“…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 .…”