1996
DOI: 10.1016/0098-3004(95)00128-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The design and implementation of a spatial database for the production of geological maps

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

1999
1999
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These are documented to varying degrees. Workers from the British Geological Survey (BGS) have published a series of papers on geologic map database models, data dictionaries, and standardization of mapping practices (Laxton and Becken, 1996;Allen, 1997). The paper by outlines the framework of the data model used by BGS using entity-relationship diagrams, but does not give detailed definitions of the entities used.…”
Section: Geoscience Data Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These are documented to varying degrees. Workers from the British Geological Survey (BGS) have published a series of papers on geologic map database models, data dictionaries, and standardization of mapping practices (Laxton and Becken, 1996;Allen, 1997). The paper by outlines the framework of the data model used by BGS using entity-relationship diagrams, but does not give detailed definitions of the entities used.…”
Section: Geoscience Data Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A relational database can be the basis of several studies: to investigate the geological hazard [3], to produce geological maps [4], and to investigate the hydrological processes [5]. All these are only a small part of the applications of a database.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Certain approaches have provided wide scope analyses, which have sketched the scenarios of the infrastructure, such as business models, the assessment of the needs, the formal specification of the requirements (Buller, 2005;Brodaric and Gahegan, 2006;Raskin, 2006Loudon, 2011). Other approaches have provided some concrete implementations, from the early database schemata (Laxton and Becken, 1996) to the tools for the collection of field data (Dey and Ghosh, 2008) and the definition of standard vocabularies for the harmonization of terminology (Raymond et al, 2016). Many of these initiatives have promoted the usage of ontologies as the major tool for the maintenance of the knowledge assets within the geoscience community or the survey organizations (Howard et al, 2009) or for addressing the issue of data heterogeneity (Abel et al, 2015 ) and have developed ontologies for limited domains, such as, e.g., field activities (Brodaric, 2004;Hwang, 2012;Boyd, 2016), geochronological periods (Ma et al, 2011), lithological materials (Richard, 2006;Sinha et al, 2006;CGI SimpleLithology ), algorithmic interpretation of 4 sedimentary facies for the individuation of geologic processes .…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%