slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
GRADE Kickoff Meeting PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
GRADE Kickoff Meeting

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 28

GRADE Kickoff Meeting - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 146 Views
  • Uploaded on

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.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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