Scientific data are being generated at an ever increasing rate. Existing volumes of data can no longer be effectively processed by humans, and efficient and timely processing by computers requires development of standardised machine readable formats and interfaces. Although there is also a growing need to share data, information and services across multiple disciplines, many standards currently being developed tend to be discipline specific. To enable cross-disciplinary research a more modular approach to standards development is required so that common components (e.g., location, units of measure, geometric shape, instrument type, etc) can be identified and standardised across all disciplines. Already international standards bodies such as ISO and OGC (Open Geospatial Consortium) are well advanced in developing technical standards that are applicable for interchange of some of these common components such as GML (Geography Markup Language), Observations and Measurements Encoding Standard, SensorML, Spatial Coordinate Systems, Metadata Standards, etc. However the path for developing the remaining discipline specific and discipline independent standards is less coordinated. There is a clear lack of infrastructure and governance not only for the development of the required standards but also for storage, maintenance and extension of these standards over time. There is also no formal mechanism to harmonise decisions made by the various scientific disciplines to avoid unwanted overlap. The National Committee for Data in Science (NCDS) was established in 2008 by the Australian Academy of Science to provide an interdisciplinary focus for scientifc data management. In 2008 an informal request from the NCDS was put to the international Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA) to consider taking on a new coordination role on issues related to the development and governance of standards required for the discovery of, and access to digital scientific data.

Discusses reasons to use the Australian Stratigraphic Units Database (ASUD), and new features of the web query page and reports

Part-page item of matters related to stratigraphy. This column discusses informal units, the role of authors and reviewers, and is the 50th Stratigraphic Column produced by the Australian Stratigraphy Commission. Journal ISSN 0312 4711

No abstract available

single page item on stratigraphy issues relevant to Australian geologists. This column discusses international discussions on the global stratotype section and point (GSSP) concept, new developments in stratigrphic classification and upcoming opportunities to showcase Australian examples in 2012. Journal ISSN 0312 4711

part page item. This article discusses the International Stratigraphic Guidelines and Australian practices relating to stratigraphic unit names, when there is a change to the name of the geographic feature that the unit is named after. Australian examples demonstrate both the advice of the Stratigraphic Guidelines not to change the unit name, and a particular case where it was more appropriate to change the unit name for local reasons.

GSA Abstracts

This extended abstract describes the 1:1 million scale Surface Geology of Northern Territory digital dataset and advances in digital data delivery via WMS/WFS services and the GeoSciML geological data model.

The quality and type of elevation data used in tsunami inundation models can lead to large variations in the estimated inundation extent and tsunami flow depths and speeds. In order to give confidence to those who use inundation maps, such as emergency managers and spatial planners, standards and guidelines need to be developed and adhered to. However, at present there are no guidelines for the use of different elevation data types in inundation modelling. One reason for this is that there are many types of elevation data that differ in vertical accuracy, spatial resolution, availability and expense; however the differences in output from inundation models using different elevation data types in different environments are largely unknown. This study involved simulating tsunami inundation scenarios for three sites in Indonesia, of which the results for one of these, Padang, is reported here. Models were simulated using several different remotely-sensed elevation data types, including LiDAR, IFSAR, ASTER and SRTM. Model outputs were compared for each data type, including inundation extent, maximum inundation depth and maximum flow speed, as well as computational run-times. While in some cases, inundation extents do not differ greatly, maximum depths can vary substantially, which can lead to vastly different estimates of impact and loss. The results of this study will be critical in informing tsunami scientists and emergency managers of the acceptable resolution and accuracy of elevation data for inundation modelling and subsequently, the development of elevation data standards for inundation modelling in Indonesia.

As interpretations of sequence stratigraphy are published in increasing numbers in the petroleum exploration literature, the potential for confusion also increases because there are no rules for the classification or naming of the identified sequences. At present it is difficult to apply databases and geographic information systems to sequence stratigraphy, particularly when organisations with different outlooks and approaches attempt to collaborate and merge their databases. Despite sequence stratigraphic concepts having been in the literature for over two decades, no scheme for standardisation has achieved consensus in the geoscientific community, either within Australia or internationally. Three areas in particular need to be agreed on: (1) how sequence units should be defined; (2) the hierarchy of those units, and on what basis; and (3) a standard scheme for naming units. The two basic ways of subdividing a succession into sequence units, the Vail-Exxon and Galloway methods, both rely on the enclosing boundaries being defined first. Various hierarchies of units have been proposed, in which there is often a clear desire to link the scale of sequence units to phases of geological evolution or stratal boundaries of different orders. In addition, most workers use informal names, but formal names are becoming more common. Consequently, it is essential that workable national guidelines be developed to ensure that communication and computer compatibility are not impeded.