Access to geoscience data via the web is made easier for clients if all servers provide a common interface. The OGC?s Web Feature Service (WFS) defines a standard http-based service description and request syntax, using GML for the data encoding. A GML application schema for the feature-types, such as XMML, completes the definition of the service interface. This service configuration was trialled in a testbed involving government geological survey organisations serving geochemistry data from three adjacent jurisdictions in Australia. The three organisations had quite different data-store software and storage schemas. The testbed focussed on 1. the design of feature-types for specimens and measurements to support a realistic mineral exploration scenario 2. the request syntax, in particular restricting the query-model to limit the load on the server while satisfying the use-case 3. configuration of the server-layer, to translate the result-set from the private model to the GML application language representation 4. deployment of multiple applications that connect to the services and provided a merged view of the results, in map, tabular and report form. Modifications to the open-source Geoserver and Geotools software (used in all three service instances) required to accomplish the testbed have been contributed to the Geoserver codebase. Several limitations in the WFS specification were identified, and are now subject of change-requests to through the OGC specification maintenance process. Significant technology skills were transferred into the participating organisations as a result of the testbed. Several additional jurisdictions have indicated an intention to join the geochemistry testbed, and a follow-on testbed involving lease-areas (i.e. complex non-point-located data) is underway. The testbed has clearly demonstrated the value of common feature types on the public interface, creating a marketplace for information sharing through commodification of the data-product.

In establishing lithostratigraphic units, Australian geologists have been encouraged to follow the International Stratigraphic Guide since 1978. This Guide gives limited, and sometimes conflicting, advice when you try to apply it to the naming of igneous units in particular. The Guide strongly discourages the use of form terms like dyke, pluton or batholith, and adjectives used as nouns, such as volcanics, intrusives and extrusives. It deems the use of 'suite' to be inadvisable, having quite different meanings in different countries. The use of qualifiers such as plutonic, igneous, intrusive, extrusive should be minimised, except for clarifying the nature of a complex. Australia has chosen to make some exceptions to the Guide. We do use suites and supersuites, but only for grouping igneous units, unlike the lithodemic units of the North American Code. We also use volcanics, and volcanic groups, generally for mixed, or bimodal volcanics. We have resisted using intrusives, preferring 'igneous complex' instead. We have also resisted 'dyke swarm' in favour of simple lithological names such as Alcurra Dolerite, but existing, long-standing names such as Widgiemooltha Dyke Suite, make it hard to explain current guidelines to some geologists. Australia's interpretation of the Guide means that 'complex' is used in various ways, at various ranks, and for a very wide variety of sedimentary, metamorphic and igneous units. We are exploring the need to broaden the naming options for igneous units.

During the last three years much work has been done on laterites in Northern Australia by geologists of the Bureau and in particular those attached to the North Australian Regional Survey. The co-operation of soils officers and geologists in this survey has led to a better understanding of the significance of laterites and of the zones within the profiles. Since several parties from the Bureau are now working in Northern Australia it seemed opportune to discuss the nomenclature of laterites and to suggest terms and definitions so that laterites can be described and mapped in the same way by the several field parties. With this object in view geologists from the Bureau and officers from the North Australian Regional Survey discussed the matter and the following terminology and definitions are circulated now for criticism within the Bureau.

The University of Geosciences in Wuhan is developing the computer systems to help the provincial surveys re-map the geology of China at 1:250 000 and 50 000 scales in just 12 years. With a land area 25% larger than Australia's, China has about 15 000 1:50 000 map sheets! The maps are really just by-products, though, as the ultimate goal is to build a computer database of the geology and mineral resources of the whole of China. LIU Songfa and I went to Wuhan in late 1999 to talk to Professor WU and his colleagues about techniques of field-data acquisition and geoscience database design.

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.

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.

Launched in 2003, the Geoscience Australia National Petroleum Wells Database web site http://www.ga.gov.au/oracle/apcrc has proven an extremely useful tool for petroleum explorers wishing to access scientific and well header data for Australian petroleum exploration wells. This web site provides access to comprehensive databases representing over 100 person years of data entry by geologists, geochemists, biostratigraphers and technical staff. The databases contain information that includes well header data, biostratigraphic picks, reservoir and facies data (porosities, permeabilities, hydrocarbon shows and depositional environments), organic geochemistry data (Rock-Eval pyrolysis, molecular and isotopic analyses), and organic petrological data (vitrinite reflectance, maceral analyses). A major revision of the web site will be released at APPEA 2006. The revised web site has many improved features in response to industry and government client needs. These features include: 1 Easy retrieval of Acreage Release data, 2 An improved map for spatial searching and display of data, 3 Ability to retrieve age restricted and isopach data for many data types in the database, 4 Query and produce multiple summary reports (including graphs) for wells, 5 Generation of multiple oil and gas reports for wells, 6 Links to scanned documentation, and 7 Improved graphical displays of data.

This documentation manual for the Mount Isa dataset provides description of AGSOs mineral deposit database (OZMIN) - it's structure, the main data and authority tables used by OZMIN, database table definitions, details on the Microsoft Access version of the database and a listing of those deposits in the Mount Isa dataset

The `AGSO Catalog' is a directory or metadatabase* of AGSO's outputs that includes products, publications, datasets and resources. Built using AGSO's corporate Oracle database management system, the Catalog evolved from an earlier `Products Database' that provided a web query and ordering system for all products sold by AGSO's Sales Centre. This function continues, with web interfaces to all products in the Catalog. However, the Catalog also covers external articles, papers and other publications by AGSO staff, datasets that may be either sold or given away, and corporate resources, such as maps, images and GIS datasets, many of which were purchased from outside the organisation. AGSO's web site now includes a Catalog interface for articles and other publications by AGSO staff. The Catalog is designed to capture metadata* at the source ? the author, project manager, research group leader or AGSO Division. Any staff member with an Oracle logon can initiate a new entry in the Catalog via Oracle data entry forms on AGSO?s intranet. The Catalog also facilitates business processes associated with the production of datasets, publications, etc. Various checks and `sign-offs? have been included for quality assurance and to prevent unchecked metadata from appearing on AGSO?s external web site. More business rules will be added as the need arises.

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.