Download
managing ordnance survey geospatial data in the uk legal deposit libraries n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Managing Ordnance Survey geospatial data in the UK legal deposit libraries PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Managing Ordnance Survey geospatial data in the UK legal deposit libraries

Managing Ordnance Survey geospatial data in the UK legal deposit libraries

104 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Managing Ordnance Survey geospatial data in the UK legal deposit libraries

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Managing Ordnance Survey geospatial data in the UK legal deposit libraries Chris Fleet Deputy Map Curator National Library of  Scotland Kimberly Kowal Curator of Digital Mapping The British  Library Maintaining Long-term Access to Geospatial Data workshop 27 October 2006

  2. UK Legal Deposit Libraries • The British Library • Bodleian Library, Oxford • Cambridge University Library • National Library of Scotland • National Library of Wales • Trinity College, Dublin

  3. UK Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003 • For the deposit of digital materials, this was an ‘Enabling Act': i.e. it gives the force of law to suitable future Regulations, but has no effect until these have been drawn up and approved. • No precise timetable for when Regulations for different types of material will be passed

  4. Voluntary Deposit (VDep) 1999: LandLine OS digital data contracts 2006: OS MasterMap

  5. Repositories in the Legal Deposit Libraries Isn’t this data already being archived? • The Ordnance Survey? • The National Archives? • EDINA?

  6. Repositories in the Legal Deposit Libraries The Digital Object Management Programme (DOM) Providing a generic and cost-effective infrastructure for the Library’s digital material that will • take in material of many types • take in material coming from many sources • store it all securely for the long term • allow controlled access • endure The current budget is £1.5m per year.

  7. Repositories in the Legal Deposit Libraries Trusted Digital Repository (TDR) July 2006: project initiated with funding from the Scottish Executive A range of digital data, including items: • received under legal deposit legislation • from other Scottish cultural institutions • digital images of NLS collections NLS TDR The current budget is £1.8 million for development over two years.

  8. Repositories in the Legal Deposit Libraries • Cambridge DSpace • FEDORA at the National Library of Wales

  9. Software 1 - standalone customised version of MapInfo– • 1999-2006 • Background - OS microfilm technology not Millennium Compliant • Customisation of original Land-Line Viewer in 1998 • Standalone desktop application - customised version of MapInfo • Annual snapshots received from OS - after complete snapshot in 1999, only amended/changed tiles converted to MapInfo in application • Metadata / Data management through MapInfo catalogue table • Storage of original National Transfer Format (NTF) data and converted MapInfo TAB files (using TranspOSe)

  10. Software 1 - standalone customised version of MapInfo– • 1999-2006 • Background - OS microfilm technology not Millennium Compliant • Customisation of original Land-Line Viewer in 1998 • Standalone desktop application - customised version of MapInfo • Annual snapshots received from OS - after complete snapshot in 1999, only amended/changed tiles converted to MapInfo in application • Storage of original National Transfer Format (NTF) data and converted MapInfo TAB files (using TranspOSe) • Metadata / Data management through MapInfo catalogue table

  11. Software 2 - networked customised version of ResponseMX - 2006- • Background - need to migrate from Land-Line to OS MasterMap • Detailed review of software, hosting and archiving options - 2005 • Need for formal LDL approval and importance of minimising costs • European Union procurement - 'restricted procedure' - Jan - May 2006 • Dotted Eyes' ResponseMX - based on MapXtreme and using Flash.

  12. OS MasterMap application model architecture

  13. Software Purchase Price Maintenance Price (in £1,000s Standards - GML Standards - OGC Relevant Experience East of customisation/ maintenance/ support Proven/ long-term future of company Long-term durability/ migration of applicatio Simplicity of architecture Scalability/ Robustness Autodesk £108-185 +DB £20         Cadcorp £76-77 +DB £13         Dotted Eyes £25 £5         ESRI £56-67 +DB £8         GDC £86 £17-19         GeoConcept £38-48 £3         Innogistic £49-52 £5         Intergraph £97 +DB £17         IONIC £88-98 £10          Laser-Scan £120 £20-30         MapInfo £47-51 +DB £10         SIA £13 +DB £13         STAR-APIC £40-43 +DB £8-10        

  14. Software 2 - networked customised version of ResponseMX - 2006- • Background - need to migrate from Land-Line to OS MasterMap • Detailed review of software, hosting and archiving options - 2005 • Need for formal LDL approval and importance of minimising costs • European Union procurement - 'restricted procedure' - Jan - May 2006 • Dotted Eyes' ResponseMX– also using MapXtreme and Flash.

  15. Software 2 - functionality and content – 2006- • Negotiation with OS on functionality, use of small-scale mapping and OS MasterMap layers • NTF (1999-2005) and GML (2006-) annual snapshots converted to MapInfo TAB files (using TranspOSe and InterpOSe) • Duplicated annual snapshots - not a growing database of feature-level information

  16. Open Non-proprietary Authentic Flexible Land-Line (NTF)    OS MasterMap (GML)     Proprietary GIS     Database (flat-file - NTF)     Database (objects - GML)     Data Formats - Archival qualities of Land-Line and OS MasterMap formats for storage and use 

  17. Some Questions! • Are snapshots acceptable archivally compared to a growing, managed repository of tiles and features? • Is an annual snapshot a sufficiently comprehensive record of landscape change? • When should we migrate NTF data, and to what? • What metadata should be used for geospatial data in our LDL repositories? 