|
|
|
Advancing the concept National Geospatial Data Infrastructure: Reflections on the "bottom line"
The effects of this GDI did not take long to emerge. Within three years the cost of access to data had been reduced by a factor of 10! Furthermore the number of participants that started the Canoggis GDI expanded from less than 10 to approximately 50 within three years. This seems evidence that it is better to start up a clearly focussed application domain GDI with a limited number of participants and really make that operational, than to try to convince a much larger group of potential users of the acceptance of the necessary standards and protocols required in the GDI. Apparently other potential users are much easier to accept the standards and protocols of something that demonstrably works.
Interesting in this development is that the oil and gas industry is notoriously secretive about its data and information resources. Yet it moved decisively in the direction of creating jointly an information infrastructure to support the sharing of a growing part of their data assets. They had understood that sharing knowledge and information/ data resources is economically interesting. High quality exploration staff having efficient access through the sharing of the data resources, rather than continuing excessive secrecy better serve their competitive edge (see
http://www.geoconnections.org/iacg/gis/ind/n235n.htm
).
Establishing such an infrastructure is complex, takes time, money and effort. Therefore, unless management feels the pressure to improve efficiency and effectiveness it will not be motivated to initiate the design and implementation of the Application Domain GDI. This is an unfortunate reality in establishing National Geospatial Data Infrastructure (NGDI).
In addition to the Canoggis case, there are a number of case histories that are worthwhile taking note of. For example North Carolina (USA) has a long history in building the geospatial data infrastructure concept. See Siderelis (2000). Its success can be attributed at least in part to the commitment of people at all levels in the state who exploited opportunities to create an information infrastructure; an emphasis on using the infrastructure for addressing critical issues facing the state; enthusiastic focus on multi-lateral collaboration; and the spin-off benefits of being located in a technologically progressive state where political support for technology initiatives is high.
Another interesting case describing the evolution of an international GIS initiative in the Baltic region towards a GDI is for example Langaas (1998).
Developing the National Geospatial Data Infrastructure (NGDI)
Governments need geospatial data, referenced and defined in the national context, to govern. Examples are in legislative and policy development, for the allocation and management of natural resources, for defence and public safety, in support of a variety of regulatory activities, and generally in promoting a better understanding of the physical, economic and human geography of the nation. To satisfy these requirements, the data is organised in a national co-ordinate system or "geodetic datum", while the data definitions are made consistent for the whole country. There is often a temporal dimension as well recording how some feature has changed over time.
What makes a GDI "National"? The National Geospatial Data Infrastructure seeks to support the sharing of data in the national context by means of a set of standards, such as: national spatial reference systems, a national topographic template, national elevation model, any other standardized spatial data set of national scope such as geographical names, administrative boundaries, certain thematic data sets (soils, hydrology, vegetation population, etc.), and meta data standards to describe in a consistent manner each of the GDI holdings. See Groot and McLaughlin(2000).
Many enterprise- and domain-oriented GDIs will have used foundation data, which adhere to these standards, and which are produced by National Mapping Agencies (NMAs). Linking these GDIs into a NGDI is not necessarily onerous as long as standardized data descriptions (metadata) are being applied. This requires the application of national meta standards - sometimes a time-consuming retrofitting exercise.
It is interesting to note that most managers of enterprise or application domain GDIs give little attention to the potential interest of other users for their application data and the commercial opportunities this may create for such data holders. This is understandable because distribution of domain application data is usually not part of their mandates. This is mainly the result of old distribution paradigms, which dictated difficult to justify investments in some analogue distribution facility. Jack Dangermond's initiative for the Geodata program (see http://www.geographynetwork.com) demonstrates that at relatively small investment it is now possible to distribute such data for a fee. It uses the internet facilities to let data holders make their data broadly (commercially) available. The metadata standard offered by ESRI is however at this point dealing with too highly generalised data to be useful in very specialised applications. However, for many less sophisticated applications it is very useful. Taken in this context it may be well considering investing in the application of, more detailed, national, metadata standards so that the data in an application domain can also be useful to more sophisticated users who may also be more prepared to pay sophisticated prices.
Market differentiation in the NGDI
Opening up accessibility to government and other geospatial data is accompanied by the emergence of an interesting market differentiation. Take for example access to the geospatial positioning infrastructure through the growing availability of GPS receivers of a wide range of prices and precision. In the past geospatial positioning was almost exclusively entrusted to well-trained or even certified surveyors and navigators. Now the public can buy at low cost a GPS receiver for applications not requiring high precision, or with more sophisticated instrumentation for car and other navigation. There still is a requirement for high precision GPS or even ground survey but that demands more expensive equipment and higher trained technicians and professionals. Hence an unexpectedly broad market has emerged for these low- cost instruments while a smaller market segment for high precision positioning continues. The GPS infrastructure and for higher accuracies the so called Active Control Systems which have replaced in many industrial countries the conventional triangulation network are the foundation for this expansion and popularisation of the positioning capabilities.
Similar developments can be expected with ubiquitous access to geospatial data from any source combined with low- cost GIS software available on- line through the web. There will be a kind of popularising or may be de-professionalising of use which is yet unpredictable. ESRI's Geodata project is beginning to demonstrate this phenomenon. Hence we should expect a growing "popular" demand while the market for professional engineering and public administration applications will continue to demand highly reliable, timely and up to date data and information services. The sequel of this paper will deal with the requirements and evolution of latter part of the NGDI. It will address the following issues:
- What is the role of National Mapping Agencies in building the NGDI?
- What can be done to advance the NGDI concept?
- What is the "bottom line" to achieve NGDI in due time?
|
|
|