Earth Science Informatics

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 677–695 | Cite as

Organization of a geophysical information space by using an event-bush-based collaborative tool

  • Paolo Diviacco
  • Cyril Pshenichny
  • Roberto Carniel
  • Zinaida Khrabrykh
  • Victoria Shterkhun
  • Dmitry Mouromtsev
  • Silvina Guzmán
  • Paolo Pascolo
Methodology Article


Development of knowledge engineering makes it possible to bring an information space relating to an entire domain of knowledge within the field of geoscience into a strict form, which is both computer-tractable and convenient for collaborative research work. Nevertheless, there are issues that seriously hamper this process – the problem of defining key terms, which is often not shared by the colleagueship, and interrelation of concepts developed by different schools within the colleagueship focused on different aspects of this domain. Another issue is the export of results to a wider community unfamiliar with the specificity of local studies. All these issues can be successfully addressed by a novel technique of knowledge engineering, the event bush, brought into the COLLA environment for geoscientific collaborative studies. This paper demonstrates how the said issues can be resolved by the example of one of the most important information domains in the field of seismology, the site effects. Text, graphics, tabular data and a physical model coming from different sources and different contexts are united in one context keeping all the specificity of original understanding and allowing the researchers keep on following their own context and terminology.


Collaborative tool Geophysics Knowledge engineering COLLA Event bush Site effect Model 



The research was carried out in the framework of the Marie Curie Action: “International Research Staff Exchange Scheme” (FP7-PEOPLE-IRSES-2008) CROss-DIsciplinary knowledge transfer for improved Natural hazard ASsessment (CRODINAS) (2009–2011), EC Framework Programme 7, grant no. 230826. RC also acknowledges partial funding from the Italian PRIN project 2007PTRC4C_002 “Validazione di tecniche semplificate per la stima della amplificazione sismica di sito”. Authors express their deep gratitude to Adam Leadbetter for constructive and friendly discussion.


  1. Aspinall W, and Cooke RM (1998) Expert judgement and the Montserrat Volcano eruption. In: Mosleh, A. and Baris, R. A. (eds). Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management (PSAM4), 13–18 September 1998, New York City, 3, 2113–2118Google Scholar
  2. Barazza F, Malisan P, Carniel R (2009) Improvement of H/V technique by rotation of the coordinate system. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul 14:182–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bond CE, Gibbs AD, Zhipton ZK, Jones S (2007) What do you think this is? “Conceptual uncertainty”in geoscience interpretation. GSA Today 17:4–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bond CE, Zhipton ZK, Gibbs AD, Jones S (2008) Structural models: optimizing risk analysis by understanding conceptual uncertainty. First Break 26:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonnefoy-Claudet S, Köhler A, Cornou C, Wathelet M, Bard P-Y (2008) Effects of Love Waves on Microtremor H/V Ratio. Bull Seismol Soc Am 98:288–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carniel R, Barazza F, Pascolo P (2006) Improvement of Nakamura technique by singular spectrum analysis. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26:55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carniel R, Malisan P, Barazza F, Grimaz S (2008) Improvement of HVSR technique by wavelet analysis. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 28:321–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carniel R, Barbui L, Malisan P (2009) Improvement of HVSR technique by self-organizing map (SOM) analysis. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29:1097–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Diviacco, P (2012) “Addressing Conflicting Cognitive Models in Collaborative E-Research: A Case Study in Exploration Geophysics” in Collaborative and Distributed E-Research: Innovations in Technologies, Strategies and Applications, IGI Global press, DOI:  10.4018/978-1-4666-0125-3.ch012
  10. Diviacco P, Pshenichny CA (2010) Concept-referenced spaces in computer-supported collaborative work. In Geophysical Research Abstracts, vol 12. EGU, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  11. Dobry R, Borcherdt RD, Crouse CB, Idriss IM, Joyner WB, Martin GR, Power MS, Rinne EE, Seed RB (2000) New site coefficients and site classification system used in recent building seismic code provisions. Earthquake Spectra 16:41–67Google Scholar
  12. Ettensohn FR, Zhang C, Gao L, Lierman RT (2011) Soft-sediment deformation in epicontinental carbonates as evidence of paleoseismicity with evidence for a possible new seismogenic indicator: Accordion folds. Sediment Geol 235(3–4):222–233. doi: 10.1016/j.sedgeo.2010.09.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feigenbaum, E and McCorduck, P (1983) The fifth generation: artificial intelligence and Japan's computer challenge to the world. Boston, MA, USA : Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., IncGoogle Scholar
  14. Field EH, Phase SCEC III, Group W (2000) Accounting for Site Effects in Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analyses of Southern California: Overview of the SCEC Phase III Report. Bull Seismol Soc Am 90(6B):S1–S31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gallipoli MR, Mucciarelli M (2009) Comparison of site classification from Vs30, Vs10 and HSVR in Italy. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99(1):340–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ichihara M, Takeo M, Yokoo A, Oikawa J, Ohminato T (2012) Monitoring volcanic activity using correlation patterns between infrasound and ground motion. Geophys Res Lett 39:L04304. doi: 10.1029/2011GL050542 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kuhn TS (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  18. Lakatos I (1970) Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In: Lakatos, Musgrave (eds) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Luzón F, Palencia VJ, Morales J, Sánchez-Sesma FJ, García JM (2002) Evaluation of Site effects in sedimentary basins. Fis Tierra 14:183–214Google Scholar
  20. Morgan MG, Henrion M (1990) Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. Cambridge University Press, New York [Reprinted 1998]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nakamura Y (1989) A Method for Dynamic Characteristic Estimation of SubSurface using Microtremor on the Ground Surface. Q Rep Railw Tech Res Inst 30(1):25–33Google Scholar
  22. Nakamura Y (2000) Clear identification of fundamental idea of Nakamura's technique and its application, Proceedings of the 12th World Conference of Earthquake Engineering. Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  23. Nogoshi, Igarashi (1971) On the amplitude characteristics of microtremor (Part 2). J Seismol Soc Jpn 24:26–40Google Scholar
  24. Nunziata C, Mele R, Natale M (1999) Shear wave velocities and primary influencing factors of Campi Flegrei–Neapolitan deposits. Eng Geol 54(3–4):299–312. doi: 10.1016/S0013-7952(99)00044-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pshenichny C.A. (2014) Knowledge engineering in volcanology: practical claims and general approach. In press in Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal ResearchGoogle Scholar
  26. Pshenichny CA, and Kanzheleva OM, (2011) Theoretical foundations of the event bush method. Societal Challenges and Geoinformatics, GSA Special Paper 482, Sinha K, Gundersen L, Jackson J, and Arctur D. (Eds.), pp. 139–165Google Scholar
  27. Pshenichny, C.A., and Khrabrykh, Z.V., 2002. Knowledge base of formation of subaerial eruption unit, Environmental Catastrophes and Recovery in the Holocene (Abstracts), Brunel University, London:
  28. Pshenichny CA, and Mouromtsev DI (2013) Representation of the Event Bush Approach in Terms of Directed Hypergraphs. H.D. Pfeiffer et al. (Eds.): ICCS 2013, LNAI 7735, pp. 287–298, 2013. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013Google Scholar
  29. Pshenichny CA, and Mouromtsev DI (2015) Grammar of Dynamic Knowledge for Collaborative Knowledge Engineering and Representation. In Diviacco, P. Fox, P., Pshenichny, C., and Leadbetter, A. (Eds), Collaborative Knowledge in Scientific Research Networks, IGI Global: chapter 16 (to appear in 2015)Google Scholar
  30. Pshenichny CA, Nikolenko SI, Carniel R, Sobissevitch AL, VaganovPA, Khrabrykh ZV, Moukhachov VP, Shterkhun VL, Rezyapkin AA, Yakovlev AV, Fedukov RA, and Gusev EA (2008) The event bush as a potential complex methodology of conceptual modelling in the geosciences, in: Proceedings, iEMSs - International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software (Sanchez-Marre, Bejar J, Comas J, Rizzoli A, and Guariso G, Eds.), Barcelona, July 2008; vol. 2, pp 900–912.Google Scholar
  31. Pshenichny CA, Nikolenko SI, Carniel R, Vaganov PA, Khrabrykh ZV, Moukhachov VP, Akimova-Shterkhun VL, Rezyapkin AA (2009) The event bush as a semantic-based numerical approach to natural hazard assessment (exemplified by volcanology). Comput Geosci 35(5):1017–1034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rogalchuk V, and Solomin K (2015) Perspectives of Use of Petri Nets in Collaborative Research. In Diviacco, P. Fox, P., Pshenichny, C., and Leadbetter, A. (Eds), Collaborative Knowledge in Scientific Research Networks, IGI Global: chapter 18 (to appear in 2015)Google Scholar
  33. Sinha K, Malik Z, Raskin R, Barnes C, Fox P, McGuinness D, Lin K (2008) Semantics-based Interoperability Framework for Geosciences. AGU Fall Meeting AbstractsGoogle Scholar
  34. Solomin K, and Mandrik M (2015) Constructing historical knowledge through graphic boundary objects. In Diviacco, P. Fox, P., Pshenichny, C., and Leadbetter, A. (Eds), Collaborative Knowledge in Scientific Research Networks, IGI Global: chapter 17 (to appear in 2015)Google Scholar
  35. Woo G (1999) The mathematics of natural catastrophes. Imperial College Press, London, p 292Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paolo Diviacco
    • 1
    • 3
  • Cyril Pshenichny
    • 3
  • Roberto Carniel
    • 2
    • 3
  • Zinaida Khrabrykh
    • 3
  • Victoria Shterkhun
    • 3
  • Dmitry Mouromtsev
    • 3
  • Silvina Guzmán
    • 4
  • Paolo Pascolo
    • 2
  1. 1.Istituto Nazionale di Oceanografia e di Geofisica Sperimentale (OGS)TriesteItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile e ArchitetturaUniversità di UdineUdineItaly
  3. 3.Geognosis Project, ITMO UniversityPetersburgRussia
  4. 4.IBIGEO - (CONICET-UNSa) Museo de Ciencias NaturalesUniversidad Nacional de SaltaSaltaArgentina

Personalised recommendations