1. Introduction
2. Attendance
3. Opening
4. Goal s and programme
5. Discussion papers
6. Presentations
7. Discussion groups
8. Conclusion
9. Closing Addresses
1. List of participants
2. Conference programme
Note: The proceedings are published in a separate document
Thanks
Thanks to Roger Longhorn, Timothy V. Evangelatos,
Lance McKee and the rapporteurs
who provided the basis for writing this report,
Michael Brand,
who provided useful advice,
Klaus Barwinski, Martin Knabenschuh
who collected all the necessary material and provided valuable
input.
The author,
Christian Chenez
Secretary General of EUROGI
The first Emerging Global Spatial Data Infrastructure conference
organized by the European Umbrella Organisation for Geographical
Information (EUROGI), the German Umbrella Organisation for Geoinformation
(DDGI), the Atlantic Institute (AI), the Institute for Land Information
and its Land Information Assembly (ILI/LIA), the Open GIS Consortium
(OGC), the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) and the Federation
Internationale des Geometres - Commission 3 (FIG-COM3) was held
on the 4 to 6 September 1996, in Bonn/Konigswinter (Germany).
The conference was placed under the Patronage of Dr. Martin
Bangemann - Member of the European Commission, Industrial
affairs and Information and telecommunications technologies.
The conference was attended by invited representatives of 63 individuals
from around the world and from almost all the GI sectors. 20 countries
were represented. The full list of participants is enclosed in
Annex 1 of this report.
The President of EUROGI Michael Brand officially opened
the conference. He welcomed the participants and speakers to Europe
and expressed EUROGI's pride in being one of the major players
of this ambitious initiative. He noted that Europe like many regions
of the world is struggling to address the problems of how to overcome
the constraints in producing and using Geographical Information
and to begin building the necessary infrastructure to allow this
to happen. Wherever we are in the world, whatever our background,
culture, state of economic development, the problems that face
us are similar. They may differ in degree but that is all and
most unfortunately those are not technical in nature which are
often easier to find solutions to.
The full text of Michael Brand appears as document 2 in
the proceedings volume.
On behalf of the Atlantic Institute, its three founding universities
-- Laval, Maine, and New Brunswick, and the many individuals from
around the world who have supported the AI's goals and objectives,
Fritz Petersohn heartily welcomed all colleagues from all
points of the globe. He mentioned that this meeting was the continuation
of a goal he had pursued most of his life "Creating new educational
initiatives that build human understanding and infrastructure
for the good of all nations". He also noted that we are a
special global community about to discuss and evaluate the fundamental
attributes, opportunities, and threats of a global information
highway which is in its infancy.
The full text of Fritz Petersohn appears as document 3
in the proceedings volume.
Klaus Barwinski, President of DDGI and host of the conference,
ended the opening session by welcoming all participants to Bonn/Konigswinter.
He expressed, that Geoinformation is a must in the modern society,
because decisions in politics, economy, administration and research
have to be of high quality to meet all needs. He mentioned, that
all people are guests on the blue planet and that it's necessary
to be careful with all planing activities in urban and rural areas
for saving the living space for future generations. A second main
task is to protect the environment from disasters of different
kinds, e.g. in the field of traffic, pollution and flood. To fulfill
these very important goals a global spatial data infrastructure
is needed, but up to now this is not available. Therefore all
nations and countries urgently have to create such an infrastructure
and this can only be undertaken through cooperation around the
world.
The full text of Klaus Barwinski appears as document 4 in the proceedings volume.
The main goals of the conference were:
* to minimize duplication of national efforts, the cost of Research & Development (R&D), and to identify the critical opportunities and threats inherent in creating a global spatial data infrastructure,
* create a standardized vocabulary and the new concepts needed
to facilitate an ongoing dialogue between diverse professions
to design, implement and extend spatial data infrastructures needed
in building and using geo-information products and service in
a global spatial data infrastructure.
The programme of the conference is enclosed in annex 2 of this
report.
Two papers outlining US and European viewpoints were presented
by Lance McKee from the Open GIS Consortium (OGC) and by
Peter Burrough from EGIS (European Conference on Geographic
Information System) and EUROGI to launch the debate. They appear
as documents 5 and 6 in the proceedings volume.
Lance McKee placed technology at the hub of the GSDI concept,
while accepting that significant non-technology issues also need
resolution. His main point was that this conference will help
create a global "vocabulary" or "language"
which will organize people's thinking and actions leading to the
education of people who will then participate in building the
National Spatial Data Infrastructures (NSDIs), which when networked
and used together, will constitute the GSDI. Other points covered
were:
i) What is GSDI and why should we care about it?ii) What benefits will the GSDI bring, and to whom?
iii) What needs to be done to promote and organize GSDI growth?
iv) The GSDI vocabulary
v) Technology components of the GSDI
vi) Geodata: Legacy data and new data
vii) Culture, Professional associations, Government agencies
viii) Legal and regulatory structure
ix) Conclusions and overall plan of action
Peter Burrough described progress on the European Geographical
Information Infrastructure (EGII) initiative, now working its
way through the internal procedures of the European Commission,
following extensive consultation across a wide selection of major
actors in the GI arena. He also drew attention to other international
GI initiatives already underway in the fields of environmental
monitoring, geophysical research, etc.
He also spoke of a new dream of a greater Europe, "in which
European unity will be based on the free will of European peoples
who are able to express their options democratically". The
challenge that he sees is to move from NSDI to ESDI and then on
to GSDI, but there are no institutions in Europe to oversee such
activities. He commented the apparent European resistance to
GSDI which stems from a range of local issues rather than any
overall opposition. Also we can learn from lessons from various
discipline specific organizations like the World Meteorological
Organization and the World Health Organization. His conclusions
were that we should move slowly, develop a common language and
not "act" for others without their consent.
The meeting was then treated to the latest information about ongoing
and planned initiatives at national and regional levels by speakers
from Australia, Asia, Canada, Europe/The Netherlands, USA and
Africa, plus reviews of global GI related projects planned or
underway.
6.1 An Australian viewpoint by Mike Smith, Australia
The presentation paper appears as document 7 in the proceedings volume.
Australia is still trying to develop a national SDI, plus a joint
SDI with New Zealand. Land registry is a big application area,
as is environmental monitoring. Mike Smith noted that
the development of a SDI was not a technical problem but a people
problem. He also recommended that the local level of SDI should
be considered. The study of the needs of the State of Victoria
was seen as an essential step in the process .
6.2 An Asian viewpoint by Akihiro Yamaura, Japan
The presentation paper appears as document 8 in the proceedings
volume.
Asia is moving quickly to the viewpoint that a regional SDI policy
is needed, although there is currently an uneven playing field,
with countries like Japan, Malaysia and Singapore well advanced
on SDI, but large players like China, Indonesia, etc, who most
need GI and SDI, and who have a great impact in the region, moving
more slowly due to a variety of constraints.
Akihiro Yamaura highlighted the interesting and valuable
Japanese specificity of their NSDI dimension, e.g., the involvement
of political parties. The promotion of GI and of their NSDI is
currently made by NSDIPA (National Spatial Data Infrastructure
Promoting Association) largely supported by a political group.
He also mentioned that in one hand the market will be used to
build the NSDI and in the other hand the Government is still
the power.
6.3 A Canadian viewpoint by Edryd Shaw, Canada
The presentation paper appears as document 12 in the proceedings
volume.
Canada is moving forward quickly, via Geomatics Canada (a quasi-commercial
operation which manages GI at the Federal level and liaison with
the Provinces), although, here too there are problems. Pricing
policy has recently been changed to permit users to purchase
only the GI data that they specifically need, for smaller fees
than before, rather than require entire "tiles" of information
to be purchased. Several activities in the Earth Sciences sector
such as the Geo Express, LINC, and CEONET as well as the Charnet
and Mercator projects and some of the provincial activities were
described.
In his conclusion, Edryd Shaw stated that Canada has an
active program in electronic spatial data dimension. The Canadian
position in standards is evolving and joint activities with other
standard groups started. Canada has the capability to build a
NSDI, he said.
He called for a strong linkage of the Geomatic sector with the
space sector and the political sphere.
6.4 An European viewpoint by Bas Kok, The Netherlands
The presentation paper appears as document 9 in the proceedings
volume.
The European situation was reported on. An overview of the steps being taken in the Netherlands, as typical of the approach likely to be followed by other European States. A summary of the EGII discussion paper and the steps currently underway to raise political awareness of GI in Europe and the draft communication were presented.
Bas Kok provided a set of conclusions related to the three
levels , e.g., National, Regional and Global. Concerning the National
level, he mentioned that in the Netherlands, all sectors of the
GI community have been involved in defining and developing the
NGII (=NSDI), a common vision has been developed, a good balance
between suppliers and users was found and an open-eye was kept
on the international developments. At the European level, two
of the main conclusions of the GI2000 paper (document 'papers
distributed' n 2, in the proceedings volume) are that a strong
political support and a visionary leadership are needed and that
a task force to be set up under the leadership of a European Commissioner
is necessary. At the Global level, he concluded in proposing to
define more precisely the GSDI concept, to identify the already
existing parts of the GSDI, to establish a network for exchanging
ideas and experiences and finally to repeat the current exercise
in inviting a wider audience.
6.5 A United States viewpoint by Gale TeSelle, USA
The presentation paper appears as document 10 in the proceedings
volume.
The US situation was reported. FGDC (Federal Geographic Data Committee)
activities, e.g., definition and implementation phases of the
US NSDI, were commented.
The facts that the US Federal Government is currently spending
approximately $4 billion annually on the collection, management,
and dissemination of geospatial data and that data are still hard
to find, difficult to access, not current, undocumented and incomplete
were the main reasons for creating the FGDC and issuing the NSDI
Executive Order signed by President Clinton on April 11, 1994.
Two years later, a distributed set of metadata services (Geospatial
Data Clearinghouse) are being implemented and the definition
of the core data set (Digital Geospatial Data Framework) is ongoing.
6.6 An African viewpoint by Unis Muftah, OACT
No presentation paper was made available.
The African situation is dire, due to lack of funds for training,
educating government officials of the need for GI and its uses,
etc. Data collection progresses slowly and new, lower cost technology
is making this less expensive, due to very low labour costs. A
report was given on the AFRICA GIS'95 conference, the UN sponsored
UNITAR training programme and the MARYSI (Morocco) conference.
Unis Muftah reported also on the 10 years of OACT's harmonization
efforts on the production activities of the 4 centres ..., ...,
..., and ..... He commented the ongoing activities on a first
level of metada and on unifying the geodetic systems . The FAO
project AFRICOVER (1:250,000 data base) was mentioned as well
as the IGN-France support in the definition phase of the specifications.
The financial and technical support of France and Germany, the
European Commission and the UN/ECE was seen as a key element in
this process. Unfortunately Unis Muftah said the political
interest in the development of NSDIs in Africa was still very
low despite the pressure produced by the technical sphere.
6.7 Navigating the Global Information Highway by Jane Smith
Patterson, USA
The presentation paper appears as document 8 in the proceedings
volume.
During her luncheon speech, Jane Smith Patterson presented the North Carolina Information Highway (NCIH) status and a vision of a Global Information Highway. She commented the main goal: a Global Knowledge & Service Highway and provided a set of conclusions:
- The information superhighway has infinite capability.- Deployment can take place in technologically challenged environments (i.e., the schools)
- Highlevel leadership strategically placed and committed must be present.
- Surprises must be met as opportunities.
- Marketing, marketing, marketing
- Feedback to management and leaders is critical.
- Constant teamwork is essential to success.
- Commitment! Commitment! Commitment!
Speaking about the future GSDI, Jane Smith Petterson said
that Global Information Highway will be a network of networks,
she plead for 'harmonizing the differences' at the technical,
legal, social and political levels and identified a set of 'bumps
in the road' (intellectual property, public access, privacy, security,
liability, competition, reciprocity and professional certification).
6.8 Earthmap/USA & Global Mapping/Japan Projects are at
the Feasibility phase: a dream or a future reality by Frederic
Dupont de Denichin, France and Thomas Usselman, USA
The presentation paper appears as document 13 and 14 in the proceedings
volume.
Frederic Dupont de Denichin provided a set of recommendations for a real future: create a positive environment allowing local actors to work using a user oriented approach, stimulate the local involvement by developing the technology transfer and capacity building and facilitate the local geo-market, create synergy between all main international initiatives, avoid duplication and 'solve' the legal aspects. Then he described the different issues related to data servicing (a way to reach final users), data updating (an issue of sustainability), data acquisition (technical and economic feasibility, technology for old problem). He reported on the current status of the two projects, i.e., Earthmap and Global Mapping, which are both at the definition phase and concluded in providing his views on the final goals of international initiatives to be reached:
Thomas Usselman provided up to date information on the
Earthmap project, the purpose of which is 'to enhance sustainable
development decision-making through the appropriate use of geospatial
data and tools, and to promote the adoption of a compatible framework
for data collection, analysis, and use'. A list of 17 actions
have been identified (ref: document 14 of the proceedings). The
'current' problem is the identification of a mandate and a budget!
6.9 Global Marine Spatial Data Infrastructure by Neil Anderson,
Canada
The presentation paper appears as document 16 in the proceedings
volume.
Neil Anderson provided an overview of "Marine GSDI".
He introduced his presentation by reporting that over the past
few hours he had counted 14 different terms used for the concept
of "Spatial Data Infrastructure" and noted that there
were three common to components to SDI namely: standards, networking
and third party access or in other words - SDI means standardized,
networked and designed for third party access. Further SDI is
not the telecom infrastructure although it uses the telecommunication
network. He then reviewed the history and work of the IHO and
what the IHO has accomplished with ECDIS and electronic charts
in creating a specialized GSDI. He summarized the environmental
agenda and described the needs of nations states for fisheries
management. His conclusion is that the challenges are no longer
technical but are related to financing the creation of the infrastructure
and creating markets for spatial data.
6.10 Global Geo-Spatial Information and Services - A vision
for the future by Henry Tom, USA
The presentation paper appears as document 15 in the proceedings
volume.
Henry Tom started his presentation by commenting the US Defence Mapping Agency (DMA) mission: provide Global Geospatial Information and Services (GGIS) to support and advance national security objectives, and by providing information on the current structure and activities of the GGIS. He noted that DMA was already mapping the world! He then gave his vision of a Geospatial Information Infrastructure (GII) and described the DMA's activities in the standardization field. The ISO structure and action plan were presented. Henry Tom concluded in highlighting the important role of the standardisation activities in the GSDI development.
On day two of the conference, participants split into four working
groups/panels to discuss the following issues, with participants
reporting conclusions back to plenary sessions. The purpose was
to determine if there was a set of actions that the GSDI Forum
needed to put forward, or which could be put forward, at global
level, in regard to GSDI.
* The Benefits of Global SDI Session I Group 1
* Potential Global SDI Engineering Projects Session I Group 2
* Legal Barriers to an Unifying Elements of Session I Groups 3&4
GSDI development
* Political, Social, Economic and Legal Issues Session I Groups 3&4
* Critical GSDI Political Processes Session II Groups 3&4
* The need for plan of Action Session II Groups 1&2
Rapporteurs reported the findings of each of the first four panels
(Session I) prior to lunch break. Then over the lunch, the conclusions
reached by the individual panels were synthesized into presentations
made by the Chairmen for the final two panels listed above.
| Chairmen | Rapporteurs | |
| Group 1 Session I | Mike Smith | Robert O'Neil |
| Group 2 Session I | Dieter Fritsch | Lance McKee |
| Group 3& 4 Session I | David Rhind, Bishop Dansby | David Rhind &Bishop Dansby |
| Group 1,2,3&4 Session II | John McLaughlin, Helge Onsrud | Nelson Osburn |
7.1 Findings of Group 1 Session I
Subject: The Benefits of Global SDI
The following notes were provided by Robert O'Neil.
A common language
- to facilitate communication
- to build communities
A common "order"
- to collect/disseminate data and information
-- recover, integrate, analyse
-- efficiency at end user
Enabling technology
- Benefits are frequently indirect
or arrive from seconders or dependant activity
Applications
- permits global operations (GPS based)
- public safety/resource development
- road/marine/air transportation
- regional environmental modelling
- epidemiology
- economics-land reform
resource management
commerce
intellectual & human capital
- one mechanism for movement to "developed state' by principles of "sustainable development"
- major benefits in societal areas
- education curriculum/materials
Who pays/ Who reaps?
- infrastructure: often paid for by previous justifications activities
Difficult/Uncertain definition:
- need common vocabulary/language
- need a common order for data/information
-- recover/integrate later
- want common look & feel for data
-- to find & analyse easily
-- efficiency
- function - initially to exchange information
-- build a formalism for communication
-- build communities
- we are infrastructure builders
-- have to think of users
-- will we always be? technologies
suppliers are solvers of problems, customers are owners of problems
- regional infrastructures will precede the GSDI
regional groups, various themes
do not want to develop storepipes
-- also have global benefits
-- should lead to global
7.2 Findings of Group 2 Session I
Subject: Potential Global SDI Engineering Projects
The following text, dated 4 November 1996, was provided
by Lance McKee.
GSDI conference attendees who participated in the GSDI Engineering
Projects discussion group considered a number of engineering
project ideas related to GSDI building. All agreed that there
was a need for action, perhaps initially to direct a small group
to look at the problem, identify requirements, suggest solutions,
and build prototypes of systems that could demonstrate current
capabilities to users and suggest areas for further research and
development.
In regard to overall policy to guide such projects, building partnerships
was seen as an important goal, because: the overall project is
multidisciplinary; today's technology business initiatives are
increasingly partnering initiatives; and international partnering
to provide technology can encourage international partnering to
use technology. All agreed that there have been too many examples
of top-down technology transfer initiatives that were expensive
failures, so the group proposed bottom-up teams tasked with the
goal of providing appropriate technology, tools that would be
truly useful for the targeted users. It was also suggested that
useful geomatics solutions would need to look at t (time)
and the "human dimension" as well as x, y
and z.
Three concrete actions were proposed.
1) Create a test site. It was proposed that a region be
found for which many layers of data could be made available, preferably
via network access. This would ideally be a multi-country region
with high visibility and high political profile, perhaps because
of critical needs which would be addressed by a digital spatial
data infrastructure. The geospatial data would comprise a multidisciplinary
data set for broad research. Technical teams would be asked to
serve the technical testbed and other teams would study and manage
the political. social, legal, and economic issues associated with
developing and using spatial data infrastructure. It was suggested
that a region could be found and a plan written in 7-9 months.
The testbed would be a test of the utility of various technologies,
a test of interoperability (OpenGIS, metadata standards, information
community definition, etc), and a test of a wide range of assumptions
about communication and cooperation.
2) Encourage worldwide publishing of metadata. It was proposed
and heartily agreed that widespread Web based publishing of metadata
and/or metadata schemas would be an extremely useful first step
in helping geodata providers and geodata users to begin the process
of integrating information. The longer we take to begin this effort,
the more data sets we will later need to recreate to accommodate
the metadata schemas of essential partners. It was suggested
that we note Portugal's use of the Web for geospatial information
distribution and also the EC metadata study and the metadata work
being done by ISO. (People frequently ask if interfaces and services
based on the OpenGIS specification will reduce the need for metadata
standards. The answer is no. "Semantic translators"
described in the OpenGIS Abstract specification will be useful
tools for automating data integration, but these must first be
configured by experts in pairs of "Geospatial Information
Communities" who set the terms of translation for each feature
definition in their schemas.)
3) Set up a clearinghouse for related technology research (sensor,
fusion, etc). Research is proceeding rapidly in many areas
of geospatial technology, yielding new approaches and new products.
Progress can be more efficient if fewer projects proceed isolation.
7.3 Findings of Groups 3&4 Session I
Subject: Legal Barriers to and Unifying Elements of GSDI Development
Political, Social, Economic and Legal Issues
7.3.1 Political, Social, economic and legal issues in geospatial
information and their interactions
The following notes were provided by David Rhind.
The complete notes and a report titled 'Economic aspects of the
collection, dissemination and integration of government's geospatial
information' appear in the proceedings as document 17 and paper
distributed n 1.
Some basics
- most geospatial data currently collected by the state
- annual world-wide collection cost: $50bn + ?????
- much in non-standard form, within & between countries
- access to it highly variable; theory does not always equate with practice
- market size very difficult to define
- market differentiation inevitable
- measuring 'public good' is impossible
Political issues
- what is 'proper' role of the state in information collection, dissemination or exploitation
- who owns information part-funded by tax-payer in past?
- 'reinventing government' is very common:
- greater focus on limiting role of government
- obtaining greater efficiencies, cutting costs
- fostering public/private sector partnerships
- policy conflicts common-place
- privacy Vs money and efficiency considerations is serious issue
- who accepts liability?
- how can geospatial industry be regulated? difficult!
Political issues - the international aspect
- international commitments often conflict with national policies (e.g. Agenda 21, WMO developments)
- apparently similar policies can have very different effects in different countries (e.g. FOIA in USA, NZ)
- wide variations in policies and practices exist at different levels of government in some countries
- very wide variations in policies and practices exist between countries
- no possibility of legislating for geospatial information separate from other types?!
Collaboration between warring factions?
- the agendas of different players (commerce, government, academic, etc. bodies) differ except at the most superficial level
- the 'rules of engagement' differ (data theft acceptable to some, government pricing and openness different to commercial)
- time horizons differ between the players
The economics
- geospatial information is a 'weak public good':
- marginal cost of production very low
- non-rivalry exists
- excludibility is possible
- some elements of natural monopoly exist
- impossible to prove 'best' approach
- benefits from use of GI:
- tangible ones measured in cash or other metric
- externalities usually very difficult to measure
The legal dimension
- government GI organisations have to comply with:
- Ministerial statutory guidelines on their operations
- public access laws
- fair trading (or anti-trust) laws
- copyright & other Intellectual Property Rights laws
- data protection laws
- public procurement laws or regulations
- legal liability laws
- human right laws
Conclusions
Interactions of economics, laws and politics are:
* messy, often unpredictable and geographically varied
* vitally important to development of GI
* increasingly driven by money (cf. public interest?)
* complicated by private sector/public sector interactions
* unlikely to be harmonised in the foreseeable future
Key questions
* what is government in the nation state for?
* is it better to have 'free' data or charging? For whom?
* is there a trend towards charging?
* can we expect international harmony in laws relevant to GI? Does it matter if we have differences?
* what is best way to protect IPR?
* how do we cope with legal liability?
* how/when do we regulate GI industry?
7.3.2 Political, legal, economic, social issues
The following notes were provided by Dansby Bishop.
Political, Legal, Economic, Social
is:
1) breath talkingly complex and interacting
2) talked about Europe & USA - Rest of the world!
3) KEY ISSUES
* ACCESS
- at any price (secrecy)
- price sensitivity
- for particular groups for particular purposes
- varies greatly between organisations
- in Europe, cost recovery becoming more common although disliked by many, but there is not enough money to make the data free
- charging in US in some circumstances, e.g., Landsat data, due to partial privatisation.
- economics can be used to support almost any approach, therefore it won't help
- Key factor is political, not economic.
- BUT is nationalism relevant?
- public for US 'free data' is global, public for some other government data is who ever pays
- commercial sector sees only customers
- does data differ greatly in properties , e.g., remote sensing/topography? properties of geoinformation - economic, etc
- funding of data maintenance by governments becoming very difficult, even in the US
- great change in practices possible
- technology driven
- legislation, e.g., EU Green Paper on access to public information
- very substantial growth in private sector role - necessitates profits/charges. What is private sector? competitiveness?
- privacy (especially in Europe) affected by high resolution
geographical data?
* LEGAL
- Intellectual property
- Disharmonies in software policies: US does not protect: algorithms
and functional components compatibility with other programmes.
Applies traditional copyright. Europe protects everything except
behavior, protects the "seat of the brow".
7.4 Findings of Groups 1,2,3 and 4 Session II
Subjects: Critical DSDI Political Processes
The need for an action plan
The following text, dated 18 September 1996, was provided
by Nelson T Osborn.
The discussion group, co-chaired by John McLaughlin and
Helge Onsrud. addressed three hey question a concerning
the need for a plan of action.
I. Why now? (Is there a presenting need for a plan of action?)
II. What are the issues? (Who? What? Why? When? How? Where?)
III. Who are we to assume an agenda? (Will the world accept our
output as their input?)
Why now?
National spatial data infrastructure are well into their framework
development as evidence by many of the presentations delivered
at this conference. These efforts have been for the most part
"standalone initiatives" that do not share with each
other common governmental, business, professional, academic and
societal goals and objectives. At the time when NSDI issues
should be coalescing naturally into GSDI issue, there is no platform
to discuss or debate such issues, with the exception of this conference.
If we do not begin a formal plan of action now, when will we begin?
Will the results of this conference be written and spoken words,
and not action? The opportunity for nations to minimize duplication
of NSDI research and development efforts and costs should be reason
enough to take action sooner rather than later. The challenge
of harmonizing the design and engineering of a GSDI between nations
and their respective goals, objectives, laws, cultures, and technologies
makes action now, mandatory!
Individually, our NSDI knowledge can be the building blocks with
which we build a cohesive and comprehensive GSDI.
What are the issues?
Not surprisingly, the discussion ranged far and wide across many
different viewpoints:
- Are we addressing fundamental spatial data infrastructure principles, policies, processes, programs, projects, or all or none of the preceding?
- What are the major consequences of accommodating global spatial data infrastructure diversity under a common GSDI umbrella?
- Can/should land tenure issues be incorporated into the GSDI concept?
- Is access "free of charge"? If "Yes", who will pay for it?
- Who will coordinate efforts? Will there be a World Organization of Geoinformation (WOGI)?
- Who will help developing countries to afford participation in a GSDI?
- Do we focus exclusively on global issues, or do we link global and national issues together?
- Who are the GSDI service providers, and who are the GSDI customers?
- How do we participate/coordinate with the existing NSDI institutions and associations?
- What kind of university and continuing education programs are required by GSDI?
- How do we go about designing and engineering a GSDI? Is it primarily a professional, technological, educational, governmental, economical, legal, or political challenge? Is it ... of the preceding?
- How do we build public awareness?
- Who are the "champions" of a GSDI?
- How do we fund demonstration projects? Are demonstration projects a good idea?
- What are the national policy and legal implications of the globalization
of users, technology, funding, staffing, institutions, scheduling,
and so on?
The preceding list represents a good number of the issues surfaced,
not all of them. perhaps the most noteworthy of comments amongst
many noteworthy comments was made on by John McLaughlin "We
individually know what we collectively do not know!".
Our long list of questions with no corresponding list of answers
or consensus is perhaps the best validation of John McLaughlin's
observation.
Who are we to assume an agenda?
Global issues are being surfaced almost daily, and with the exception
of this conference, there is no platform to discuss or debate
important and far-reaching GSDI issues. If not us, who?
- We came together to address the key people in the world to solicit their backing of our efforts. (Fritz Petersohn has stated that the United Nations and the World Bank will distribute a "Conference White Paper" to 126 countries worldwide once we produce the document.)
- We agreed to a short-term GSDI Demonstration "To demonstrate the consequences of accommodating global diversity within a GSDI and to describe a profile of global assumptions for political, academic, and business change". (We must approach all potential sources of funds; i.e., corporations, governments, the United Nations and the World bank).
- We understand the need for a long-term GSDI Demonstration to sustain our efforts, but are well aware of the national and global political and economic realities. (We must accomplish a short-term GSDI demonstration, while at the same time work towards a long-term GSDI demonstration).
- Our global issues involve the problems of globalization; i.e., spatial information,
- We believe there is a whole new series of investments that are now being decided globally. We have a sense of urgency and can take advantage of these big opportunities for GSDI funding, but we must act now!
- We favour the idea of bundling GSDI into bigger projects (the next round of environmental initiatives, intelligent transport systems, etc.) as a mean of obtaining funding and more closely aligning with customer needs.
- As our agenda progresses, we should focus on how to bring customers,
politicians, and other to the same table with us to broaden our
platform and extend our reach and strength.
A consensus was clearly reached that NOW is the right time to
start thinking about the GSDI concept, major issues affecting
GSDI, and a possible "implementation plan", although
what was to be "implemented" was still a very grey area!
It was proposed that this GSDI Forum should be extended to all
sectors in the Spatial Data/Geographical Information communities,
worldwide, and should meet again in a period of 7 to 9 months
to continue the dialogue, after informal (volunteer!) working
groups had investigated the problems likely to surface in regards
to more global use of GI. It was generally accepted that there
was no need to create a new "artificial" global project
in order to investigate the main issues. Rather, it was suggested
that existing global projects, such as those of the G7 and other
international projects (Earthmap, Global Mapping, other international
environmental and geophysical projects, African projects like
Africover, etc.) be examined to see if common problems were being
met and could be overcome.
Although the GSDI Forum arrived at no major conclusions in regard
to GSDI, it is apparent that some body or Forum is needed to review
and comment upon the real, practical problems being faced today
by global GI projects
The will for good cooperation and of sharing ideas about infrastructure
architectures and solutions between the nations is clearly given.
It is seen that every ground related decision has to be based
on coordinates of an event including the time.
All people and especially the politicians have to be convinced
of the importance of spatial data, which makes only sense if they
are available globally and if infrastructure is functioning. It
is necessary to contemplate properly the next steps in this direction
and to take into consideration that not the technique itself is
the problem; the ability to use the brain is the main point.
Where are we going from here?
1. Creating 'ad hoc working groups' to check the G7 projects for
underlining the necessity of a global spatial data infrastructure.
The main question is what will happen is this infrastructure is
not in place?
2. Discussing the 'ad hoc working groups' results in a meeting
in the near future.
3. Building up a consortium of politicians and GI experts to evaluate
the outcome and to appoint high profile actions with priorities
in a plan (no more discussions and papers are needed but concrete
action!).
4. Finding acceptable funding for these actions. A potential "mandate"
to look at global issues of GI might come from the World Bank,
who are now very aware of the importance of GI in addressing issues
such as Land Reform (for land registry systems), planning and
monitoring international transport and power engineering projects,
environmental monitoring, etc.
5. Developing a logical overall concept based on an open system
architecture and focusing on information technology standards
as well as on geospatial data standards. Basic rules in pricing,
licensing and privacy are used from the politicians (only the
consortium is able to define these regulations!).
6. Educating young people, who apply scientific, mathematical
and economic principles.
Michael Brand, President of EUROGI, thanked all the speakers
and participants. He declared the conference and its results "extremely
rewarding". Excerpts from his closing remarks include:
- We should take a"short time out" for proper contemplation of our next actions.
- We would do well to remember that we are more than individuals. We are representatives of very large constituencies.
- We are not mapping-centric. We are geo-information proponents.
- A loose consortium of associations represented by the attendees should meet again in the not too distant future.
- The consortium should have an action plan ready to launch in 7-9 months.
- The plan will focus on global issues and a test site and/or
network.