From Christian.Heine at shell.com Fri Jun 9 01:23:40 2017 From: Christian.Heine at shell.com (Christian.Heine at shell.com) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 15:23:40 +0000 Subject: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files Message-ID: <79A2F7156CC1D441B593C58CF6BECAD9AEFA1813@SEACMW-S-53401.europe.shell.com> Hi list, I have a quick question regarding the connecting/linking/merging of two or more rotation files. Am I right to assume that the hierarchy/priority used when multiple rotation sequences for the same plate id exist are the order the rotation layers are connected (ie default rotation feature layer, then 2nd connection, then 3rd...)? Cheers, Christian From sabin.zahirovic at sydney.edu.au Fri Jun 9 09:15:25 2017 From: sabin.zahirovic at sydney.edu.au (Sabin Zahirovic) Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 23:15:25 +0000 Subject: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files Message-ID: <4B487A29-FD08-494C-92D7-D64A46E9E485@sydney.edu.au> Hi Christian, Hmm good question! I was under the impression that there was no priority applied, that it was as if you were concatenating the rotation files into one. That means it can be easy to have conflicts if you have multiple entries for the same plate id and time. Perhaps John can clarify, as my description is solely based on my experiences with it. Cheers, Sabin On 9/6/17, 1:23 am, "gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au on behalf of Christian.Heine at shell.com" wrote: Hi list, I have a quick question regarding the connecting/linking/merging of two or more rotation files. Am I right to assume that the hierarchy/priority used when multiple rotation sequences for the same plate id exist are the order the rotation layers are connected (ie default rotation feature layer, then 2nd connection, then 3rd...)? Cheers, Christian _______________________________________________ GPlates-discuss mailing list GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au http://mailman.sydney.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/gplates-discuss From john.cannon at sydney.edu.au Fri Jun 9 14:34:50 2017 From: john.cannon at sydney.edu.au (John Cannon) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 04:34:50 +0000 Subject: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files In-Reply-To: <4B487A29-FD08-494C-92D7-D64A46E9E485@sydney.edu.au> References: <4B487A29-FD08-494C-92D7-D64A46E9E485@sydney.edu.au> Message-ID: <1E57973145EDFC41B1D69DE11923922801B86BC126@ex-mbx-pro-05> Hi Christian, The intent is that there is no priority applied when multiple rotations with the same moving/fixed plate pair are found (at a particular reconstruction time). This is because GPlates relies on the user to ensure their rotation data contains no conflicts. Having said that, you might notice an ordering (or priority), such as the first of two rotation files having precedence (or the first of two moving/fixed pairs within a single rotation file), but it is not intentional and therefore cannot be relied upon to remain this way in future versions of the software. Regards, John ________________________________________ From: gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au [gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au] on behalf of Sabin Zahirovic [sabin.zahirovic at sydney.edu.au] Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017 9:15 AM To: GPlates general discussion mailing list Subject: Re: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files Hi Christian, Hmm good question! I was under the impression that there was no priority applied, that it was as if you were concatenating the rotation files into one. That means it can be easy to have conflicts if you have multiple entries for the same plate id and time. Perhaps John can clarify, as my description is solely based on my experiences with it. Cheers, Sabin On 9/6/17, 1:23 am, "gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au on behalf of Christian.Heine at shell.com" wrote: Hi list, I have a quick question regarding the connecting/linking/merging of two or more rotation files. Am I right to assume that the hierarchy/priority used when multiple rotation sequences for the same plate id exist are the order the rotation layers are connected (ie default rotation feature layer, then 2nd connection, then 3rd...)? Cheers, Christian _______________________________________________ GPlates-discuss mailing list GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au http://mailman.sydney.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/gplates-discuss _______________________________________________ GPlates-discuss mailing list GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au http://mailman.sydney.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/gplates-discuss From Christian.Heine at shell.com Fri Jun 9 17:30:16 2017 From: Christian.Heine at shell.com (Christian.Heine at shell.com) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 07:30:16 +0000 Subject: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files In-Reply-To: <1E57973145EDFC41B1D69DE11923922801B86BC126@ex-mbx-pro-05> References: <4B487A29-FD08-494C-92D7-D64A46E9E485@sydney.edu.au> <1E57973145EDFC41B1D69DE11923922801B86BC126@ex-mbx-pro-05> Message-ID: <79A2F7156CC1D441B593C58CF6BECAD9AEFA189C@SEACMW-S-53401.europe.shell.com> John, Sabin thanks for the response & clarification. > The intent is that there is no priority applied when multiple rotations > with the same moving/fixed plate pair are found (at a particular > reconstruction time). This is because GPlates relies on the user to ensure > their rotation data contains no conflicts. Never overestimate your users ;-) ;-) Jokes aside, I think it would be a useful feature, maybe not by default but rather as tool or option in GPlates to "prioritize" rotation (files/input) based on some notion. One argument would be that there's the possibility to use more than a single rotation file and some users might have the need to branch off some dangling nodes of rotation trees and replace existing rotations in a global file with custom ones. > Having said that, you might notice an ordering (or priority), such as the > first of two rotation files having precedence (or the first of two > moving/fixed pairs within a single rotation file), but it is not > intentional and therefore cannot be relied upon to remain this way in > future versions of the software. Ok, that's what I saw in some tests here. I haven't tried more than two stage rotations for a single plate pair. Could you clarify what happens when rotation feature layers are merged that contain duplicate rotations pairs and what happens when there's a duplicate plate pair but different stage rotations? Cheers, Christian > ________________________________________ > From: gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au [gplates-discuss- > bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au] on behalf of Sabin Zahirovic > [sabin.zahirovic at sydney.edu.au] > Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017 9:15 AM > To: GPlates general discussion mailing list > Subject: Re: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files > > Hi Christian, > > Hmm good question! I was under the impression that there was no priority > applied, that it was as if you were concatenating the rotation files into > one. That means it can be easy to have conflicts if you have multiple > entries for the same plate id and time. Perhaps John can clarify, as my > description is solely based on my experiences with it. > > Cheers, > Sabin > > > On 9/6/17, 1:23 am, "gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au on > behalf of Christian.Heine at shell.com" bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au on behalf of Christian.Heine at shell.com> > wrote: > > Hi list, > > I have a quick question regarding the connecting/linking/merging of > two or more rotation files. Am I right to assume that the > hierarchy/priority used when multiple rotation sequences for the same > plate id exist are the order the rotation layers are connected (ie default > rotation feature layer, then 2nd connection, then 3rd...)? > > Cheers, > Christian > > > > > _______________________________________________ > GPlates-discuss mailing list > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C7c7ca9a10fc84e2f69730 > 8d4aef0e852%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=nP12IWNHNn7Pa%2Bt > n1LdYl0dqvpmnrIozh151T%2BycbcI%3D&reserved=0 > > > > _______________________________________________ > GPlates-discuss mailing list > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C7c7ca9a10fc84e2f69730 > 8d4aef0e852%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=nP12IWNHNn7Pa%2Bt > n1LdYl0dqvpmnrIozh151T%2BycbcI%3D&reserved=0 > > > > _______________________________________________ > GPlates-discuss mailing list > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C7c7ca9a10fc84e2f69730 > 8d4aef0e852%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=nP12IWNHNn7Pa%2Bt > n1LdYl0dqvpmnrIozh151T%2BycbcI%3D&reserved=0 From john.cannon at sydney.edu.au Fri Jun 9 19:51:30 2017 From: john.cannon at sydney.edu.au (John Cannon) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 09:51:30 +0000 Subject: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files In-Reply-To: <79A2F7156CC1D441B593C58CF6BECAD9AEFA189C@SEACMW-S-53401.europe.shell.com> References: <4B487A29-FD08-494C-92D7-D64A46E9E485@sydney.edu.au> <1E57973145EDFC41B1D69DE11923922801B86BC126@ex-mbx-pro-05>, <79A2F7156CC1D441B593C58CF6BECAD9AEFA189C@SEACMW-S-53401.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <1E57973145EDFC41B1D69DE11923922801B86BC17F@ex-mbx-pro-05> > tool or option in GPlates to "prioritize" rotation (files/input) based on some notion If it's useful there could be a dialog in the rotation layer enabling users to sort/prioritise rotation *files*. This would prioritise conflicting rotations (eg, two rotations for the 926/901 plate pair) where the first rotation is in one file and the second in another file - then only the rotation in the highest priority file would get used (the other rotation would be discarded). This would not resolve a conflict *within* a single file though (eg, if both 926/901 rotations were in the same file) but this scenario is probably much less common. > Could you clarify what happens when rotation feature layers are merged that contain duplicate rotations pairs and what happens when there's a duplicate plate pair but different stage rotations? Only the first rotation encountered is used - the second, third, etc, are simply rejected. This applies regardless of whether the stage rotations are different or not. Currently the order in which rotations are applied is essentially undefined. However, as mentioned above, we could define an order *across* files (but not *within* files). Regards, John ________________________________________ From: gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au [gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au] on behalf of Christian.Heine at shell.com [Christian.Heine at shell.com] Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017 5:30 PM To: gplates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au Subject: Re: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files John, Sabin thanks for the response & clarification. > The intent is that there is no priority applied when multiple rotations > with the same moving/fixed plate pair are found (at a particular > reconstruction time). This is because GPlates relies on the user to ensure > their rotation data contains no conflicts. Never overestimate your users ;-) ;-) Jokes aside, I think it would be a useful feature, maybe not by default but rather as tool or option in GPlates to "prioritize" rotation (files/input) based on some notion. One argument would be that there's the possibility to use more than a single rotation file and some users might have the need to branch off some dangling nodes of rotation trees and replace existing rotations in a global file with custom ones. > Having said that, you might notice an ordering (or priority), such as the > first of two rotation files having precedence (or the first of two > moving/fixed pairs within a single rotation file), but it is not > intentional and therefore cannot be relied upon to remain this way in > future versions of the software. Ok, that's what I saw in some tests here. I haven't tried more than two stage rotations for a single plate pair. Could you clarify what happens when rotation feature layers are merged that contain duplicate rotations pairs and what happens when there's a duplicate plate pair but different stage rotations? Cheers, Christian > ________________________________________ > From: gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au [gplates-discuss- > bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au] on behalf of Sabin Zahirovic > [sabin.zahirovic at sydney.edu.au] > Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017 9:15 AM > To: GPlates general discussion mailing list > Subject: Re: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files > > Hi Christian, > > Hmm good question! I was under the impression that there was no priority > applied, that it was as if you were concatenating the rotation files into > one. That means it can be easy to have conflicts if you have multiple > entries for the same plate id and time. Perhaps John can clarify, as my > description is solely based on my experiences with it. > > Cheers, > Sabin > > > On 9/6/17, 1:23 am, "gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au on > behalf of Christian.Heine at shell.com" bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au on behalf of Christian.Heine at shell.com> > wrote: > > Hi list, > > I have a quick question regarding the connecting/linking/merging of > two or more rotation files. Am I right to assume that the > hierarchy/priority used when multiple rotation sequences for the same > plate id exist are the order the rotation layers are connected (ie default > rotation feature layer, then 2nd connection, then 3rd...)? > > Cheers, > Christian > > > > > _______________________________________________ > GPlates-discuss mailing list > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C7c7ca9a10fc84e2f69730 > 8d4aef0e852%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=nP12IWNHNn7Pa%2Bt > n1LdYl0dqvpmnrIozh151T%2BycbcI%3D&reserved=0 > > > > _______________________________________________ > GPlates-discuss mailing list > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C7c7ca9a10fc84e2f69730 > 8d4aef0e852%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=nP12IWNHNn7Pa%2Bt > n1LdYl0dqvpmnrIozh151T%2BycbcI%3D&reserved=0 > > > > _______________________________________________ > GPlates-discuss mailing list > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C7c7ca9a10fc84e2f69730 > 8d4aef0e852%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=nP12IWNHNn7Pa%2Bt > n1LdYl0dqvpmnrIozh151T%2BycbcI%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ GPlates-discuss mailing list GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au http://mailman.sydney.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/gplates-discuss From john.cannon at sydney.edu.au Fri Jun 9 20:57:27 2017 From: john.cannon at sydney.edu.au (John Cannon) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 10:57:27 +0000 Subject: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files In-Reply-To: <1E57973145EDFC41B1D69DE11923922801B86BC17F@ex-mbx-pro-05> References: <4B487A29-FD08-494C-92D7-D64A46E9E485@sydney.edu.au> <1E57973145EDFC41B1D69DE11923922801B86BC126@ex-mbx-pro-05>, <79A2F7156CC1D441B593C58CF6BECAD9AEFA189C@SEACMW-S-53401.europe.shell.com>, <1E57973145EDFC41B1D69DE11923922801B86BC17F@ex-mbx-pro-05> Message-ID: <1E57973145EDFC41B1D69DE11923922801B86BC19A@ex-mbx-pro-05> > Only the first rotation encountered is used - the second, third, etc, are simply rejected. This applies regardless of whether the stage rotations are different or not. ...I should clarify the current behaviour as the first rotation encountered *at the reconstruction time*. For example, if the first 926/901 rotation (sequence) covers the time period 60-190Ma and the second covers 50-200Ma, then the first rotation is used for times in the range 60-190Ma and the second is used for times in the ranges 50-60Ma and 190-200Ma (ie, periods exclusive to the second rotation). This may not be what we want if we implement a priority system. In other words, perhaps the priority system should discard an entire rotation sequence. For example, if the first 926/901 rotation (covering 60-190Ma) is the highest priority then the second 926/901 rotation (covering 50-200Ma) is completely discarded. The result would be no 926/901 rotation outside 60-190Ma. Regards, John ________________________________________ From: gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au [gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au] on behalf of John Cannon [john.cannon at sydney.edu.au] Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017 7:51 PM To: GPlates general discussion mailing list Subject: Re: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files > tool or option in GPlates to "prioritize" rotation (files/input) based on some notion If it's useful there could be a dialog in the rotation layer enabling users to sort/prioritise rotation *files*. This would prioritise conflicting rotations (eg, two rotations for the 926/901 plate pair) where the first rotation is in one file and the second in another file - then only the rotation in the highest priority file would get used (the other rotation would be discarded). This would not resolve a conflict *within* a single file though (eg, if both 926/901 rotations were in the same file) but this scenario is probably much less common. > Could you clarify what happens when rotation feature layers are merged that contain duplicate rotations pairs and what happens when there's a duplicate plate pair but different stage rotations? Only the first rotation encountered is used - the second, third, etc, are simply rejected. This applies regardless of whether the stage rotations are different or not. Currently the order in which rotations are applied is essentially undefined. However, as mentioned above, we could define an order *across* files (but not *within* files). Regards, John ________________________________________ From: gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au [gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au] on behalf of Christian.Heine at shell.com [Christian.Heine at shell.com] Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017 5:30 PM To: gplates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au Subject: Re: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files John, Sabin thanks for the response & clarification. > The intent is that there is no priority applied when multiple rotations > with the same moving/fixed plate pair are found (at a particular > reconstruction time). This is because GPlates relies on the user to ensure > their rotation data contains no conflicts. Never overestimate your users ;-) ;-) Jokes aside, I think it would be a useful feature, maybe not by default but rather as tool or option in GPlates to "prioritize" rotation (files/input) based on some notion. One argument would be that there's the possibility to use more than a single rotation file and some users might have the need to branch off some dangling nodes of rotation trees and replace existing rotations in a global file with custom ones. > Having said that, you might notice an ordering (or priority), such as the > first of two rotation files having precedence (or the first of two > moving/fixed pairs within a single rotation file), but it is not > intentional and therefore cannot be relied upon to remain this way in > future versions of the software. Ok, that's what I saw in some tests here. I haven't tried more than two stage rotations for a single plate pair. Could you clarify what happens when rotation feature layers are merged that contain duplicate rotations pairs and what happens when there's a duplicate plate pair but different stage rotations? Cheers, Christian > ________________________________________ > From: gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au [gplates-discuss- > bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au] on behalf of Sabin Zahirovic > [sabin.zahirovic at sydney.edu.au] > Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017 9:15 AM > To: GPlates general discussion mailing list > Subject: Re: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files > > Hi Christian, > > Hmm good question! I was under the impression that there was no priority > applied, that it was as if you were concatenating the rotation files into > one. That means it can be easy to have conflicts if you have multiple > entries for the same plate id and time. Perhaps John can clarify, as my > description is solely based on my experiences with it. > > Cheers, > Sabin > > > On 9/6/17, 1:23 am, "gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au on > behalf of Christian.Heine at shell.com" bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au on behalf of Christian.Heine at shell.com> > wrote: > > Hi list, > > I have a quick question regarding the connecting/linking/merging of > two or more rotation files. Am I right to assume that the > hierarchy/priority used when multiple rotation sequences for the same > plate id exist are the order the rotation layers are connected (ie default > rotation feature layer, then 2nd connection, then 3rd...)? > > Cheers, > Christian > > > > > _______________________________________________ > GPlates-discuss mailing list > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C7c7ca9a10fc84e2f69730 > 8d4aef0e852%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=nP12IWNHNn7Pa%2Bt > n1LdYl0dqvpmnrIozh151T%2BycbcI%3D&reserved=0 > > > > _______________________________________________ > GPlates-discuss mailing list > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C7c7ca9a10fc84e2f69730 > 8d4aef0e852%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=nP12IWNHNn7Pa%2Bt > n1LdYl0dqvpmnrIozh151T%2BycbcI%3D&reserved=0 > > > > _______________________________________________ > GPlates-discuss mailing list > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C7c7ca9a10fc84e2f69730 > 8d4aef0e852%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=nP12IWNHNn7Pa%2Bt > n1LdYl0dqvpmnrIozh151T%2BycbcI%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ GPlates-discuss mailing list GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au http://mailman.sydney.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/gplates-discuss _______________________________________________ GPlates-discuss mailing list GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au http://mailman.sydney.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/gplates-discuss From Christian.Heine at shell.com Fri Jun 9 20:59:53 2017 From: Christian.Heine at shell.com (Christian.Heine at shell.com) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 10:59:53 +0000 Subject: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files In-Reply-To: <1E57973145EDFC41B1D69DE11923922801B86BC17F@ex-mbx-pro-05> References: <4B487A29-FD08-494C-92D7-D64A46E9E485@sydney.edu.au> <1E57973145EDFC41B1D69DE11923922801B86BC126@ex-mbx-pro-05>, <79A2F7156CC1D441B593C58CF6BECAD9AEFA189C@SEACMW-S-53401.europe.shell.com> <1E57973145EDFC41B1D69DE11923922801B86BC17F@ex-mbx-pro-05> Message-ID: <79A2F7156CC1D441B593C58CF6BECAD9AEFA1934@SEACMW-S-53401.europe.shell.com> John, > > tool or option in GPlates to "prioritize" rotation (files/input) based > > on some notion > > If it's useful there could be a dialog in the rotation layer enabling > users to sort/prioritise rotation *files*. This would prioritise > conflicting rotations (eg, two rotations for the 926/901 plate pair) where > the first rotation is in one file and the second in another file - then > only the rotation in the highest priority file would get used (the other > rotation would be discarded). Yes, I think that would be great to have. > This would not resolve a conflict *within* a single file though (eg, if > both 926/901 rotations were in the same file) but this scenario is > probably much less common. Agreed, that, in my view should fall squarely into the realm of the user to make sure that there are no internal rotation file duplications/conflicts. > > Could you clarify what happens when rotation feature layers are merged > that contain duplicate rotations pairs and what happens when there's a > duplicate plate pair but different stage rotations? > > Only the first rotation encountered is used - the second, third, etc, are > simply rejected. This applies regardless of whether the stage rotations > are different or not. Ok, thanks! > Currently the order in which rotations are applied is essentially > undefined. However, as mentioned above, we could define an order *across* > files (but not *within* files). Across files is perfectly fine. Just saw your follow up email coming in - will respond to that seperately. Best, Christian > ________________________________________ > From: gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au [gplates-discuss- > bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au] on behalf of Christian.Heine at shell.com > [Christian.Heine at shell.com] > Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017 5:30 PM > To: gplates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > Subject: Re: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files > > John, Sabin > > thanks for the response & clarification. > > > The intent is that there is no priority applied when multiple > > rotations with the same moving/fixed plate pair are found (at a > > particular reconstruction time). This is because GPlates relies on the > > user to ensure their rotation data contains no conflicts. > > Never overestimate your users ;-) ;-) > > Jokes aside, I think it would be a useful feature, maybe not by default > but rather as tool or option in GPlates to "prioritize" rotation > (files/input) based on some notion. One argument would be that there's the > possibility to use more than a single rotation file and some users might > have the need to branch off some dangling nodes of rotation trees and > replace existing rotations in a global file with custom ones. > > > Having said that, you might notice an ordering (or priority), such as > > the first of two rotation files having precedence (or the first of two > > moving/fixed pairs within a single rotation file), but it is not > > intentional and therefore cannot be relied upon to remain this way in > > future versions of the software. > > Ok, that's what I saw in some tests here. I haven't tried more than two > stage rotations for a single plate pair. > > Could you clarify what happens when rotation feature layers are merged > that contain duplicate rotations pairs and what happens when there's a > duplicate plate pair but different stage rotations? > > Cheers, > Christian > > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au [gplates-discuss- > > bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au] on behalf of Sabin Zahirovic > > [sabin.zahirovic at sydney.edu.au] > > Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017 9:15 AM > > To: GPlates general discussion mailing list > > Subject: Re: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files > > > > Hi Christian, > > > > Hmm good question! I was under the impression that there was no > > priority applied, that it was as if you were concatenating the > > rotation files into one. That means it can be easy to have conflicts > > if you have multiple entries for the same plate id and time. Perhaps > > John can clarify, as my description is solely based on my experiences > with it. > > > > Cheers, > > Sabin > > > > > > On 9/6/17, 1:23 am, "gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au on > > behalf of Christian.Heine at shell.com" > bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au on behalf of Christian.Heine at shell.com> > > wrote: > > > > Hi list, > > > > I have a quick question regarding the connecting/linking/merging > > of two or more rotation files. Am I right to assume that the > > hierarchy/priority used when multiple rotation sequences for the same > > plate id exist are the order the rotation layers are connected (ie > > default rotation feature layer, then 2nd connection, then 3rd...)? > > > > Cheers, > > Christian > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > GPlates-discuss mailing list > > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > > > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C7c7ca9a10fc84e2f6 > > 9730 > > 8d4aef0e852%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=nP12IWNHNn7Pa > > %2Bt > > n1LdYl0dqvpmnrIozh151T%2BycbcI%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > GPlates-discuss mailing list > > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C7c7ca9a10fc84e2f6 > > 9730 > > 8d4aef0e852%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=nP12IWNHNn7Pa > > %2Bt > > n1LdYl0dqvpmnrIozh151T%2BycbcI%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > GPlates-discuss mailing list > > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C7c7ca9a10fc84e2f6 > > 9730 > > 8d4aef0e852%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=nP12IWNHNn7Pa > > %2Bt > > n1LdYl0dqvpmnrIozh151T%2BycbcI%3D&reserved=0 > > _______________________________________________ > GPlates-discuss mailing list > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7Cd844b9221f024688cf730 > 8d4af1d258c%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=xNYGsZUiwmsUteQ2I > I9elaF4LFNXsPlnTC44vc2w2kI%3D&reserved=0 > > > > _______________________________________________ > GPlates-discuss mailing list > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7Cd844b9221f024688cf730 > 8d4af1d258c%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=xNYGsZUiwmsUteQ2I > I9elaF4LFNXsPlnTC44vc2w2kI%3D&reserved=0 From Christian.Heine at shell.com Fri Jun 9 21:06:09 2017 From: Christian.Heine at shell.com (Christian.Heine at shell.com) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 11:06:09 +0000 Subject: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files In-Reply-To: <1E57973145EDFC41B1D69DE11923922801B86BC19A@ex-mbx-pro-05> References: <4B487A29-FD08-494C-92D7-D64A46E9E485@sydney.edu.au> <1E57973145EDFC41B1D69DE11923922801B86BC126@ex-mbx-pro-05>, <79A2F7156CC1D441B593C58CF6BECAD9AEFA189C@SEACMW-S-53401.europe.shell.com>, <1E57973145EDFC41B1D69DE11923922801B86BC17F@ex-mbx-pro-05> <1E57973145EDFC41B1D69DE11923922801B86BC19A@ex-mbx-pro-05> Message-ID: <79A2F7156CC1D441B593C58CF6BECAD9AEFA1946@SEACMW-S-53401.europe.shell.com> > > Only the first rotation encountered is used - the second, third, etc, > are simply rejected. This applies regardless of whether the stage > rotations are different or not. > > ...I should clarify the current behaviour as the first rotation > encountered *at the reconstruction time*. For example, if the first > 926/901 rotation (sequence) covers the time period 60-190Ma and the second > covers 50-200Ma, then the first rotation is used for times in the range > 60-190Ma and the second is used for times in the ranges 50-60Ma and 190- > 200Ma (ie, periods exclusive to the second rotation). Ok, this helps a lot. > This may not be what we want if we implement a priority system. In other > words, perhaps the priority system should discard an entire rotation > sequence. For example, if the first 926/901 rotation (covering 60-190Ma) > is the highest priority then the second 926/901 rotation (covering 50- > 200Ma) is completely discarded. The result would be no 926/901 rotation > outside 60-190Ma. This could easily get out of control if you have even more rotations for the same plate pair across files so I think one needs to draw a line along what you suggest - ie limiting the merge to rotation sequences (for now). It might then also be easier to fix gaps/overlaps in the rotation sequences. Cheers, Christian > ________________________________________ > From: gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au [gplates-discuss- > bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au] on behalf of John Cannon > [john.cannon at sydney.edu.au] > Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017 7:51 PM > To: GPlates general discussion mailing list > Subject: Re: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files > > > tool or option in GPlates to "prioritize" rotation (files/input) based > > on some notion > > If it's useful there could be a dialog in the rotation layer enabling > users to sort/prioritise rotation *files*. This would prioritise > conflicting rotations (eg, two rotations for the 926/901 plate pair) where > the first rotation is in one file and the second in another file - then > only the rotation in the highest priority file would get used (the other > rotation would be discarded). > > This would not resolve a conflict *within* a single file though (eg, if > both 926/901 rotations were in the same file) but this scenario is > probably much less common. > > > > Could you clarify what happens when rotation feature layers are merged > that contain duplicate rotations pairs and what happens when there's a > duplicate plate pair but different stage rotations? > > Only the first rotation encountered is used - the second, third, etc, are > simply rejected. This applies regardless of whether the stage rotations > are different or not. > > Currently the order in which rotations are applied is essentially > undefined. However, as mentioned above, we could define an order *across* > files (but not *within* files). > > Regards, > John > > ________________________________________ > From: gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au [gplates-discuss- > bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au] on behalf of Christian.Heine at shell.com > [Christian.Heine at shell.com] > Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017 5:30 PM > To: gplates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > Subject: Re: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files > > John, Sabin > > thanks for the response & clarification. > > > The intent is that there is no priority applied when multiple > > rotations with the same moving/fixed plate pair are found (at a > > particular reconstruction time). This is because GPlates relies on the > > user to ensure their rotation data contains no conflicts. > > Never overestimate your users ;-) ;-) > > Jokes aside, I think it would be a useful feature, maybe not by default > but rather as tool or option in GPlates to "prioritize" rotation > (files/input) based on some notion. One argument would be that there's the > possibility to use more than a single rotation file and some users might > have the need to branch off some dangling nodes of rotation trees and > replace existing rotations in a global file with custom ones. > > > Having said that, you might notice an ordering (or priority), such as > > the first of two rotation files having precedence (or the first of two > > moving/fixed pairs within a single rotation file), but it is not > > intentional and therefore cannot be relied upon to remain this way in > > future versions of the software. > > Ok, that's what I saw in some tests here. I haven't tried more than two > stage rotations for a single plate pair. > > Could you clarify what happens when rotation feature layers are merged > that contain duplicate rotations pairs and what happens when there's a > duplicate plate pair but different stage rotations? > > Cheers, > Christian > > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au [gplates-discuss- > > bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au] on behalf of Sabin Zahirovic > > [sabin.zahirovic at sydney.edu.au] > > Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017 9:15 AM > > To: GPlates general discussion mailing list > > Subject: Re: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files > > > > Hi Christian, > > > > Hmm good question! I was under the impression that there was no > > priority applied, that it was as if you were concatenating the > > rotation files into one. That means it can be easy to have conflicts > > if you have multiple entries for the same plate id and time. Perhaps > > John can clarify, as my description is solely based on my experiences > with it. > > > > Cheers, > > Sabin > > > > > > On 9/6/17, 1:23 am, "gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au on > > behalf of Christian.Heine at shell.com" > bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au on behalf of Christian.Heine at shell.com> > > wrote: > > > > Hi list, > > > > I have a quick question regarding the connecting/linking/merging > > of two or more rotation files. Am I right to assume that the > > hierarchy/priority used when multiple rotation sequences for the same > > plate id exist are the order the rotation layers are connected (ie > > default rotation feature layer, then 2nd connection, then 3rd...)? > > > > Cheers, > > Christian > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > GPlates-discuss mailing list > > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > > > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C7c7ca9a10fc84e2f6 > > 9730 > > 8d4aef0e852%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=nP12IWNHNn7Pa > > %2Bt > > n1LdYl0dqvpmnrIozh151T%2BycbcI%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > GPlates-discuss mailing list > > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C7c7ca9a10fc84e2f6 > > 9730 > > 8d4aef0e852%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=nP12IWNHNn7Pa > > %2Bt > > n1LdYl0dqvpmnrIozh151T%2BycbcI%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > GPlates-discuss mailing list > > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C7c7ca9a10fc84e2f6 > > 9730 > > 8d4aef0e852%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=nP12IWNHNn7Pa > > %2Bt > > n1LdYl0dqvpmnrIozh151T%2BycbcI%3D&reserved=0 > > _______________________________________________ > GPlates-discuss mailing list > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C87b0720170224793bf410 > 8d4af265c9c%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=4n9TRwcrjPl327VfK > l%2BY8Hp1jngQAhoqt43YS3FDgPg%3D&reserved=0 > > > > _______________________________________________ > GPlates-discuss mailing list > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C87b0720170224793bf410 > 8d4af265c9c%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=4n9TRwcrjPl327VfK > l%2BY8Hp1jngQAhoqt43YS3FDgPg%3D&reserved=0 > > > > _______________________________________________ > GPlates-discuss mailing list > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C87b0720170224793bf410 > 8d4af265c9c%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=4n9TRwcrjPl327VfK > l%2BY8Hp1jngQAhoqt43YS3FDgPg%3D&reserved=0 From john.cannon at sydney.edu.au Fri Jun 9 21:31:05 2017 From: john.cannon at sydney.edu.au (John Cannon) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 11:31:05 +0000 Subject: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files In-Reply-To: <79A2F7156CC1D441B593C58CF6BECAD9AEFA1946@SEACMW-S-53401.europe.shell.com> References: <4B487A29-FD08-494C-92D7-D64A46E9E485@sydney.edu.au> <1E57973145EDFC41B1D69DE11923922801B86BC126@ex-mbx-pro-05>, <79A2F7156CC1D441B593C58CF6BECAD9AEFA189C@SEACMW-S-53401.europe.shell.com>, <1E57973145EDFC41B1D69DE11923922801B86BC17F@ex-mbx-pro-05> <1E57973145EDFC41B1D69DE11923922801B86BC19A@ex-mbx-pro-05>, <79A2F7156CC1D441B593C58CF6BECAD9AEFA1946@SEACMW-S-53401.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <1E57973145EDFC41B1D69DE11923922801B86BC1B9@ex-mbx-pro-05> Thanks for your feedback on this. Yeah it's a bit tricky with the overlaps and what to do there. I'll chat with some users at my end about this potential way forward, which is: 1) give user the option to prioritize rotation files (in a rotation layer) where only the highest priority rotation sequence per plate pair is used, and 2) users need to make sure that there are no internal rotation file conflicts (otherwise behaviour is undefined). Regards, John ________________________________________ From: gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au [gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au] on behalf of Christian.Heine at shell.com [Christian.Heine at shell.com] Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017 9:06 PM To: gplates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au Subject: Re: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files > > Only the first rotation encountered is used - the second, third, etc, > are simply rejected. This applies regardless of whether the stage > rotations are different or not. > > ...I should clarify the current behaviour as the first rotation > encountered *at the reconstruction time*. For example, if the first > 926/901 rotation (sequence) covers the time period 60-190Ma and the second > covers 50-200Ma, then the first rotation is used for times in the range > 60-190Ma and the second is used for times in the ranges 50-60Ma and 190- > 200Ma (ie, periods exclusive to the second rotation). Ok, this helps a lot. > This may not be what we want if we implement a priority system. In other > words, perhaps the priority system should discard an entire rotation > sequence. For example, if the first 926/901 rotation (covering 60-190Ma) > is the highest priority then the second 926/901 rotation (covering 50- > 200Ma) is completely discarded. The result would be no 926/901 rotation > outside 60-190Ma. This could easily get out of control if you have even more rotations for the same plate pair across files so I think one needs to draw a line along what you suggest - ie limiting the merge to rotation sequences (for now). It might then also be easier to fix gaps/overlaps in the rotation sequences. Cheers, Christian > ________________________________________ > From: gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au [gplates-discuss- > bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au] on behalf of John Cannon > [john.cannon at sydney.edu.au] > Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017 7:51 PM > To: GPlates general discussion mailing list > Subject: Re: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files > > > tool or option in GPlates to "prioritize" rotation (files/input) based > > on some notion > > If it's useful there could be a dialog in the rotation layer enabling > users to sort/prioritise rotation *files*. This would prioritise > conflicting rotations (eg, two rotations for the 926/901 plate pair) where > the first rotation is in one file and the second in another file - then > only the rotation in the highest priority file would get used (the other > rotation would be discarded). > > This would not resolve a conflict *within* a single file though (eg, if > both 926/901 rotations were in the same file) but this scenario is > probably much less common. > > > > Could you clarify what happens when rotation feature layers are merged > that contain duplicate rotations pairs and what happens when there's a > duplicate plate pair but different stage rotations? > > Only the first rotation encountered is used - the second, third, etc, are > simply rejected. This applies regardless of whether the stage rotations > are different or not. > > Currently the order in which rotations are applied is essentially > undefined. However, as mentioned above, we could define an order *across* > files (but not *within* files). > > Regards, > John > > ________________________________________ > From: gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au [gplates-discuss- > bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au] on behalf of Christian.Heine at shell.com > [Christian.Heine at shell.com] > Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017 5:30 PM > To: gplates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > Subject: Re: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files > > John, Sabin > > thanks for the response & clarification. > > > The intent is that there is no priority applied when multiple > > rotations with the same moving/fixed plate pair are found (at a > > particular reconstruction time). This is because GPlates relies on the > > user to ensure their rotation data contains no conflicts. > > Never overestimate your users ;-) ;-) > > Jokes aside, I think it would be a useful feature, maybe not by default > but rather as tool or option in GPlates to "prioritize" rotation > (files/input) based on some notion. One argument would be that there's the > possibility to use more than a single rotation file and some users might > have the need to branch off some dangling nodes of rotation trees and > replace existing rotations in a global file with custom ones. > > > Having said that, you might notice an ordering (or priority), such as > > the first of two rotation files having precedence (or the first of two > > moving/fixed pairs within a single rotation file), but it is not > > intentional and therefore cannot be relied upon to remain this way in > > future versions of the software. > > Ok, that's what I saw in some tests here. I haven't tried more than two > stage rotations for a single plate pair. > > Could you clarify what happens when rotation feature layers are merged > that contain duplicate rotations pairs and what happens when there's a > duplicate plate pair but different stage rotations? > > Cheers, > Christian > > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au [gplates-discuss- > > bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au] on behalf of Sabin Zahirovic > > [sabin.zahirovic at sydney.edu.au] > > Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017 9:15 AM > > To: GPlates general discussion mailing list > > Subject: Re: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files > > > > Hi Christian, > > > > Hmm good question! I was under the impression that there was no > > priority applied, that it was as if you were concatenating the > > rotation files into one. That means it can be easy to have conflicts > > if you have multiple entries for the same plate id and time. Perhaps > > John can clarify, as my description is solely based on my experiences > with it. > > > > Cheers, > > Sabin > > > > > > On 9/6/17, 1:23 am, "gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au on > > behalf of Christian.Heine at shell.com" > bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au on behalf of Christian.Heine at shell.com> > > wrote: > > > > Hi list, > > > > I have a quick question regarding the connecting/linking/merging > > of two or more rotation files. Am I right to assume that the > > hierarchy/priority used when multiple rotation sequences for the same > > plate id exist are the order the rotation layers are connected (ie > > default rotation feature layer, then 2nd connection, then 3rd...)? > > > > Cheers, > > Christian > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > GPlates-discuss mailing list > > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > > > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C7c7ca9a10fc84e2f6 > > 9730 > > 8d4aef0e852%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=nP12IWNHNn7Pa > > %2Bt > > n1LdYl0dqvpmnrIozh151T%2BycbcI%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > GPlates-discuss mailing list > > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C7c7ca9a10fc84e2f6 > > 9730 > > 8d4aef0e852%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=nP12IWNHNn7Pa > > %2Bt > > n1LdYl0dqvpmnrIozh151T%2BycbcI%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > GPlates-discuss mailing list > > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C7c7ca9a10fc84e2f6 > > 9730 > > 8d4aef0e852%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=nP12IWNHNn7Pa > > %2Bt > > n1LdYl0dqvpmnrIozh151T%2BycbcI%3D&reserved=0 > > _______________________________________________ > GPlates-discuss mailing list > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C87b0720170224793bf410 > 8d4af265c9c%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=4n9TRwcrjPl327VfK > l%2BY8Hp1jngQAhoqt43YS3FDgPg%3D&reserved=0 > > > > _______________________________________________ > GPlates-discuss mailing list > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C87b0720170224793bf410 > 8d4af265c9c%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=4n9TRwcrjPl327VfK > l%2BY8Hp1jngQAhoqt43YS3FDgPg%3D&reserved=0 > > > > _______________________________________________ > GPlates-discuss mailing list > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C87b0720170224793bf410 > 8d4af265c9c%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=4n9TRwcrjPl327VfK > l%2BY8Hp1jngQAhoqt43YS3FDgPg%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ GPlates-discuss mailing list GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au http://mailman.sydney.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/gplates-discuss From Christian.Heine at shell.com Fri Jun 9 21:38:21 2017 From: Christian.Heine at shell.com (Christian.Heine at shell.com) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 11:38:21 +0000 Subject: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files In-Reply-To: <1E57973145EDFC41B1D69DE11923922801B86BC1B9@ex-mbx-pro-05> References: <4B487A29-FD08-494C-92D7-D64A46E9E485@sydney.edu.au> <1E57973145EDFC41B1D69DE11923922801B86BC126@ex-mbx-pro-05>, <79A2F7156CC1D441B593C58CF6BECAD9AEFA189C@SEACMW-S-53401.europe.shell.com>, <1E57973145EDFC41B1D69DE11923922801B86BC17F@ex-mbx-pro-05> <1E57973145EDFC41B1D69DE11923922801B86BC19A@ex-mbx-pro-05>, <79A2F7156CC1D441B593C58CF6BECAD9AEFA1946@SEACMW-S-53401.europe.shell.com> <1E57973145EDFC41B1D69DE11923922801B86BC1B9@ex-mbx-pro-05> Message-ID: <79A2F7156CC1D441B593C58CF6BECAD9AEFA197A@SEACMW-S-53401.europe.shell.com> Hi John, great - that sounds like a plan. Let me know if you need more input from my end. In terms of prioritizing one could either use a similar dialogue like the "Merge reconstruction tree layers" where one could order the rotation input or --even simpler -- the order of rotation tree layers with the default always being at the top (not sure whether the latter is doable). Ah - what would also be great is to be able to save the merged rotation files/layers as one new file... Best, Christian > -----Original Message----- > From: gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au [mailto:gplates- > discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au] On Behalf Of John Cannon > Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017 1:31 PM > To: GPlates general discussion mailing list discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au> > Subject: Re: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files > > Thanks for your feedback on this. Yeah it's a bit tricky with the overlaps > and what to do there. I'll chat with some users at my end about this > potential way forward, which is: > > 1) give user the option to prioritize rotation files (in a rotation layer) > where only the highest priority rotation sequence per plate pair is used, > and > 2) users need to make sure that there are no internal rotation file > conflicts (otherwise behaviour is undefined). > > Regards, > John > > ________________________________________ > From: gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au [gplates-discuss- > bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au] on behalf of Christian.Heine at shell.com > [Christian.Heine at shell.com] > Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017 9:06 PM > To: gplates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > Subject: Re: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files > > > > Only the first rotation encountered is used - the second, third, > > > etc, > > are simply rejected. This applies regardless of whether the stage > > rotations are different or not. > > > > ...I should clarify the current behaviour as the first rotation > > encountered *at the reconstruction time*. For example, if the first > > 926/901 rotation (sequence) covers the time period 60-190Ma and the > > second covers 50-200Ma, then the first rotation is used for times in > > the range 60-190Ma and the second is used for times in the ranges > > 50-60Ma and 190- 200Ma (ie, periods exclusive to the second rotation). > > Ok, this helps a lot. > > > This may not be what we want if we implement a priority system. In > > other words, perhaps the priority system should discard an entire > > rotation sequence. For example, if the first 926/901 rotation > > (covering 60-190Ma) is the highest priority then the second 926/901 > > rotation (covering 50- > > 200Ma) is completely discarded. The result would be no 926/901 > > rotation outside 60-190Ma. > > This could easily get out of control if you have even more rotations for > the same plate pair across files so I think one needs to draw a line along > what you suggest - ie limiting the merge to rotation sequences (for now). > It might then also be easier to fix gaps/overlaps in the rotation > sequences. > > Cheers, > Christian > > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au [gplates-discuss- > > bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au] on behalf of John Cannon > > [john.cannon at sydney.edu.au] > > Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017 7:51 PM > > To: GPlates general discussion mailing list > > Subject: Re: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files > > > > > tool or option in GPlates to "prioritize" rotation (files/input) > > > based on some notion > > > > If it's useful there could be a dialog in the rotation layer enabling > > users to sort/prioritise rotation *files*. This would prioritise > > conflicting rotations (eg, two rotations for the 926/901 plate pair) > > where the first rotation is in one file and the second in another file > > - then only the rotation in the highest priority file would get used > > (the other rotation would be discarded). > > > > This would not resolve a conflict *within* a single file though (eg, > > if both 926/901 rotations were in the same file) but this scenario is > > probably much less common. > > > > > > > Could you clarify what happens when rotation feature layers are > > > merged > > that contain duplicate rotations pairs and what happens when there's a > > duplicate plate pair but different stage rotations? > > > > Only the first rotation encountered is used - the second, third, etc, > > are simply rejected. This applies regardless of whether the stage > > rotations are different or not. > > > > Currently the order in which rotations are applied is essentially > > undefined. However, as mentioned above, we could define an order > > *across* files (but not *within* files). > > > > Regards, > > John > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au [gplates-discuss- > > bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au] on behalf of Christian.Heine at shell.com > > [Christian.Heine at shell.com] > > Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017 5:30 PM > > To: gplates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > Subject: Re: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files > > > > John, Sabin > > > > thanks for the response & clarification. > > > > > The intent is that there is no priority applied when multiple > > > rotations with the same moving/fixed plate pair are found (at a > > > particular reconstruction time). This is because GPlates relies on > > > the user to ensure their rotation data contains no conflicts. > > > > Never overestimate your users ;-) ;-) > > > > Jokes aside, I think it would be a useful feature, maybe not by > > default but rather as tool or option in GPlates to "prioritize" > > rotation > > (files/input) based on some notion. One argument would be that there's > > the possibility to use more than a single rotation file and some users > > might have the need to branch off some dangling nodes of rotation > > trees and replace existing rotations in a global file with custom ones. > > > > > Having said that, you might notice an ordering (or priority), such > > > as the first of two rotation files having precedence (or the first > > > of two moving/fixed pairs within a single rotation file), but it is > > > not intentional and therefore cannot be relied upon to remain this > > > way in future versions of the software. > > > > Ok, that's what I saw in some tests here. I haven't tried more than > > two stage rotations for a single plate pair. > > > > Could you clarify what happens when rotation feature layers are merged > > that contain duplicate rotations pairs and what happens when there's a > > duplicate plate pair but different stage rotations? > > > > Cheers, > > Christian > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > > [gplates-discuss- bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au] on behalf of Sabin > > > Zahirovic [sabin.zahirovic at sydney.edu.au] > > > Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017 9:15 AM > > > To: GPlates general discussion mailing list > > > Subject: Re: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files > > > > > > Hi Christian, > > > > > > Hmm good question! I was under the impression that there was no > > > priority applied, that it was as if you were concatenating the > > > rotation files into one. That means it can be easy to have conflicts > > > if you have multiple entries for the same plate id and time. Perhaps > > > John can clarify, as my description is solely based on my > > > experiences > > with it. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Sabin > > > > > > > > > On 9/6/17, 1:23 am, "gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > > on behalf of Christian.Heine at shell.com" > > bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au on behalf of > > > Christian.Heine at shell.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi list, > > > > > > I have a quick question regarding the connecting/linking/merging > > > of two or more rotation files. Am I right to assume that the > > > hierarchy/priority used when multiple rotation sequences for the > > > same plate id exist are the order the rotation layers are connected > > > (ie default rotation feature layer, then 2nd connection, then 3rd...)? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Christian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > GPlates-discuss mailing list > > > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > > > > > > > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > > > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > > > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C7c7ca9a10fc84e2 > > > f6 > > > 9730 > > > 8d4aef0e852%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=nP12IWNHNn7 > > > Pa > > > %2Bt > > > n1LdYl0dqvpmnrIozh151T%2BycbcI%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > GPlates-discuss mailing list > > > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > > > > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > > > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > > > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C7c7ca9a10fc84e2 > > > f6 > > > 9730 > > > 8d4aef0e852%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=nP12IWNHNn7 > > > Pa > > > %2Bt > > > n1LdYl0dqvpmnrIozh151T%2BycbcI%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > GPlates-discuss mailing list > > > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > > > > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > > > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > > > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C7c7ca9a10fc84e2 > > > f6 > > > 9730 > > > 8d4aef0e852%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=nP12IWNHNn7 > > > Pa > > > %2Bt > > > n1LdYl0dqvpmnrIozh151T%2BycbcI%3D&reserved=0 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > GPlates-discuss mailing list > > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C87b0720170224793b > > f410 > > 8d4af265c9c%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=4n9TRwcrjPl32 > > 7VfK > > l%2BY8Hp1jngQAhoqt43YS3FDgPg%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > GPlates-discuss mailing list > > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C87b0720170224793b > > f410 > > 8d4af265c9c%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=4n9TRwcrjPl32 > > 7VfK > > l%2BY8Hp1jngQAhoqt43YS3FDgPg%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > GPlates-discuss mailing list > > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C87b0720170224793b > > f410 > > 8d4af265c9c%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=4n9TRwcrjPl32 > > 7VfK > > l%2BY8Hp1jngQAhoqt43YS3FDgPg%3D&reserved=0 > > _______________________________________________ > GPlates-discuss mailing list > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C0ee8064bd9274ba685510 > 8d4af2b1430%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=OhA%2F%2BMKEKcP0j > Mw01xos4ViyNDDrkN5BDMAK0D0F%2BhY%3D&reserved=0 > > > > _______________________________________________ > GPlates-discuss mailing list > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C0ee8064bd9274ba685510 > 8d4af2b1430%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=OhA%2F%2BMKEKcP0j > Mw01xos4ViyNDDrkN5BDMAK0D0F%2BhY%3D&reserved=0 From john.cannon at sydney.edu.au Fri Jun 9 21:56:02 2017 From: john.cannon at sydney.edu.au (John Cannon) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 11:56:02 +0000 Subject: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files In-Reply-To: <79A2F7156CC1D441B593C58CF6BECAD9AEFA197A@SEACMW-S-53401.europe.shell.com> References: <4B487A29-FD08-494C-92D7-D64A46E9E485@sydney.edu.au> <1E57973145EDFC41B1D69DE11923922801B86BC126@ex-mbx-pro-05>, <79A2F7156CC1D441B593C58CF6BECAD9AEFA189C@SEACMW-S-53401.europe.shell.com>, <1E57973145EDFC41B1D69DE11923922801B86BC17F@ex-mbx-pro-05> <1E57973145EDFC41B1D69DE11923922801B86BC19A@ex-mbx-pro-05>, <79A2F7156CC1D441B593C58CF6BECAD9AEFA1946@SEACMW-S-53401.europe.shell.com> <1E57973145EDFC41B1D69DE11923922801B86BC1B9@ex-mbx-pro-05>, <79A2F7156CC1D441B593C58CF6BECAD9AEFA197A@SEACMW-S-53401.europe.shell.com> Message-ID: <1E57973145EDFC41B1D69DE11923922801B86BC1D2@ex-mbx-pro-05> Hi Christian, Yes, can both add prioritisation to the "Merge reconstruction tree layers" dialog and also have another dialog so user can change priorities after merging layers. > Ah - what would also be great is to be able to save the merged rotation files/layers as one new file... That sounds good, but it gets a bit tricky with the the GROT format ( http://www.gplates.org/grot/ ) due to merging the global header metadata (this will also end up in the regular ".rot" files). It might be better for user to concatenate their rotation files in a text editor. Regards, John ________________________________________ From: gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au [gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au] on behalf of Christian.Heine at shell.com [Christian.Heine at shell.com] Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017 9:38 PM To: gplates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au Subject: Re: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files Hi John, great - that sounds like a plan. Let me know if you need more input from my end. In terms of prioritizing one could either use a similar dialogue like the "Merge reconstruction tree layers" where one could order the rotation input or --even simpler -- the order of rotation tree layers with the default always being at the top (not sure whether the latter is doable). Ah - what would also be great is to be able to save the merged rotation files/layers as one new file... Best, Christian > -----Original Message----- > From: gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au [mailto:gplates- > discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au] On Behalf Of John Cannon > Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017 1:31 PM > To: GPlates general discussion mailing list discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au> > Subject: Re: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files > > Thanks for your feedback on this. Yeah it's a bit tricky with the overlaps > and what to do there. I'll chat with some users at my end about this > potential way forward, which is: > > 1) give user the option to prioritize rotation files (in a rotation layer) > where only the highest priority rotation sequence per plate pair is used, > and > 2) users need to make sure that there are no internal rotation file > conflicts (otherwise behaviour is undefined). > > Regards, > John > > ________________________________________ > From: gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au [gplates-discuss- > bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au] on behalf of Christian.Heine at shell.com > [Christian.Heine at shell.com] > Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017 9:06 PM > To: gplates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > Subject: Re: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files > > > > Only the first rotation encountered is used - the second, third, > > > etc, > > are simply rejected. This applies regardless of whether the stage > > rotations are different or not. > > > > ...I should clarify the current behaviour as the first rotation > > encountered *at the reconstruction time*. For example, if the first > > 926/901 rotation (sequence) covers the time period 60-190Ma and the > > second covers 50-200Ma, then the first rotation is used for times in > > the range 60-190Ma and the second is used for times in the ranges > > 50-60Ma and 190- 200Ma (ie, periods exclusive to the second rotation). > > Ok, this helps a lot. > > > This may not be what we want if we implement a priority system. In > > other words, perhaps the priority system should discard an entire > > rotation sequence. For example, if the first 926/901 rotation > > (covering 60-190Ma) is the highest priority then the second 926/901 > > rotation (covering 50- > > 200Ma) is completely discarded. The result would be no 926/901 > > rotation outside 60-190Ma. > > This could easily get out of control if you have even more rotations for > the same plate pair across files so I think one needs to draw a line along > what you suggest - ie limiting the merge to rotation sequences (for now). > It might then also be easier to fix gaps/overlaps in the rotation > sequences. > > Cheers, > Christian > > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au [gplates-discuss- > > bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au] on behalf of John Cannon > > [john.cannon at sydney.edu.au] > > Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017 7:51 PM > > To: GPlates general discussion mailing list > > Subject: Re: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files > > > > > tool or option in GPlates to "prioritize" rotation (files/input) > > > based on some notion > > > > If it's useful there could be a dialog in the rotation layer enabling > > users to sort/prioritise rotation *files*. This would prioritise > > conflicting rotations (eg, two rotations for the 926/901 plate pair) > > where the first rotation is in one file and the second in another file > > - then only the rotation in the highest priority file would get used > > (the other rotation would be discarded). > > > > This would not resolve a conflict *within* a single file though (eg, > > if both 926/901 rotations were in the same file) but this scenario is > > probably much less common. > > > > > > > Could you clarify what happens when rotation feature layers are > > > merged > > that contain duplicate rotations pairs and what happens when there's a > > duplicate plate pair but different stage rotations? > > > > Only the first rotation encountered is used - the second, third, etc, > > are simply rejected. This applies regardless of whether the stage > > rotations are different or not. > > > > Currently the order in which rotations are applied is essentially > > undefined. However, as mentioned above, we could define an order > > *across* files (but not *within* files). > > > > Regards, > > John > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au [gplates-discuss- > > bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au] on behalf of Christian.Heine at shell.com > > [Christian.Heine at shell.com] > > Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017 5:30 PM > > To: gplates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > Subject: Re: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files > > > > John, Sabin > > > > thanks for the response & clarification. > > > > > The intent is that there is no priority applied when multiple > > > rotations with the same moving/fixed plate pair are found (at a > > > particular reconstruction time). This is because GPlates relies on > > > the user to ensure their rotation data contains no conflicts. > > > > Never overestimate your users ;-) ;-) > > > > Jokes aside, I think it would be a useful feature, maybe not by > > default but rather as tool or option in GPlates to "prioritize" > > rotation > > (files/input) based on some notion. One argument would be that there's > > the possibility to use more than a single rotation file and some users > > might have the need to branch off some dangling nodes of rotation > > trees and replace existing rotations in a global file with custom ones. > > > > > Having said that, you might notice an ordering (or priority), such > > > as the first of two rotation files having precedence (or the first > > > of two moving/fixed pairs within a single rotation file), but it is > > > not intentional and therefore cannot be relied upon to remain this > > > way in future versions of the software. > > > > Ok, that's what I saw in some tests here. I haven't tried more than > > two stage rotations for a single plate pair. > > > > Could you clarify what happens when rotation feature layers are merged > > that contain duplicate rotations pairs and what happens when there's a > > duplicate plate pair but different stage rotations? > > > > Cheers, > > Christian > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > > [gplates-discuss- bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au] on behalf of Sabin > > > Zahirovic [sabin.zahirovic at sydney.edu.au] > > > Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017 9:15 AM > > > To: GPlates general discussion mailing list > > > Subject: Re: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files > > > > > > Hi Christian, > > > > > > Hmm good question! I was under the impression that there was no > > > priority applied, that it was as if you were concatenating the > > > rotation files into one. That means it can be easy to have conflicts > > > if you have multiple entries for the same plate id and time. Perhaps > > > John can clarify, as my description is solely based on my > > > experiences > > with it. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Sabin > > > > > > > > > On 9/6/17, 1:23 am, "gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > > on behalf of Christian.Heine at shell.com" > > bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au on behalf of > > > Christian.Heine at shell.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi list, > > > > > > I have a quick question regarding the connecting/linking/merging > > > of two or more rotation files. Am I right to assume that the > > > hierarchy/priority used when multiple rotation sequences for the > > > same plate id exist are the order the rotation layers are connected > > > (ie default rotation feature layer, then 2nd connection, then 3rd...)? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Christian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > GPlates-discuss mailing list > > > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > > > > > > > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > > > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > > > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C7c7ca9a10fc84e2 > > > f6 > > > 9730 > > > 8d4aef0e852%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=nP12IWNHNn7 > > > Pa > > > %2Bt > > > n1LdYl0dqvpmnrIozh151T%2BycbcI%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > GPlates-discuss mailing list > > > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > > > > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > > > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > > > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C7c7ca9a10fc84e2 > > > f6 > > > 9730 > > > 8d4aef0e852%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=nP12IWNHNn7 > > > Pa > > > %2Bt > > > n1LdYl0dqvpmnrIozh151T%2BycbcI%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > GPlates-discuss mailing list > > > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > > > > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > > > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > > > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C7c7ca9a10fc84e2 > > > f6 > > > 9730 > > > 8d4aef0e852%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=nP12IWNHNn7 > > > Pa > > > %2Bt > > > n1LdYl0dqvpmnrIozh151T%2BycbcI%3D&reserved=0 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > GPlates-discuss mailing list > > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C87b0720170224793b > > f410 > > 8d4af265c9c%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=4n9TRwcrjPl32 > > 7VfK > > l%2BY8Hp1jngQAhoqt43YS3FDgPg%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > GPlates-discuss mailing list > > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C87b0720170224793b > > f410 > > 8d4af265c9c%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=4n9TRwcrjPl32 > > 7VfK > > l%2BY8Hp1jngQAhoqt43YS3FDgPg%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > GPlates-discuss mailing list > > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C87b0720170224793b > > f410 > > 8d4af265c9c%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=4n9TRwcrjPl32 > > 7VfK > > l%2BY8Hp1jngQAhoqt43YS3FDgPg%3D&reserved=0 > > _______________________________________________ > GPlates-discuss mailing list > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C0ee8064bd9274ba685510 > 8d4af2b1430%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=OhA%2F%2BMKEKcP0j > Mw01xos4ViyNDDrkN5BDMAK0D0F%2BhY%3D&reserved=0 > > > > _______________________________________________ > GPlates-discuss mailing list > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C0ee8064bd9274ba685510 > 8d4af2b1430%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=OhA%2F%2BMKEKcP0j > Mw01xos4ViyNDDrkN5BDMAK0D0F%2BhY%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ GPlates-discuss mailing list GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au http://mailman.sydney.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/gplates-discuss From Christian.Heine at shell.com Fri Jun 9 23:48:53 2017 From: Christian.Heine at shell.com (Christian.Heine at shell.com) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 13:48:53 +0000 Subject: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files In-Reply-To: <1E57973145EDFC41B1D69DE11923922801B86BC1D2@ex-mbx-pro-05> References: <4B487A29-FD08-494C-92D7-D64A46E9E485@sydney.edu.au> <1E57973145EDFC41B1D69DE11923922801B86BC126@ex-mbx-pro-05>, <79A2F7156CC1D441B593C58CF6BECAD9AEFA189C@SEACMW-S-53401.europe.shell.com>, <1E57973145EDFC41B1D69DE11923922801B86BC17F@ex-mbx-pro-05> <1E57973145EDFC41B1D69DE11923922801B86BC19A@ex-mbx-pro-05>, <79A2F7156CC1D441B593C58CF6BECAD9AEFA1946@SEACMW-S-53401.europe.shell.com> <1E57973145EDFC41B1D69DE11923922801B86BC1B9@ex-mbx-pro-05>, <79A2F7156CC1D441B593C58CF6BECAD9AEFA197A@SEACMW-S-53401.europe.shell.com> <1E57973145EDFC41B1D69DE11923922801B86BC1D2@ex-mbx-pro-05> Message-ID: <79A2F7156CC1D441B593C58CF6BECAD9AEFA19D8@SEACMW-S-53401.europe.shell.com> John, > Yes, can both add prioritisation to the "Merge reconstruction tree layers" > dialog and also have another dialog so user can change priorities after > merging layers. ok, sounds good! > > Ah - what would also be great is to be able to save the merged rotation > files/layers as one new file... > > That sounds good, but it gets a bit tricky with the the GROT format ( > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gpla > tes.org%2Fgrot%2F&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7Cdd497f5856f > 54214dd9d08d4af2e8d5c%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=eMFG8RU > I20kV52GXM690FYegcVEFX3hAr3PuRIQhaMo%3D&reserved=0 ) due to merging the > global header metadata (this will also end up in the regular ".rot" > files). It might be better for user to concatenate their rotation files in > a text editor. Yes, indeed the header will complicate things. One alternative would be write all headers to the top of the merged file and insert marker comments. But for now cat'ing stuff together by hand is no big drama indeed. Best, Christian > ________________________________________ > From: gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au [gplates-discuss- > bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au] on behalf of Christian.Heine at shell.com > [Christian.Heine at shell.com] > Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017 9:38 PM > To: gplates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > Subject: Re: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files > > Hi John, > > great - that sounds like a plan. Let me know if you need more input from > my end. > > In terms of prioritizing one could either use a similar dialogue like the > "Merge reconstruction tree layers" where one could order the rotation > input or --even simpler -- the order of rotation tree layers with the > default always being at the top (not sure whether the latter is doable). > > Ah - what would also be great is to be able to save the merged rotation > files/layers as one new file... > > Best, > Christian > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au [mailto:gplates- > > discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au] On Behalf Of John Cannon > > Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017 1:31 PM > > To: GPlates general discussion mailing list > discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au> > > Subject: Re: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files > > > > Thanks for your feedback on this. Yeah it's a bit tricky with the > overlaps > > and what to do there. I'll chat with some users at my end about this > > potential way forward, which is: > > > > 1) give user the option to prioritize rotation files (in a rotation > layer) > > where only the highest priority rotation sequence per plate pair is > used, > > and > > 2) users need to make sure that there are no internal rotation file > > conflicts (otherwise behaviour is undefined). > > > > Regards, > > John > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au [gplates-discuss- > > bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au] on behalf of Christian.Heine at shell.com > > [Christian.Heine at shell.com] > > Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017 9:06 PM > > To: gplates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > Subject: Re: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files > > > > > > Only the first rotation encountered is used - the second, third, > > > > etc, > > > are simply rejected. This applies regardless of whether the stage > > > rotations are different or not. > > > > > > ...I should clarify the current behaviour as the first rotation > > > encountered *at the reconstruction time*. For example, if the first > > > 926/901 rotation (sequence) covers the time period 60-190Ma and the > > > second covers 50-200Ma, then the first rotation is used for times in > > > the range 60-190Ma and the second is used for times in the ranges > > > 50-60Ma and 190- 200Ma (ie, periods exclusive to the second rotation). > > > > Ok, this helps a lot. > > > > > This may not be what we want if we implement a priority system. In > > > other words, perhaps the priority system should discard an entire > > > rotation sequence. For example, if the first 926/901 rotation > > > (covering 60-190Ma) is the highest priority then the second 926/901 > > > rotation (covering 50- > > > 200Ma) is completely discarded. The result would be no 926/901 > > > rotation outside 60-190Ma. > > > > This could easily get out of control if you have even more rotations for > > the same plate pair across files so I think one needs to draw a line > along > > what you suggest - ie limiting the merge to rotation sequences (for > now). > > It might then also be easier to fix gaps/overlaps in the rotation > > sequences. > > > > Cheers, > > Christian > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au [gplates-discuss- > > > bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au] on behalf of John Cannon > > > [john.cannon at sydney.edu.au] > > > Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017 7:51 PM > > > To: GPlates general discussion mailing list > > > Subject: Re: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files > > > > > > > tool or option in GPlates to "prioritize" rotation (files/input) > > > > based on some notion > > > > > > If it's useful there could be a dialog in the rotation layer enabling > > > users to sort/prioritise rotation *files*. This would prioritise > > > conflicting rotations (eg, two rotations for the 926/901 plate pair) > > > where the first rotation is in one file and the second in another file > > > - then only the rotation in the highest priority file would get used > > > (the other rotation would be discarded). > > > > > > This would not resolve a conflict *within* a single file though (eg, > > > if both 926/901 rotations were in the same file) but this scenario is > > > probably much less common. > > > > > > > > > > Could you clarify what happens when rotation feature layers are > > > > merged > > > that contain duplicate rotations pairs and what happens when there's a > > > duplicate plate pair but different stage rotations? > > > > > > Only the first rotation encountered is used - the second, third, etc, > > > are simply rejected. This applies regardless of whether the stage > > > rotations are different or not. > > > > > > Currently the order in which rotations are applied is essentially > > > undefined. However, as mentioned above, we could define an order > > > *across* files (but not *within* files). > > > > > > Regards, > > > John > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au [gplates-discuss- > > > bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au] on behalf of Christian.Heine at shell.com > > > [Christian.Heine at shell.com] > > > Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017 5:30 PM > > > To: gplates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > > Subject: Re: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files > > > > > > John, Sabin > > > > > > thanks for the response & clarification. > > > > > > > The intent is that there is no priority applied when multiple > > > > rotations with the same moving/fixed plate pair are found (at a > > > > particular reconstruction time). This is because GPlates relies on > > > > the user to ensure their rotation data contains no conflicts. > > > > > > Never overestimate your users ;-) ;-) > > > > > > Jokes aside, I think it would be a useful feature, maybe not by > > > default but rather as tool or option in GPlates to "prioritize" > > > rotation > > > (files/input) based on some notion. One argument would be that there's > > > the possibility to use more than a single rotation file and some users > > > might have the need to branch off some dangling nodes of rotation > > > trees and replace existing rotations in a global file with custom > ones. > > > > > > > Having said that, you might notice an ordering (or priority), such > > > > as the first of two rotation files having precedence (or the first > > > > of two moving/fixed pairs within a single rotation file), but it is > > > > not intentional and therefore cannot be relied upon to remain this > > > > way in future versions of the software. > > > > > > Ok, that's what I saw in some tests here. I haven't tried more than > > > two stage rotations for a single plate pair. > > > > > > Could you clarify what happens when rotation feature layers are merged > > > that contain duplicate rotations pairs and what happens when there's a > > > duplicate plate pair but different stage rotations? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Christian > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > > > From: gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > > > [gplates-discuss- bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au] on behalf of Sabin > > > > Zahirovic [sabin.zahirovic at sydney.edu.au] > > > > Sent: Friday, 9 June 2017 9:15 AM > > > > To: GPlates general discussion mailing list > > > > Subject: Re: [GPlates-discuss] Linking two or more rotation files > > > > > > > > Hi Christian, > > > > > > > > Hmm good question! I was under the impression that there was no > > > > priority applied, that it was as if you were concatenating the > > > > rotation files into one. That means it can be easy to have conflicts > > > > if you have multiple entries for the same plate id and time. Perhaps > > > > John can clarify, as my description is solely based on my > > > > experiences > > > with it. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Sabin > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/6/17, 1:23 am, "gplates-discuss-bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > > > on behalf of Christian.Heine at shell.com" > > > bounces at mailman.sydney.edu.au on behalf of > > > > Christian.Heine at shell.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi list, > > > > > > > > I have a quick question regarding the connecting/linking/merging > > > > of two or more rotation files. Am I right to assume that the > > > > hierarchy/priority used when multiple rotation sequences for the > > > > same plate id exist are the order the rotation layers are connected > > > > (ie default rotation feature layer, then 2nd connection, then > 3rd...)? > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Christian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > GPlates-discuss mailing list > > > > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > > > > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > > > > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C7c7ca9a10fc84e2 > > > > f6 > > > > 9730 > > > > 8d4aef0e852%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=nP12IWNHNn7 > > > > Pa > > > > %2Bt > > > > n1LdYl0dqvpmnrIozh151T%2BycbcI%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > GPlates-discuss mailing list > > > > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > > > > > > > > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > > > > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > > > > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C7c7ca9a10fc84e2 > > > > f6 > > > > 9730 > > > > 8d4aef0e852%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=nP12IWNHNn7 > > > > Pa > > > > %2Bt > > > > n1LdYl0dqvpmnrIozh151T%2BycbcI%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > GPlates-discuss mailing list > > > > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > > > > > > > > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > > > > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > > > > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C7c7ca9a10fc84e2 > > > > f6 > > > > 9730 > > > > 8d4aef0e852%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=nP12IWNHNn7 > > > > Pa > > > > %2Bt > > > > n1LdYl0dqvpmnrIozh151T%2BycbcI%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > GPlates-discuss mailing list > > > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > > > > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > > > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > > > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C87b0720170224793b > > > f410 > > > 8d4af265c9c%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=4n9TRwcrjPl32 > > > 7VfK > > > l%2BY8Hp1jngQAhoqt43YS3FDgPg%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > GPlates-discuss mailing list > > > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > > > > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > > > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > > > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C87b0720170224793b > > > f410 > > > 8d4af265c9c%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=4n9TRwcrjPl32 > > > 7VfK > > > l%2BY8Hp1jngQAhoqt43YS3FDgPg%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > GPlates-discuss mailing list > > > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > > > > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > > > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > > > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C87b0720170224793b > > > f410 > > > 8d4af265c9c%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=4n9TRwcrjPl32 > > > 7VfK > > > l%2BY8Hp1jngQAhoqt43YS3FDgPg%3D&reserved=0 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > GPlates-discuss mailing list > > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > > > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C0ee8064bd9274ba685510 > > > 8d4af2b1430%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=OhA%2F%2BMKEKcP0j > > Mw01xos4ViyNDDrkN5BDMAK0D0F%2BhY%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > GPlates-discuss mailing list > > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > > > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > > > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7C0ee8064bd9274ba685510 > > > 8d4af2b1430%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=OhA%2F%2BMKEKcP0j > > Mw01xos4ViyNDDrkN5BDMAK0D0F%2BhY%3D&reserved=0 > > _______________________________________________ > GPlates-discuss mailing list > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7Cdd497f5856f54214dd9d0 > 8d4af2e8d5c%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=nAU%2Fu4KmQsO8m5T > mjvQwORRRMmRTMiOhDTuZwdETTGs%3D&reserved=0 > > > > _______________________________________________ > GPlates-discuss mailing list > GPlates-discuss at mailman.sydney.edu.au > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman. > sydney.edu.au%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgplates- > discuss&data=01%7C01%7Cchristian.heine%40shell.com%7Cdd497f5856f54214dd9d0 > 8d4af2e8d5c%7Cdb1e96a8a3da442a930b235cac24cd5c%7C0&sdata=nAU%2Fu4KmQsO8m5T > mjvQwORRRMmRTMiOhDTuZwdETTGs%3D&reserved=0