Review of EFG esp wrt to Mineralogy, Rock and Meteorite collections

[rwalcott20]

As head curator of the National Museum of Scotlands mineral, rock, meteorite and gem collections I have reviewed the EFG schema to see how well it represents Mineralogy, Rock and Meteorite collections

Summary: The schema, as it stands, is complex but clearly very strongly focussed on sediment collections. Thus the schema supports schemas for paleo-biological collections and the rest of the ABCD schema. This is good but unfortunately to represent EFG properly more schema support is needed for chemistry based collections such as meteorites, minerals, ores, volcanic, metamorphic and other rock collections.

Major issues (1) there are an awful lot of stratigraphy references in many different places. The organisation could do with tightening up. (2) Meteorite category (3) Chemistry needs to be added
Suggestions
(1) Add atop level complex-type ‘MeteoriticUnitType’ to include impacta (terrestrial) and meteorite (exterrestrial) categories, formal names, classification types, source (asteroid, mars), date (tt/dd/mm/yyyy – if not in ABCD), datetype (fall or find), structures such as chondrules, breccia, growth (Widmanstatten or metamorphic textures
(2) A MineralUnitType. ‘CrystalMeasurements’ Don’t mix chemical and physical characteristics they are very different. Need, IdealisedChemicalFormula, IdealisedChemicalFormulaType (IMA or other) and AnalysedChemicalFormula, morphology (botryoidal/acicular/terminated etc) characteristics could be included. . There are a number of references of analysis which is useful but no discrete place for chemistry. This is different to an analysis which just gives percentages of different chemical elements.
(3) AllocthonousMaterialType – as it stands this set that really only applies to sedimentology. Recommend moving the stratigraphy references to other complex-types etc (e.g. stratigraphyAttributionsType, or StratigraphySectionType). xenoliths (igneous rocks), chondrules (if not above)
(4) ProtolithUnitType – something for what a mineral or rock before it was altered/removed/replaced. Eg. The mineral that was later replaced by a pseudomorph or epimorph or the original rock before metamorphism.
(5) ErosiveFeature needed. (E.g. for dreikanter, fluvially eroded rocks, chatter marks, glacial scours)

Other notes
RockUnitType ;’ Petrology’ ; Recommend rename to ‘Petrography’ since that is what it says in the description Container for petrographic descriptions related to a rock or mineral unit

RockUnitType ;’ PetrologicalAnalyses ; correct the spelling of 'more' in the associated documentation.

RockUnitType ;’ PetrologicalAnalysisAtomised’ Recommend analysis to be put in an analysis section not under rockunittypes which is a descriptive set of terms for the most part.

RockUnitType ;’ PerologicalAnalysisComment’ perological is not a word, change to petrographicAnalysisComment and put in an Analysis section

RockUnitType ;’ PetrographicRockUnitType ‘Mylomite’ – spelling mistake, should be ‘mylonite’

RockUnitType; general point re. DepositionalEnvironmentType enumeration values. These values are a bit of mess and only related to sedimentology. Volcanic deposits are not accounted for. In some cases they are exceptionally detailed (e.g. ‘coarse channel fill’, ‘interdune’) and very broad in others (‘terrestrial ‘ , aeolian – although the ‘eolian’ spelling is used). There is reference to chemical composition ‘carbonate’ but none for the most common ‘quartzofeldspathic’.

AssociatedRock needed for rock suites (e.g. set of rocks that are part of a metamorphic aureole, or fractionated igneous complex, or a gradational fault rock suite, or even historical collection possibly).

I couldn’t find anywhere for specimen type. E.g. polished slab, oil, thin section, powder etc but maybe I missed it.

[rwalcott20]

The same as above with fewer typos and should be clearer to read:

As head curator of the National Museum of Scotlands mineral, rock, meteorite and gem collections I have reviewed the EFG schema to see how well it represents Mineralogy, Rock and Meteorite collections

Summary: The schema, as it stands, is complex but clearly very strongly focussed on sediment collections. Thus the schema supports schemas for paleo-biological collections and the rest of the ABCD schema. This is good but unfortunately to represent EFG properly more schema support is needed for chemistry based collections such as meteorites, minerals, ores, volcanic, metamorphic and other rock collections.

Major issues (1) there are an awful lot of stratigraphy references in many different places. The organisation could do with tightening up. (2) Meteorite category (3) Chemistry needs to be added

Suggestions:
(1) Add a top level complex-type ‘MeteoriticUnitType’ . This set should include impacta (terrestrial) and meteorite (exterrestrial) categories, formal names, classification types, source (asteroid, mars), date (tt/dd/mm/yyyy – if not in ABCD), datetype (fall or find), structures such as chondrules, breccia, growth (Widmanstatten or metamorphic textures
(2) A MineralUnitType. ‘CrystalMeasurements’ Don’t mix chemical and physical characteristics they are very different. Need, 'IdealisedChemicalFormula', 'IdealisedChemicalFormulaType' (e.g. IMA or other) and 'AnalysedChemicalFormula', 'morphology' (botryoidal/acicular/terminated etc) characteristics could be included. . There are a number of categories for analysis which is useful but no discrete place for chemistry. This is different to an analysis which could refer to crystal structure, fluorescence, spectra etc.
(3) AllocthonousMaterialType – as it stands this type that really only applies to sediments. Recommend moving the stratigraphy references to other complex-types etc (e.g. stratigraphyAttributionsType, or StratigraphySectionType). Provide categories for xenoliths (igneous rocks), chondrules (if not in a new MeteoriteUnit)
(4) ProtolithUnitType – a category specifically for the original mineral or rock before it was altered/removed/replaced. Eg. The mineral that was later replaced by a pseudomorph/epimorph or the original rock before metamorphism.
(5) 'ErosiveFeature' needed. (E.g. for dreikanter, fluvially eroded rocks, chatter marks, glacial scours)

Other notes
RockUnitType ;’ Petrology’ ; Recommend rename to ‘Petrography’ since that is what it says in the description. "Container for petrographic descriptions related to a rock or mineral unit"

RockUnitType ;’ PetrologicalAnalyses ; correct the spelling of 'more' in the associated documentation.

RockUnitType ;’ PetrologicalAnalysisAtomised’ Recommend analysis to be put in an analysis section not under rockunittypes which is a descriptive set of terms for the most part.

RockUnitType ;’ PerologicalAnalysisComment’ perological is not a word, change to petrographicAnalysisComment and put in an Analysis section

RockUnitType ;’ PetrographicRockUnitType ‘Mylomite’ – spelling mistake, should be ‘mylonite’

RockUnitType; general point re. DepositionalEnvironmentType enumeration values. These values are a bit of mess and only related to sedimentology. Volcanic deposits are not accounted for. In some cases they are exceptionally detailed (e.g. ‘coarse channel fill’, ‘interdune’) and very broad in others (‘terrestrial ‘ , aeolian – although the ‘eolian’ spelling is used). There is reference to chemical composition ‘carbonate’ but none for the most common ‘quartzofeldspathic’.

AssociatedRock needed for rock suites (e.g. set of rocks that are part of a metamorphic aureole, or fractionated igneous complex, or a gradational fault rock suite, or even historical collection possibly).

I couldn’t find anywhere for specimen type. E.g. polished slab, oil, thin section, powder etc but maybe I missed it.