dataesr/scientific-paragraphs-categorization huggingface dataset:
Today, most of these data are made available using readily map-projected raster images for GIS integration. Examples are the global topographic maps of a selection of planetary surfaces, such as the Moon or Mars  (USGS, 2002 (USGS, , 2003;; Hare et al. , 2015). The third class of maps comprises geologic and geomorphologic thematic maps depicting lithologies, processes, ages, i. e. the chronostratigraphy, structural features as well as major landforms. Planetary geologic maps are usually monothematic, i. e. analytical maps in a classical cartographic sense. This interpretation of geologic information differs considerably from terrestrial geologic maps that are usually complex-analytical, multi-thematic maps synthesizing lithologic and stratigraphic information, topography as well as building and landscape information for orientation purposes.
A comparably large amount of geologic maps have been made public and spread over a number of websites, publication platforms, and data archives. Despite an increasing number of maps being made available in digital format, most of them are paper-print publications for historical reasons. Recently, maps are made available in digital format with accompanying GIS project files, albeit often in proprietary formats that do not allow much interchange on the project level yet. Most prominent geologic map publications are the Scientific Investigations Series maps published by the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) hosted at the USGS Publication Warehouse or the websites of the USGS Astrogeology Branch. A selection of a few notable publications are given in, e. g. ,  Tanaka et al. (2005) ;  Williams et al.
Additional to that, a fairly and large, yet un-assessed, share of map publications are spread over topical journals and are found by targeted article searches only (e. g. ,  Pondrelli et al. , 2011; Debniak et al. , 2017; Pietro et al. , 2018; Murana, 2018; Iqbal et al. , 2020). With the advent of mapping journals and a richer data base, one can observe an increase of planetary geologic maps publications over the last ten years. Additional to that, planetary maps have been produced in a number of countries internationally in the last decades. A catalog that lists both historic and recent planetary maps internationally is a bottom-up initiative The Digital Museum of Planetary Mapping 4  that contains data of 2954 maps  (Hargitai and Pitura, 2018). Talking about reuse of maps, from a planetary mapper's point of view, this typically involves only a part of the themes or regions on a previous map.
The integration of previous cartographic work is most effective if previously made analog maps are digitized, i. e. renovated, and digital maps are provided in separable layers, including raster, vector and annotation layers. This separability of georeferenced layers is essential for both creating new cartographic work and re-using and combining themes from maps in a new study  (Hargitai, 2016). From such a practical point of view, feature databases, originally either in map or table formats, should prospectively also be included in a spatial repository because they, such as the databases of valley networks or craters on Mars, serve as additional reference and base layers for new maps (e. g. ,  Chuang and Williams, 2018). Single-themed digital feature databases are also produced through mapping and even if the final product is not a classical map, but a data table, or a point, polyline or polygon file, they are just as important for planetary research, as classical map products.
g. Radebaugh et al. (2019)  and references cited therein), or the ESA Planetary Science Archive User Group (PSA-UG) (e. g. ,  Rossi et al. , 2014) , to bottom-up approaches (e. g. ,  Hargitai, 2016; Manaud et al. , 2018b). Such activities rely on voluntary work of members of the community to a large extent. Community initiatives of a more bottom-up nature started, including efforts such as OpenPlanetaryMap  (Manaud et al. , 2018a; Nass et al. , 2019)  or PlanetaryPy  (Godber et al. , 2020) , which aims at, within the Python development and user community, doing within planetary science what has been successfully performed by other astronomy and space science sub-communities in the last several years, e. g. with AstroPy  (Robitaille et al. , 2013)  or SunPy  (Mumford et al. , 2015). The development of such bottom-up initiatives might be somewhat related to the dataset availability and technology momentum.
For example, the first decade of the 21st century recorded a large number of Solar System missions with extensive, multi-TB datasets, associated with an overall increase of computing power and tool availability (increasingly Open Source) compared to the previous decades, with expensive, non-widespread processing and computing equipment and software, smaller amount of data as well as slightly smaller overall funded community. The planetary science community expanded with a multinational set of data-producing missions ranging from Japan, India, China, Europe and US. Direct or indirect advice or feedback from the planetary community exists at different levels. For example, ESA PSA  (Besse et al. , 2018)  had established a series of user groups (PSA-UG) to offer independent advice to the archive in the 2000s, in order to better address the need to the planetary community and to better exploit the growing content of the PSA.
Terrestrial geospatial networks and infrastructures An abundance of spatial data have been collected by different national governmental organizations in Europe over the past decades; first on paper, now digitally since the broader availability of digital mapping software, first based on Computer Aided Design software, and now produced with GI Systems mainly. This information has usually been stored within governmental organizations according to national or even organizational standards, in varying data formats, varying technical and scientific classifications, portrayal rules anddepending on mapping tradition and size of the countryat different scales. Furthermore, spatial data were often hidden in the archives within organizations and sometimes not accessible without financial or organization effort for anybody outside the organization or country, such as researchers working on similar topics, governmental institutions and/or the public.
according to the principle of subsidiarity. INSPIRE covers 34 themes which include geology, soil, energy resources, administrative units, land cover, etc. For each of these themes an international thematic working group (TWG) created European standards encompassing e. g. technical implementation rules (IR) and data specifications which in turn consist of standard data models, vocabularies 5 with definitions, hierarchies and frequently portrayal rules. Previously, these would have been the map legends or keys; for example, the TWG responsible for the theme of geology developed the INSPIRE Data Specification on Geology (INSPIRE Thematic Working Group Geology, 2013) as an international team. Each EU member state has the obligation to deliver governmental spatial data according to those rules and standards to the INSPIRE Geoportal.
By October 2020 already existing spatial datasets had to be provided and transformed according to the INSPIRE Implementation Rules (IR). Because of the growing importance of marine resources and the environment, in 2008 the European Union EMODnet (European Marine Observation and Data Network) Programme was born. Following the INSPIRE GDI which focused at first on the continental part of Europe, EMODnet focusses on spatial data of the European Seas within a topical SDI. For each covered theme a data portal has been created where the users have access to standardized data products and data quality indicators (e. g. reliability maps). All data products are free to the public to access and use. The individual portals will be merged into a central portal in near future. Also outside of Europe, Spatial Data Infrastructures (SDI) are being created.
In the USA (executive order 12906 from April 11, 1994) the U. S. government started "building a National Spatial Data Infrastructure with the aim to develop the technology, policies, standards, and human resources necessary to acquire, process, store, distribute, and improve utilization of geospatial data. ". 6 The platform offers various national spatial datasets but seems not to aim for the creation of unified standards. 7 The U. S. Geoscience Information Network (USGIN) "exposes, connects, and opens earth science data to move beyond compliance with the 2009 Open Data Initiative to create an independent data exchange network". 8 Canada, as yet another example, has set up a national program called GeoConnections to build a Canadian Geospatial Data Infrastructure (CGDI) through the use of standard-based technologies and operational policies for data sharing and integration.
China is working on the program GeoCloud by the China Geological Survey, which aims at efficient data sharing through the internet. It includes repositories for field mapping and project data. GeoCloud 1. 0 was released in 2017. The International Union of Geological Science (IUGS) has started building a global Research Infrastructure of Earth Sciences: Deep Time Digital Earth (DDE) as a big science program. The primary goal of the DDE program is to harmonise deep-time digital geological data. Through DDE, data will be made available in easy to use hubs providing insights into the distribution and value of Earth resources and materials, as well as Earth hazards. 9  The Global Spatial Data Infrastructure (GSDI) Association, formed in 2004, now comprises of 22 Organisational Members from 16 countries and 25 Individual Members.
GSDI is involved in technical cooperation SDI capacity building activities in several ways, has Special Consultative status with UN ECOSOC and supports the UN Global Geospatial Information Management (UN UNGGIM) initiative. As another example, in Germany the National Research Data Infrastructure (NFDI) is currently under construction and will provide services 6 https://www. fgdc. gov/nsdi/nsdi. html. 7 https://www. geoplatform. gov/. 8 http://usgin. org/. 9 https://www. iugs. org/dde. and consulting services for the management of research data in Germany as a digital, distributed infrastructure. The NFDI aims to provide the German science system with a "nationwide, distributed and growing network" (Rat für Informations infrastrukturen, 2016) of services and consulting offerings for research data management.
Methodology In order to identify a practical approach to identify the current situation and to find a strategy to close the planetary research-data cycle, we first need to analyze the main elements along its current research path. The first step is a breakdown of the current situation to find an improved procedure, both in terms of users and the process, using a step-wise analysis of all involved entities (actors, institutes), processes and products. (1) We here first identify how the current situation including users (actors) and data flows is constituted and how main processes are characterized. (2) In a next step, additional as well as potentially alternative roles and data paths, respectively, are identified and further developed through user and system requirements. (3) Finally, based on the assessment of the current situation and a requirement analysis, potential solutions are highlighted that build upon existing developments or which require additional developments.
Analysis of current status Historically-grown processes are, despite being established, often not the most efficient solutions or stable with respect to future demands and community needs. Research data cycles have not been a widely-discussed topic when first maps and repositories came into being. We here take a closer look at the overall situation and try to identify products, processes and involvement of entities, such as actors or institutions (cf. Fig. 1 ), also to identify potential challenges. However, dependencies between actors and products can be complex regarding actual process interaction. We therefore provide a breakdown of (1) processes and sequences, i. e. a process-oriented view, as well as a user-oriented view focusing on (2) actors and institutes as well as the product. The first breakdown is visualized using a modified sequence diagram, the latter one by a modified use-case diagram.
Both sequence and use-case diagrams cover process and interaction of creating planetary geological maps from the viewpoint of different entities. Due to the inherent complexity of geologic maps, these views might be representative of several branches of map making at different institutes. Different entities approach the challenge from different perspectives and thus the breakdown we provide here needs to depict these branches at least on a higher level. In order to accomplish this, discussions with various users and institutes have been established in order to extract information regarding these typical processes. Lastly, a process classification as commonly employed in Earth-based research data management 10 provides a first connection to established solutions which can potentially be exploited further.
Spatial data infrastructures as blueprint Three approaches are conceivable when building a suitable researchdata framework for enabling research data reuse. (1) One approach is based on independent analyses and empirical studies that allow to create a framework from the bottom up by potentially addressing the majority of community requirements a-priori. (2) Another path involves reviewing existing developments regarding their suitability and adapting solutions if needed and possible. (3) The third solution is defined by merging both approaches. The latter is the one that seems most feasible in this case as extensive SDI knowledge and experience exist on the terrestrial side which would provide a beneficial input when discussing user and system requirements gathered in the previous step. For this contribution a number of different terrestrial frameworks have been investigated in order to find a basis that addresses similar requirements in the planetary community.
, 2018). This means, stakeholders are mainly represented by researchers organized in research institutes or as part of a mission team. On the side of processes and sub-processes we refer to the variety of steps involved in processing and data calibration right up to the publication of research products. These comprise, for example, of creation of metadata descriptions for archiving base/image data, publishing and archiving research data. To understand the correlation between the different stakeholders and sup-processes a top view of the refinement process is useful. This way a process timeline can be extract and this once again helps to separate processes into activities. Such a top view of the process is shown in Fig. 1  and will be explained subsequently. Raw data, usually collected by an orbiter-or rover-based instrument, undergo a process of calibration, refinement and filtering to become 10 http://sudamih.
oucs. ox. ac. uk/docs/ResearchDataManagementFactsheet. pd f. information. The data provider enriches data with essential data description with regards to technical, geometrical and cartographic parameters. As soon as data is represented by valid metadata according to a given standard, such as the PDS standard, they will be uploaded to international archiving or temporary storage systems (e. g. , PDS, PSA). At this point, base data have become information which can be queried and used by the community to start compiling individual interpretation and analyses (see Fig. 1 ). This first part of the process could be understood as transition from data to information. The next step incorporates data refinement, where available information is classified, generalized and analyzed, and results subsequent represent an abstracted view on the data.
Requirement analysis and target use-case scenario When trying to conceptualize and eventually establish a framework for inserting (or re-inserting) planetary research data into a research cycle which then passes several levels of refinements and is then returned into the research cycle, a number of stages and interfaces have to be discussed in a more systemic way. New user requirements develop at each subsystem in this process and are separated by an interface at which data is handed through the next level. When focusing on the researcher level, i. e. , the stakeholder, the situation becomes more straightforward as researcher needs can be easily summarized in general. User requirements can be readily extracted from a survey that has been launched by the USGS  (Skinner et al. , 2019)  and which reveals some mapper and Fig.
2. Correlation between processing steps, participants and responsibilities regarding secondary research data in the Planetary Science (blue boxes show activities, green boxes show interim results or products. map-user needs, both being part of the research community itself. However, one could argue at this point, that the majority of participants might have had an inherent interest in map products a-priori and might just reflect the mappers community in a representative way, not the research community at large. Among map users asked for feedback, a number of responses stand out, with the following statements being direct quotes from  Skinner et al. (2019) : 1. Control to standard reference frame, objectivity in unit description, and consistent use of symbols are the three most important elements of planetary geoscience maps (finding 5).
2. Standardized and non-standardized geoscience maps are equally valued, though maps that follow cartographic standards are more effective at establishing context for the scientific community (finding 6). 3. A single online repository that enables map makers and (or) map users to search for and access geoscience maps would be an extremely useful resource (finding 10). As overarching low-level user requirements we here define criteria along the following points: the data framework needs to be accessible with focus on ease of use and navigation; users prefer to access a data system without registration; users prefer to have easy access to metadata information and usage information. users require clear specifications and templates to work on their mapping projects and to ensure compatibility; users want to access actual data products easily and potentially in different formats.
As high-level user requirements we could, for example, define the following: users prefer to monitor progress and have access to information regarding incorporation of new research data/maps; users prefer to have a standard (i. e. , a commonly known) graphical user interface when navigating; users prefer to be able to mass download information and data using scripts; With respect to system requirement we could derive the following topics among others to be defined in the development process: the system framework needs to be built on preferentially free and open-source technology which provides flexible interfaces for access (API); the framework needs to be mirrored at nodes of multiple facilities, to provide redundancy; mirrors of the framework need to be exact copies with operable interfaces; the framework needs to contain integrity checks and validation tools; interfaces need to be downward compatible.
To realise this in a first step, a statistical compilation of the Astropedia 11 planetary data and cartography catalogue hosted by the USGS and e. g. the existing planetary map database conducted by  Hargitai (2016)  will be valuable contributions. Earth-based geospatial data has a wide range of licensing system defining the term of use of a data product. The case of planetary data is fairly simple for the long-term archive of mission data, where after a review and a proprietary period, data is available for everyone. This includes raw and processed instrument data and resulting global mosaic published by different space agencies. Besides instrument data, interpretative data as for example geologic maps, have been published either as scientific articles or as official maps, offering a re-use scenario more complex.
Connections to terrestrial infrastructures: INSPIRE and beyond In this section we highlight the general procedure of inserting geological map data into the INSPIRE process and discuss overarching concepts with respect to the product cycle and institutional participation. The development of the INSPIRE implementing rules and technical guidance documents, as well as the maintenance and implementation framework, was based on a participatory process which involved thematic experts from stakeholder organizations in the Member States, the Spatial Data Interest Communities (SDICs, such as companies, foundations, agencies such as the EEA, etc) and Legally Mandated Organisation (LMOs, such as Geological surveys or other governmental organisation). 12 Today, already numerous thematic spatial data sets can be viewed and downloaded from the INSPIRE Geoportal.
To-date Germany's governmental institutions provided 18. 881 spatial data sets in scales ranging from 1 : 500 to 1 : 5,000,000 which can be downloaded on the INSPIRE Geoportal. 13  These are not necessarily provided according the INSPIRE codelists but comprise of national or regional datasets. Apart from these spatial data sets that can be viewed via a web-map service (WMS) and downloaded (download service) from the INSPIRE Geoportal and the national portals, also the codelists, the portrayal rules (colour map key) and the international and national portals offering the spatial data can be considered as products. Fig. 4  schematically demonstrates how in federally governed countries participating in INSPIRE the spatial data for the Geology theme are provided and it shows that also international projects are providing and using INSPIRE data.
The general process applies to all other federally organized countries in Europe participating in INSPIRE but it is highlighted here with the example of Germany. Before any spatial geology data, i. e. , geological maps can be provided they need to be designed and implemented on a national level. This usually happens on the regional level, i. e. almost every State Geological Survey of Germany have or had its state mapping program. Each Geological Survey transforms the regional data along with their regional description in their national language according to the INSPIRE IR using the INSPIRE Geology vocabulary. Descriptions using Local stratigraphic schemes and nomenclature specifics are commonly broken apart and generalized. This kind of generalized map information plus its geographic extent is being provided to the national INSPIRE portal as WMS and download service.
Each EU Member State provides their data to their national INSPIRE portals in a similar way. The European INSPIRE Geoportal collects national spatial data and provides data on-line for everyone who is interested. They can be selected according to countries (EU/EFTA) or themes. During the integration process in INSPIRE not only datasets but also standards and codelists 14 have been created. Those are e. g. of interest for other mapping projects as they provide agreed standards which have been compiled, discussed, amended, and agreed by experts within an international 11 https://astrogeology. usgs. gov/search?pmi-target¼mercury. 12 seehttps://inspire. ec. europa. eu/whos-who-inspire/57734. 13 https://inspire-geoportal. ec. europa. eu/tv_home. html. 14 INSPIRE codelists http://inspire. ec. europa.