1 / 43

Project Context

NDIIPP Project: Collection and Preservation of At-Risk Digital Geospatial Data Partners: NCSU Libraries Project Lead: Steve Morris NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis Project Lead: Zsolt Nagy. Project Context. Partnership between university library (NCSU) and state agency (NCCGIA)

betty_james
Télécharger la présentation

Project Context

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NDIIPP Project:Collection and Preservation of At-Risk Digital Geospatial DataPartners:NCSU LibrariesProject Lead: Steve MorrisNC Center for Geographic Information & AnalysisProject Lead: Zsolt Nagy

  2. Project Context • Partnership between university library (NCSU) and state agency (NCCGIA) • $520,000 funding • Focus on state and local geospatial content in North Carolina (statedemonstration) • Tied to NC OneMap, which provides seamless access to data, metadata, and inventory information Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

  3. Targeted Content • Resource Types • GIS “vector” (point/line/polygon) data • Digital orthophotography • Digital maps • Tabular data (e.g. assessment data) • Content Producers • Mostly state, local, regional agencies • Some university, not-for-profit, commercial • Selected local federal projects Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

  4. Vector data (scale, accuracy, currency, etc.) Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

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

  6. Aerial imagery (image resolution, etc.) Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

  7. Aerial imagery (image resolution, etc.) Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

  8. Aerial imagery (image resolution, etc.) Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

  9. Aerial imagery (image resolution, etc.) Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

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

  11. Tabular data (combined with vector data) Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

  12. Tabular data (combined with vector data) Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

  13. Tabular data (combined with vector data) Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

  14. Earlier Acquisition Efforts • NCSU University Extension project 2000-2001 • Target: County/city data in eastern NC • “Digital rescue” not “digital preservation” • 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 • Acquired experience; unanticipated collaboration Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

  15. Improving Access to Local Content and Services County and City GIS Directories Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

  16. Processing Ingested Data e.g. Testing for data gaps in county orthophoto sets Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

  17. Geographic Information Services - Trends Map Collections Data Collections Map Servers Map Portals • Map Collections • Paper Maps • Data Collections • CD-ROMs, File server & FTP access • Map Servers • Integrate collected data, Web-based mapping • Now: Map Portals and Streaming Data • Front end to distributed, streaming data (OpenGIS) Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

  18. Content Identification and Selection • Work from NC OneMap Data Inventory • Combine with inventory information from various state agencies and from previous NCSU efforts • Develop methodology for selecting from among “early,” “middle,” and “late” stage products • Develop criteria for time series development • Investigate use of emerging Open Geospatial Consortium technologies in data identification Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

  19. Content Acquisition • Work from NC OneMap Data Sharing Agreements as a starting point (the “blanket”) • Secure individual agreements (the “quilt”) • Investigate use of OGC technologies in capture • Use METS as a metadata wrapper • Ingest FGDC metadata (crosswalk to MODS?) • Maybe METS DRM short term; GeoDRM long term • Consider PREMIS elements (extract from FGDC?) • Consider links to services; version management Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

  20. Partnership Building • Work within context of the NC OneMap initiative • State, local, federal partnership • State expression of the National Map • Defined characteristic: “Historic and temporal data will be maintained and available” • Advisory Committee drawn from the NC Geographic Information Coordinating Council subcommittees • Seek external partners • National States Geographic Information Council • FGDC Historical Data Committee • … more Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

  21. Content Retention and Transfer • Ingest into Dspace • Look more generically at the issue of putting geospatial content into digital repositories • Investigate re-ingest into a second platform • Start to define format migration paths • Special problem: geodatabases • Purse long term solution • Roles of data producing agencies, state agencies; NC OneMap; NCSU Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

  22. End of Project Outcomes • Components which become part of state geospatial data infrastructure • NC OneMap objectives for long term access • Start a dialog about digital preservation; create stories about digital preservation that can be told in geospatial industry venues • Components which NCSU Libraries continues for its own business reasons • High user demand for local data, historical versions • Components which are not sustainable Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

  23. Big Problems/Issues • Management of data versions over time • How to “get current object/metadata/DRM” from a given data object? • Relation of the canonical metadata package to the ingest (and export) metadata package for a particular repository environment • Tailor the canonical package to the repository environment or make the acquaintance when needed? • Format migration paths (geodatabases, etc.) Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

  24. Big Problems/Issues (Continued) • Preserving relational databases • Role of persistent identifiers • Semantic issues (data attributes, etc.) • Viability of web services consumption as an archive development approach • Getting data sharing agreements to cover preservation use cases • Relation of DRM statement & rights for current object to older versions of object Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

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

  26. Find – View – Get North Carolina’s Digital Geospatial Data A Comprehensive, Statewide Geographic Data Resource Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

  27. NC Local Landscape • 100 Counties, 92 With GIS • 80 Counties with 1st Run Hi Res DB • 60+ Counties with Unique Map Servers. • Growing Number of Municipal Systems • $162 Million Plus . . . Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

  28. NC Geographic Information Coordinating Council (GICC) • General Statute • 32 Member Council • 10 Local Members • Committees – LGC; FIC; SGUC; SMAC; TAC • Administrative Agency – NC CGIA Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  39. NC OneMap Data Survey • Contains specific questions about hardware, software, databases, projections, data distribution, metadata, and GIS “framework” data layers (frequency of update, scale, attributes, maintenance, source) • For consistency purposes, modeled after the NC Floodplain Mapping GIS Survey • Contains questions that address federal homeland security requirements Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

  40. NC OneMap Initial Data Layers Produced by Cities and Counties Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

  41. Benefits of NC OneMap • Better informed decisions • Seamless map integration when tapping local, state, and federal data sources • Enhanced statewide coordination and cost-savings • Integration of data from multiple communities and jurisdictions presents new opportunities to address regional issues and problems • NC OneMap is in line with The National Map initiative • Statewide community of geographic data stakeholders tackles the technical and policy issues • Successful intergovernmental collaboration rewards elected officials, government leaders and North Carolina citizens Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

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

  43. Questions? Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

More Related