the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 13 Nov 2024
The Italian Archive of Historical Earthquake Data, ASMI
Abstract. ASMI, the Italian Archive of Historical Earthquake Data, is a data collection distributed online that provides seismological data on more than 6600 earthquakes that occurred in the Italian peninsula and surrounding areas from 461 BC to the present day, based on more than 460 seismological data sources. ASMI is the Italian node of AHEAD, the European Archive of Historical Earthquake Data, which is, in turn, the European node providing data on historical earthquakes to EPOS ERIC, the European Plate Observing System, a European Research Infrastructure Consortium. ASMI distributes earthquake parameters, sets of macroseismic intensity data and other details about earthquake effects, together with the bibliographical reference of the data source and, if possible the data source itself. ASMI’s web portal allows users to query the data by earthquake or by data source, and to download the earthquake parameters and macroseismic intensities and represent them on interactive maps and tables. ASMI is updated regularly with new data on past and recent earthquakes. ASMI is the basic source of data for the Italian Macroseismic Database (DBMI) and the Parametric Catalogue of Italian Earthquakes (CPTI). This article describes the archive content and structure, its main features and functionalities, and its potential seismological research applications.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Earth System Science Data
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.- Preprint
(1721 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2024-467', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Nov 2024
This article describes in detail the Italian Historical Archives (ASMI) project. This ambitious project is based on the INGV's long and serious expertise in the observation of seismological and macroseismic data and in the construction of databases.
The article accurately shows the place of the project in the Italian environment of historical data and its coupling with the European level (EPOS - AHEAD).
I liked the way the article was constructed, and its structure is well suited to describing the project. The authors demonstrate a high level of competence in their approach to the project and a strong interplay of scientific and technical skills.
There are, however, a few points that could be added or completed to perfect this excellent editorial work.1/ In general :
1a/It seems to me that a few comparative elements could be included in this paper to clarify the role of the DBMI database in relation to the ASMI database, which seems to include all the macro-seismic data present in DBMI. In my reading, DBMI seems to me to be a bit like a duplicate of ASMI (without the instrumental) in the Italian environment. I have to admit that it's not all that clear to me. What is the place/role of DBMI in relation to ASMI? Are there any data or services in DBMI that are not contained in or accessible through ASMI?1b/No information is given on the quality and/or uncertainty associated with the MDP values and locations (cf Sisfrance A,B,C quality : safe, medium safe, uncertain). It would be interesting to explain the reasons for this (perhaps in 2.3, c/ MDP macroseismic datapoint (line 155)). For scientific use of the data, the qualitative value of the information can have a major impact on the results particularly for historical earthquakes.
1c/In the ASMI database, polygons of uncertainty in the location of the macroseismic epicentre appear; it would also be interesting to specify this in the article.
2/ line 69: ... ‘the macroseismic intensity value quantifying the effects of that earthquake on people and buildings,...’
Add also the effects on objects and furniture (used for low intensities in all macroseismic scales)3/ Line 150: ... ‘epicentral intensity’ specify whether this is a single calculation ASMI method for all events (if so, add a reference), or whether it is specific to each MDP dataset.
4/ Line 161: ... ‘with its maximum observed intensity’ specify whether this is the maximum observed ‘In Italy’ or ‘for the event whatever the country’ or ‘for the series of data displayed’.
5/I think it would also be interesting for the reader to see the feedback or monitoring method used to track the use of this database by users, perhaps over the last year (national and international users, graphs of download, user feedback).
6/ in your conclusion, Perhaps you could write 2 or 3 lines detailing the future developments envisaged for the project, to place it in a dynamic evolutionary process, for example with regard to data visualisation tools, export formats, possible additional information on the data (epicentral distance of MDP), cross-border exchanges, possible revisions...
I would like to congratulate you on writing this article and on setting a benchmark for Europe.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-467-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Andrea Rovida, 06 Feb 2025
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the useful comment as well as for the kind words and the appreciation of our work.
Here follows (in bold characters) a point-by-point reply to RC11a/It seems to me that a few comparative elements could be included in this paper to clarify the role of the DBMI database in relation to the ASMI database, which seems to include all the macro-seismic data present in DBMI. In my reading, DBMI seems to me to be a bit like a duplicate of ASMI (without the instrumental) in the Italian environment. I have to admit that it's not all that clear to me. What is the place/role of DBMI in relation to ASMI? Are there any data or services in DBMI that are not contained in or accessible through ASMI?
The relationship between ASMI and DBMI is shown in Figure 1 and described in lines 90-94. ASMI collects and presents all the datasets, especially macroseismic ones, available for an earthquake, whereas DBMI presents a single macroseismic dataset for each earthquake. This dataset is retained to be the most complete, updated, and thorough one and the most representative of the knowledge of the earthquake. The scope of DBMI is thus to provide a single intensity distribution for each event, from which the macroseismic parameters of CPTI are assessed. In addition, DBMI provides the time-series of the earthquake effects recorded at any Italian locality (the so-called “seismic histories” of localities), accessible at: https://emidius.mi.ingv.it/CPTI15-DBMI15/query_place/
We will better clarify this in the revision of the manuscript.1b/No information is given on the quality and/or uncertainty associated with the MDP values and locations (cf Sisfrance A,B,C quality : safe, medium safe, uncertain). It would be interesting to explain the reasons for this (perhaps in 2.3, c/ MDP macroseismic datapoint (line 155)). For scientific use of the data, the qualitative value of the information can have a major impact on the results particularly for historical earthquakes.
We agree with the reviewer but very few data sources provide quality of the MDPs, and they use very different criteria to assess and present it. This discontinuity and inhomogeneity prevented us from publishing this information, which should be carefully explained to the users. Qualities associated with MDPs are stored in the database together with all the available information if provided by the data source.
We will better specify this in point 6 of the list in Section 2.2.1c/In the ASMI database, polygons of uncertainty in the location of the macroseismic epicentre appear; it would also be interesting to specify this in the article.
Unfortunately, no uncertainty in the locations is presented in ASMI.
2/ line 69: ... ‘the macroseismic intensity value quantifying the effects of that earthquake on people and buildings,...’
Add also the effects on objects and furniture (used for low intensities in all macroseismic scales)
Correct, we thank the reviewer for pointing this out.3/ Line 150: ... ‘epicentral intensity’ specify whether this is a single calculation ASMI method for all events (if so, add a reference), or whether it is specific to each MDP dataset.
Data are archived in ASMI as presented in the data source with no elaborations, apart from the standardizations required by the database structure described in Section 2.2. We will emphasize this concept also in Section 2.3
4/ Line 161: ... ‘with its maximum observed intensity’ specify whether this is the maximum observed ‘In Italy’ or ‘for the event whatever the country’ or ‘for the series of data displayed’.
As indicated, the “MDP sets” table is dynamically created and the maximum intensity is calculated as the maximum value within the dataset.
5/I think it would also be interesting for the reader to see the feedback or monitoring method used to track the use of this database by users, perhaps over the last year (national and international users, graphs of download, user feedback).
We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We will add a short paragraph and a figure to illustrate the access statistics.
6/ in your conclusion, Perhaps you could write 2 or 3 lines detailing the future developments envisaged for the project, to place it in a dynamic evolutionary process, for example with regard to data visualisation tools, export formats, possible additional information on the data (epicentral distance of MDP), cross-border exchanges, possible revisions...
The Conclusions already mention future developments in terms of both i) continuous update with newly published data and ii) expansion of the interoperability with other seismological databases (lines 415-417). We will expand this part and integrate it with the description of the foreseen developments in data interoperability presently described at the end of Section 5 (lines 398-405).
Cross-border exchanges are conducted in the framework of the AHEAD initiative within EPOS, as extensively described in Section 4.3. Elaborations on the data are not foreseen within ASMI, which is a collection of existing and published data.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-467-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Andrea Rovida, 06 Feb 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2024-467', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Jan 2025
Review of “The Italian Archive of Historical Earthquake Data, ASMI”
The paper “The Italian Archive of Historical Earthquake Data, ASMI” submitted for publication in ESSD by Rovida, Locati, Antonucci and Camassi, describes ASMI in technical detail. This is, data and metadata input, management, access, relationship with other databases, as well as important internal technical details are presented and discussed.
The different steps followed and decisions taken in the building up of the database are presented and thoroughly discussed. Basically, I agree with the presented methodology and obtained results.
In an overview, and to my understanding, the submitted article is properly written. Presentation and discussion of the different topics covered are well organized. The examples have been properly selected and are presented with enough detail level. Figures are appropriated and clear. Finally, the bibliography covers well the presented issues and is quite comprehensive.
I’ll not go into many details on the submitted written text. I fully agree with those pointed out at RC1.
From one hand, a comment/criticism I can point is that the submitted paper is not a 100% research paper. It describes the present status and structure of the Italian Archive of Historical (and not so historical) Earthquake Data presenting its last updates and improvements. The continuous improvement and updating of the macroseismic databases and related materials are a task assigned (sometimes by law) to almost all national seismological surveys over Europe. In this sense, the submitted paper fits more in the category of “report” than of research paper. On the other side, it is important that the new developed database, its main characteristics and the details of their elaboration being known to the research community. This is a common dilemma on research journals and decision about to publish such contents depends much more on the editorial board line than on reviewers.
On the other hand, the presented contents/results of ASMI are relevant for the improvement and dissemination of knowledge of the macroseismic field of (Italian) earthquakes. Also, they are relevant for the optimization of further studies about the macroseismic field of past Italian earthquakes as it summarizes previous studies about them. Such approach saves large amount of time to future researchers and avoids duplication of tasks. Moreover, the presented methodologies can be used in many other places worldwide and the submitted paper can be used as guide for similar databases elsewhere. Thus, I think the submitted paper fits properly on the scope of ESSD.
Three small bugs:
Lines 192/193.- …managed by INGV staff (instead of personnel).
Line 569.- Registry of research data repositories, re3data (instead of res3data).
Line 589.- The citation “SisFrance” as it is right now, is an internal citation in ASMI (https://emidius.mi.ingv.it/ASMI/study/SISFR016). The year “2016” means that the data in ASMI were collected in 2016?
Otherwise, it is better to cite as “SisFrance: Sismicité històrique de la France métropolitaine, https://sisfrance.net, last accessed...”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-467-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Andrea Rovida, 06 Feb 2025
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the nice comments on our work.
We will take into account and fix the small bugs he/she pointed out in the thoruoght review.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-467-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Andrea Rovida, 06 Feb 2025
Data sets
Archivio Storico Macrosismico Italiano (ASMI) A. Rovida et al. https://doi.org/10.13127/asmi
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 247 | 56 | 12 | 315 | 14 | 12 |
- HTML: 247
- PDF: 56
- XML: 12
- Total: 315
- BibTeX: 14
- EndNote: 12
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1