Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

candidate fault association product for ComCat #134

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

SCEDC
Copy link

@SCEDC SCEDC commented Jun 11, 2021

This is describes a product that contains the probabilities that an event is associated with a fault.

@codecov-commenter
Copy link

Codecov Report

Merging #134 (18158a9) into master (04e82a1) will decrease coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #134      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   51.85%   51.85%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         214      214              
  Lines       16665    16665              
  Branches     2539     2539              
==========================================
- Hits         8642     8641       -1     
  Misses       7072     7072              
- Partials      951      952       +1     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
.../java/gov/usgs/earthquake/product/io/BinaryIO.java 75.80% <0.00%> (-1.62%) ⬇️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 04e82a1...18158a9. Read the comment docs.

{
"type": "Feature",
"properties": {
"class": "event",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I thought we discussed moving the event feature to metadata, so the feature collection would only be faults.

</dl>

<h2>JSON Format</h2>
<p>The JSON file is an extension of GEOJSON standard and contains an array of a metadata object, a result object, and
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

array is a little misleading. I would say something like:

faultassociations.json is a GeoJson FeatureCollection of fault associations, and includes additional metadata and result attributes that summarize inputs and results.

When referencing filenames or attributes/properties, I recommend using an html code element, for example:

<code>faultassociations.json</code>

}</pre></div>

--------------------
<h2>Contents</h2>
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There should be one contents list, briefly describing all contents, and then you can add example sections at the end of the page.

--------------------
<h2>Contents</h2>
<dl>
<dt>Input_Earthquakes_to_Eval.csv</dt>
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It may be worth listing the expected and/or optional columns for each file.

probabilities apply.
The feature collection comprises of one or more fault features and their association probabilites and distance from the event.

<h3>Metadata Object</h3>
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You can use nesting to document specific properties, for example:

<dl>
    <dt>Result</dt>
    <dd>
        Array of summary results, sorted most probable first.  Each result includes the following properties:

        <dl>
            <dt>probability</dt>
            <dd>The probability of this specific result</dd>
            <dt>title</dt>
            <dd>Description of the result, either a fault name or a category like "Not in CFM"</dd>
        </dl>
    </dd>
    ...
</dl>

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants