Less users want or need, an SDI or interoperability

Page 1 of 1

Less users want or need, an SDI or interoperability

Jon Fairall
Managing Editor
South Pacific Science Press
(Position Magazine,Asian Survey and Mapping)
jon@positionmag.com.au

The technical issues that have driven the industry since 1990 have been the advent of the internet as a major tool of business and the improvements in price/performance of computing devices.

The internet has made a powerful difference to the way many different forms of data are distributed. It is only since the turn of the century that it has been possible to do this with spatial data, but now maps are driving many new applications. The most notable are search engines such as Google, but there are plenty of other examples.

Computer performance has been at the core of many of the more recent changes. It has enabled high level desktop image processing, not only in traditional areas such as remote sensing and photogrammetry, but also in new and disruptive technologies.

For instance, the advent of micro-computers in survey instruments has led to the ability of these instruments to generate 3D data. 3D GIS has led to the creation of the visualisation market, which will soon completely transform the way we receive information about our environment.

In the last decade, it has become possible to build practical mobile devices that can do serious GIS work or that can be tied to a GPS to build practical personal navigation systems of breathtaking accuracy - all for the price of a few hundred dollars.

The biggest single trend that I can identify in the industry is the decreasing cost of spatial data. Decreasing cost has led to increased use, and thus, to spatial data being embedded in many more business and government processes than ever before. Spatial data has never been so important to so many people.

The computerisation of data has made a huge difference to the relative costs of map creation. In the past, a new map was a once-in-a-decade possibility. Now we can, and do, generate new maps on the fly in many applications.

Spatial data is increasingly an integral part of many processes. It is part and parcel of infrastructure planning; it is difficult to see how we can tackle global warming without good spatial data; urban planning requires the latest in 3D visualisation software.

This leads me to think that some technologies that are now peeking over the horizon have exciting possibilities. One is Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) which allows one to know the position, and possibly some simple attributes, of any device worth tracking.

Another is the advent of the sensor web, a common system for interfacing sensors to the internet, so that it will become possible to monitor, in near realtime, anything that is worth monitoring.

What the implications of this are is anyone’s guess. In Australia, where I live, changes in climate and consequent changes in the distribution of surface water is a huge issue. Sensors that could tell us where water is, in real time, would be invaluable in rational management of an increasingly scarce resource.

Wide-ranging, spatially informed use of RFIDs could make a huge difference to the logistics industry.

The biggest single issue today is the lack of skilled staff. Thus, while education of new staff is important everywhere, in the short term, equipment, services or software that can aid productivity are extremely important.

This explains a lot of what we are seeing in the latest generation of hardware and software, where the emphasis is on doing more with less.

In the last decade, there has been an increasing realisation that high quality spatial information is an integral part of major infrastructure work. As these regions begin massive spending on infrastructure, they will also create major demand for spatial services.

This will not be a painless process. In most or all of these countries, mapping has been largely a military function, and the possession of spatial data is seen as a risk to national security. It is a huge leap in understanding to realise that the nation has much to gain from widespread access to spatial data. There is reason for hope. In India, we have seen the first stages in winding back military control of aerial surveying for instance.

On the other hand, this is balanced by recent events in China, where government authorities have threatened criminal sanctions against people who make maps without permission.

However, there is a growing gap between the threat and the action. Increasingly, spatial data is a part of everyday life. China will soon have more in-car mapping systems than any other nation. It will be the largest market for personal navigation devices. Regulations aimed at limiting this use will be ignored.

Space-based Earth observation is undertaken for reasons of national grandeur, or possibly to stimulate the science and engineering community. It is not taken to plug gaps in data availability, since in almost all cases there are cheaper alternatives.

To see the truth of this, just consider the number of satellites that fly with little or no regard for the distribution of data on the ground.

Even in those rare cases where satellite data can really be justified, it is usually possible to acquire it from the US, Russia or China much cheaper than one could generate it.

All in all, the leaders of the spatial industry in most countries would be better off trying to get efficient systems running on the ground, rather than spending money on space. There is one interesting development that may begin to change this. The idea of a GEOSS, a means of observing systems, is timely and may be worth pursuing if it means that space-faring countries actually do cooperate in producing complementary satellites and sharing their data. There is little evidence yet that GEOSS is making any real difference, but we will wait and see.

It is usually the case that far more money is generated in the spatial industry from services than from the creation of software itself. This shows no sign of abating. Indeed, it is getting more pronounced.

This springs from the nature of GIS: they need to be integrated into the workflow of organisations, and while a lot is common from one site to another, there are enough differences to provide work for a small army of consultants and contractors.

Even the largest and best-known software houses report that their services operations provide at least twice the revenue of software sales. The business logic leads to a position where companies are often prepared to give away software in order to secure the services business.

The end point of this process is the Open Source movement, where vendors do away with any suggestion of payment. Instead, they give the code away in the hope that they will get the services revenue stream.

Open Source has the advantage that solutions to problems in one site can be readily applied in another.

However, it is important to note that this is not a Google model. The Google business objective is the organisation of online knowledge. Since this is arguably the most important single function on the internet, it is an attractive place for advertising, which is where Google earns its cash.

Despite all the hype about SDIs and the inescapable logic of proponents, there is very little evidence that the majority of users want, or need, an SDI or interoperability or standards. If they did, it would have happened long ago.

The majority of users of spatial data have regular, defined products they create from well-understood data sources. If they acquire data from organisations outside their own, their usage of the data is governed by bilateral agreements.

This is not to deny the existence of a small minority of adhoc mappers, who spend time on the web looking for maps they can mash up to create new products.