Legacy product - no abstract available

Geoscience data standards as a field of research may come as a surprise to many geoscientists, who probably think of it as a dull peripheral issue, of little relevance to their domain. However, the subject is gaining rapidly in importance as the information revolution begins to take hold, as ultimately billions of dollars worth of information are at stake. In this article we take a look at what has happened recently in this field, where we think it is heading, and AGSO's role in national geoscience standards.

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.

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

The Australian Stratigraphic Units Database (ASUD) is the lexicon of Australian stratigraphy, maintained by Geoscience Australia on behalf of the Australian Stratigraphy Commission (ASC). Initiated in 1949 as the Australian Central Register of Stratigraphic Names, the ASUD became a digital database in 1979, and is now accessible through the Geoscience Australia website (http://www.ga.gov.au/products-services/data-applications/reference-databases/stratigraphic-units.html) with search capabilities on attributes such as name, rank, age, state, and geological province. The ASC includes representatives from all Australian states and territories (generally government geologists) who work together to maintain the consistency, accuracy and currency of information in the database. This includes resolving stratigraphic differences across political borders and between researchers to maintain it as a truly authoritative national resource. The database is continually updated with information collated from all publications that describe Australian stratigraphic units, including journal articles and Geological Survey maps and publications. Where possible, data quality within the ASUD is enforced by codelists (eg, rank, lithology, age, age determination method, relationship types). Information includes unit definitions, currency, rank, location, age, lithologies, composition, and environment of formation. It also includes relationships with other units (eg, overlying, intruding, correlated units), hierarchy (constituent and parent units), previous names, related geological provinces (eg, basin, craton), and links to all publications that reference a stratigraphic unit. The ASUD is a central cog in Australia's national digital geological datasets. It is the repository of all unit descriptions in the national digital geological map datasets, and is linked to the national mineral deposits, geological provinces, and geological samples databases.

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.

Geoscience Australia is supporting the exploration and development of offshore oil and gas resources and establishment of Australia's national representative system of marine protected areas through provision of spatial information about the physical and biological character of the seabed. Central to this approach is prediction of Australia's seabed biodiversity from spatially continuous data of physical seabed properties. However, information for these properties is usually collected at sparsely-distributed discrete locations, particularly in the deep ocean. Thus, methods for generating spatially continuous information from point samples become essential tools. Such methods are, however, often data- or even variable- specific and it is difficult to select an appropriate method for any given dataset. Improving the accuracy of these physical data for biodiversity prediction, by searching for the most robust spatial interpolation methods to predict physical seabed properties, is essential to better inform resource management practises. In this regard, we conducted a simulation experiment to compare the performance of statistical and mathematical methods for spatial interpolation using samples of seabed mud content across the Australian margin. Five factors that affect the accuracy of spatial interpolation were considered: 1) region; 2) statistical method; 3) sample density; 4) searching neighbourhood; and 5) sample stratification by geomorphic provinces. Bathymetry, distance-to-coast and slope were used as secondary variables. In this study, we only report the results of the comparison of 14 methods (37 sub-methods) using samples of seabed mud content with five levels of sample density across the southwest Australian margin. The results of the simulation experiment can be applied to spatial data modelling of various physical parameters in different disciplines and have application to a variety of resource management applications for Australia's marine region.

NOTE: removed on request: 25 May 2016 by Sundaram Baskaran GWATER is a corporate database designed to accommodate a number of existing project groundwater and surface water data sets in AGSO. One of the aims in developing the database as a corporate repository is to enable sharing between AGSO projects allowing re-use of data sets derived from various sources such as the State and Territory water authorities. The database would also facilitate an easier exchange of data between AGSO and these authorities. This document presents an overview of the current structure of the database, and describes the present data entry and retrieval forms in some detail. Definitions of all tables and data fields contained within them are listed in an appendix. The database structure will not remain static. Future developments, such as the integration of data directly out of the database into geographic information systems, are expected to lead to modifications in the database structure with possible addition of new tables or fields. Use of GWATER by a range of project areas will undoubtedly lead to different needs in accessing the data, resulting in the request for further development of the data access tools.

This was the fifth in the series of successful Forums on geoscience information management that have been held in Canberra since 1993. With the growing use of the Internet for access and delivery of data and services, it was timely to address issues relating to the provision of geoscience online. 2001 will see the implementation of the Federal Government's online policy. AGSO along with state geological agencies will present their online data delivery initiatives. The Forum included a range of speakers dealing with the online delivery of spatial geoscience data, from geoscience-related vendors through to the latest developers in web technology. The geoscience sector is on the cusp of taking full advantage of the potential of online delivery. Over the past 5 years most government agencies have been improving their data management practices and cleaning up their datasets, leading to a situation where the "backend" is in good shape. Some have begun to implement online delivery and eCommerce systems (GIS, image processing and database access) but uptake is uneven across the sector and such systems generally only deliver the lower volume, less commercially sensitive datasets. In the private sector we have begun to see the emergence of commercial data management consultants who are providing web based access to their clients, and, within the larger companies, some sophisticated intrAnet solutions have been put in place. A small number of players are looking at providing online value-added services for clients like share market investors (mining/petroleum shares). This Forum provided the opportunity to find out the latest trends and developments in the exciting and growing area of internet and web technologies for the delivery of online information.

The important role of information management in improving baseline data for natural hazards has been demonstrated through a collaborative pilot project between Geoscience Australia, Mineral Resources Tasmania and the University of Wollongong. The result is a 'virtual' landslide database that makes full use of diverse data across three levels of government and has enabled landslide data to be collated and accessed from a single source. Such a system establishes the foundation for a very powerful and coordinated information resource in Australia and provides a suitable basis for greater investment in data collection. This paper highlights the capacity to extend the methodology across all hazards and describes one solution in facilitating a sound knowledge base on natural disasters and disaster risk reduction.