This theme paper sets out to propose ways in which an enhanced GGDI might be implemented. It does this after re-considering the Coleman and McLaughlin definitions of GGDI and its components and proposing some modest modifications to them. Thereafter it proposes the main, high level practical problems to be resolved; it considers how these have been addressed in national geospatial data use facilitation schemes and how these schemes are relevant to GGDI. The variety of players and the nature of leadership involved, and how the latter can be exercised in implementing GGDI, are then discussed. Finally, a tentative list of actions to ameliorate the problems identified is given, together with resource implications, possible assignments of responsibilities and whether each merits a primarily 'top down' or 'bottom up' approach. It is stressed that conventional management approaches - the identification of Critical Success Factors, etc - will be difficult to apply to GGDI given the disparity of players and their interests but this is no reason for not seeking to improve the current situation.
This paper is the second of two Theme Papers or discussion documents prepared in advance of an international seminar on Global Geospatial Data Infrastructure to be held in October, 1997 at the University of North Carolina Alumni Centre in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA The objectives of this document are to:
The first Theme Paper - dealing with the definition of Global
Geospatial Data Infrastructure and identifying regional and global
initiatives which could contribute to building such a GGDI - was
produced by Dr David Coleman and Dr John McLaughlin of the University
of New Brunswick in Canada. Its conclusions serve as the starting
point for this paper.
Before proceeding to implementation issues, it is vital to define both the GGDI itself and its component parts.
We already have a Global Geospatial Data Framework. It is possible to get some data for many parts of the world. Yet - as set out in section 3 - there are many problems associated with the status quo: Mounsey 1991, for instance, has described some of the many problems involved in assembling an environmental database for Europe and the EC (1997) have recognised this in setting plans for the future which have much relevance for GGDI. The GGDI initiative is therefore an attempt to improve the present situation rather than design something in vacuo.
As Coleman and McLaughlin concluded, 'There is understandably no clear agreement on what "(geo-) spatial data infrastructure" and "geographic information infrastructure" efforts should or should not include: both the existing situation and most appropriate implementation strategies will necessarily vary from country to country. However, since development of a global geospatial data infrastructure does involve a common understanding of at least a fundamental set of concepts and terms, it is important to at least introduce for discussion the components and competing visions driving the various infrastructure efforts at this time'.
They assumed the following definition of the component terms:
"Global" implies that anyone, anywhere will eventually be able technically to access non-confidential data about the whole planet and its constituent parts;
Following McKee, they defined "geographic" data as those data describing phenomena directly or indirectly associated with a location and time relative to the surface of the Earth. They opted to use the term "Geospatial" rather than "spatial" or "geographical" in order to be as inclusive as possible;
The word "Data" was chosen in lieu of "information", since the authors of Working Paper 1 envisage an environment in which much of the decision-making with respect to packaging data into information will reside with the user; and
they follow the Webster definition of "Infrastructure" as "...the underlying foundation or basic framework of a system or organisation."
Based on a consideration of the components which they saw comprising the GGDI and this terminology, the authors suggested the following working definition of GGDI:
"A Global Geospatial Data Infrastructure encompasses the policies, technologies, standards and human resources necessary for the effective collection, management, access, delivery and utilisation of geospatial data in a global community."
They pointed out that it would be diplomatically naive, operationally problematic and economically absurd to assume that each of these four elements - policies, technologies, standards and human resources - should be or could ever be the same in every country. For this reason, the clear and growing need for global data coverage to satisfy specific environmental science initiatives will have to be satisfied for the foreseeable future by a patchwork quilt of selected global, national and project-specific datasets.
While truly global infrastructure remains a longer-term goal, Coleman and McLaughlin presented examples of trans-national geospatial data infrastructure (or "TGDI") programmes already underway by government, military and commercial interests. In these cases, the emphasis is placed on establishing application-specific information infrastructure in place on a cross-border, continental or perhaps even inter-continental basis (such as the SABE and PETIT databases for Europe). Given these existing programmes, they raise the question of whether it is possible and worthwhile to collect and integrate the output from these individual TGDI efforts into some larger GGDI.
The Coleman and McLaughlin definition leans heavily upon that used for the US National Spatial Data Infrastructure. Neither contains any explicit reference to the financial resources needed to create or manage geospatial data. The remits of governmental bodies are only present in that they are subsumed by 'policies'. This is not appropriate in many cases: remits were often set many years earlier and may well be unchanged by present policies. To that extent, 'institutional arrangements and remits' are under-represented by the definition adopted. Finally, as proposed, the data are not themselves part of the GGDI - as if roads are not part of the transport infrastructure! It can be argued that the entire focus of the GGDI should be on facilitating use of geospatial data. Thus an alternative definition of the GGDI would be:
"A Global Geospatial Data Infrastructure encompasses the policies, organisational remits, data, technologies, standards, delivery mechanisms and financial and human resources necessary to ensure that those working at the global or regional scale are not impeded in meeting their objectives"
Account will be taken of these points in the rest of this paper. Since it is a wider definition in some respects than that adopted by Coleman and McLaughlin, all their concerns can be subsumed within it.
Coleman and McLaughlin saw these as comprising:
In a later section, they made it clear that data providers (such as National Mapping Organisations or NMOs) and newly emergent private sector data suppliers also had a strong actual or potential interest in the GGDI. It is arguable that the citizenry also have a stake in GGDI, both directly (as potential users of some data) and indirectly (since the data will in one sense be deployed by these groups on the citizens' behalf). Certainly however the international development community have a strong interest in the GGDI (see, for instance, Htun 1997 and Estes et al 1995). Clearly there is some overlap between membership of these stakeholder communities.
As Coleman and McLaughlin also pointed out, it is possible to
view GGDI from a number of alternative perspectives. They saw
these as:
In turn this demands some consideration of the players in GGDI
and their agendas for it is unlikely that these will be coincident.
Table 1 suggests what some of these agendas might be; failure
to recognise these different agendas at the outset will cause
much misunderstanding later. This is discussed further in section
5.2.
It is self-evident that there will be complex interactions between
and within many of the GGDI components - policy clearly interacts
with technology (and finance!). The interactions are too numerous
to list and in any case may be very particular to the local domain
and change periodically. As one example, however, Rhind (1996)
has cited ten of the institutional and policy factors impacting
on availability and pricing of data for his own organisation (see
table 2); there are many other factors, including the cost of
hardware and software and its performance.
Finally Coleman and McLaughlin have pointed out that criticisms
of 'information infrastructure' - in fact, of the overall global
information society vision - have emerged from a wide variety
of quarters, and from both developed and developing communities.
Given this, they raise various questions for consideration by
Conference participants:
It will be obvious that the answers to these questions have major
potential impacts on the conclusions of this paper!
The situation in relation to data and the components of GGDI previously
discussed earlier can be summarised as:
It is impossible to ignore what has already been achieved and
what is in progress in various countries. There are two reasons
for this:
Annex 2 describes two such schemes which have some significant
similarities but also some considerable differences. The latter
arise from different cultural contexts and other factors. These
differences are difficult to pin down with precision- since many
deal with 'soft issues' and the situation is constantly evolving
- but are summarised at the end of annex 2.
What is common to such schemes is the need to find incentivisation
mechanisms to persuade people to collaborate. This is most easily
done through money but, in the absence of that, enlightened self-interest
and altruism may be the only mechanisms. It is rare that this
will achieve coherent, consistent and readily useable results.
In addition, tangible progress is essential: the substantial
resources dedicated to definition of standards over many years
which resulted in unused de jure standards is well-known
and to be avoided if possible. The role of commercial sector
interests is one which seems likely to gain much greater importance
in many national data facilitation schemes - with all the difficulties
this creates given the different agendas of commerce, governments
and other bodies.
Technology is a necessary but far from sufficient condition for success in meeting GGDI objectives. The people, institutional and financial issues are liable to be much more significant determinants of success.
The essence of national data use facilitation schemes such as
NSDI or NGDF is that no one body is 'in charge'. Indeed, any
attempt to take charge is typically regarded as a resurrection
of old-style organisational politics and unpaid collaboration
tends to diminish. This situation is even more the case in an
international domain.
How then is leadership deployed, strategic direction forged and
action achieved? This is normally achieved in the first instance
by a small number of key players coming together with an idea
and formulating it in a way which has attractions for themselves
and for others. It helps enormously if these players already
have considerable respect in the community and if they command
resources in terms of cash, manpower or influence. The important
assets in this regard are physical, human, social and intellectual
capital (Htun 1997)
For success, there needs to be some acceptance that breadth of
coverage of communities is important and some evidence that those
concerned can speak in a representational sense for the communities.
Simple assertion that 'I will speak for community x' is inadequate
if these wider communities are to be carried.
The danger is of course that very large numbers of individuals
and organisations become involved so some way of involving these
parties other than through traditional meetings is required.
The norm is to have some hierarchical structures. The OGC provides
an interesting example of how to cope with the growing pains of
a multi-national grouping. The Greek city state alternative -
of letting everyone take part through email discussions and contribute
what they can - is feasible and may even be desirable for some
purposes but it is unlikely to effect global data infrastructures
which have any pan-national consistency.
So far as GGDI is concerned, the situation is proto-embryonic. The existing group is self-selected and, whilst it includes highly expert individuals, can scarcely claim to represent communities in a formal way. Only a few sizeable organisations are involved, with the science and commercial sectors notably under-represented at the initial Bonn meeting. It should be noted that these organisations are already responsible for spending billions of dollars annually on data collection, validation, calibration and use. Proposals for improving the situation are set out in section 6.
It is self-evident that many players are actually or potentially
involved in a GGDI. These include (in no priority order):
It is also self-evident that not all of the players will have
the same agendas. Table 1 suggests some likely motivations and
agendas of a selection of these players. This disparity of view
needs to be factored into any actions.
It is conjectured that we should be seeking to build a framework
to facilitate and encourage efficient linking, combining and widespread
use of geospatial data i.e. to:
Two possible approaches suggest themselves for advancing the cause
of a GGDI and improving the present internationally incoherent
and inefficient situation. Both may usefully be employed. These
are the:
It is contended that we have little choice but to exploit both
of these apparently disparate approaches. Both are potentially
powerful agents of change. Table 3 sets out a detailed set of
proposals for actions based on the definitions of the problems
given in section 3, the definitions of GGDI, stakeholders, etc
summarised in annex 1 and acceptance of working both 'bottom up'
and 'top down'.
Items which have not specifically been covered in this discussion
include the cultural, security and pricing ones so far as data
availability are concerned. Cultural differences - both in the
data collected nationally, the use which is permitted and the
nature of international collaborations are likely to be of considerable
importance. How to assess or anticipate these is left as an open
question. Security matters remain a matter of great significance
for many nations, especially as high resolution sources of data
are concerned: beyond the basic topography, information such as
sources of good quality water can become tactically significant.
No simple, single answer can be expected to availability of such
data on a global basis; on the contrary, the matter may well have
to be a very local one even though there has been a gradual trend
towards greater open-ness in the last decade. Finally, the cost
of accessing data is a matter of great importance for some users
and some providers alike. This is likely to be an ever-greater
problem as private sector providers become more numerous and as
many governments (such as those in the Nordic countries, Canada,
Australia, New Zealand, France, Russia, the UK and elsewhere)
seek to implement partial or total 'user pays' (c.f. 'taxpayer
pays' policies. Whether there is anything meaningful that GGDI
players can agree on in regard to such policies and practices
is debatable.
Table 3 of proposed implementation actions for GGDI is presented
as a basis for discussion. Implementation of GGDI can only be
achieved through multiple different actions carried out by many
different bodies, some of whom are normally in competition. It
follows that GGDI can not conceivably be treated as a simple management
exercise; it will inevitably be 'messy' and measuring its success
will be difficult and long-term. Indeed, any successes may well
owe much to other players - notably those forcing the technological
pace. That is not a reason for inaction. The globalisation of
the world economy and its implications for government and the
citizen alike suggest there is merit in progressing GGDI.
Calvert C, Murray K and Smith N S 1997 New technology and its
impact on the framework for the world. In Rhind D (ed.), Framework
for the World, 133-159, Cambridge, GeoInformation International.
Clinton, W. J. (1994). Executive Order 12906. Co-ordinating
Geographic Data Acquisition and Access: The National Spatial
Data Infrastructure. Washington, D.C., 2 pages.
Collins M and Rhind J 1997 Developing global environmental databases:
lessons learned about framework information. In Rhind D (ed.),
Framework for the World, 120-129, Cambridge, GeoInformation
International.
Coopers and Lybrand (1996) Economic aspects
of the collection, dissemination and integration of government's
geospatial information, Southampton, Ordnance Survey.
DoE (1987) Handling Geographical Information: the report of
the government's Committee of Inquiry. London, Department
of the Environment.
EC (1997) Towards a European Policy Framework for Geographic Information:
a Working Document. In Rhind D (ed.), Framework for the World,
202-205, Cambridge, GeoInformation International
Estes J, Lawless J and Mooneyhan D W (1995) (eds.) Report on
the International Symposium on Core Data Needs for Environmental
Assessment and Sustainable Development Strategies. United
Nations Development Programme/United Nations Environment Programme,
New York
FGDC (1995) Development of a National Digital Geospatial Data
Framework. and also The national geospatial data clearinghouse.
Washington, D.C., Federal Geographic Data Committee.
FGDC (1997) A strategy for the National Spatial Data Infrastructure.
Washington, D.C. Federal Geographic Data Committee.
Forer P and Unwin D (1998) Enabling progress
in GIS and education. In Longley P, Goodchild M, Maguire D
and Rhind D (eds.) Geographical Information Systems: Principles,
techniques, Management and Applications, Cambridge, GeoInformation
International.
Gore, A. (1993) From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government
that Works Better and Costs Less. Report of the National
Performance Review. Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing
Office.
Grelot J-P (1997) The French Approach. In Rhind D (ed.), Framework
for the World, 226-234, Cambridge, GeoInformation International
Harris R (1997) Earth observation data policy, Chichester,
John Wiley & Sons.
Htun N (1997) The need for basic map information in support of
environmental assessment and sustainable development strategies.
In Rhind D (ed.), Framework for the World, 111-119, Cambridge,
GeoInformation International.
Jarque C M (1997) An application of new technologies: the National
Geographic Information System of Mexico. In Rhind D (ed.), Framework
for the World, 63-70, Cambridge, GeoInformation International.
Lenczowski R 1997 The military as users and producers of global
spatial data. In Rhind D (ed.), Framework for the World,
85-110, Cambridge, GeoInformation International.
Majid D A (1997) Geographical data infrastructure in Asia and
the Pacific. In Rhind D (ed.), Framework for the World,
206-210, Cambridge, GeoInformation International.
Masser I (1997) Governments and geographic information,
London, Taylor and Francis.
Mounsey H M (1991) Multi-source, multi-national environmental
GIS: lessons learned from CORINE. In Maguire D J, Goodchild M
F and Rhind D W (eds.) Geographical Information Systems: Principles
and Applications, Volume 2, 185-200, Harlow, Longman.
MSC (1993). Toward a Co-ordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure
for the Nation, Mapping Science Committee, National Research
Council, National Academy Press. Washington, D.C., 171 pages.
MSC (1994) Promoting the National Spatial Data Infrastructure
Through Partnerships, Mapping Science Committee, National
Research Council, National Academy Press. Washington, D.C., 113
pages.
MSC (1997) The future of spatial data and society, Mapping
Science Committee, National Research Council, National Academy
Press. Washington, D.C., 68 pages.
Mooney D J and Grant D M 1997 The Australian National Spatial
Data Infrastructure. In Rhind D (ed.), Framework for the World,
197-205, Cambridge, GeoInformation International.
Nanson B., Smith N. and Davey A. (1995) What is the British National
Geospatial Database?, AGI '95 Conference Proceedings 1.4.1
- 1.4.5
OMB (1993). Circular A-130: Management of Federal Information
Resources. June 25, US Office of Management and Budget, Washington,
D.C.
Onsrud H J and Rushton G (1995) (eds.) Sharing geographic
information. Center for Urban Policy Research, New
Brunswick, USA.
Rhind D W (1996) Economic, legal and public policy issues influencing
the creation, accessibility and use of GIS databases Transactions
in Geographical Information Systems 1, 1, 3-11
Rhind D (1998) National and international geospatial data policies.
In Longley P, Goodchild M, Maguire D and Rhind D (eds.) Geographical
Information Systems: Principles, techniques, Management and Applications,
Cambridge, GeoInformation International.
Rhind D.W. and Mounsey H.M.(1989) 'The Chorley Committee and "Handling
Geographic Information" ', Environment and Planning
A, 21, 571-85.
Smith N S and Rhind D (1998) Characteristics and sources of framework
data. In Longley P, Goodchild M, Maguire D and Rhind D (eds.)
Geographical Information Systems: Principles, Techniques, Management
and Applications, Cambridge, GeoInformation International.
Smith M and Thomas E (1996) National spatial data infrastructure:
and Australian viewpoint. Proceedings, Emerging Global Spatial
Data Infrastructure Conference, Paper 7,16pp., Bonn
Tosta N (1997) National Spatial Data Infrastructures and the roles
of National Mapping Organisations. In Rhind D (ed.), Framework
for the World, 173-186, Cambridge, GeoInformation International.
Warita Y and Nonomura K 1997 The national and global activities
of the Japanese national mapping organisation. In Rhind D (ed.),
Framework for the World, 31-47, Cambridge, GeoInformation
International.
Zhdanov N (1997) Mapping in Russia: the present state of development.
In Rhind D (ed.), Framework for the World, 71-82, Cambridge,
GeoInformation International.
Table 1 Some possible agendas of the various 'players' and stakeholders
in GGDI
| 'Player' | Alternative short term agendas | Alternative long term agendas |
| Central Government organisations |
|
|
| Local Government organisations |
|
|
| Commercial sector - information trader/publisher |
|
|
| Commercial sector - hardware/
software vendor |
|
|
| Commercial sector conglomerate | If focused as one business, 'gestalt' aspects of business (e.g. data helps sell equipment) dictate decision-making and agenda. More normally, individual enterprises within the conglomerate are judged first on their own 'bottom lines' | Corporate aims and goals generally more important in long term and progress towards them is monitored centrally |
| Non-Governmental/ Not For Profit Organisations (e.g. charities) |
|
|
| Academic sector |
|
|
| All individuals |
|
|
Table 2 The 'cocktail' of laws, policies, conventions and
precedents which influence the availability and price of geospatial
data for Ordnance Survey in Britain:
the UK government's commitment to open-ness, as set out in the
1994 Code of Practice for Access to Government Information (but
note paragraph 4 which says there is no requirement on departments
to change the basis on which they provide information if it is
already made available on a charged basis)
the government's agreement to international protocols (such as
Agenda 21)
the government's Tradable Information Initiative of 1986 (with
revised guidelines published in 1990), led by the Department of
Trade and Industry which encouraged government departments to
make available their information holdings at a market price
European Directives translated into British law (such as Directive
90/313/EEC on Access to Environmental Information and Directive
93/98/EEC on harmonisation of the duration of protection and the
legal protection of databases)
individual decisions taken by different government departments
or Executive Agencies in pursuit of their mission or to generate
revenue to support the cost of their services to the public.
Thus OS Northern Ireland has a different charging regime to that
of OS, instituted with the objective of increasing its cost recovery
from around the current level of about 30% to one closer to the
OSGB level of around 90%.
individual product-level decisions made by government departments
or Executive Agencies to maximise their revenue generation. Thus
the differing price elasticity of different products may lead
to very distinct pricing policies even within one Agency, extending
perhaps as far as geographically differentiated pricing.
bi-lateral agreements between government departments (e.g. between
the Ministry of Defence and other map-making organisations)
bi- or multi-lateral agreements made by departments with their
counterparts overseas
legal issues pertaining to Intellectual Property Rights, fair
trading, legal liability and to parliamentary statutes. Each
of these issues is complex; their interactions are sometimes highly
complex.
Table 3 Some proposed actions to enhance GGDI
| Problem | Approach | Action | Resource implications | Responsibility | |
| 1 | Information about the existence, quality and availability of existing geospatial data sets is normally difficult to obtain | TD/BU* | Foster knowledge and use of metadata services (e.g. GDDD) and point out apparent overlaps in activities
Encourage use of common metada standards (ISO?) Build links with other players in this arena | Modest | All - but networking amongst GGDI partners essential |
| 2 | The information available varies greatly in quality between organisations and countries | TD/BU | Foster use of common standards of documentation across sectors as well as internationally | Modest | As above |
| 3 | Most geospatial data collection to date (except through remote sensing) has been nationally-oriented. | Primarily TD TD/BU |
Consider the extent to which national data sets can be translated into international ones by post-hoc transformations (e.g. MEGRIN PETIT) and how data definitions can be harmonised whilst not losing national relevance Foster knowledge of what is done elsewhere | Very substantial if implemented widely Modest | Existing data collectors |
| 4 | Valuable national data sets are held, especially by government bodies, but are not currently available for many reasons | BU/TD | Foster pressure on data providers to disseminate data either directly or through private sector partners. | Highly variable in different circumstances | All except existing recalcitrant data suppliers |
| 5 | Many data sets desired by some (probably a growing number of ) people do not exist globally or regionally | BU/TD | Identify, in collaboration with other parties, the core data sets needed by different sectors and for diferent applications. Press national governments and multi-national bodies to respond as entities or in combination with private sector. | Potentially infinite! Likley to be severely resource constrained | All? |
| 6 | Even within any one country, existing data sets have been collected to different specifications so it is not easy to integrate data safely from multiple sources | BU/TD | Impacts only indirectly on GGDI. Primarily a matter for national activities but the results do have implications for multi-national aggregations of data | ? | All (and beyond) but in their national domain |
| 7 | Data is often not easy to access physically | TD? | Technology evolution will remove some of these problems if widely adopted. Institutional facors are a national matter but international influence may have some relevance | Only impacts on some GGDI members | Only impacts on some GGDI members |
| 8 | Collecting and up-dating geospatial data is an extremely expensive business | TD | Technology evolution will diminish some of the problems but detailed ground-based data collection will remain costly
Foster multiple use (and payment for) data to spread the costs and benefits of data collection | Only impacts on some GGDI members Data providers | |
| 9 | Shortage of human capital in terms of those who can exploit the data and GIS tools. | TD/BU | Foster educational activities which go beyond seeing Geospatial Data/GI as merely technical matters Role of private sector?? | Little direct cost to GGDI players but costs (and benefits) to others | All - but within national domains? |
| 10 | Legacy data may well be in analogue form and collected using quite different technologies to those current, thereby complicating analysis of historical changes | TD | Massive data conversion exercises needed Research required to build measures of confidence in data use (see below) | Potentially huge | Highly variable - well advanced in some countries, embryonic in others |
| 11 | Research on how to predict the consequences of integrating different data sets (or even how to define the quality of any one data set) has been of little practical value. | BU/TD | Foster appropriate research, creation of suitable tools in universities, government and private sector and widespraed use Foster use of demonstrators to spread good practice and research results | ?? Research inexpensive but needs practical direction on past history Implementation a matter for vendors (to give competitive advantage) | Various |
| 12 | There are presently few services based on data combinations and extraction of added value. 'One stop shopping' for multiple data sets is still in its infancy. | BU/+TD? | Primarily a role for private sector but some services may well be run by public sector on its own or in partnership with private sector | Based on investment decisions in business cases | Anyone |
| 13 | GGDI definition is not invariant through time and across sectors | TD+ some BU | Periodically refine the concept of GGDI through gatherings of those involved - with continuing improvement in 'representativeness' of those involved. Monitor fit with national NSDI-type activities. Promote the objectives of and knowledge about GGDI and discussion of the issues involved (e.g. valuing data and services!) Seek actively to influence the influential | Depends on form and frequency of reconsiderations | 'GGDI partners' |
* TD: 'Top Down' BU: 'Bottom Up'
A1.1 Revised definition of the GGDI
As used in this paper it is:
"A Global Geospatial Data Infrastructure encompasses the policies, organisational remits, data, technologies, standards, delivery mechanisms and financial and human resources necessary to ensure that those working at the global or regional scale are not impeded in their objectives"
A1.2 The GGDI stakeholder communities
These are:
Information policies differ greatly in different countries and even within a number of countries. Masser (1998) and Rhind (1998) have described some of these variations and the consequences they produce. Here we examine only two national situations, using them to illustrate general points.
The US federal government sees distribution of data it holds at
the cost of dissemination (or less) as a matter of principle.
This has most recently been set out in the Office of Management
and Budget's Circular A-130 (the latter now having been codified
as section 3506(d) of The Paperwork Reduction Act 1995) in codifying
this principle.
Circular 130 (OMB 1993) states that 'The free flow of information
between the government and the public is essential in a democratic
society.' It also states that charges should be set at 'a level
sufficient to recover the cost of dissemination but no higher'.
Section 105 of the US 1976 Copyright Act specifies that copyright
protection is not available for any work of the US government
that is prepared by an employee or officer of the government as
part of that person's specific duties.
Thus federal government is not generally able to assert copyrights
and any other party is free to copy, disseminate, license or sell
data held by the federal government at will and without seeking
permission or notifying the originators of the uses to which it
will be put. There are however some potentially important exceptions
to this rule. For example, where material has been supplied by
foreign governments under specific agreements permitting internal
business use (e.g. of data for military purposes), this information
may not be passed on and copyright remains with the supplier.
The consequences of this situation are multiple and, in some cases,
quite subtle. It has facilitated extensive use of the Internet
for data dissemination which in turn has both increased access
to the federal geospatial data and shifted some costs of data
acquisition to the end-user. However, the great bulk of financing
for data collection in the US federal government necessarily arises
from appropriations in Congress and the level and use of these
line-budget funds are subject to short-term political expediency.
In addition, the limited ability to protect information made
available by others (especially commercial and some state governments),
has made some inter-sectoral data sharing co-operations impossible
or highly tortuous.
The situation in state and local governments varies considerably.
Though many states have statutes enabling public free or low-cost
access to certain types of records, there are at least twenty
cases where states had or were in the process of amending these
statutes to permit cost recovery through higher levels of charging.
Masser (1997) provides a summary of various other studies on
state and local government approaches.
Finally, given the strong US pressure to codify and enforce international
copyright laws, it is no surprise that the US commercial sector
strongly asserts its copyright on most occasions.
As indicated in various parts of this chapter, the information
policy situation in the UK varies not by geography (as in some
other countries) but rather by government department (as in the
Netherlands, according to Masser 1997). Coopers and Lybrand (1996)
summarised the variability in policy and practice in the UK and
table 1 illustrates the financial part of it. This variability
arises from the different remits and targets given to government
bodies - especially the Executive Agencies (which have significant
freedoms to decide how to achieve these ends) - by Ministers.
Information policy is thus generally a second order matter driven
by the need to meet explicit public targets for quality of service,
efficiency and financial performance. All government-generated
information is regarded as Crown Copyright and its use is licensed
though the level of charging may be zero. Some Executive Agencies
have delegation of responsibility for administering Crown Copyright
whilst others follow central direction.
As in any other system, this has advantages and disadvantages
to different organisations or individuals. Certainly the level
of use of digital geospatial data in the UK has expanded very
greatly in the last five years; much of this however has been
in major organisations and a slower take-up has occurred in smaller
organisations. The extent to which this reflects data pricing
or the nature of society and availability of computing resources
is unclear (and it is in any case changing quite rapidly).
Table 1 Expenditure, revenue and % cost recovery for various
UK government information providers in 1994/95
| Central Statistical Office* | |||
| Office for Population Censuses and Surveys* | |||
| Meteorological Office (includes research revenue) | |||
| British Geological Survey (includes research revenue) | |||
| Hydrographic Office | |||
| Ordnance Survey | |||
| Registers of Scotland (cadastral organisation) | |||
| Her Majesty's Land Registry (cadastral organisation) |
* CSO and OPCS merged in April 1996 to form the Office for National
Statistics
There is a growing tendency world-wide to seek greater value for money in relation to geospatial data or GI. There are many commonalities in these schemes, including the minimisation of duplication where the taxpayer is responsible for funding, the fostering of awareness of what already exists and the encouragement of greater harmonisation in data characteristics. None of this is recent. For example, co-ordination work at both national and state level in Australia and New Zealand long pre-dates recent initiatives. But the first national data use facilitation scheme advertised as such, thought through on a grand scale and promoted heavily was the US National Spatial Data Infrastructure; others have since followed (see Masser 1997, Mooney and Grant 1997). It is therefore necessary to summarise this before making contrasts with other schemes.
The bulk of this section is drawn from a summary of the history
of the NSDI by Tosta (1997). During the early 1990's, the Mapping
Science Committee (MSC) of the United States National Research
Council began to investigate the research responsibilities and
the future of the National Mapping Division (NMD) of the US Geological
Survey. The MSC coined the phrase 'National Spatial Data Infrastructure'
and identified it as the comprehensive and co-ordinated environment
for the production, management, dissemination, and use of geospatial
data. The NSDI was conceived to be the totality of the policies,
technology, institutions, data and individuals that were producing
and using geospatial data within the United States. The MSC (1993)
report proposed a number of actions and responsibilities for various
agencies and for the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC)
which related to their vision of the NSDI whilst another report
a year later urged the use of partnerships in creating the NSDI
(MSC 1994).
The FGDC adopted the term NSDI to describe a 'national digital
spatial information resource' and discussed the concept of the
NSDI with the Clinton Administration teams which were exploring
means to 'reinvent' the Federal Government in early 1993. The
NSDI was recognised as an idea and a means to foster better intergovernmental
relations, to empower State and local governments in the development
of geospatial data sets and to improve the performance of the
Federal Government. In September 1993, the NSDI was listed as
one of the National Performance Review (NPR) initiatives to reinvent
Federal Government. Vice-President Gore stated that '(I)n partnership
with State and local governments and private companies we will
create a National Spatial Data Infrastructure' (Gore 1993).
One of the primary means of implementing the initiatives arising
from the National Performance Review was through Presidential
Executive Orders. In April 1994, Executive Order #12906: 'Co-ordinating
Geographic Data Acquisition and Access: The National Spatial
Data Infrastructure' was signed by President Clinton, directing
that federal agencies carry out certain tasks to implement the
NSDI. These tasks were similar to those that had been outlined
by the FGDC in its Strategic Plan a month earlier and since up-dated
(FGDC 1997). The Executive Order created an environment within
which new partnerships were not only encouraged, but required.
In the US, Presidential Executive Orders are only applicable
to federal agencies but, in this case, these agencies were directed
to find partners (specifically among other levels of government).
In practice, according to Tosta (1997), state and local governments
will often voluntarily co-operate with federal agencies if this
makes it likely to result in funding or improve their access to
data. In addition, the Executive Order had significant effects
in increasing the level of awareness about the value, use and
management of geospatial data among federal agencies specifically.
Perhaps more importantly, it raised the political visibility
of geospatial data collection, management and use nationally and
internationally.
The NSDI is defined in the Presidential Executive Order as 'the
technology, policies, standards, and human resources necessary
to acquire, process, store, distribute, and improve utilisation
of geospatial data' (Clinton, 1994). That Order and the FGDC
identified three primary areas to promote development of the NSDI.
The first activity area is the development of standards, the
second improvement of access to and sharing of data by developing
the National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse, and the third is the
development of the National Digital Geospatial Data Framework.
All of these efforts were to be carried out through partnerships
among federal, state and local agencies, the private and academic
sectors, and non-profit organisations. So far as standards are
concerned, work began in 1996 to refine the initial FGDC metadata
standard in conjunction with the International Standards Organisation.
As of mid-1997, eleven different thematic standards were in development
by FGDC committees with those on cadastral data and classification
of wetlands being endorsed. The NSDI Executive Order mandated
that federal agencies use all FGDC-adopted standards. A data
'clearing house' is operational: nearly all federal agencies,
as well as most States and numerous local jurisdictions, have
become active users of the Internet for disseminating geospatial
data. This model does not necessarily assume that data will be
distributed for free; obtaining some of these data sets requires
the payment of a fee, others are free. Finally, various pilot
projects investigating different ways of building the framework
were launched in 1996 (FGDC 1997)
In its short lifetime, NSDI has generated huge levels of interest
in the USA and beyond (see, for instance, Masser 1997). Some
considerable successes have been achieved, notably in the formulation
of some standards and the creation of the 'clearing house' of
metadata. Perhaps its greatest success however has been as a
catalyst, acting as a policy focus, publicising the importance
of geospatial data and focusing attention on the benefits of collaboration
- especially important in a country as large and governmentally
complex as the USA. The process of involving many parties continues
on several fronts; the MSC, for instance, has attempted to anticipate
the most significant GIS developments to society in the period
up to 2010 through a large and heterogeneous group drawn from
many backgrounds (MSC 1997).
Inevitably, many problems have arisen in NSDI, notably about incentivising different organisations to work together and in ensuring that benefits arise for all organisations incurring costs. The level of direct involvement of the private sector seems small compared to that of the federal government and even that of the states. Moreover, the concept of 'bottom up' aggregation of data to form national data sets now being explored is also an intrinsically complex one since the logistics alone of drawing together data from many thousands of other organisations (e.g. US counties) - which vary greatly in resources and inclinations - is daunting. That said, NSDI has been and remains a considerable achievement (http://www.fgdc.gov/nsdi2.html) and has triggered equivalents elsewhere, including multi-national collaborations, such as the Permanent Committee on GIS for Asia and the Pacific (Majid 1997).
There has been a long history in Britain of formal consideration
of geographic information policies and problems. Examples of
this include the Serpell Report of 1979, the House of Lords Select
Committee on Science and Technology Report of 1984 (Rhind 1986)
and the Chorley Report of 1987 (DoE 1987, Rhind and Mounsey 1989).
Indeed, the Davidson Report of 1938 might even be considered as
a far-sighted pre-cursor given its emphasis upon the need for
nationally homogeneous, readily available, metrically-based data
conforming to certain standards. Most of these studies - all
of which have had some beneficial effect on the GI industry -
have been heavily centred on government as a provider and user
of data; the sequence of studies cited however has shown a progression
to wider and wider considerations, starting with a focus on Ordnance
Survey and spreading in later reports to a wide range of geospatial
data.
By the early 1990s however it was becoming clear that the growth
of the private sector as supplier of GI services, data and tools,
the changing technology and the change in user expectations and
needs were creating a quite different situation. No single coherent
framework existed in which to consider, influence or organise
all the changes. In 1995, recognition of this shortcoming and
observation of the progress, achievements and problems of the
US National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) led to what became
the National Geospatial Data Framework(NGDF: see Nanson et
al 1995).
NGDF was no slavish copy of NSDI. It was recognised from the
outset that the situation in the UK differed from that in the
USA in many ways, notably the structure and role of government
is very different, there is already greater availability of high
quality geospatial data across the whole (much smaller) country
and government policy is very different with regard to dissemination
of information.
The nature of NGDF
In 1995, the problems to be resolved in the UK were (and still
are) seen as:
As a result, the NGDF has a mission 'to develop an over-arching
UK framework to facilitate and encourage efficient linking, combining
and widespread use of geospatial data which is fit for purpose'.
The objectives of NGDF are to:
Achievement of these objectives is built upon the three NGDF 'pillars'.
These are:
Collaboration, developed through:
Use of standards
Data linkage is the key to creating added value and generating
new GIS applications. But world-wide experiences demonstrate
that it is easy to create meaningless data sets at great expense
by this means: results may be totally erroneous and misleading
unless the data sets are well-documented, adhere to agreed and
published standards and the likely effects of mixing two data
sets have been adequately researched. NGDF will therefore set
a framework for defining business driven standards, best practice
and specifications for data and services, drawing on existing
national, European and international work.
Access
The simplified NGDF model is shown in figure 1. NLIS is the National
Land Information Service, a prototype land conveyancing service
for England and Wales now in pilot form and involving data inputs
from HM Land Registry, Ordnance Survey, local governments and
up to about 10 other sources. ScotLIS is the Scottish equivalent.
This figure emphasises the crucial point: NGDF is not
a service and is not designed to generate revenue: it is a framework
within which a variety of services should operate, many of them
revenue-generating. As it is inevitable that other services will
grow up - indeed, that is to be desired and can not be prevented
- the objective is to ensure these take advantage of experience
gained in earlier services and are 'NGDF-compliant' so as to future
proof any subsequently desired interactions between the services.
Many of these services may well be operated by private sector
organisations, sometimes in partnership with public sector bodies.
It is central to NGDF's success that it will encourage the development
of 'many-to-many' relationships between data suppliers, data brokers
and consumers.
Figure 1 The simplified NGDF information service model
Making NGDF Happen
NGDF operates through a structure shown in figure 2. The Board
consists of (mainly) public and private sector information suppliers
and it is advised by a Council representing the end user, the
software industry, academic and other interests. This Advisory
Council is based in the Association for Geographic Information,
the British GI 'umbrella body'. Its members were chosen by election
from the AGI membership constituency although spare 'slots' were
set up for representatives of other interests who were found to
be appropriate but who were not formally members of the AGI. The
chair of the AGI acts as the chair of the Advisory Council and
has an 'as-of-right' membership of the NGDF Board. Secretariats
of the two organisations attend each other's meetings as observers.
Table 2 shows the initial membership organisations supplying
members to the Board or the Council, the latter representing a
wider constituency than their own organisation.
Figure 2 The NGDF structure
| NGDF Board | NGDF Advisory Council members are employed in these organisations |
| HM Land Registry | Anglian Water Services Ltd |
| IGGI (Central Government co-ordination group) | Birkbeck College, University of London |
| IMAG (Local Government co-ordination group) | ESRI (UK) Ltd |
| Landmark Information Group Ltd | Dataview Solutions |
| Natural Environment Research Council | Environment Agency |
| NGDF Advisory Council | Friends of the Earth |
| Office for National Statistics | Geo-UK Ltd |
| Ordnance Survey | MVA Systematica |
| Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland | NGDF Secretary General |
| Property Intelligence Plc | Public Record Office |
| Registers of Scotland | University of Newcastle |
| The Post Office | University of Sheffield |
The work of the NGDF is largely accomplished through the Task
Force and Working Groups. Membership of the latter is open, within
very wide limits, to all who wish to make a contribution.
The Task Force is specifically responsible for implementing the
NGDF work programme, all elements of which have a timetable and
milestones to completion. The Task Force is run by a Programme
Director and consists of the convenors of (currently) seven NGDF
working groups. These working groups are:
Areas under development include:
Under the present programme, the currently sought NGDF deliverables
include:
It is intended that these will be supported by:
A2.2.3 Similarities and differences between the US
and UK approaches
There are many similarities at a high level between the US and
UK approaches to fostering greater beneficial use of geospatial
data or GI. This is not surprising since the latter took account
of developments in the former but both reflect some more generally-felt
needs to improve the operation of the public sector and to get
better value for money expended.
There are also however a number of important differences of emphasis.
These derive from a number of sources, including the physical,
cultural and political geographies of the two countries, and can
be summarised as: