Docstoc

PowerPoint Presentation NCSU Libraries (PowerPoint)

Document Sample
PowerPoint Presentation NCSU Libraries (PowerPoint) Powered By Docstoc
					             Map Portals and Geoarchiving:
             New Opportunities in
             Geospatial Information
             Services
             Steve Morris
             Head of Digital Library Initiatives
             NCSU Libraries


GIS Technology: Sustaining the Future        Case Western Reserve University
& Understanding the Past                     October 13, 2005
Overview

 Brief overview of library roles in digital
 geographic information services
 Geospatial web services: opportunities and
 challenges for libraries
 Long-term preservation of digital geospatial
 data



               Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                         respondents to each question            2
Library Geospatial Data Services:
Data Collections
 Acquire data (licensed and
 public domain)
 License data for in-library
 or campus use
 Provide networked access
 Acquire or create value-
 added derivatives


               Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                         respondents to each question            3
Library Geospatial Data Services:
Discovery Tools
 Web documentation
 Author and publish metadata
 Searchable metadata
 catalogs
 Integrate data into library
 catalog



              Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                        respondents to each question            4
Library Geospatial Data Services:
Reference and Technical Support
 Assistance with finding and selecting data
 GIS “reference interview”
 Line between reference support and technical
 support is extremely fuzzy
 Support or administration of campus GIS
 software licenses
 Reference support for locating software tools
 (e.g. scripts for ArcView and ArcGIS)

               Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                         respondents to each question            5
Library Geospatial Data Services:
Workshops and Outreach
 In-library workshops and class visits
 Online workshops (Virtual Campus)
 Marketing and Outreach
   Work to engage broader number of academic
   departments in GIS activity
   Work to lower barrier to entry in GIS work (access
   to software, data, training, support)
   Library as ‘neutral ground’ well suited to coordinate
   with campus GIS infrastructure
                 Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                           respondents to each question            6
Library Geospatial Data Services Timeline
   Map           Data                                    Map           Map
Collections    Collections                              Servers       Portals

 Map Collections
    Paper Maps
 Data Collections
    CD-ROMs, File server & FTP access
 Map Servers
    Integrate collected data, Web-based mapping
 Map Portals
    Integrate distributed, streaming data
                    Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                              respondents to each question                      7
NC Local Government Map Services

                                   #
                                       #
                               #

                                           #   #
                                                       #
                                                   #            #                 #
                   #               #                        #
               #       # ##                                         # #
                                                                              #
                         # #           #
          #                                                                           #



                               #
                                                                                              #
                                                                                          #

                                                                                                      #


                                                                                                  #       #

   #   City Map Services                                                  #



       County Map Services




                          Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                                    respondents to each question                                              8
County Government Map Server




       Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                 respondents to each question            9
State Government Map Server




      Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                respondents to each question            10
Federal Government Map Server




       Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                 respondents to each question            11
Open Geospatial Consortium
(OGC) Technology Overview
 The Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) is a not-for-
 profit, international consortium: focus on data
 interoperability
 Operates a Specification Development Program that
 is similar to other Industry consortia (W3C, etc.)
 Also operates an Interoperability Program (IP), a
 partnership-driven engineering and testing program
 designed to deliver proven specifications into the
 Specification Development Program.
 OGC used to talk about “web-enabling GIS”, now
 they talk about “geo-enabling the web.”

                 Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                           respondents to each question            12
National Approaches

  USGS National Map
    Integrated WMS services
    Services catalog
  Geospatial One-Stop
    Searchable services
  Specialized Portals
    FEMA Mapping
    Katrina Portal
    HUD E-Maps

                 Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                           respondents to each question            13
State Approach: NC OneMap

 Data integration through
 OGC specifications
 (currently just WMS)
 Data sharing agreements
 Metadata outreach
 Ongoing data inventories
 Practices and guidelines
 vis-à-vis map service
 configuration
              Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                        respondents to each question            14
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
          respondents to each question            15
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
          respondents to each question            16
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
          respondents to each question            17
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
          respondents to each question            18
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
          respondents to each question            19
Geospatial Web Service Types

 Image services
   Deliver image resulting from query against
   underlying data
   Limited opportunity for analysis
 Feature services
   Stream actual feature data, greater opportunity
   for data analysis
 Other
   Geocoding services
   Routing
   .etc.        Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                          respondents to each question            20
Geospatial Web Services:
Advantages
 Time- and location-independent access
 Access to extremely large datasets
 Access to most current data
 Ad hoc access to data for which there is
 typically low demand
 Reduce barriers imposed by differences in
 formats, coordinate systems, etc.
 Access to geoprocessing functionality
               Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                         respondents to each question            21
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
          respondents to each question            22
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
          respondents to each question            23
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
          respondents to each question            24
Geospatial Web Services:
Shortcomings
 Application performance will frequently not
 match that of locally loaded data
 Up-time reliability issues
 Many demonstration services, persistence is
 open to question
 Dynamically changing content can lead to
 analysis surprises
 Does not replace aesthetic value of paper
 map
               Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                         respondents to each question            25
Geospatial Web Services:
When Most Useful?
 User needs most current data
 Data is subject to frequent change & update
 User needs access to extremely large
 datasets
 User wishes to preview data prior to use
 User just needs background display
 Need to integrate data into portable devices
 Data not otherwise available
               Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                         respondents to each question            26
Geospatial Web Services:
Integration Challenges for Libraries
 Services difficult to discover and select from
 In case of commercial services, campus
 licensing models not well evolved
 Linking data objects with services that act
 upon them is not well supported by existing
 metadata and catalog schemes
 Ambiguous rights issues
 How to integrate into the physical browse
 environment of the map library?
                Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                          respondents to each question            27
Geospatial Web Services Rights Issues
Example: Desktop GIS-accessible ArcIMS
 39 of 100 NC counties have desktop GIS-accessible ArcIMS
 services
 It is difficult to know how many of these counties actually expect
 users to either:
    A) access data through desktop GIS for viewing only, or
    B) extract and download data




                        Accessible ArcXML Services




                      Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                                respondents to each question            28
Geospatial Data:
Discovery and Selection Issues
 Data extent
 Thematic content & attributes
 Currency
 Format, coordinate system, datum, etc.
 Licensing restrictions
 Ease of access
 Metadata availability
 More …
               Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                         respondents to each question            29
Geospatial Web Services:
Discovery and Selection Issues
 Inherits many data selection issues such as
 coordinate system, etc.
 Service type: image, feature, geocoding, …
 Access protocol: OGC specs (WMS, WFS, WCS …),
 SOAP, ArcXML (ArcIMS image and feature services,
 specialized APIs (e.g. Google Maps)
 Reliability, up-time performance, speed
 Licensing scheme
 Functions: annotation, saved maps, etc.
 Image services: image formats

                 Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                           respondents to each question            30
             Facilitating Discovery of Services:
     Example: Directory of County Map Services



Among top 15
most used
resources on
library web site

99.5% of directory
users from outside
ncsu.edu




                           Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                                     respondents to each question            31
Library Opportunities to Provide
Geospatial Web Services
 Publish WMS servers from public domain
 content not already available
   Fill holes in service availability
 Publish archival content
   counter bias towards current content in the
   industry
 Publish cascading map services
   Create specialized front-ends to existing,
   distributed services
                  Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                            respondents to each question            32
Cascading Map Services: Problems

 Different versions of OGC standards
   e.g., WMS 1.1.0, WMS 1.1.1 …
 Differences in layer naming
   ‘cadastral’ vs. ‘parcels’ vs. ‘property boundaries’
 Differences in classification schemes
   e.g., inconsistent land use, zoning schemes
 Service reliability, addressing stability, uptime
 On top of standards & specifications, need
 community overlay of best practices
                  Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                            respondents to each question            33
Community Practices in Cascading Map Services
Example: Layer Names, Symbology, Classification




                Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                          respondents to each question            34
“Web mash-ups” and the New
Mainstream Geospatial Web Services
 New services such as Google Maps, MSN
 Virtual Earth, Yahoo Maps
 Static, tiled images for efficient access
 API’s for developer access
 Positioning for mobile device-oriented
 application development
 Engaging mainstream IT and general public
 AJAX: Asynchronous Javascript and XML
   New forms of map and service publishing
                Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                          respondents to each question            35
Integrating Traditional Geospatial Data
and Services with New Services




              Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                        respondents to each question            36
Integrating Traditional Geospatial Data
and Services with New Services



        But who preserves the data …?




               Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                         respondents to each question            37
Today’s geospatial data as tomorrow’s cultural heritage




                    Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                              respondents to each question            38
       Time series – vector data
Parcel Boundary Changes 2001-2004, North Raleigh, NC




                Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                          respondents to each question            39
       Time series – Ortho imagery
Vicinity of Raleigh-Durham International Airport 1993-2002




                   Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                             respondents to each question            40
Risks to Digital Geospatial Data
  Producer focus on current data
    “Kill and fill”, absence of time-versioned content
  Future support of data formats in question
    Vast range of data formats in use--complex
  Shift to “streaming data” for access
    Archives have been a by-product of providing access
  Preservation metadata requirements
    Descriptive, administrative, technical, DRM
  Geodatabases
    Complex functionality
                  Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                            respondents to each question            41
NC Geospatial Data Archiving Project
(NCGDAP)
 Partnership between university library (NCSU) and
 state agency (NCCGIA)
 Focus on state and local geospatial content in North
 Carolina (state demonstration)
 Tied to NC OneMap initiative
 Part of Library of Congress National Digital
 Information Infrastructure & Preservation Program
 (NDIIPP)
 Objective: engage existing state/federal geospatial
 data infrastructures in preservation
                  Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                            respondents to each question            42
 NCGDAP Philosophy of Engagement

                                                                           Provide feedback
Take the data
                                                                           to producer
as in the manner
                                                                           organizations/
In which it can
                                                                           inform state
 be obtained                  Wrangle
                                                                           geospatial
                              and archive
                                                                           infrastructure
                              data


Note the ‘Project’ in ‘North Carolina Geospatial Data Archiving
Project’– the process, the learning experience, and the engagement
with geospatial data infrastructures are more important than the archive


                         Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                                   respondents to each question                               43
Earlier NCSU Acquisition Efforts

 NCSU University Extension project 2000-2001
   Target: County/city data in eastern NC
   “Digital rescue” not “digital preservation”
   Hurricane Floyd flood response
 Project learning outcomes
   Confirmed concerns about long term access
   Need for efficient inventory/acquisition
   Wide range in rights/licensing
   Need to work within statewide infrastructure
                 Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                           respondents to each question            44
Big Geoarchiving Challenges
 Format migration paths
 Management of data versions over time
 Preservation metadata
 Harnessing geospatial web services
 Preserving cartographic representation
 Keeping content repository-agnostic
 Preserving geodatabases
 More …

              Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                        respondents to each question            45
Vector Data Format Issues
 Vector data much more complicated than image data
 ‘Archiving’ vs. ‘Permanent access’
   An ‘open’ pile of XML might make an archive, but if using it
   requires a team of programmers to do digital archaeology then it
   does not provide permanent access
   Piles of XML need to be widely understood piles
   GML: need widely accepted application schemas (like OSMM?)
 The Geodatabase conundrum
   Export feature classes, and lose topology, annotation,
   relationships, etc.
   … or use the Geodatabase as the primary archival platform
   (some are now thinking this way)
                   Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                             respondents to each question            46
Managing Time-versioned Content
 Many local agency data layers continuously
 updated
   E.g., some county cadastral data updated daily—
   older versions not generally available
 Individual versioned datasets will wander off
 from the archive
   How do users “get current metadata/DRM/object”
   from a versioned dataset found “in the wild”?
 How do we certify concurrency and agreement
 between the metadata and the data?
                Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                          respondents to each question            47
Preservation Metadata Issues
 FGDC Metadata
   Many flavors, incoming metadata needs processing
   Cross-walk elements to PREMIS, MODS?
 Metadata wrapper
   METS (Metadata Encoding and Transmission
   Standard) vs. other industry solutions
   Need a geospatial industry solution for the ‘METS-
   like problem’
   GeoDRM a likely trigger—wrapper to enforce
   licensing (MPEG 21 references in OGIS Web
   Services 3)  Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                          respondents to each question            48
Preserving Cartographic Representation
   The true counterpart of the old map is not the GIS
   dataset, but rather the cartographic representation that
   builds on that data:
      Intellectual choices about symbolization, layer combinations
      Data models, analysis, annotations
   Cartographic representation typically encoded in
   proprietary files (.avl, .lyr, .apr, .mxd) that do not lend
   themselves well to migration
   Symbologies have meaning to particular communities at
   particular points in time, preserving information about
   symbol sets and their meaning is a different problem
                      Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                                respondents to each question            49
Preserving Cartographic Representation




             Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                       respondents to each question            50
Repository Architecture Issues
 Interest in how geospatial content interacts with
 widely available digital repository software
 Focus on salient, domain-specific issues
 Challenge: remain repository agnostic
   Avoid “imprinting” on repository software environment
   Preservation package should not be the same as the
   ingest object of the first environment
   Tension between exploiting repository software
   features vs. becoming software dependent

                Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                          respondents to each question            51
Preserving Geodatabases
  Spatial databases in general vs. ESRI Geodatabase
  “format”
  Not just data layers and attributes—also topology,
  annotation, relationships, behaviors
  ESRI Geodatabase archival issues
    XML Export, Geodatabase History, File Geodatabase,
    Geodatabase Replication
  Growing use of geodatabases by municipal, county
  agencies
  Some looking to Geodatabase as archival platform
  (in addition to feature class export)
                   Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                             respondents to each question            52
Geodatabase Availability
  According to the 2003 Local Government GIS Data
 Inventory, 10.0% of all county framework data and
 32.7% of all municipal framework data were managed
 in that format.

   Cities: Street Centerline Formats                            Counties: Street Centerline Formats



                               Geodatabase                                                    Geodatabase
                               Shapefile                                                      Shapefile
                               Coverage                                                       Coverage
                               Other                                                          Other




                                   Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                                             respondents to each question                                   53
Harnessing Geospatial Web Services
 Automated content identification
   ‘capabilities files,’ registries, catalog services
 WMS (Web Map Service) for batch extraction of
 image atlases
   last ditch capture option
   preserve cartographic representation
   retain records of decision-making process
    … feature services (WFS) later.
 Rights issues in the web services space are
 ambiguous
                  Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
                            respondents to each question            54
    Questions?

Contact:

Steve Morris
Head, Digital Library Initiatives
NCSU Libraries
Steven_Morris@ncsu.edu



     Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
               respondents to each question            55

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:2
posted:2/23/2012
language:English
pages:55