separated from one another by some tectonic/structural element, such as a fault or basement high. (Definition created here: Paul Blake, John McKellar)

skos:prefLabel "subbasin"@en .


### http://sweetontology.net/realmGeolBasin/SuccessorBasin
soreagb:SuccessorBasin rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf soreagb:Basin ;
rdfs:subClassOf soreagb:SedimentaryBasin ;
rdfs:label "successor basin"@en .


### http://sweetontology.net/realmGeolBasin/Superbasin
soreagb:Superbasin rdf:type owl:Class ;
dcterms:contributor <http://linked.data.gov.au/org/gsq> ;
rdfs:subClassOf soreagb:SedimentaryBasin ;
skos:definition "A superbasin is a hierarchial term applied to a group of largely interconnected or associated sedimentary basins of the same or similar age. Its component basins may be separated or partially separated by tectonic elements that define 'boundaries' between them, or they may have been subjected to somewhat different geological influences. In the Australian Mesozoic, the Great Australian Superbasin, composed of the Nambour, Clarence-Moreton, Surat, Eromanga, Carpentaria and other basins, is a prime example, variously covering a geographically-extensive area in parts of Queensland, the Northern Territory, New South Wales and South Australia. (Definition created here)"@en ;
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

define the concept. Currently what it says is 'a superbasin is a term'. I don' think that's what we want.
suggest def:
A sedimentary basin that includes several interconnected sedimentary basins of the same or similar age.

question-- is being interconnected a necessary/sufficient property of parts of a superbasin. That's the implication of the proposed definition.
2. a basin hasPart subbasin; also a superbasin hasPart basin. What differentiates soreagb:SedimentaryBasin with sub-basins from a soreagb:Superbasin that includes basins?

ScopeNote-- rest of the stuff in the current definition

skos:prefLabel "superbasin"@en .

### http://sweetontology.net/realmGeolBasin/TranspressionalBasin
soreagb:TranspressionalBasin rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf soreagb:Basin ;
rdfs:subClassOf soreagb:SedimentaryBasin ;
rdfs:label "transpressional basin"@en .


### http://sweetontology.net/realmGeolBasin/Trough
soreagb:Trough rdf:type owl:Class ;
dcterms:contributor <http://linked.data.gov.au/org/gsq> ;
rdfs:subClassOf soreagb:SedimentaryBasin ;
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Trough sub-class-of SedimentaryBasin is not convincing to me. That implies that every individual Trough is also a SedimentaryBasin . 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.

Considering basin type or status, we may have the hierarchy of superbasin, basin, sub-basin or trough. However, not every basin has a higher-order superbasin—in fact, most don’t. The preeminent superbasin in Australia is the Great Australian Superbasin, which, from a hydrogeological point of view, is intimately associated with the Great Artesian Basin (but with the latter also encompassing older aquifers of underlying basinal systems).
And, not every basin has to have a sub-basin or a trough. In the context here, a trough is essentially a sub-basin. But, for example, in the continental realm, and for the principal Phanerozoic troughs of Australia, most, if not all, form parts of larger sedimentary basins. And, indeed, for the extensive, Sydney-Gunnedah-Bowen basin system of eastern Australia (and also considering the Cooper Basin and, to some extent, the Galilee Basin of central Australia), the formation of troughs at ≈300 Ma represents the initiation of basin formation and subsequent growth. These troughs represent the initial structural formation of a series of half-grabens through dextral (right-lateral) transtension as a thermally-elevated Pangaea switched from a clockwise to an anticlockwise rotation. This was thus a global event, and the formation of such troughs (largely magmatic grabens and half-grabens) not only occurred in the Southern Hemisphere (in Gondwana), but also in the Northern Hemisphere (in Laurussia/Laurasia).

The main troughs in the Bowen Basin fall in the basin, but there are a few that sit on its western margin (viz., the Katanga and Arbroath troughs), but they are regarded as part as part of the basin system, and also to form part of the ‘(latest Carboniferous –) Early Permian East Australian Rift System’. They could be considered to be small basins in their own right, but considering their overall geological and tectonic context, this would be stretching things a little too far.

In the oceanic realm, a trough is regarded as an elongate depression that is differentiated from an oceanic trench by being shallower, narrower and shorter. Unlike (subduction-zone) trenches, they form through a number of geological mechanisms, including rifting. In this realm, they form part of oceanic basins, the floor of which receives sediment of one kind or another.

So, to answer the question, troughs form parts of sedimentary basins, whether continental or oceanic, and receive sediment.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Partonymy (mereonomy) is not the same as subsumption.
I think there is a flaw here.

Copy link

@johnmckellar johnmckellar Mar 10, 2020 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hi Simon, your point is a little ambiguous!! If you have a problem with a trough being part of a sedimentary basin (and, as such, being a sedimentary basin in its own right), then you must also have a problem with a sub-basin (also a sedimentary basin in its own right) being part of a sedimentary basin. Issue is raised with the former, but perplexingly not with the latter. As an example, John & Fielding (1993; https://www.publish.csiro.au/AJ/AJ92014) refer to the Denison Trough a being a deep elongate sub-basin located along the western margin of the Bowen Basin.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That's why I would like to see a diagram. If 'Sedimentary Basin' is a specific ranking within a hierarchy, with specified smaller things having part-of relationships with specified bigger things, then sub-classing is incorrect, and a 'has-part' relationship between individuals would be required. OTOH if 'Sedimentary Basin' is a general class, with other ones being special cases, subsumption is correct. That was why my original question was framed as 'implies that every individual Trough is also a SedimentaryBasin .'

Copy link
Collaborator

@smrgeoinfo smrgeoinfo Mar 12, 2020 •
edited by dr-shorthair
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

To start, note that there are three Troughs in SWEET currently: sorepsg:Trough (geometric object), soreagb:Trough (sedimentary basin), sophfd:Trough (geometric object with low pressure).

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Basins have parts. they might be called 'sub-basins' or 'troughs'. Some basins are called troughs. If someone can propose an unambiguous, logically coherent definition to distinguish a sub-basin from trough, or a trough from a basin, Then we have some distinct concepts for the ontology. If not, perhaps its best to stick with 'Sedimentary basin' and 'sub-basin' with various skos:altLabels. ?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is a difficult one!! Most, if not all of the broadly continental troughs that I know of, are parts of basins, and are essentially subbasins. They are generally interconnected structural entities, grabens and half-grabens, that formed through extension/transtension.

But there is one that I know of where this is not the case, and it has been renamed as a syncline—but the old name still sticks. Where they have formed as faulted structures, they can be defined by their steeply dipping sides. However, I cannot be absolutely sure that all continental troughs are subbasins and not basins in their own right.
In the oceanic realm, as previously indicated, troughs form through a variety of mechanisms and can be narrow basin or geological rifts. As such, they receive sediment and form subbasins within their larger oceanic basins, also sedimentary basins.

So, considering the above, I think that the suggestion by Stephen that troughs may be either subbasins (parts of basins) or basins in their own right should prevail. Note that, apart from low-pressure, meterologic troughs, there are also glacial troughs, another name for U-shaped glacial valleys, which, of course, are also sedimentary basins (and subbasins).

Precis: Let’s use basins and subbasins, with troughs as an altLabel for both subbasins and basins, but I think glacial trough can stand alone as an altLabel for a glacial valley, under a geomorphological ontology that we need not concern ourselves with(?).

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

sounds like can be resolved with basin and subBasin

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes

skos:definition "A trough (in the continental realm) is an elongate region of the lithosphere that has undergone subsidence because of faulting along one or both of its elongate margins, permitting the accumulation of sediments and the subsequent formation of sedimentary rocks. Troughs are generally grabens or half-grabens, sometimes associated with initial magmatism, that have formed under extensional or transtensional tectonic conditions and may be part of, or associated with, the formation, and subsequent evolution, of larger sedimentary-basin/rifting systems or basin-and-range (western-North-America) type settings. (Definition created here)"@en ;
skos:prefLabel "trough"@en .


### http://sweetontology.net/realmGeolBasin/TranstensionalBasin
soreagb:TranstensionalBasin rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf soreagb:Basin ;
rdfs:subClassOf soreagb:SedimentaryBasin ;
rdfs:label "transtensional basin"@en .


Expand Down
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
56 changes: 45 additions & 11 deletions src/realmGeolOrogen.ttl
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
@prefix : <http://sweetontology.net/realmGeolOrogen/> .
@prefix biblio: <http://purl.org/net/biblio#> .
@prefix npg: <http://ns.nature.com/terms/> .
@prefix wiki: <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/> .
@prefix sdo: <https://schema.org/> .
@prefix skos: <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#> .
@prefix sophso: <http://sweetontology.net/phenSolid/> .
@prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
@prefix sopropsdir: <http://sweetontology.net/propSpaceDirection/> .
Expand All @@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
@prefix sorealt: <http://sweetontology.net/realmLandTectonic/> .
@prefix xml: <http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
@prefix sohur: <http://sweetontology.net/humanResearch/> .
@prefix soma: <http://sweetontology.net/matr/> .
@prefix sophg: <http://sweetontology.net/phenGeol/> .
@prefix sorepsg: <http://sweetontology.net/reprSpaceGeometry/> .
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -42,7 +48,7 @@
<http://sweetontology.net/relaPhysical> ,
<http://sweetontology.net/relaSpace> ,
<http://sweetontology.net/reprSpaceGeometry> ;
rdfs:label "SWEET Ontology Realm Geologic Orogen" ;
skos:prefLabel "SWEET Ontology Realm Geologic Orogen" ;
dcterms:license <https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/> ;
owl:versionInfo "3.5.0" .

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -74,28 +80,28 @@ sorelsp:hasAxis rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty .
soreagor:Arc rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf soreag:GeologicFeature ,
sorepsg:Arc ;
rdfs:label "arc"@en .
skos:prefLabel "arc"@en .


### http://sweetontology.net/realmGeolOrogen/ArcAxis
soreagor:ArcAxis rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf sopropsdir:Axis ;
rdfs:label "arc axis"@en .
skos:prefLabel "arc axis"@en .


### http://sweetontology.net/realmGeolOrogen/BackArc
soreagor:BackArc rdf:type owl:Class ;
owl:equivalentClass soreagor:RearArc ,
soreagor:RetroArc ;
rdfs:subClassOf soreagor:Arc ;
rdfs:label "back arc"@en .
skos:prefLabel "back arc"@en .


### http://sweetontology.net/realmGeolOrogen/ForeArc
soreagor:ForeArc rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf soreagor:Arc ,
sorealt:SupraSubductionZoneComplex ;
rdfs:label "fore arc"@en .
skos:prefLabel "fore arc"@en .


### http://sweetontology.net/realmGeolOrogen/MagmaticArc
Expand All @@ -113,7 +119,7 @@ soreagor:MagmaticArc rdf:type owl:Class ;
owl:onProperty sorelsp:hasAxis ;
owl:allValuesFrom soreagor:ArcAxis
] ;
rdfs:label "magmatic arc"@en .
skos:prefLabel "magmatic arc"@en .


### http://sweetontology.net/realmGeolOrogen/Orogen
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -151,23 +157,51 @@ soreagor:Orogen rdf:type owl:Class ;
owl:onProperty sorelph:hasPlanetaryStructure ;
owl:someValuesFrom sorealt:ThrustSystem
] ;
rdfs:label "orogen"@en .

dcterms:source <http://www.glossaryofgeology.org> ;
dcterms:contributor <http://linked.data.gov.au/def/gsq> ;
skos:definition "An orogen (orogenic system, orogenic zone, orogenic belt) is a region in Earth’s lithosphere where a mountain belt is created by tectonic processes involving deformation, regional metamorphism, and associated magmatism, usually caused by convergence (± accretion and/or collision) between two tectonic plates or major crustal blocks. (Alt obsolete term: geosyncline). (Modified from Neuendorf et al., 2011; Hoy, pers. comm.)"@en ;
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

An orogen is a part of the Earth’s crust deformed by tectonic processes involving large-scale faulting, regional metamorphism, and associated magmatism, producing significant vertical displacements of rock bodies.

ScopeNote: usually caused by convergence (± accretion and/or collision) between two tectonic plates or major crustal block

skos:prefLabel "orogen"@en .

### http://sweetontology.net/realmGeolOrogen/OrogenicCollage
soreagor:OrogenicCollage rdf:type owl:Class ;
dcterms:source <http://www.glossaryofgeology.org> ;
dcterms:source <https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-earth-082517-010146> ;
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 OrogenicCollage 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.

Again, a good question and the answer is similar to that posed for supercratons: An orogenic collage consists of a number of orogens (more than one) of different age, e.g., the Tasmanides of eastern Australia. Some may consider the Tasmanides (Tasman Orogenic Zone) to represent a single orogen, but most workers regard the Tasmanides as embracing three separate orogens ranging in age from Neoproterozoic to late Middle Triassic (if not to the Norian, i.e., middle Late Triassic—taking into account what the South Africans consider for their Cape Orogeny, and disregarding early Late Triassic dextral transtension in eastern Australia).

So, an orogenic collage consists of the number of provinces that constitute it. Again, over to Nick on how to deal with this.

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.

The problem is with the proposed definition of 'Geologic Province'-- it is extensional, i.e. list of things that are Provinces: "cratons/shields (in the continental realm), orogens, sedimentary basins, and tectonised/ metamorphosed and/ or mineralised regions, as well as large igneous provinces" I think there needs to be an intentional definition-- i.e. what are the properties of a part of the Earth that make it a 'Geologic Province'?

My proposal would be something like:
A geologic province is a part of the Earth defined by a shared geologic history.

ScopeNote:
A given part of the Earth might be included in various geologic provinces based on different temporal intervals in its history. For example, western Arizona is part of the North American Craton province in the Early to Middle Paleozoic; it is part of the SW North America Megashear province during the middle Mesozoic; it is part of the SW North America transpressional linkage province in the Late Cretaceous; it is part of the low-angle subduction hanging wall province in the Early Tertiary; it is part of the crustal extension province in the Oligocene and Miocene, and part of the Eastern California Shear zone province in the Late Miocene and Pliocene.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

OK with me & fits USGS & GA, especially the former in their definition!!

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

sounds like this can be resolved?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yes

skos:definition "A patchwork-map pattern of accreted terranes, embracing a geotectonic assemblage of crustal blocks separated by major faults (Neuendorf et al., 2011). In eastern Australia, such a collage is represented by the Tasmanides, which is part of the larger-scale Terra Australis Orogen that developed along the southern Panthalassan (Paleo-Pacific) margin of Gondwana, and which comprises multiple metamorphic belts, fold-thrust belts, igneous provinces, and sedimentary basins that have been attributed to five Cambrian to Triassic subduction-related orogens: the Delamerian, Thomson, Lachlan, Mossman, and New England Orogens (Rosenbaum, 2018)"@en ;
skos:prefLabel "orogenic collage"@en ;
.

<https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-earth-082517-010146>
a sohur:Publication ;
rdf:type owl:NamedIndividual ;
npg:hasJournal [
a npg:Journal ;
npg:pages "291-325" ;
npg:volume "46" ;
sdo:name "Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences" ;
] ;
dcterms:creator "Gideon Rosenbaum" ;
dcterms:date "2018"^^xsd:gYear ;
dcterms:publisher "Annual Reviews" ;
dcterms:title "The Tasmanides: Phanerozoic Tectonic Evolution of Eastern Australia" ;
dcterms:type biblio:Article ;
dcterms:type wiki:Q191067 ;
.

### http://sweetontology.net/realmGeolOrogen/RearArc
soreagor:RearArc rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:label "rear arc"@en .
skos:prefLabel "rear arc"@en .


### http://sweetontology.net/realmGeolOrogen/RemnantArc
soreagor:RemnantArc rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:subClassOf soreagor:Arc ;
rdfs:label "remnant arc"@en .
skos:prefLabel "remnant arc"@en .


### http://sweetontology.net/realmGeolOrogen/RetroArc
soreagor:RetroArc rdf:type owl:Class ;
rdfs:label "retro arc"@en .
skos:prefLabel "retro arc"@en .


### http://sweetontology.net/realmLandTectonic/SupraSubductionZoneComplex
Expand Down
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