1 / 28

GRADE Kickoff Meeting

NDIIPP Project: North Carolina Geospatial Data Archiving Project Partners: NCSU Libraries Project Lead: Steve Morris NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis Project Lead: Zsolt Nagy. Sept. 28, 2005. GRADE Kickoff Meeting. Project Context.

michon
Télécharger la présentation

GRADE Kickoff Meeting

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:North Carolina Geospatial Data Archiving ProjectPartners:NCSU LibrariesProject Lead: Steve MorrisNC Center for Geographic Information & AnalysisProject Lead: Zsolt Nagy Sept. 28, 2005 GRADE Kickoff Meeting

  2. Project Context • Partnership between university library (NCSU) and state agency (NCCGIA) • Focus on state and local geospatial content in North Carolina (statedemonstration) • Tied to NC OneMap initiative, which provides for seamless access to data, metadata, and inventory information • Objective: engage existing state/federal geospatial data infrastructures in preservation 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. North Carolina Local GIS Landscape • 100 counties, 92 with GIS • 80 counties with high resolution orthophotography • 65+ counties with unique map servers. • Growing number of municipal systems • Value: $162 million plus investment Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

  5. Local agency data vs. state/federal data Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

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

  7. Digital orthophotography Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

  8. Digital orthophotography Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

  9. Digital orthophotography 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: tax parcels, land use, zoning, etc. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

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

  13. Risks to Digital Geospatial Data • Producer focus on current data • Time-versioned content generally not archives • 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

  14. Earlier NCSU 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. Workplan in a Nutshell • Work from existing data inventories • NC OneMap Data Sharing Agreements as the “blanket”, individual agreements as the “quilt” • Partnership: work with existing geospatial data infrastructures (state and federal) • Technical approach • METS with FGDC, PREMIS?, GeoDRM? • Dspace now; re-ingest to different environment • Web services consumption for archival development Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

  16. Rights Issues • Various interpretations of public records law • 53.9% of local NC agencies charge for data • 43.7% of local NC agencies restrict redistribution • Desire for downstream control of data • Disclaimer click-through; liability concerns • Filtered locations/individuals; post 9/11 issues • Restrictions on redistribution; commercial resale • Web services area in “Wild West” stage • Both content and technical agreements • GeoDRM initiative in the works Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

  17. Big Challenges • Management of data versions over time • How to “get current object/metadata/DRM”? • Relation of the ‘ideal’ metadata package to the ingest (and export) metadata package • Tailor to repository environment or make the acquaintance when needed? • Format migration paths (geodatabases, etc.) • Preserving cartographic representation • The counterpart to the map is not just the dataset—also models, symbology, interpretation, etc. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

  18. Preserving Cartographic Representation Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

  19. Project Status • Completing inventory analysis stage • Storage system and backup deployed • DSpace testing done, moving to production system • Metadata workflow finalized • Ingest workflow near finalization • Content migration workflow near finalization • Regional site visits planned for coming months • Wide range of outreach/collaboration: FGDC, NARA, EDINA, USGS, etc. • Pilot project, georegistering digital archival geologic maps Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

  20. Questions? Contact: Steve Morris Head of Digital Library Initiatives NCSU Libraries Steven_Morris@ncsu.edu Phone: (919) 515-1361 More information: http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/ncgdap/ Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

  21. 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

  22. 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 • Explore use of METS as a metadata wrapper • Ingest FGDC metadata; Xwalk to MODS? PREMIS? • Maybe METS DRM short term; GeoDRM long term • Consider links to services; version management • Get the geospatial community to tackle the content packaging problem (maybe MPEG 21?) Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

  23. Partnership Building • Work within context of 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

  24. Content Retention and Transfer • Ingest into Dspace • Explore how geospatial content interacts with existing digital repository software environments • Investigate re-ingest into a second platform • Challenge: keep the collection repository-agnostic • 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

  25. Remote sensing data (satellite imagery) Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

  26. Geodatabase Availability • Local agencies, especially municipalities, are increasingly turning to the ESRI Geodatabase format to manage geospatial data. • 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. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

  27. Managing Time-versioned Content Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

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

More Related