I'm just asking if it would also be beneficial to reach out to the
volcano-seismic monitoring community for input too. I could discuss
the need for this at much greater length, based on my own work, but I
don't wish to hjiack this thread.
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Dmitry Storchak <dmitry<at>isc.ac.uk> wrote:
Actually the latest event type list for both QuakeML and ISF has been
developed in 2012 jointly by the ISC, NEIC and EMSC and discussed at the
appropriate IASPEI commission - CoSOI. It is attached. I believe it was
passed on to the QuakeML proprietors for inclusion in the next (at the
time) version. It is used by the NEIC as far as I know.
Dr. Dmitry A. Storchak
International Seismological Centre (ISC)
+44 (0)1635 861022
On 22/07/2016 10:31, Joachim Saul wrote:
Jeremy Fee wrote on 07/22/2016 12:03 AM:
I suspect the simplest way forward is to use a generic quakeml event
type, and implement a quakeml extension that allows more flexibility.
The extension would then be part of the XML document but unaware QuakeML
parsers would yield the generic event type. A better way would be to
raise the issue on the QuakeML mailing list and propose inclusion of
those additional event types into QuakeML.
The current list of event types is the result of discussions between
several European and American institutions heavily involving the USGS.
It would be good if the USGS could continue to contribute to the
development of core QuakeML rather than filling gaps by using
That said, I would be glad to see the USGS eventtype extension to
fdsnws-event added to the standard.