Joint Information Systems Committee

1. Sponsored by JISC Conference 2006 E is for Earth: Towards a vision statement for geospatial resources Joint Information Systems Committee Supporting education and research

2. E is for everything:towards a vision for geospatial resources Dr William Kilbride Research Manager – Glasgow Museums Resource Centre Chair JISC Geospatial Working Group William.Kilbride@cls.glasgow.gov.uk

3. Geo-spatial Resources – not just maps! There’s a lot more to it than maps! ‘Geographic information is now recognised as a key element of the Information Society’ – European Commission 2001 Agriculture, tourism, health, conservation, ecology, heritage management, homeland security, history, earth sciences, demography, economy, climate studies, geography, disaster relief, logistics, art and design, statistics, civil engineering, archaeology, biosciences …

4. Geo-spatial Resources and JISC - Achievements to date • Dependable service delivery • Large user base for geospatial resources • 83 HEIs have a Digimap Licence • … and 94 FEIs • Identifiable saving to HE and FE sectors • Concomitant impact in teaching, learning and research • Geospatial resources are more than data • Access mechanisms evolving and improving • Active research and development

5. Why a vision statement? • Want to do more! • Highlight strengths and weaknesses • Need to prioritise collections and R&D • Need to raise profile • Need to interpret and integrate with other activities • Where would we like to be 5/10 years from now

6. Spatial Data Infrastructures and the JISC E-framework • More to follow in a moment • JISC E-framework • Developments in GI sector • Priorities for R&D are greater than HE/FE • Much of the work has already been done (for us) • Contribute to and benefit from this work

7. For example … Data Standards • OGC – Open Geospatial Consortium • OGC is commercial / industrial / international • WMS/WFS/WCS – allow us to do a lot more with mapping than we’d be able to do on our own • GML – flexible and powerful way to present geo-data • OGC and JISC both have concerns with data standards but there is a need to interpret between them • Question: what is needed to ensure that appropriate Geodata standards feature in the specifications of the JISC E-framework

8. Things we’re thinking about: Intellectual Property Rights • For example: what do our licenses let us do with geo-spatial data in our work? • desktop vs vle? commercial vs non-commercial? electronic publication and data repositories? • What about derived data that contains OS data? • How do the rights operate in a service oriented, distributed environment • Question: what mechanisms need to be in place to ensure that the rights management framework doesn’t inhibit bona fide learning, research and teaching

9. Preservation and Curation • Longitudinal aspects of geo-spatial data • GI industry is mainly concerned with current material • Short term licences • ‘Change only updates’ MasterMap and web-services • But academics interested in recent past • Seazone and coastal erosion • Historic Landscape Characterisation • Question: how do we ensure long-term access to commercial data that changes very frequently

10. Meeting the Needs of Teachers and Learners • Very large community – much more than geography! • Diverse but comprehensive needs • Complicated data sets with intimidating interfaces • Global perspective • ‘Google Earth’ factor: quality versus ease of access • Question 1: How do we meet the needs of this diverse community within reasonable budget parameters? • Question 2: How do we make available existing services to VLE and other developments?

11. Meeting the Needs of Researchers • Very large community with diverse needs • Genuinely international perspectives • (almost) Impossible to use surrogates • Risk of double expenditure • External relationship: e-science and e-research? • Question: how do we represent the needs of this diverse community with limited resources? • Question: what infrastructure do we need so that scholars can share and exploit each others’ data sets?

12. Relations with the GI Industry and other Partners • Big (and growing) commercial sector • Other public sector players – especially mapping agencies • MasterMap for example • Other public sector programmes – IGGI, Aspire … • Question 1: how do we ensure that public sector expenditure is coherent and not driven by commercial interests? • Question 2: How do we ensure that changes in the JISC domain are cognisant of this dynamic sector?

13. Sponsored by JISC Conference 2006 Geospatial Interoperability – Experiences to date Joint Information Systems Committee Supporting education and research

14. Geospatial Interoperability – Experiences to date James S Reid EDINA, GeoServices James.Reid@ed.ac.uk

15. Interoperability and the JISC IE • In the JISC's new draft strategy, they see one of its role is to enable: 'the development and exploitation of a common infrastructure for finding, accessing, delivering and using Internet based resources tailored to, and seamless across, education and research communities'.  • It is recognised that interoperability is of fundamental importance and that the JISC IE is a component of the national and global networked environment • New thrust towards SOAs in e-Framework :- “The primary goal of the initiative is to produce an evolving and sustainable, open standards based service oriented technical framework to support the education and research communities.” • 3 words to take home with you – ‘standards’ ‘services’ framework’

16. So …What do we mean by ‘Interoperability’ ? “The ability of software and hardware on multiple machines from multiple vendors to communicate. “ (The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing) “The ability of a system or a product to work with other systems or products without special effort on the part of the customer.” (whatis.com) • Products achieve interoperability with other products using either or both of two approaches: • By adhering to published interface standards e.g. HTTP,HTML • By making use of a "broker" of services that can convert one product's interface into another product's interface "on the fly" e.g. CORBA • In the world of (geo)-interoperability, the favoured approach has been to move towards adopting interface standards.

17. Demis, Netherlands Globe, Colorado MIMAS, Manchester EDINA, Edinburgh Geo-Data Geo-Data Geo-Data Geo-Data University College, London Web Services Web Services Web Services Web Services Geo-Data IONIC, Belgium Web Services Geo-Data Web Services Metadata Maps Data Interoperability in action - Remote access via web services

18. Why ‘Interoperability’? • Increases the value of existing and future investments in Information Systems* • Allows portability of data. • Expands choices for vendor alternatives – no vendor lock-in. • Enables vertical industry segments to unify trading practices. • Decreases the long-term cost of ownership for applicable software investments. • Enables leverage of existing skill-sets, i.e., does not require proprietary training. • Provides a benchmark for software design. • *According to a recent report interoperability can yield a 119% ROI and in specific projects may save up to 26% of budget • [Geographic Information: An Analysis of Interoperability and Information Sharing in the United Kingdom – Cabinet Office, e-Gov Unit Nov 2005]

19. Why? - A view from the bunker… "I'd like to see an [OS maps] API to rival Google, … that the API will be published as an open standard and so not subject to arbitrary change, and that it will be made available to all. Open standards may evolve more slowly but they are reliable and can't be changed simply because the commercial priorities of their owners have shifted. These open interfaces are the key to the next stage of the internet's evolution, just as they have been the driving force behind its development to date. It doesn't matter whether the program at the other end is a simple terminal emulator or the interface to a massively sophisticated mapping system - once the interface is published it can be used. “ Bill Thompson, Technical Analysthttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4640893.stm

20. How - OGC Specifications (some!!) • Web Map Service (WMS) • Specifies the behavior of services that return georeferenced maps- an en example: http://anyoldserver.com/WebMapService?version=1.1.1&layers=Raster50K&styles=default&srs=EPSG:27700&bbox=287000,692001,290000,695001&width=400&height=400&format=image/gif&request=GetMap • Web Feature Service (WFS) • Interface that supports query level access to vector data repositories • Web Coverage Service (WCS) • Supports networked interchange of geospatial data as ‘coverages’ containing values or properties of geographic locations

21. Interoperability Project Outputs • A range of industry standards based (OGC )web services • A series of demonstrator clients to illustrate: • Access to data • A teaching focussed use case (urban expansion) • A research focussed use case (based on dynamic image registration using web services) • A report on the utility and issues surrounding implementation of open standards for geospatial data within the JISC IE, including an assessment of security and access authorisation issues

22. Demis, Netherlands Globe, Colorado MIMAS, Manchester EDINA, Edinburgh Geo-Data Geo-Data Geo-Data Geo-Data University College, London Web Services Web Services Web Services Web Services Geo-Data IONIC, Belgium Web Services Geo-Data Web Services Metadata Maps Data Demonstrator examples

23. Issues • Security • Scalability • Technical implementation • Metadata

24. Conclusions • Use of open standards is: • (relatively) easily achievable • desirable (discuss!) • A number of practical issues need to be addressed before wider adoption • There are both internal and external drivers within JISC IE that may push towards adoption “A service-oriented framework provides significant benefits to stakeholders including policy makers, managers, institutions, suppliers and developers and is a business driven approach for developing ICT infrastructures that encourages innovation by being agile and adaptive.” (Statement of Principles, e-Framework Overview, July 2005)

25. Definitions taken from [http://www.elearning.ac.uk/features/nontechguide1] • StandardsOGC already has proven working standards In order for a range of web services from a variety of sources to be able to work together, they must conform with a set of technical standards to enable them to ‘talk to each other’. At a simplistic level this is analogous to having a standard type of electric plug across the UK. For more information on technical standards see CETIS • Service Oriented ApproachA mix and match approach offers flexibility but does raise some significant concerns As already discussed, the question of joining up systems in an organisation is a major issue. When web services are joined up with each other and/or with other applications to meet the needs of a particular user (a business, an academic department etc) this is done through a service oriented approach (SOA). This approach produces a "composite application" and means that (a) individual services can be replaced by others without having to get rid of the whole system, (b) that existing systems can interact with new applications, and (c) that applications can be developed that better fit the needs of the users. Again, this is a technical subject. • Frameworks - Time for a Geospatial Framework (aka an SDI) for UK Academia? A framework provides a collection of possible services that will be relevant for a particular domain (eg education, research etc). It is therefore possible for a wide range of possible infrastructures to be created based on different combinations of these, as long as they all conform to an agreed set of standards. "As an analogy, the framework provides a vocabulary and grammar and it is left up to the individual organisations to write the stories" soa2sdi

26. E is for everything:towards a vision for geospatial resources Dr William Kilbride Research Manager – Glasgow Museums Resource Centre Chair JISC Geospatial Working Group William.Kilbride@cls.glasgow.gov.uk