Geoscience Frontiers 14 (2023) 101521

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geoscience Frontiers
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gsf

Research Paper

Construction of a fluvial facies knowledge graph and its application in

sedimentary facies identification
Lei Zhang a,b, Mingcai Hou a,b,⇑, Anqing Chen a,b, Hanting Zhong a,b, James G. Ogg a,b, Dongyu Zheng a,b
a
Key Laboratory of Deep-time Geography and Environment Reconstruction and Applications, MNR & Institute of Sedimentary Geology, Chengdu University of Technology,
Chengdu 610059, China
b
State Key Laboratory of Oil and Gas Reservoir Geology and Exploitation (Chengdu University of Technology), Chengdu 610059, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Lithofacies paleogeography is a data-intensive discipline that involves the interpretation and compilation
Received 25 July 2022 of sedimentary facies. Traditional sedimentary facies analysis is a labor-intensive task with the added
Revised 15 November 2022 complexity of using unstructured knowledge and unstandardized terminology. Therefore, it is very diffi-
Accepted 29 November 2022
cult for beginners or non-geology scholars who lack a systematic knowledge and experience in sedimen-
Available online 5 December 2022
Handling Editor: M. Santosh
tary facies analysis. These hurdles could be partly alleviated by having a standardized, structured, and
systematic knowledge base coupled with an efficient automatic machine-assisted sedimentary facies
identification system. To this end, this study constructed a knowledge system for fluvial facies and carried
Keywords:
out knowledge representation. Components include a domain knowledge graph for types of fluvial facies
Fluvial facies (meandering, braided and other fluvial depositional environments) and their characteristic features (bed-
Knowledge graph forms, grain size distribution, etc.) with visualization, a method for query and retrieval on a graph data-
Domain ontology base platform, a hierarchical knowledge tree-structure, a data-mining clustering algorithm for machine-
Sedimentary facies identification analysis of publication texts, and an algorithm model for this area of sedimentary facies reasoning. The
Machine-assisted interpretation underlying sedimentary facies identification and knowledge reasoning system is based on expert experi-
ence and synthesis of publications. For testing, 17 sets literature publications data that included details of
sedimentary facies data (bedforms, grain sizes, etc.) were submitted to the artificial intelligence model,
then compared and validated. This testing set of automated reasoning results yielded an interpretation
accuracy of about 90% relative to the published interpretations in those papers. Therefore, the model
and algorithm provide an efficient and automated reasoning technology, which provides a new approach
and route for the rapid and intelligent identification of other types of sedimentary facies from literature
data or direct use in the field.
Ó 2022 China University of Geosciences (Beijing) and Peking University. Published by Elsevier B.V. on
behalf of China University of Geosciences (Beijing). This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction ‘‘lithology, sedimentary structure, paleontology and mineral, etc.”

Lithofacies analysis is the description and classification of sedi-
ments, followed by the interpretation of sedimentary processes
and depositional environments that typically is accomplished by
applying a facies model (Anderton, 1985; Kontakiotis et al.,
2020). A facies is the sum of the lithologic and paleontological
characteristics of a sedimentary rock (Moore, 1949; Teichert,
1958; Kiersnowski et al., 1995), and a facie model can be regarded
as a general summary of a specific sedimentary environment
(Potter, 1959; Walker, 1976). Facies marker data composed of
⇑ Corresponding author at: Key Laboratory of Deep-time Geography and
Environment Reconstruction and Applications, MNR & Institute of Sedimentary
Geology, Chengdu University of Technology, Chengdu 610059, China.
E-mail address: houmc@cdut.edu.cn (M. Hou).
can be used to infer the origin and formation environment of sed-
imentary rock (Reading, 1978; Selley, 1982), therefore, are impor-
tant for paleogeographic reconstructions (Hou et al., 2019; Ogg,
2019; Kontakiotis et al., 2020; Elatrash et al., 2021).
Traditionally, subject experts analyze and interpret sedimen-
tary facies based applying their own experience and learning to
observations in a field outcrop section, a seismic profile (Leila
et al., 2022) and/or well log data (Lai et al., 2018). However, the
acquisition of relevant knowledge, accumulation of geoscience
experience, and updating of that knowledge are time-consuming
and might require a lengthy learning curve. The current digital
information revolution has produced an exponential growth of
multi-source heterogeneous distributed data (Lassila and
Hendler, 2007; Hendler, 2009). At the same time, the non-

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2022.101521
1674-9871/Ó 2022 China University of Geosciences (Beijing) and Peking University. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Geosciences (Beijing).
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
L. Zhang, M. Hou, A. Chen et al.
standardized terminology and unstructured knowledge can make
novices feel that the process of sedimentary facies analysis and
interpretation is complicated, and it can seem mystifying for
non-geology scholars who lack a systematic knowledge of sedi-
mentary facies and paleogeography concepts.
A knowledge graph is a graphical representation of knowledge
(Paulheim, 2017; Fensel et al., 2020), which is essentially a large-
scale semantic web (Berners-Lee et al., 2001; Shadbolt et al.,
2006; Krause et al., 2016; Färber et al., 2018), in which a knowl-
edge base of semantic conceptual terms is composed of entities
(nodes) and relationships (edges) (Singhal, 2012; Ehrlinger and
Wöß, 2016; Kejriwal, 2019; Fensel et al., 2020). Knowledge graph
technology applied to clinical medicine (Santos et al., 2022), to bio-
diversity (Page, 2016), to materials science (Mrdjenovich et al.,
2020), and other disciplines have enabled new breakthroughs
and tools for interpretation.
Knowledge graphs for different domains of geology have been
coupled with computer science, artificial intelligence, and big data
technologies (Cheatham et al., 2018; Karpatne et al., 2018; Gil
et al., 2019; Nizzoli et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021; Zhou et al.,
2021; Ma, 2022; Zhang et al., 2022). Such geoscience knowledge
graph has been applied to express and solve scientific problems
and enable new knowledge discovery (Bergen et al., 2019; Liu
and Song, 2020). Zircons can be classified into igneous, metamor-
phic, and hydrothermal origins from cathodoluminescence images
from similar deep learning methods (Zheng et al., 2022b). Knowl-
edge graph built from deep-time knowledge bases and regional
geologic time standards will improve interoperability of geo-
science data from multiple sources (Ma et al., 2020, 2022).
Recent applications to sediment facies interpretation fall into
four aspects:
(i) Lithology: Mishra et al. (2022) conducted an evaluation and
development of prediction models for geophysical well logs data
analysis and reservoir characterization, and applied machine learn-
ing techniques to lithology prediction. Zheng et al. (2022a) applied
the machine learning XGBoost algorithm in the identification of
fluvial-lacustrine lithofacies from well logs. Sun et al. (2022) used
logging data of backpropagation (BP) neural network for lithology
identification. Xu et al. (2022) proposed an intelligent lithology
recognition method based on deep learning from databases of rock
images and element information.
(ii) Sedimentary structure: Zhan et al. (2022) used a combina-
tion of stochastic models and deep learning models to identify sed-
imentary structures and discussed an inversion framework for
staged-wise stochastic deep learning. Jacq et al. (2020) developed
an automatic detection and identification of sedimentary struc-
tures from hyperspectral imaging (HSI) of sediment cores.
(iii) Paleontology: Based on the fossil image dataset and deep
convolutional neural networks, automatic classification and identi-
fication are realized (Liu et al., 2022). Wang et al. (2022) proposed
the transpose convolutional neural network (TCNN) model to iden-
tify brachiopod fossils using a new deep convolutional neural net-
work (CNN).
(iv) Mineral: Long et al. (2022) carried out classification and
visualization research using artificial intelligence technology for
mineral identification. Wu et al. (2022) proposed a deep learning
mineral identification model based on multi-label image
classification.
Most of these works have mainly focuses on the identification
of a single specific facies marker (sediment structure, a fossil taxa,
etc.), but the comprehensive reasoning for sedimentary facies
interpretation using multiple characteristic facies markers are rare.
Therefore, this study uses fluvial facies a case example to demon-
stration the entire process from the initial construction of fluvial
facies knowledge graph through the final application and verifica-
tion of sedimentary facies identification. This step-by-step proce-
2
Geoscience Frontiers 14 (2023) 101521
dure provides an optimized knowledge service and lays a solid
foundation for the future identification of multiple sedimentary
facies in the field of lithofacies paleogeography.
2. Materials and methodology
The main steps (Fig. 1) are: (i) Acquiring fluvial facies
knowledge. (ii) Designing the fluvial facies knowledge architecture.
(iii) Constructing a structured, standardized, and systematic
fluvial facies knowledge system. (iv) Constructing a knowledge
graph for the fluvial facies domain as a structured multi-node
divergent directed graph. (v) Designing a knowledge reasoning
algorithm and sedimentary facies identification model for fast,
efficient, and automatic intelligent identification of fluvial
sedimentary facies.
2.1. Fluvial facies knowledge acquisition
The process of extracting relevant information and concepts
from authoritative geoscience literature is a critical initial step
for constructing a knowledge graph (Wang et al., 2018). Geo-
science text mining uses the combination of natural language
processing (NLP) and machine learning to extract such informa-
tion from unstructured/semi-structured geoscience literature
(Wang and Ma, 2021) and to express that knowledge in a struc-
tured form. In addition to enabling geoscience knowledge discov-
ery (Ma et al., 2022), these methods also provide a text
environment for semantic reasoning. In the same way, when
applied to sedimentary facies identification, knowledge acquisi-
tion can provide high-quality knowledge services for which the
precision reflects to a certain extent the level of the knowledge
base and, therefore, directly affect the accuracy of the sedimen-
tary facies identification.
In turn, knowledge graphs can be used to assist natural lan-
guage processing (NLP) and text mining for analysis of Earth
science literature (Al-Moslmi et al., 2020; Ma, 2022). (i) Named
entity recognition (NER) via deep neural networks that no longer
relies on manually defined knowledge and rules (Fan et al.,
2020). (ii) An Att-Bi-LSTM-CRF model with geoscience embedding
based on a neural network of bidirectional long short term mem-
ory conditional random field (Bi-LSTM-CRF) model with attention
mechanism (Qiu et al., 2019). (iii) Development of explainable arti-
ficial intelligence methods for convolutional neural networks
(CNN) in the Earth sciences (Mamalakis et al., 2022).
Fluvial facies knowledge acquisition is to extensively absorb
historical experience and expert knowledge, and extract the
knowledge contained in heterogeneous data sources through a ser-
ies of operations such as identification, integration, and induction,
in order to better serve the construction and application of fluvial
facies knowledge graph. The data sources are unstructured or
semi-structured picture-text-table information in typical text-
books, monographs, geological dictionaries, and sedimentological
and paleogeography literature.
But unfortunately, the classification schemes of fluvial facies are
uneven (Smith, 1974; Rust, 1978a,b; Rust, 1979; Walker and Cant,
1979; Miall, 1987; Miall, 2014), and therefore inhibit multimodal
acquisition of information for those facies. Neither modern nor
ancient fluvial sedimentary facies can be explained by a single uni-
fied or universal facies model. Cant and Walker (1976) described
fluvial facies types according to ‘‘bedding (sedimentary
structure) + facies”, e.g., planar-tabular cross-bedded facies. Miall
(1985) elaborated ‘‘lithofacies classification” scheme to classify flu-
vial facies. Singh and Bhardwaj (1991) proposed the different types
of fluvial facies according to ‘‘sedimentary structure + lithology +
facies”, e.g., trough cross-stratified sandy facies. Bridge (1993)
L. Zhang, M. Hou, A. Chen et al.
Fig. 1. The life cycle and technical framework of fluvial facies knowledge graph construction and application.
has rewritten Miall (1992) to give a more detailed description of
facies marker attributes for each sub-sedimentary facies type.
Browne and Naish (2003) explained and described three types of
fluvial facies based on ‘‘lithology + facies” (gravel, sand, and mud
facies). Scherer and Lavina (2005) described four different facies
associations based on ‘‘sedimentary structure + lithology”, e.g.,
horizontally laminated sandstones.
Miall (2013) proposed that fluvial facies are composed of eight
basic 3-D architectural elements: (i) Channels. (ii) Gravel bars and
bedforms. (iii) Sandy bedforms. (iv) Foreset macroforms. (v) Lateral
accretion deposits. (vi) Sediment gravity flow deposits. (vii) Lami-
nated sand sheets. (viii) Overbank fines. He later put forward a new
method based on Microforms, Mesoforms, and Macroforms in
which: (i) Microforms generate small-scale ripple marks and cur-
rent lineations. (ii) Mesoforms include larger-scale flow-regime
bedforms: dunes, sandwaves, minor channels, and unit bars (such
as linguoid bars, transverse bars, longitudinal bars, and diagonal
bars). (iii) Macroforms include major channels and larger, com-
pound bar forms (point bars, side bars, sand flats, and islands).
Miall (2013) classified the fluvial facies styles into: (i) High-
Sinuosity rivers. (ii) Low-Sinuosity rivers. (iii) Anastomosed rivers.
(iv) Ephemeral rivers. (v) Floodplain environments. Ribes et al.
(2015) expounded on the stratal patterns and facies assemblages
of 16 lithofacies in the Emirhan mini-basin (as modified from
Miall, 1985).
In addition to the above, multiple factors can affect the
accumulation and preservation of sedimentary records of fluvial
systems in geological sections in different spatial and temporal
settings, including watershed lithologies, terrain (mountain or
plain), slope, climatic range, the intensity and depth of river
discharge, the seasonal variations in water and sediment
discharges, vegetation coverage, the position within a channel or
edge, remodeling of previous fluvial deposits, the direction and
angle of field observations (vertical vs horizontal, local vs regional)
and other factors. In general, the identification of sedimentary
facies depends upon the regional environment and even upon
the geological time.
Therefore, the first step in our research was an attempt to
absorb, fuse, integrate and synthesize the diverse views of most
scholars as widely as possible. A classical classification of modern
fluvial facies deposition (Cant, 1982) was selected as the data
framework, which is divided into four types of river systems:
3
Geoscience Frontiers 14 (2023) 101521
meandering, braided, anastomosing (Smith, 1976, 1980, 1986)
and straight. For example, the Mississippi is a typical meandering
river (Fig. 2). The sediments of meandering and braided rivers
are widely distributed, whereas the sediments of ancient straight
rivers are not easily preserved.
After completing the data collection, a fluvial facies terminology
set was data pre-processed to ensure that standardized, reliable,
traceable and valid data are available for knowledge reasoning
and sedimentary facies identification.
The operations for the data pre-processing include:
(i) Cleaning and de-noising of fluvial facies data, in order to fil-
ter invalid information and remove redundant data.
(ii) Standardization of fluvial facies concepts and terms, merg-
ing and aligning fluvial facies knowledge (e.g., abbreviations, syn-
onyms, etc.).
(iii) Establing a rule set based on fluvial facies knowledge, and
the constraining and standardization of fluvial facies knowledge
by means of a data dictionary.
2.2. Design fluvial facies knowledge architecture
The design of the underlying logical architecture of fluvial facies
knowledge is an indispensable condition for the construction of
knowledge graph and related applications. The design of the
knowledge architecture plays a decisive role in the hierarchy,
structure, and content filling of the knowledge base, also lays a
solid foundation for the decision-making power of sedimentary
facies identification. The scope of knowledge architecture of fluvial
facies is the terminology categories and property feature words of
fluvial facies, which mainly includes two parts (Fig. 3):
(i) Schema layer (Sedimentary facies layer)
This module, also known as the ‘‘Conceptual ontology layer”,
refers to the collection of concepts and terms of fluvial facies
knowledge, and is equivalent to the corpus of all the keywords
and phrases describing the types of fluvial sedimentary facies. It
includs three hierarchies: ① fluvial facies, ② fluvial subfacies,
③ fluvial suborder facies (Feng, 2019; Mou, 2022).
(ii) Data layer (Facies marker layer)
Facies marker data is a collection of sedimentary properties
(Potter,1959); therefore, this layer is also called ‘‘Property data
layer”. It consists of the sediment records of various environmental
conditions and a suite of basic elements and identifying symbols
L. Zhang, M. Hou, A. Chen et al. Geoscience Frontiers 14 (2023) 101521

Fig. 2. Model of the types of sedimentary settings associated with a meandering river, tributary of the Mississippi River, 37°540 13.8100 N, 87°320 05.9000 W.

Fig. 3. Fluvial facies knowledge architecture consists of sedimentary facies layer and facies marker layer. Sedimentary facies layer is schema layer, including the concept
ontology terms of fluvial facies, the data structure is divided into three levels: fluvial facies, fluvial subfacies, and fluvial suborder facies. Facies marker layer is data layer,
covers all property characteristics and property values of fluvial sedimentary facies, and consists of four parts: lithology, sedimentary structure, paleontology, and mineral.

for sedimentary facies identification. It is mainly divided into four
layers: ① lithology, ② sedimentary structure, ③ paleontology,
④ mineral.
The architecture provides a basic information service for the
construction of the fluvial knowledge system and knowledge
graph. It also provides the effectial decision support for the text
mining methods and the design of machine learning data-mining
algorithm in the future.
2.3. Fluvial facies knowledge system
The Deep-time Digital Earth (DDE) is the first big science pro-
gram of the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS)
(Wang et al., 2018, 2021; Ma et al., 2020, 2022; Zhou et al.,
2021; Ma, 2022;). DDE has initiated and implemented a procedure
for constructing knowledge systems and knowledge graphs, has
established terminology standards, and has provided a platform

4
L. Zhang, M. Hou, A. Chen et al.
of technical service support for disciplinary fields within
sedimentology, paleogeography, petroleum geology, paleontology,
stratigraphy, etc. Only by laying a good foundation of
disciplines can we ensure the steady and healthy development of
scientific research. Scientific research without the support of
validated knowledge systems may be eclipsed in the not-to-
distant future.
The knowledge system of fluvial facies describes the summation
of the characteristic indication (facies markers) used in fluvial
facies identification and all fluvial facies classification. The experi-
ence and knowledge accumulation of geoscience experts provide a
powerful theoretical guidance for the construction of fluvial facies
knowledge system. The compilation of a clear and complete fluvial
facies knowledge system is an important component of the suite of
lithofacies knowledge graphs for the paleogeography domain.
These will provide an infrastructure for knowledge services and
reasoning applications.
2.3.1. Construction method
fluvial knowledge system is a tree-like logical hierarchical data
model, which clearly shows the logical relationship between all
hierarchies from the root node to the leaf node, and graphically
shows the association and subordination relationship between
terms and properties. The structural design of the entire knowl-
edge system is based on having ‘‘fluvial facies” as the ‘‘root node”
(starting point, a node without parent node), followed by branches
from the parent node to the child node until it reaches the leaf
node (facies marker layer), which is the node in the last layer that
cannot be subdivided. The tree data structure of fluvial facies
knowledge system is characterized by the rule that each concept
node has a finite number of child nodes (n > 0) until the leaf node
(n = 0), and each child node (except the leaf node) can be subdi-
vided into multiple disjoint subtrees.
Here are the detailed step-by-step instructions for building a
fluvial facies knowledge system:
(i) Set the root node.
Add a root node of the hierarchical structure tree, with the
name ‘‘fluvial facies”, which is a ‘‘concept node”.
(ii) Knowledge clustering of fluvial facies consists of two mod-
ules: ‘‘sedimentary facies layer” and ‘‘facies marker layer”.
Clarify whether each of the two nodes has a subordinate rela-
tionship (parent nodes and child nodes) or a sibling relationship
(sibling nodes).
(iii) Clarify the hierarchy structure relationships between terms.
A: Sedimentary facies layer is divided into three sublayers:
① The first hierarchy consists of four classifications of fluvial
sedimentary facies.
② The second hierarchy is fluvial sedimentary subfacies and its
patterns.
③ The third hierarchy is fluvial sedimentary suborder facies
and its types.
B: Facies marker layer includes property data of fluvial facies,
which are:
① lithology, ② sedimentary structure, ③ paleontology,
④ mineral.
(iv) Define and fill in the annotation information for all concept
nodes.
Include the names, definitions, and references of the concept
nodes to ensure that knowledge can be traced back to the source.
Of course, the symbol ‘‘@” can also be added before the reference
to distinguish the definition from the reference, making it easier
for computers to recognize.
(v) Fill in property and property values for all sedimentary
facies.
The following five keywords are named ‘‘property node”: facies
marker, lithology, sedimentary structure, paleontology, and min-
5
Geoscience Frontiers 14 (2023) 101521
eral. A property node is a description of the property characteris-
tics (values) of an entity (sedimentary facies term).
(vi) Establish the connection between the sedimentary facies
nodes and the facies marker nodes.
Distinguish the relationships between nodes at each hierarchy
and connect concept nodes (sedimentary facies) and property/
property values nodes (facies marker).
(vii) All of the above sedimentary facies (concept nodes) data
and facies marker (property nodes) data are stored, and generate
a data dictionary of fluvial facies in Markdown format (Supplemen-
tary data, Data S1).
2.3.2. Knowledge storage
For the traditional knowledge stored in the human brain mem-
ory, the brain capacity is limited. When the amount of data surges,
the query performance becomes more critical (Brazier et al., 2010);
therefore a computer-based system becomes more efficient and
convenient to store knowledge. Computer storage of knowledge
is convenient for subject experts to add, delete, modify, and check,
in order to meet the needs of various scenarios and of applications
for scientific research. Different types of knowledge storage meth-
ods have advantages and disadvantages. We have tried the
resource description framework (RDF) (Fig. 4) and web ontology
language (OWL) (Fig. 5) formats for fluvial knowledge storage
and describing the data content contained in terms. RDF is a self-
describing logical data resource model written in Extended
Markup Language (XML). An example shown in Fig. 3 illustrates
the extensive array of information types and their values, including
the class and subclasses, the node’s (initial) creation time, the
node’s definition, code names, labels, references, etc.
Protégé-based Web ontology programming languages have
much in common with RDF, but OWL offers a broad vocabulary
and more semantics (Parekh et al., 2004). Protégé is an ontology
editor and framework based on OWL (Protégé, 2000), RDF schema
(RDFs), etc. For constructing ontology-based knowledge systems.
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) standards meet domain
knowledge (Ma, 2017), and Protégé fully supports the latest OWL
2 and RDF specifications from the W3C. Each node has a uniform
resource identifier (URI) as a unique identifier in the international-
ized resource identifier format (Fig. 6).
2.3.3. Knowledge representation
Through the above steps, an ordered and structured representa-
tion framework of fluvial facies knowledge was obtained to
describe its hierarchical structure characteristics. We then used
Python language and JavaScript to design and write code to gener-
ate visual charts of fluvial facies knowledge: a fluvial knowledge
system hierarchy sunburst chart (multi-level pie chart) (Supple-
mentary data Fig. S1), a radial chart (Supplementary data Fig. S2),
etc. The central diagram in Supplementary data Fig. S1 shows the
apex of the hierarchy tree (the center of the circle), and farther
out from the center of the tree are the lower levels of the hierarchy.
We also developed a web back-end server for visualization of flu-
vial facies knowledge system, which provides dynamic web ser-
vices and application development environment. Users can view,
refresh and enlarge the visualization results on this web server site.
2.4. Fluvial facies knowledge graph
The construction of fluvial facies knowledge graph can reduce
the need for the storage of knowledge in human brain, accelerate
the efficiency of knowledge reasoning, sorting and storing of
knowledge in a structured form, and then enable a visual expres-
sion. The graph system can also quickly and efficiently find the
accurate and effective knowledge needed by the research from
the ‘‘ocean of knowledge”, thereby reducing the considerable
L. Zhang, M. Hou, A. Chen et al.
Fig. 4. List RDF code snippet of three terms: Fluvial Facies, Point bar, and Braided river. The red font ‘‘rdf:about” is used to describe or introduce a resource (terminology
name), and the blue font following ‘‘rdf:about” is the unique resource identifier (URI) for that terminology. The red font ‘‘rdf:resource” is used only for attributes and refers to
the introduction of a subject. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Fig. 5. Annotation of ‘‘Braided river” in web ontology language (OWL) format. The
terminology’s unique resource identifier (URI), names of subclasses and super-
classes, references, code name, terminology generation time, definition, and rdf
shema (rdfs) lable are mentioned.
workload for knowledge acquisition, improving the experience of
knowledge search, and enhancing the quality of knowledge retrie-
val. However, the construction of fluvial facies knowledge graph
itself is an extremely complex process. There are several ways to
build a knowledge graph (Kejriwal, 2019; Fensel et al., 2020; Ma,
2022):
(i) Manual construction (Top-down)
According to the geological field experience and knowledge
rules of geological experts, the top-down method first designs a
data schema framework manually, fills in the conceptual knowl-
edge from the top level, and gradually refined (Auer et al., 2018)
to form a structured and hierarchical skeleton, and then fills in
the knowledge in sequence. Although the mode of this method is
relatively fixed, but it has a high accuracy data set.
6
Geoscience Frontiers 14 (2023) 101521
(ii) Automatic build (Bottom-up)
This method extracts information from the geoscience litera-
ture, reclassifies, integrates and summarizes the data extracted,
automatically generates the knowledge base semi-automatic or
automatically, and constructs the knowledge graph (Wang et al.,
2018). Knowledge can also be selected from geoscience linked
open data (LOD) to build a knowledge graph (Cheatham et al.,
2018). The model of this method is flexible and changeable, but
the reliability of the automatically extracted knowledge is ques-
tionable, and it needs the intervention of geoscience experts to ver-
ify whether the data is accurate and reasonable.
(iii) Mixing top-down and bottom-up
They do not conflict with each other, but are complementary to
each other. Each exerts its own advantages to build a more reliable
geoscience knowledge graph. Moreover, the more labeled data are
provided by geoscience experts, the better the performance of the
knowledge graph.
In this study, the third hybrid method was used to construct the
fluvial facies domain knowledge graph (Abu-Salih, 2021). The
resulting fluvial facies knowledge graph is a fine-grained, high-
precision, multi-node, divergent, and one-way directed semantic
network graph.
2.4.1. Domain ontology and triples modeling
Knowledge modeling with fluvial facies triples is the process of
building the conceptual model of the knowledge graph. The gram-
matical structure of a fluvial facies triplet is ‘‘subject-predicate-
object (SPO) ”. An ‘‘node-edge-node” is the skeleton of the fluvial
facies triples, and it has two sets of expressions as illustrated by
the Cypher code:
(i) Ontology/Entity-Relationship-ontology/entity
(Fluvial_Facies)-[:Classification]->(Meandering_river),
(ii) Ontology/entity-Property-Property values
(Natural_levee)-[:Property]->(Facies_marker5),
(Facies_marker5)-[:Include]->(Paleontology5),
(Paleontology5)-[:Include]->(Plant_root5),
L. Zhang, M. Hou, A. Chen et al.
Fig. 6. Partial URIs of Protege’s OWL ontology, generated by the OWL application programming interface (API). The attribute ‘‘xml:base” be inserted in extensive markup
language (XML) document to specify a base internationalized resource identifier (IRI) format other than the base IRI of the document or external entity. The red font ‘‘rdf:
about” is used to describe an ontology (terminology name), and the blue font after ‘‘rdf:about” is the URI of that ontology. The red font ‘‘rdf:resource” introduces a subject that
is used only to describe attributes. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Then, two parts of sedimentary facies (ontology/entity) and
facies marker (property and property values) are filled into this tri-
plet skeleton model to prepare for the generation of fluvial facies
knowledge graph.
Ontology is a set of conceptualized and explicit formal specifi-
cations (Gruber, 1993; Guarino et al., 2009; Smith, 2012;
Effingham, 2013; Jacquette et al., 2014). Fluvial facies domain
ontology refers to concepts and terms related to fluvial sedimen-
tary facies. The entity refers to the ontology plus the instance;
for example, the sedimentary facies in a specific spatio-temporal
range can be called sedimentary facies entity. Ontology terminolo-
gies are indispensable materials for knowledge reasoning
(Ehrlinger and Wöß, 2016). Ontology is also the lifeblood of build-
ing data-driven and model-driven geoscience domain knowledge
graphs (Brewster et al., 2004; Ma et al., 2014; Jain, 2020). The dif-
ference between a knowledge graph and an ontology is that knowl-
edge graph = ontology + data (Bess, 2020). When the basic logic
rules and the fluvial facies knowledge triples are constructed, the
knowledge is no longer an isolated information point, but becomes
a huge semantic web connected by the fluvial facies ontology
terms (nodes) and their association relationships (edges).
The construction steps of fluvial facies ontology triples are as
follows:
(i) Describe and define fluvial facies ontologies and entities.
(ii) Clarify and customize (or follow existing definitions) rela-
tionships between ontologies and entities.
(iii) For qualitative data, the properties of ontology and entity
should be set. For quantitative data, the corresponding prop-
erty values should be added.
(iv) Create and list the instance.
2.4.2. Knowledge storage
The processed and refined fluvial facies knowledge triples
are stored in the native graph database platform Neo4j
7
Geoscience Frontiers 14 (2023) 101521
(Miller, 2013), using Cypher graph database query language.
The storage pattern is based on key value (Kemper, 2015),
which is helpful for queries to use knowledge more conve-
niently and quickly. This is different from the widely used dis-
tributed storage method in table format, because the flexibility
of traditional table data sets is not good, data is only stored,
data can’t communicate with each other, and there is no con-
nection and link between data. Using Neo4j for graph data
modeling of fluvial facies domain knowledge can improve effi-
ciency and flexibility (Lal, 2015), can write all triples knowledge
in one step, also can use comma separated value (CSV) file to
batch import. Especially when the amount of data is large,
the advantages of graph database are more obvious. Moreover,
the code of Cypher is readable, and is described as ‘‘like SQL
a declarative, textual query language”, while Cypher (Neo4js’s
query language) is more scalable (Kemper, 2015). Meanwhile,
Neo4j provides well-performing graph algorithms, and it also
has a certain auxiliary effect on knowledge reasoning and
knowledge calculation.
2.4.3. Visualization, query, and retrieve
The code written in Cypher language was run on the Neo4j
graph database platform, and a complete fluvial facies knowledge
graph was generated (Supplementary data Fig. S3). The visualiza-
tion of fluvial facies knowledge graph based on Neo4j graph data-
base describes the conceptual terms (ontology/entity), properties,
property characteristics (property values) and relationships
(edges) of fluvial facies in a structured form or a multi-
dimensional visual display. The Neo4j graph database expresses
fluvial facies knowledge as information that can be understood,
processed and interpreted by computers. The platform also shows
code error feedback so we know what went wrong and can correct
it. The Neo4j graph database platform provides the ability to query
and retrieve data using Cypher, which can view the query results of
a graphical knowledge graph and the number of nodes and edges it
L. Zhang, M. Hou, A. Chen et al. Geoscience Frontiers 14 (2023) 101521

Fig. 7. The graph view of running a MATCH and RETURN command statement to query the node named ‘‘diagonal” on the Neo4j fluvial facies knowledge graph database. The
row of labels starting with the number 260 in gray represents the properties and relationships (and their corresponding quantities) of the fluvial facies knowledge graph, and
the row of colored labels starting with the number 261 in purple represents all the nodes of the fluvial facies knowledge graph and their quantities, with a total of seven layers
of nodes. The bottom part shows that the fluvial facies knowledge graph consists of 261 nodes (ontologies) and 260 edges (relationships) in total. (For interpretation of the
references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

contains in real time (Fig. 7). The current fluvial facies knowledge
graph contains 261 semantic entities (nodes) and 260 relationships
(edges), in which each node has a unique ID value to avoid node
conflicts. The layout of node position is designed by knowledge
computation based on the paths of nodes and edges using graph
algorithms.
3. Application of fluvial facies identification and knowledge
reasoning
Existing, widely accepted methods for sedimentary facies iden-
tification present new constraints and opportunities in the age of
coding. Although sedimentary facies identification and prediction
is supported by the knowledge decision of geologists, it, itself, is
a very complex knowledge reasoning process. Due to the strong
subjectivity of manual identification, the high dimension and high
unpredictability of facies marker data are inevitably overlooked.
When multiple factors interfere, the complexity of sedimentary
facies interpretation and knowledge prediction increases, and the
identification performance decreases. To try to avoid these compli-
cations, this study introduces a novel data-mining clustering algo-
rithm that conforms to sedimentological cognition and common
sense, puts forward a fluvial sedimentary facies knowledge reason-
ing model, and designs and develops a sedimentary facies knowl-
edge reasoning operating system. Therefore, it provides a
practical reference for experts based on sedimentary facies identi-
fication and knowledge reasoning.
In the final step, the reasoning system is tested and the quality
of the reasoning results is evaluated. In the following section, we
first introduce the background knowledge and methods of fluvial
sedimentary facies identification and prediction, and summarize
the current knowledge reasoning methods and technologies
(Section 3.1), and then elaborate the theoretical background of
data-mining clustering algorithm in detail (Section 3.2).
8
3.1. Reasoning principles and model design
Fluvial sedimentary facies identification is the process of infer-
ring and predicting ancient depositional environment and sedi-
mentary facies by analyzing and interpreting facies marker data.
Facies modeling is an important part of facies analysis, which
describes the identification marker (facies marker) such as sedi-
ments and paleontology (Melchor et al., 2012), and uses these to
objectively determine the corresponding facies and deduce the
deposition process of each sedimentary facies (Anderton, 1985).
The grain size of fluvial sediments varies greatly. With a decrease
in water energy, the fine suspended matter is gradually deposited,
and the resulting vertical profile shows a dual structure of lower
coarser (e.g., gravel, sandy) and upper finer (e.g., silt, muddy)
deposits (He, 2022). The color of rocks partly reflects their compo-
sition, structure and origin, and it is one of the important markers
for stratigraphic stratification, correlation and inference of paleo-
geographic conditions.
Although the current publications presenting the theoretical
description and interpretation of facies patterns are reasonable,
they may not be suitable for the derivation of other facies under
spatio-temporal relationships; that is, they are not a universal tem-
plate for understanding the complexity of fluvial facies. The identi-
fication and analysis of fluvial sedimentary facies should be
completed in at least three parts (Miall, 1982): (i) Identification
and description of major and minor lithofacies components.
(ii) To determine and study the internal relations of lithofacies
associations. (iii) Geometry and orientation of sedimentary units.
Vertical lithofacies association (profile) has strong cyclicity
(Visher, 1965; Miall, 1978), which is especially meaningful for
identification. Markov chain (MC) is the best method technique
for vertical sequence analysis (Miall, 1982), the model holds that
all the past information is stored in the current state, that is, the
state obtained at the n-th transition during the state transition of
a system, and there is a transition probability, only depends on
L. Zhang, M. Hou, A. Chen et al.
the result of the previous time (the (n–1)-th), and the transition
probability can be calculated from the previous state, which is
independent of the original state of the system and the Markov
process before the transition (Harbaugh and Bonham-Carter,
1970).
The Markov chain is applied to sedimentary facies identifica-
tion, assuming the sequential state of the probability (P) of the
lithofacies (L) state is: . . .Lt-2, Lt-1, Lt, Lt+1, Lt+2. . ., then the probabil-
ity when Lt+1 depends only on Lt, i.e Eq. (1)
PðLtþ1 j . . . Lt2 ; Lt1 ; Lt Þ ¼ PðLtþ1 jLt Þ
In summary, we designed the model of fluvial sedimentary
facies identification and knowledge reasoning (Fig. 8). The reason-
ing principles of the model are described as follows:
(i) The probabilities of all the fluvial suborder facies add up to
100%.
(ii) The probabilities of each layer are summed up by the prob-
abilities of its subterms.
(iii) The less a single keyword appears in the database, the
greater the weight of the keyword.
(iv) The weight of the fluvial suborder facies is equal to the sum
of the weight of the keywords contained in it.
3.2. Reasoning algorithm and system development process
To infer the corresponding sedimentary facies from a large
amount of facies marker data requires the support of knowledge
reasoning techniques. Knowledge reasoning technology based on
knowledge graph has received extensive attention in academia
and industry. Generally, there are three kinds of knowledge rea-
soning methods (Chen et al., 2020a): (i) rule-based reasoning
(Chen et al., 2020b), in which the algorithm for association rule
mining under incomplete evidence (AMIE) was derived from early
inductive logic programming (ILP) system (Galárraga et al., 2013).
(ii) Distributed representation learning-based reasoning (Xie et al.,
2016), of which common methods include: translating embedding
Fig. 8. Fluvial sedimentary facies identification and knowledge reasoning model. On the right side is the ‘‘Input layer” of the facies mark, knowledge reasoning and knowledge
calculation are carried out in the middle ‘‘Reasoning layer”, and the system displays the corresponding fluvial facies results in the ‘‘Output layer”.
Geoscience Frontiers 14 (2023) 101521
(TransE) series algorithms (Bordes et al., 2013), etc., which can be
used for tasks such as nodes classification and link prediction. (iii)
Neural network-based reasoning, for example, Das et al. (2016)
combined multi-step reasoning based on symbolic logic with
recurrent neural networks (RNN). Socher et al. (2013) introduced
a neural tensor network (NTN) model for reasoning over a large
joint knowledge graph. Schlichtkrull et al. (2018) introduced rela-
tional graph convolutional network (R-GCN) and applied them to
link prediction and entity classification tasks. Graph neural net-
work (GNN) have been used to capture structural information
ð1Þ
inherently stored in knowledge graph (Arora, 2007).
The above content analyzes the previous research in this
research field through the practice of knowledge reasoning based
on knowledge graph and its related neural network methods and
technologies. In this paper, the sedimentary facies identification
method is combined with computer technology and Python and
other tools. It is found that through the in-depth deduction of
multi-source heterogeneous, multivariate, multi-dimensional,
mixed, random, fuzzy, and spatio-temporal heterogeneous facies
marker data, the hypothesis of sedimentary facies can be inferred
and predicted, and the induction and experiment can be made.
Based on the tree logic hierarchy of fluvial facies knowledge and
data-mining clustering algorithm (Song et al., 2018; Portisch
et al., 2022), a new data-mining clustering algorithm for sedimen-
tary facies identification was introduced. The aim is to obtain the
corresponding sedimentary facies results as the output data by
inputting the facies marker combination data.
First, an initial database is built, the sedimentary facies data sets
with different hierarchical structures are divided, and the initial
weight is assigned to each node of the input layer. Then, according
to the tree clustering data structure of the fluvial facies knowledge
graph, the correlations between the entity nodes (sedimentary
facies) and the attribute nodes (facies marker) are analyzed. The
input feature data (facies marker combination) are read, for which
the feature data are the input variables used for inference and pre-
diction. The node with the highest matching rate with the input
9
L. Zhang, M. Hou, A. Chen et al.
data and the closest reasoning path was found through knowledge
calculation. The two adjacent sedimentary facies nodes are clus-
tered and merged from bottom to top in turn until the root node.
Fig. 9 shows the flow chart of sedimentary facies identification
and knowledge reasoning for a specific example demo.
The following sections describe in detail the development pro-
cess of the knowledge reasoning system, the mathematical formula
derivation process, and the actual calculation methods and steps:
(i) Create a new embedded local database (using SQLite) named
‘‘initDB” in Python language.
(ii) A ‘‘DB operation” module was built with the data of sedimen-
tary layer and facies marker layer of fluvial facies, which can be
used to create, read (retrieve), update, and delete fluvial facies
data, and query sub-nodes.
(iii) Input keywords in the fluvial facies knowledge graph rea-
soning model, separated by English commas ’,’. For example,
‘‘Gravel, Massive, Sand”.
(iv) Keywords spotting (k1 , k2 , k3 . . . kn ).
(v) Search the database to find out how many times all the key-
words (C k1 , C k2 , C k3 . . . C kn ) appear in the model.
(vi) The weight of each keyword ki is calculated, and the weight
of the keyword is inversely proportional to the number of times the
keyword appears in the database as Eq. (2)
Qn
i¼1 C ki
W ki ¼
C ki
where W ki is the weight of the i-th keyword, and C ki is the number
of occurrences of the i-th keyword in the database.
(vii) Calculate the weight of the sedimentary suborder facies,
which is equal to the sum of the keyword weights contained in this
sedimentary suborder facies, as Eq. (3)
Xn
W mi ¼ i¼1
C wi W ki
where W mi is the total weight of the i-th suborder facies, C wi is the
number of occurrences of the i-th keyword in the suborder facies
characteristic sign (0 or 1).
Fig. 9. Example of fluvial facies identification and knowledge algorithm flow. Do a demo demonstration to explain, gives the mathematical formula derivation procedure and
the actual numerical calculation process. ‘‘a, b, and c” represent facies marker data, ‘‘A, B, and C” represent fluvial suborder facies, and ‘‘AA” and ‘‘BB” represent fluvial
subfacies.
Geoscience Frontiers 14 (2023) 101521
(viii) Convert the sedimentary suborder facies weights to prob-
abilities, as Eq. (4)
W mi
Pmi ¼ Pn ð4Þ
i¼1 W mi
where Pmi is the probability of the i-th sedimentary suborder facies.
(ix) Upward inference computes the probability of the upper
layer, and the probability of each layer is the sum of the probabil-
ities of its sublayers.
3.3. Reasoning results and quality assessment
In order to further verify the reliability of the fluvial sedimen-
tary facies identification and knowledge reasoning algorithm, it is
used in practical application scenarios, and the correctness of the
algorithm and program is verified by comparing with the results
of literature (Supplementary data Table S1). First, the facies labeled
data from the test data set were input into the sedimentary facies
inference model, and the inference system read the keywords, car-
ried out relevant numerical calculations on the obtained sedimen-
tary facies reasoning results, and arranged in hierarchical
descending order (Supplementary data Fig. S4). The sedimentary
facies reasoning model is then calculated and verified by program-
ming and experiment.
ð2Þ
Experimental verification:
For example, enter the following keywords in the reasoning
system: ‘‘Fine sandstone, Scour erosional fill, Medium-scale cross
bedding, Small-scale cross bedding, Horizontal bedding”. The
reasoning system will then automatically calculate the knowledge.
Supplementary data Table S2 Supplementary data Table S1 details
the specific calculation value and the deduced position of the sed-
imentary facies in each layer. The predicted best interpretation of
ð3Þ fluvial facies is then compared with known sedimentary facies
intepretation as explained by experts in the literature. The calcula-
tion process of the reasoning system for three hierarchies [Fluvial
facies (first hierarchy), Fluvial subfacies (second hierarchy), and
Fluvial suborder facie (second hierarchy)] of sedimentary facies
10
L. Zhang, M. Hou, A. Chen et al.
are as follows: The probabilities of the first hierarchy: Meandering
river (0.917), Anastomosed river (0.083). The probabilities of the
second hierarchy: Bank deposit (0.833), Floodplain (0.042), Oxbow
lake (0.042), Anastomosed channel (0.042), Channel wetland
(0.041). The output results [(Fluvial suborder facie (second hierar-
chy)] of the above keywords were ‘‘Crevasse splay (0.667), Natural
levee (0.667), Overbank (0.042), Channel-fill (0.042), Multiple
channels (0.042), Peatland (0.04)”, in descending order of propor-
tion, and according to the reasoning principle just devised, the
sum of each layer of sedimentary facies is 1, while the sedimentary
faces results explained by the known expert experience knowledge
in the literature is ‘‘Crevasse channel” (the keywords entered by
the expert are: ‘‘Sandstone, often fine upwards with scoured bases.
Can be massive, cross-bedded (tough or planar), horizontally bedded,
ripple cross-laminated”). The results of the experimental verifica-
tion are good.
The results show that the output sedimentary facies of the rea-
soning model prediction results closely match the literature inter-
pretation results as given in the literature (Miall, 1985; Smith,
1987; Ribes et al, 2015; Wainman and McCabe, 2020), and these
results are not only applicable to this suborder facies, but also
are widely applicable to fluvial facies. As described in Supplemen-
tary data Table S1, the results from the reasoning system can meet
the accuracy requirements of fluvial sedimentary facies identifica-
tion, and the interpretation accuracy rate of the results is as high as
90% (Supplementary data Table S2 Supplementary data Table S3).
It also shows that the reasoning algorithm and model can approx-
imately describe the process and concepts of fluvial sedimentary
facies identification, which also confirms the reliability of the rea-
soning program of fluvial sedimentary facies identification. In addi-
tion, the operating system has the important features of being fast
and convenient for experts to use, which also accelerates the speed
of knowledge reasoning and improves the efficiency of knowledge
computing.
Even through the fluvial sedimentary facies identification and
knowledge reasoning shows a high matching rate when compared
with the interpretations of classic publications, it is not yet a one-
to-one mapping relationship. We can never make a 100% accurate
assessment because sedimentary facies identification itself is char-
acterized by data confounding and high dimensionality, but we can
provide enough knowledge to give a good assessment. In addition,
one complication is the heterogeneity of data. The data and the
definition and understanding of concepts are different among the
dates of publications and the studied region. Lowering this barrier
or differences is a goal for an improved knowledge graph. Another
factor is the need to complete bottom-up literature data input. In
the future, we intend to expand and standardize the classification
of various fluvial sedimentary facies according to the author or
publication date.
4. Discussion
The general process that was used to prepare the fluvial facies
knowledge graph can be extended to the identification and inter-
pretation of other sedimentary facies in the field of paleogeogra-
phy. However, there additional considerations and enhancements
are required in order to improve the scalability and general appli-
cability of knowledge graphs in this field.
4.1. Knowledge layer
(i) Knowledge completion:
As the basis for any knowledge graph construction, it is neces-
sary to enhance the knowledge base of the domain through the
method of knowledge completion in order to update the data
and pattern layers, and to enrich the semantic ontology model.
11
Geoscience Frontiers 14 (2023) 101521
(ii) Standardize knowledge:
Due to the different data sources and data formats of scholars
from different countries, the classification, definition, and descrip-
tion of the data generated are also different, thereby resulting in
some inconsistencies for knowledge representation. To some
extent, this ‘‘noise” can be reduced by establishing rule sets and
by standardized processing.
(iii) Version iteration and knowledge update:
Progressive enhancements of knowledge systems and knowl-
edge graphs should be indicated as version 1.0, 2.0, etc., to avoid
user confusion. This also applies to improved machine learning
algorithms and adjustment of parameters.
(iv) Version control (multilingual):
Multi-language versions of the domain knowledge graph can be
established through exchanges of international scholars, which
will also enhance the performance of the data dictionary.
4.2. Methodology layer
(i) Construction method:
The top-down construction of knowledge graph based only on
domain reference textbooks and legacy publications does not
encompass the whole knowledge base. It is necessary to apply
aspects of the bottom-up building of the knowledge graph through
data-mining techniques using machine reading of literature, com-
bined with expert intervention, error correction, and inclusion of
new knowledge in order to enhance and improve the knowledge
graph.
(ii) Reasoning method:
In the future, one should consider applying low-dimensional
vector representation methods (Abu-Salih et al., 2021) of word
embedding or entity embedding for knowledge reasoning, such
as Trans series models, and to explore neural network knowledge
reasoning, such as graph neural network for knowledge reasoning.
It will also be necessary to solve the knowledge reasoning problem
of multiple knowledge graphs.
4.3. Application layer
(i) Interoperability:
To improve interoperability, knowledge revision and audits
need to be jointly built and shared through coordinated manage-
ment and multi-person collaborative online editing.
(ii) Interoperability:
To facilitate public access to applications of the knowledge
graph, we developing an online service and web application soft-
ware that integrates the knowledge system, knowledge graph,
knowledge query, knowledge reasoning, and data visualization.
(iii) Human vocal interactions:
A user-voice question/answering system for interrogating
and learning from the intelligent reasoning system for deposi-
tional environments involves data modeling, recognition, and
storage, as well as the design of speech dialogue model train-
ing modules. The operating system collects and preprocesses
the user’s speech dialogue data (Supplementary data
Table S3), then rewrite and matche the existing data packets
(data sets) for appropriate response to them. Such a
question-answering system is very important for human-
machine understanding and judging the interpretation of sedi-
mentary facies.
5. Conclusions
Open-source sofeware and shared knowledge architecture are
key factors to drive future knowledge discovery and knowledge
L. Zhang, M. Hou, A. Chen et al.
service. In this study, we detailed the complete process and
technology for constructing a domain knowledge graph using the
interpretation of different types of fluvial facies from typical field
observations. First, a logical framework was compiled for the
domain knowledge of fluvial facies. A top-down construction of a
fluvial facies knowledge system was determined by the hierarchi-
cal architecture of a concept ontology layer and a property data
layer. The knowledge representation used the Java-based mind-
map software and constructed an associated data visualization
chart based on Python and JavaScript routines. The triples frame-
work of fluvial facies knowledge was designed using the structures
of ‘‘ontology-relationship-ontology” and ‘‘entity-property-property
value” was designed. The graph database query language of Cypher
was used to write code to generate the fluvial facies knowledge
graph, which can be visualized on graph data software such as
Neo4j. A knowledge reasoning model for computerized identifica-
tion of fluvial faces was developed based on tree hierarchy struc-
ture and data-mining clustering algorithm. This knowledge-
reasoning model was tested on 17 sets of data from literature pub-
lications, and the results were consistent with the interpretations
by experts. Our workflow for constructing the fluvial facies knowl-
edge graph and its application can be extended to other types of
sedimentary facies. In the future, a multi-map construction of all
sedimentary facies that is oriented toward compiling paleogeogra-
phy is needed; and may include the methodology of machine
learning.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the IUGS Deep-time Digital Earth
(DDE) Big Science Program, National Natural Science Foundation
of China (Grant No. 42050104). The authors want to thank Xian-
kang Hu for providing technical support. We would like to thank
Prof. Chao Ma for his constructive discussions and useful sugges-
tions. Many thanks are also given to the anonymous reviewers
for their valuable comments and suggestions.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2022.101521.
References
Abu-Salih, B., 2021. Domain-specific knowledge graphs: a survey. J. Netw. Comput.
Appl. 185,. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2021.103076 103076.
Abu-Salih, B., Al-Tawil, M., Aljarah, I., Faris, H., Wongthongtham, P., Chan, K.Y.,
Beheshti, A., 2021. Relational learning analysis of social politics using
knowledge graph embedding. Data Min. Knowl. Disc. 35 (4), 1497–1536.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10618-021-00760-w.
Al-Moslmi, T., Ocaña, M.G., Opdahl, A.L., Veres, C., 2020. Named entity extraction for
knowledge graphs: a literature overview. IEEE Access 8, 32862–32881. https://
doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2973928.
Anderton, R., 1985. Clastic facies models and facies analysis. J. Geol. Soc., London,
Special Publications 18 (1), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1144/gsl.
sp.1985.018.01.03.
Arora, S., 2007. A survey on graph neural networks for knowledge graph
completion. ArXiv:2007.12374v1. 10.48550/arXiv.2007.12374.
Auer, S., Kovtun, V., Prinz, M., Kasprzik, A., Stocker, M., Vidal, M.E., 2018. Towards a
knowledge graph for science. WIMS’18 (eds. Akerkar, R. et al.) 1-6. https://dl.
acm.org/doi/10.1145/3227609.3227689.
Bergen, K.J., Johnson, P.A., Maarten, V., Beroza, G.C., 2019. Machine learning for data-
driven discovery in solid Earth geoscience. Science 364 (6439), 464–468.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau0323.
12
Geoscience Frontiers 14 (2023) 101521
Bess, S., 2020. Knowledge base: knowledge graphs, data modeling, & AI : What’s the
different between an ontology and a knowledge graph? www.enterprise-
knowledge.com.
Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O., 2001. The semantic web. Sci. Am. 284 (5), 34–
43 http://www.jstor.org/stable/26059207.
Bordes, A., Usunier, N., Garcia-Duran, A., Weston, J., Yakhnenko, O., 2013.
Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. NIPS 26.
Brewster, C., Alani, H., Dasmahapatra, S., Wilks, Y., 2004. Data driven ontology
evaluation. In: Int. Conf. Lang. Resour. Lisbon, Portugal. pp. 24-30. http://www.
lrec-conf.org/lrec2004/article.php3?id_article=20#disambiguation.
Brazier, P., Chebotko, A., Gonzalez, E., Kashlev, A., Piazza, A., 2010. Supporting
geosciences web services metadata management and discovery. IEEE SCC 625–
626. https://doi.org/10.1109/SCC.2010.27.
Bridge, J.S., 1993. The interaction between channel geometry, water flow, sediment
transport and deposition in braided rivers. Geol. Soc. Spec. Publ. 75 (1), 13–71.
https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.1993.075.01.02.
Browne, G.H., Naish, T.R., 2003. Facies development and sequence architecture of a
late Quaternary fluvial-marine transition, Canterbury Plains and shelf, New
Zealand: implications for forced regressive deposits. Sediment Geol. 158 (1–2),
57–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0037-0738(02)00258-0.
Cant, D.J., 1982. Fluvial facies models and their application. In: M 31: Sandstone
Depositional Environments, pp. 115-137. doi: 10.2110/pec.06.84.0085.
Cant, D.J., Walker, R.G., 1976. Development of a braided-fluvial facies model for the
Devonian Battery Point sandstone. Quebec. Can. J. Earth Sci. 13, 102–119.
Cheatham, M., Krisnadhi, A., Amini, R., Hitzler, P., Janowicz, K., Shepherd, A., Narock,
T., Jones, M., Ji, P., 2018. The GeoLink knowledge graph. Big Earth Data 2 (2),
131–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/20964471.2018.1469291.
Chen, X., Jia, S., Xiang, Y., 2020a. A review: Knowledge reasoning over knowledge
graph. Expert Syst. Appl. 141,. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2019.112948
112948.
Chen, Z., Wang, Y., Zhao, B., Cheng, J., Zhao, X., Duan, Z., 2020b. Knowledge graph
completion: a review. IEEE Access 8, 192435–192456. https://doi.org/10.1109/
ACCESS.2020.3030076.
Das, R., Neelakantan, A., Belanger, D., 2016. Chains of reasoning over entities,
relations, and text using recurrent neural networks. arXiv:1607.01426v2
10.48550/arXiv.1607.01426.
Effingham, N., 2013. An introduction to ontology. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge
University Press.
Ehrlinger, L., Wöß, W., 2016. Towards a definition of knowledge graphs. In: Joint
Proceedings of the Posters and Demos Track of 12th International
Conference on Semantic Systems – SEMANTiCS2016 and 1st International
Workshop on Semantic Change & Evolving Semantics (SuCCESS16), Leipzig,
Germany pp. 1-4.
Elatrash, A.M., Abdelwahhab, M.A., Wanas, H.A., El-Naggar, S.I., Elshayeb, H.M.,
2021. Multi-disciplinary approach to sedimentary facies analysis of Messinian
Salinity Crisis tectono-sequences (South-Mansoura Area, Nile Delta): incised-
valley fill geological model reconstruction and petroleum geology-reservoir
element delineation. J. Petrol. Explor. Prod. 11 (4), 1643–1666. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13202-021-01124-2.
Fan, R., Wang, L., Yan, J., Song, W., Zhu, Y., Chen, X., 2020. Deep learning-based
named entity recognition and knowledge graph construction for geological
hazards. ISPRS Int. J. Geo Inf. 9, 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9010015.
Färber, M., Bartscherer, F., Menne, C., Rettinger, A., 2018. Linked data quality of
DBpedia, Freebase, OpenCyc, Wikidata, and YAGO. Semantic Web. 9 (1), 77–129.
https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-170275.
Feng, Z.Z., 2019. A review on the definitions of terms of sedimentary facies. J.
Palaeog-english. 8 (1), 1–11.
Fensel, D., Sßimsßek, U., Angele, K., Huaman, E., Kärle, E., Panasiuk, O., Toma, I.,
Umbrich, J., Wahler, A., 2020. Knowledge Graphs: Methodology, Tools and
Selected Use Cases, 1st ed., Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany. 10.1007/978-
3-030-37439-6_2.
Galarraga, L., Teflioudi, C., Hose, K., Suchanek, F.M., 2013. Amie: association rule
mining under incomplete evidence in ontological knowledge bases. In WWW.
413-422. 10.1145/2488388.2488425.
Gil, Y., Pierce, S.A., Babaie, H., Banerjee, A., Borne, K., Bust, G., Cheatham, M., Ebert-
Uphoff, I., Gomes, C., Hill, M., Horel, J., 2019. Intelligent systems for geosciences:
an essential research agenda. Commun. ACM 62 (1), 76–84.
Gruber, T.R., 1993. A translation approach to portable ontology specification. Knowl.
Acquisit. 5, 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1006/knac.1993.1008.
Guarino, N., Oberle, D., Staab, S., 2009. What is an ontology? Handbook on
ontologies. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. pp. 1-17. 10.1007/978-3-540-92673-
3_0.
Harbaugh, J., Bonham-Carter, G., 1970. Computer Simulation in Geology. John
Wiley, New York, p. 575.
He, Y., 2022. Recognition and application of single sand-body in fluvial facies. EES
(IOP Publishing Ltd.), 1087 (1), 012068. 10.1088/1755-1315/1087/1/012068.
Hendler, J., 2009. Web 3.0 emerging. Computer 42 (1), 111–113.
Hou, M., Chen, A., Ogg, J., Ogg, G., Huang, K., Xing, F., Chen, H., Jin, Z., Liu, Y., Shi, Z.,
Zhen, H., Hu, Z., Huang, H., Liu, X., 2019. China paleogeography: Current status
and future challenges. Earth-Sci. Rev. 189, 177–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
earscirev.2018.04.004.
Jacq, K., William, R., Alexandre, B., Didier, C., Bernard, F., Perrette, Y., Sabatier, P.,
Bruno, W., Maxime, D., Arnaud, F., 2020. Sedimentary structures
discriminations with hyperspectral imaging on sediment cores. Sci. Total
Environ. 817,. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152018 152018.
Jacquette, D., 2014. Ontology. Routledge. 10.4324/9781315710655.
L. Zhang, M. Hou, A. Chen et al.
Jain, N., 2020. Domain-specific knowledge graph construction for semantic analysis.
ESWC. In: Proceedings of the Extended Semantic Web Conference (ESWC), pp.
250-260. 10.1007/978-3-030-62327-2_40.
Karpatne, A., Ebert-Uphoff, I., Ravela, S., Babaie, H.A., Kumar, V., 2018. Machine
learning for the geosciences: Challenges and opportunities. IEEE Trans Knowl
Data Eng. 31 (8), 1544–1554. https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2018.2861006.
Kejriwal, M., 2019. Domain-Specific Knowledge Graph Construction. Springer, 115p.
10.1007/978-3-030-12375-8.
Kemper, C., 2015. Beginning Neo4j Create Relationships and Grow Your Application
with Neo4j. Springer, New York.
Kiersnowski, H., Paul, J., Peryt, T.M., Smith, D.B., 1995. Facies, paleogeography and
sedimentary history of the southern Permian Basin in Europe. In: Scholle, P.A.,
Peryt, T., Ulmer-Scholle, D.S. (Eds.), The Permian of NorThern Pangea:
Sedimentary Basins and Economic Resources. Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 119–
136.
Kontakiotis, G., Karakitsios, V., Maravelis, A.G., Zarkogiannis, S.D., Agiadi, K.,
Antonarakou, A., Pasadakis, N., Zelilidis, A., 2020. Integrated isotopic and
organic geochemical constraints on the depositional controls and source rock
quality of the Neogene Kalamaki sedimentary successions (Zakynthos Island,
Ionian Sea). Mediterr. Geosci. Rev. 8 (9), 706. https://doi.org/10.3390/
jmse8090706.
Krause, S., Hennig, L., Moro, A., Weissenborn, D., Xu, F., Uszkoreit, H., Naviglib, R.,
2016. Sar-graphs: a language resource connecting linguistic knowledge with
semantic relations from knowledge graphs. J. Web Semant. 37, 112–131.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2016.03.004.
Lai, J., Wang, G., Wang, S., Cao, J., Li, M., Pang, X., Qin, Z., 2018. Review of diagenetic
facies in tight sandstones: Diagenesis, diagenetic minerals, and prediction via
well logs. Earth-Sci. Rev. 185, 234–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
earscirev.2018.06.009.
Lal, M., 2015. Neo4j Graph Data Modeling. Packt Publishing Ltd., Birmingham.
Lassila, O., Hendler, J., 2007. Embracing‘‘ Web 3.0”. IEEE Internet Comput. 11 (3),
90–93.
Leila, M., Yasser, A., El.Bastawesy, M., El.Mahmoudi, A., 2022. Seismic stratigraphy,
sedimentary facies analysis and reservoir characteristics of the Middle Jurassic
syn-rift sediments in Salam Oil Field, north Western Desert, Egypt. Mar. Petrol.
Geol. 136,. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2021.105466 105466.
Liu, X., Song, H., 2020. Automatic identification of fossils and abiotic grains
during carbonate microfacies analysis using deep convolutional neural
networks. Sediment. Geol. 410,. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2020.
105790 105790.
Liu, X., Jiang, S., Wu, R., Shu, W., Hou, J., Sun, Y., Sun, J., Chu, D., Wu, Y., Song, H.,
2022. Automatic taxonomic identification based on the Fossil Image Dataset
(>415,000 images) and deep convolutional neural networks. Paleobiology 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.1017/pab.2022.14.
Ma, X., 2017. Linked Geoscience Data in practice: Where W3C standards meet
domain knowledge, data visualization and OGC standards. Earth Sci Inform. 10
(4), 429–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12145-017-0304-8.
Ma, X., 2022. Knowledge graph construction and application in geosciences: a
review. Comput. Geosci. 161,. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2022.105082
105082.
Ma, X., Fox, P., Rozell, E., West, P., Zednik, S., 2014. Ontology dynamics in a data life
cycle: Challenges and recommendations from a Geoscience Perspective. J. Earth
Sci. 25, 407–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12583-014-0408-8.
Ma, C., Kale, A.S., Zhang, J., Ma, X., 2022. A knowledge graph and service for regional
geologic time standards. Geosci. Front. 13, 101453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gsf.2022.101453.
Ma, X., Ma, C., Wang, C., 2020. A new structure for representing and tracking version
information in a deep time knowledge graph. Comput. Geosci. 145,. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cageo.2020.104620 104620.
Mamalakis, A., Barnes, E.A., Ebert-Uphoff, I., 2022. Investigating the fidelity of
explainable artificial intelligence methods for applications of convolutional
neural networks in geoscience. AIES 1 (4), e220012.
Long, T., Zhou, Z., Hancke, G., Bai, Y., Gao, Q., 2022. A Review of Artificial Intelligence
Technologies in Mineral Identification: Classification and Visualization. JSAN,
2022, 11(3), 50. doi: 10.3390/jsan11030050.
Melchor, R.N., Genise, J.F., Buatois, L.A., Umazano, A.M., 2012. Fluvial environments.
In: Knaust, D., Bromley, R.G. (Eds.), Trace Fossils as Indicators of Sedimentary
Environments. Developments in Sedimentology 64, 329-378. 10.1016/B978-0-
444-53813-0.00012-5.
Miall, A.D., 1978. Lithofacies types and vertical profile models in braided river
deposits: A summary. In: Miall, A.D. (Ed.), Fluvial Sedimentology, Memoir 5.
CSPG, Calgary, pp. 597–604.
Miall, A.D., 1982. Analysis of fluvial depositional systems. AAPG Continuing Studie
20. https://doi.org/10.1306/CE20422.
Miall, A.D., 1985. Architectural-element analysis: A new method of facies analysis
applied to fluvial deposits. Earth-Sci. Rev. 22 (4), 261–308. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0012-8252(85)90001-7.
Miall, A.D., 1987. Recent developments in the study of fluvial facies models. SEPM
Spec. Publ. 39. https://doi.org/10.2110/pec.87.39.0001.
Miall, A.D., 2014. The Facies and Architecture of Fluvial Systems. Springer, Cham, pp.
9–68.
Miall, A.D., 2013. The geology of fluvial deposits: sedimentary facies, basin analysis.
Pet. Geol, Springer, 582 p. 10.1016/S0037-0738(96)00081-4.
Miller, J.J., 2013. Graph database applications and concepts with Neo4j. In:
Proceedings of the southern association for information systems conference,
Atlanta, GA, USA 2324 (36).
13
Geoscience Frontiers 14 (2023) 101521
Mishra, A., Sharma, A., Patidar, A.K., 2022. Evaluation and development of a
predictive model for geophysical well log data analysis and reservoir
characterization: machine learning applications to lithology prediction. Nat.
Resour. Res. 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11053-022-10121-z.
Moore, R.C., 1949. Meaning of facies. Geol. Soc. Am. Memoir 39, 1–34. https://doi.
org/10.1130/MEM39-p1.
Mou, C.L., 2022. Suggested naming and classification of the word facies. Sediment.
Geol. 42 (3), 331-33. 10.19826/j.cnki.1009-3850.2022.03001.
Mrdjenovich, D., Horton, M.K., Montoya, J.H., Legaspi, C.M., Dwaraknath, S.,
Tshitoyan, V., Jain, A., Persson, K.A., 2020. Propnet: a knowledge graph for
materials science. Matter-US. 2 (2), 464–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.matt.2019.11.013.
Nizzoli, L., Marco, A., Maurizio, T., Stefano, C., 2020. Geo-semantic-parsing: AI-
powered geoparsing by traversing semantic knowledge graphs. Decis. Support
Syst. 136,. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2020.113346 113346.
Ogg, J.G., 2019. Integrated global stratigraphy and geologic timescales, with some
future directions for stratigraphy in China. Earth-Sci. Rev. 189, 6–20. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2018.01.001.
Page, R., 2016. Towards a biodiversity knowledge graph. Research Ideas and
Outcomes 2, e8767.
Parekh, V., Gwo, J.P.J., Finin, T., 2004. Ontology based semantic metadata for
geoscience data. IKE, 485–490.
Paulheim, H., 2017. Knowledge graph refinement: a survey of approaches and
evaluation methods. Semant. Web J. 8 (3), 489–508. https://doi.org/10.3233/
SW-160218.
Portisch, J., Heist, N., Paulheim, H., 2022. Knowledge graph embedding for data
mining vs. knowledge graph embedding for link prediction–two sides of the
same coin? Semantic Web 13 (82), 1–24.
Potter, P.E., 1959. Facies model conference. Science 129, 1292–1294. https://doi.
org/10.1126/science.129.3358.1292.
Protégé, 2000. The Protégé project. Protégé. http://protege.stanford.edu.
Qiu, Q., Xie, Z., Wu, L., Tao, L., Li, W., 2019. BiLSTM-CRF for geological named entity
recognition from the geoscience literature. Earth Sci. Inform. 12 (4), 565–579.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12145-019-00390-3.
Reading, H.G., 1978. Sedimentary Environments and Facies. Blackwell Scientific
Publications, Oxford, p. 557.
Ribes, C., Kergaravat, C., Bonnel, C., Crumeyrolle, P., Callot, J.P., Poisson, A., Temiz, H.,
Ringenbach, J.-P., 2015. Fluvial sedimentation in a salt-controlled mini-basin:
stratal patterns and facies assemblages, Sivas Basin, Turkey. Sedimentology 62
(6), 1513–1545.
Rust, B.R., 1978a. A classification of alluvial channel systems. In: Miall, A.D. (Ed.),
Fluvial Sedimentology. Can. Soc. Petrol. Geol. Mem. 5, 187-198.
Rust, B.R., 1978b. Depositional models for braided alluvium. In: Miall, A.D. (Ed.),
Fluvial Sedimentology, Can. Soc. Petrol. Geol. Mem. 5, 605-625.
Rust, B.R., 1979. Facies models 2. Coarse alluvial deposits. In Walker, R.G. (Ed.),
Facies models, Geoscience Canada Reprint Series 1, 9-21.
Santos, A., Colaço, A.R., Nielsen, A.B., Niu, L., Strauss, M., Geyer, P.E., Coscia, F.,
Albrechtsen, N.J.W., Mundt, F., Jensen, L.J., 2022. A knowledge graph to interpret
clinical proteomics data. Nat. Biotechnol. 40, 692–702. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41587-021-01145-6.
Scherer, C.M.S., Lavina, E.L.C., 2005. Sedimentary cycles and facies architecture of
aeolian-fluvial strata of the Upper Jurassic Guará Formation, Southern Brazil.
Sedimentology 52 (6), 1323–1341.
Schlichtkrull, M., Kipf, T.N., Bloem, P., van den Berg, R., Titov, I., Welling, M., 2018.
Modeling Relational Data with Graph Convolutional Networks. In: , et al. The
Semantic Web. ESWC 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 10843.
Springer, Cham. 10.1007/978-3-319-93417-4_38.
Selley, R.C., 1982. An Introduction to Sedimentology (Second Ed.). Academic Press,
London 417 pp. 10.1017/S0016756800050834.
Shadbolt, N., Berners-Lee, T., Hall, W., 2006. The semantic web revisited. IEEE Intell
Syst. 21 (3), 96–101. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2006.62.
Singh, A., Bhardwaj, B.D., 1991. Fluvial facies model of the Ganga River sediments,
India. Sediment. Geol. 72 (1–2), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/0037-0738
(91)90127-Y.
Singhal, A., 2012. Introducing the knowledge graph: things, not strings, Google.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/introducing-knowledge-graph-
things-not.html.
Smith, N.D., 1974. Sedimentology and bar formation in the upper Kicking Horse
River, a braided outwash stream. J. Geol. 82 (2), 205–223. https://doi.org/
10.1086/627959.
Smith, D.G., 1976. Effect of vegetation on lateral migration of anastomosed channels
of a glacial meltwater river. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 87, 857–860.
Smith, D.G., 1986. Anastomosing river deposits, sedimentation rates and basin
subsidence, Magdalena River, northwestern Colombia, South America.
Sediment. Geol. 46 (3–4), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/0037-0738(86)
90058-8.
Smith, G.A., 1987. The influence of explosive volcanism on fluvial sedimentation;
the Deschutes Formation (Neogene) in central Oregon. J. Sediment. 57 (4), 613–
629. https://doi.org/10.1306/212F8BBB-2B24-11D7-8648000102C1865D.
Smith, B., 2012. Ontology. The furniture of the World. Brill. pp. 47-68.
Smith, D.G., Smith, N.D., 1980. Sedimentation in anastomosed river systems;
examples from alluvial valleys near Banff, Alberta. J. Sediment. 50 (1), 157–164.
https://doi.org/10.1306/212F7991-2B24-11D7-8648000102C1865D.
Socher, R., Chen, D., Manning, C., Ng. A., 2013. Reasoning with neural tensor
networks for knowledge base completion. In: NIPS’13 Proceedings of the 26th
L. Zhang, M. Hou, A. Chen et al.
International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 926–
934.
Song, Q., Wu, Y., Lin, P., Dong X.L., Sun, H., 2018. Mining summaries for knowledge
graph search. ICDM’16. 30 (10), 1887-1900.
Sun, Y., Chen, J., Yan, P., Zhong, J., Sun, Y., Jin, X., 2022. Lithology identification of
uranium-bearing sand bodies using logging data based on a bp neural network.
Minerals 12 (5), 546. https://doi.org/10.3390/min12050546.
Teichert, C., 1958. Concept of facies. Bull. Am. Ass. Petrol. Geol. 42, 2718–2744.
https://doi.org/10.1306/0BDA5C0C-16BD-11D7-8645000102C1865D.
Visher, G.S., 1965. Use of vertical profile in environmental reconstruction. Am.
Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull. 49, 41–61.
Wainman, C.C., McCabe, P.J., 2020. Correlation of fluvial strata in the subsurface-a
review. Mar Pet Geol. 122,. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2020.104611
104611.
Walker, R.G., 1976. Facies Models 1. General Introduction. Geosci. Can. 3 (1), 21–24.
Walker, R.G., Cant, D.J., 1979. Facies models 3: Sandy fluvial systems. In R.G. Walker,
ed., Facies models. Geol. Assoc. Can. Reprint Series 1, 23–32.
Wang, C., Hazen, R.M., Cheng, Q., Stephenson, M.H., Zhou, C., Fox, P., Shen, S.Z.,
Oberhänsli, R., Hou, Z., Ma, X., Feng, Z., Fan, J., Ma, C., Hu, X., Luo, B., Wang, J.,
Schiffries, C.M., 2021. The Deep-Time Digital Earth program: data-driven
discovery in geosciences. Natl. Sci. Rev. 9, 151–161. https://doi.org/10.1093/
nsr/nwab027.
Wang, H., Li, C., Zhang, Z., Kershaw, S., Holmer, L.E., Zhang, Y., Wei, K., Liu, P., 2022.
Fossil brachiopod identification using a new deep convolutional neuralnetwork.
Gondwana Res. 105, 290–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2021.09.011.
Wang, C., Ma, X., 2021. Text Mining. In: Daya, S.B., Cheng, Q., McKinley, J., Agterberg,
F. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Mathematical GeoSciences. Encyclopedia of Earth
Sciences Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26050-
7_325-1.
14
Geoscience Frontiers 14 (2023) 101521
Wang, C., Ma, X., Chen, J., Chen, J., 2018. Information extraction and knowledge
graph construction from geoscience literature. Comput. Geosci. 112, 112–120.
Wu, B., Ji, X., He, M., Yang, M., Zhang, Z., Chen, Y., Wang, Y., Zheng, X., 2022. Mineral
identification based on multi-label image classification. Minerals 12 (11), 1338.
https://doi.org/10.3390/min12111338.
Xie, R., Liu, Z., Sun, M., 2016. Representation learning of knowledge graphs with
hierarchical types. JCAI, 2965–2971.
Xu, Z., Shi, H., Lin, P., Ma, W., 2022. Intelligent on-site lithology identification based
on deep learning of rock images and elemental data. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens.
Lett. 19, 6511205. https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2022.3179623.
Zhan, C., Dai, Z., Soltanian, M. R., Zhang, X., 2022. Stage-wise stochastic deep
learning inversion framework for subsurface sedimentary structure
identification. Geophysical Research Letters. 49 (1), e2021GL095823. 10.1029/
2021GL095823.
Zhang, X., Huang, Y., Zhang, C., Ye, P., 2022. Geoscience Knowledge Graph (GeoKG):
development, construction and challenges. T GIS. 26 (6), 2480–2494. https://
doi.org/10.1111/tgis.12985.
Zheng, D., Hou, M., Chen, A., Zhong, H., Qi, Z., Ren, Q., 2022a. Application of machine
learning in the identification of fluvial-lacustrine lithofacies from well logs: a
case study from Sichuan Basin, China. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 215,. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.petrol.2022.110610 110610.
Zheng, D., Wu, S., Ma, C., Xiang, L., Hou, L., Chen, A., Hou, M., 2022b. Zircon
classification from cathodoluminescence images using deep learning. Geosci.
Front. 13, (6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2022.101436 101436.
Zhou, C., Wang, H., Wang, C., Hou, Z., Zheng, Z., Shen, S., Cheng, Q., Feng, Z., Wang, X.,
Lv, H.R., Fan, J., Hu, X., Hou, M., Zhu, Y., 2021. Geoscience knowledge graph in
the big data era. Sci. China Earth Sci. 64 (7), 1105–1114.