Talk:Q59159827
Autodescription — U.S. Geologic Names Lexicon (Q59159827)
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “U.S. Geologic Names Lexicon” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
Create an ID
[edit]@Pintoch:
Notified participants of WikiProject Geology @PKM: Request your advance on a proposal to create an ID for the U.S. Geologic Names Lexicon, found at [1]. I think this database, if used as an ID, would unify the data of named lithostratigraphic items and the associated maps and other publications. I'm outside my expertise in suggesting this effort, so please advise where I can learn so I proceed appropriately. Thank you. -Trilotat (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Trilotat: I do not know this domain either. Could you maybe submit a property proposal to discuss it? Let me know if anything is unclear there. − Pintoch (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Pintoch: Oui. Merci! -Trilotat (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Trilotat: Looks like a good idea to me! - PKM (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- Also - we might want to add a property for AAPG Geologic Province as well. Do you need help with the property requests? It doesn't look like you've done one before. - PKM (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- @PKM: Yes, please. I’d welcome advice or directions. Also, I agree about addition of province property, but I’m not that wikidata clever yet. -Trilotat (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- Also - we might want to add a property for AAPG Geologic Province as well. Do you need help with the property requests? It doesn't look like you've done one before. - PKM (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@Pintoch, Trilotat: I have created AAPG geologic province (Q59196286) as a subclass of "geologic province". I think our first step with these would be to create items for the AAPG provinces, using Geolex as the "stated in" reference. We may not need a separate property for "located in geologic province" if "located on terrain feature" will work - is a province technically a terrain feature?
Also, can either of you advise as to whether existing Los Angeles Basin (Q2887490) should be <instance of> "AAPG geologic province", or whether the stratigraphic basin and the province should be separate items with some sort of link? I don't know if the shape data would be exactly the same. (We've exceeded my expertise on this topic.) - PKM (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know but I don't think a province technically a terrain feature. Los Angeles Basin (Q2887490) should be <instance of> "AAPG geologic province" I would say, no. I think similar, but not necessarily the same. One is also California Geological Survey, which has subdivided CA into more regions than USGS has. I'd link them but not say they are the same. Note, I claim no expertise here... Just a strong interest. -Trilotat (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- That sounds right to me. We can also use “part of” to tie geomorphological units to their AAPG provinces. - PKM (talk) 02:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)