The representation of geoscience information for data integration

In mineral exploration, resource assessment, or natural hazard assessment, many layers of geoscience maps such as lithology, structure, geophysics, geochemistry, hydrology, slope stability, mineral deposits, and preprocessed remotely sensed data can be used as evidence to delineate potential areas for further investigation. Today's PC-based data base management systems, statistical packages, spreadsheets, image processing systems, and geographical information systems provide almost unlimited capabilities of manipulating data. Generally such manipulations make a strategic separation of spatial and nonspatial attributes, which are conveniently linked in relational data bases. The first step in integration procedures usually consists of studying the individual charateristics of map features and interrelationships, and then representing them in numerical form (statistics) for finding the areas of high potential (or impact).Data representation is a transformation of our experience of the real world into a computational domain. As such, it must comply with models and rules to provide us with useful information. Quantitative representation of spatially distributed map patterns or phenomena plays a pivotal role in integration because it also determines the types of combination rules applied to them.Three representation methods—probability measures, Dempster-Shafer belief functions, and membership functions in fuzzy sets—and their corresponding estimation procedures are presented here with analyses of the implications and of the assumptions that are required in each approach to thematic mapping. Difficulties associated with the construction of probability measures, belief functions, and membership functions are also discussed; alternative procedures to overcome these difficulties are proposed. These proposed techniques are illustrated by using a simple, artificially constructed data set.

[1]  Edward H. Shortliffe,et al.  A model of inexact reasoning in medicine , 1990 .

[2]  Karen L. McGraw,et al.  Knowledge Acquisition: Principles and Guidelines , 1989 .

[3]  Richard Bellman,et al.  Decision-making in fuzzy environment , 2012 .

[4]  David J. Varnes,et al.  The logic of geological maps, with reference to their interpretation and use for engineering purposes , 1974 .

[5]  S. Aronoff Geographic Information Systems: A Management Perspective , 1989 .

[6]  David Heckerman,et al.  Probabilistic Interpretation for MYCIN's Certainty Factors , 1990, UAI.

[7]  Wooil M. Moon,et al.  Combination Rules of Spatial Geoscience Data for Mineral Exploration , 1991 .

[8]  R. Bellman,et al.  Abstraction and pattern classification , 1996 .

[9]  Chang-Jo F. Chung,et al.  SIMSAG: Integrated computer system for use in evaluation of mineral and energy resources , 1983 .

[10]  C. Chung,et al.  Computer program for the logistic model to estimate the probability of occurrence of discrete events , 1978 .

[11]  L. Zadeh Probability measures of Fuzzy events , 1968 .

[12]  F. Agterberg,et al.  Regression models for estimating mineral resources from geological map data , 1980 .

[13]  Glenn Shafer,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Evidence , 2020, A Mathematical Theory of Evidence.

[14]  Peter Walley,et al.  Belief Function Representations of Statistical Evidence , 1987 .

[15]  Solomon S. Katz Emulating the Prospector Expert System with a raster GIS , 1991 .

[16]  F P Agterberg,et al.  Geomathematical evaluation of copper and zinc potential of the Abitibi area, Ontario and Quebec , 1972 .

[17]  Wooil M. Moon,et al.  Representation and Integration of Geological, Geophysical and Remote Sensing Data , 1991 .