gmsg forum omf presentation - draft - october 19 copy€¦ · · 2017-11-09block model access...

Working Group:

www.globalminingstandards.org

0,10,100,0 70,30,0,0

Data Access and Usage: Data Exchange for Mine SoftwareEnabling data exchange between mine software to increase operational integration.

The Challenge: The mining industry needs a shared open format for 3D data, to allow users to easily move clean and accurate 3D information between applications.


0,10,100,0 70,30,0,0

The Open Mining Format (OMF)

WHY?• Mining companies use multiple applications to manage and

manipulate their 3D models. • The models need to move…

• Between different users on the same team, using different applications for different purposes.

• Between different teams using different applications, suited to their speciality.

• Outside the company to consultants and vendors, and back again.

• The tools need to support the user, not the other way around.

“My experience of moving 3D around — when you’re first doing it, it’s a bewildering pain, but so much a normality now.

…Though not to say [we] shouldn’t improve that.”

the dewatering zone is

the dewatering zone is

the slope angle is

Destination System

the slope angle is

5D 45°⦨

5D45°⦨

User Challenge: When Exports Don’t Go As Intended

“We had a watering area flag. Because of [the] export, the import was screwed up … So unless you were going through and double checking, and had the background to do that, could have been totally messed up.”

Source System

valid model invalid model

Application B

User Experience: Exported Model Not Valid or Contains Errors

Issue: Software applications have different conventions for measuring validity (1) and precision (2).

Even supported exports do not always work.

export

Application A

valid model

User Solution: Use Intermediary Software or Scripts

Current Workaround: Pay for intermediary applications to manage compatibility or write scripts internally.

exportApplication A

Use 3rd party “cleaning” application

orWrite import scripts

valid model

Application B

pay for export license

additional cost

additional time

“If you’re importing a model from one software to another and not double-checking that the variables are imported correctly, you could totally screw up pit operations.”

“Most people learn from making a mistake.”

Designing OMF v1


0,10,100,0 70,30,0,0

How do we think about 3D mining objects?

Contact surface Borehole assays

Block model Access roads Topography Lidar survey

Ore body Mining bench

…

At a site like this…

…you may have:


0,10,100,0 70,30,0,0





…

This is a good way to think about and understand objects


0,10,100,0 70,30,0,0





…


AND support for all these objects is the goal of OMF


0,10,100,0 70,30,0,0





…


BUT this is not a good place to start when writing a generalized file spec

AND support for all these objects is the goal of OMF


0,10,100,0 70,30,0,0





…

IF this is where we start, we will get something like:OMF:

SUPPORTED

UNSUPPORTEDSUPPORTED

UNSUPPORTED

UNSUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

UNSUPPORTED


0,10,100,0 70,30,0,0





…

Is it possible for the initial spec to support everything?OMF:

SUPPORTEDSUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

SUPPORTEDSUPPORTED


0,10,100,0 70,30,0,0





…

Is it possible for the initial spec to support everything?OMF:

SUPPORTEDSUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

SUPPORTEDSUPPORTED

Even objects we don’t think of?


0,10,100,0 70,30,0,0

How do we support all 3D mining objects?

Thinking at a lower level:

Object + Data= Geometry


0,10,100,0 70,30,0,0



Object + Data= GeometryContact surface Borehole assays



…

PointSet LineSet Surface Volume

Scalar Data Vector Data

Date/Time Data Colors Images


0,10,100,0 70,30,0,0



Ore Body + Color= Surface


0,10,100,0 70,30,0,0



Geophysics Survey + Scalar Data= Surface

9.87

7.215.29


0,10,100,0 70,30,0,0





…

OMF:POSSIBLEPOSSIBLE

POSSIBLE

POSSIBLE

POSSIBLE

POSSIBLE

POSSIBLE

POSSIBLEPOSSIBLE

This is now the state of OMF v1.0:


0,10,100,0 70,30,0,0





…


POSSIBLE

POSSIBLE

POSSIBLE

POSSIBLE

POSSIBLE

POSSIBLEPOSSIBLE


Surface + Data LineSet + Data Volume + Data LineSet + Data Surface + Data Surface + Data Surface + Data Surface + Data

…

OMF:SUPPORTEDSUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

SUPPORTEDSUPPORTED

Moving OMF Forward


0,10,100,0 70,30,0,0

Test, Engage, Iterate

3-stage approach:

1) Test in the wild 2) Engage users to better understand their

challenges 3) Iterate towards a v2.0 based on learnings

from (1) and (2)


0,10,100,0 70,30,0,0


3-stage approach:

1) Test in the wild Deswik + ARANZ Geo2) Engage users to better understand their


from (1) and (2)

There is no easy way to move between Leapfrog Geo and Deswik. Rather than creating a custom solution with scripting or other proprietary files, both vendors implemented OMF support.

Generate scheduling

blocksGenerate geo

model

DeswikLeapfrog Geo

Move models easily

in both directions

v1.0 Test case: Leapfrog and Deswik

v1.0 Test case: Leapfrog and Deswik

There is no easy way to move between Leapfrog Geo and Deswik. Rather than creating a custom solution with scripting or other proprietary files, both vendors implemented OMF support.

Biggest question this raised:

Answering questions like this is the next step toward improving the OMF spec.

• What is the leading practice for scheduling blocks in OMF? • Many small geometries OR • One comprehensive geometry with additional

scheduling data


0,10,100,0 70,30,0,0





…


POSSIBLE

POSSIBLE

POSSIBLE

POSSIBLE

POSSIBLE

POSSIBLEPOSSIBLE


Surface + Data LineSet + Data Volume + Data LineSet + Data Surface + Data Surface + Data Surface + Data Surface + Data

…


SUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

SUPPORTEDSUPPORTED


0,10,100,0 70,30,0,0


3-stage approach:

1) Test in the wild Deswik + ARANZ Geo 2) Engage users to better understand their

challenges3) Iterate towards a v2.0 based on learnings

from (1) and (2)


0,10,100,0 70,30,0,0

Engage Users

“[It] frustrated me …All companies protecting their IP. Making companies pay for licenses to allow them to convert…”


0,10,100,0 70,30,0,0

Engaging Users

Initial discussion with Working Group Sample survey to small number of

3D users (~5). Test questions and establish common challenges exist.

Interview 6 users of 3D mining applications to begin identifying specific challenges

Included interviews with: Barrick, Teck, Newmont

Summarize and analyze findings for common elements

Gather additional user challenges and iterate OMF specs

Next

Method

“We routinely move 3D data between…”• Vulcan • Leapfrog • MineSight • Surpac • Datamine • Gemcom • Deswik • Xeros • ar2gems • MeshLab

• Minestar • Gems • Hexagon • acQuire • Jigsaw • Excel • Various

internal solutions

“Each [3D modelling software] is competitive in their own strange way. They’re all in their bunkers and they don’t talk.”

User Challenge: Differing Colour Palettes

Issue: Applications A, B, C all read colours differently. The colours the geologists are using in Application A either don’t exist in the other systems, or the destination applications have too extensive a colour palette. Users have to match the colour exactly or it won’t work properly.

User Challenge: Differing Colour Palettes

Issue: Applications A, B, C all read colours differently. The colours the geologists are using in Application A either don’t exist in the other systems, or the destination applications have too extensive a colour palette. Users have to match the colour exactly or it won’t work properly.

Application CApplication A Application B

Colour coding …….

User Solution: Change User’s Use of Colour

Current Workaround: Geologists changed their colour coding process to use a completely different colour scheme that would translate between applications.


Colour coding

User Solution: Change User’s Use of Colour

Current Workaround: Geologists changed their colour coding process to use a completely different colour scheme that would translate between applications.


Colour coding

The tools need to support the usernot the other way around


0,10,100,0 70,30,0,0

Common Challenges

• Rotation • Precision • Nomenclature • Model Validity • Scripting

• File Size • Model Elements

(e.g. Sub-block definition)

• Model Attributes (e.g. Colour)


0,10,100,0 70,30,0,0


3-stage approach:

1) Test in the wild Deswik + ARANZ Geo 2) Engage users to better understand their


from (1) and (2)


0,10,100,0 70,30,0,0

What is the next step for v2.0?

-Identify the must have - high level objects (e.g. Blockmodel) -Ratify representation of high level objects and update GMSG Github repository


0,10,100,0 70,30,0,0

Defining (and implementing) leading practices for mining objects




…


POSSIBLE

POSSIBLE

POSSIBLE

POSSIBLE

POSSIBLE

POSSIBLEPOSSIBLE


SUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

SUPPORTED




… POSSIBLE



0,10,100,0 70,30,0,0

Common Challenges

• Rotation • Precision • Nomenclature • Model Validity • Scripting • File Size • Model Elements

(e.g. Sub-block definition)

• Model Attributes (e.g. Colour)


SUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

SUPPORTED




… POSSIBLE

Call to Action


0,10,100,0 70,30,0,0


Defining (and implementing) leading practices for mining objects


SUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

SUPPORTED




… POSSIBLE

We need to know where to Focus


0,10,100,0 70,30,0,0


-Identify the must have - high level objects (e.g. Blockmodel) -Ratify representation of high level objects and update GMSG Github repository -Empower users to request features and encourage adoption by vendors -It is your data

valid model invalid model

Application B

Have You Had This Challenge?

Submit your issue for inclusion in the OMF Spec

export

Application A


0,10,100,0 70,30,0,0

Interested in being on the steering committee?

Contact:Heather Endie [email protected]

gmsg forum omf presentation - draft - october 19 copy€¦ · · 2017-11-09block model access...

Documents