It seems to me that Spatial Data Infrastructure is used in two senses,
one of "transportation" or the means for sharing, publishing,
discovering information with a geospatial aspect; the other of
"framework" or the basic geodata which is needed for geocoding
interesting information and putting it into a useful geographic context.
People doing "new" work in geography get excited, and rightly so,
about creating and exchanging novel forms of information by using and
extending the "transportation system". They tend to take the framework
for granted ("Google will provide"), wonder why everyone doesn't see
the value of free-to-use framework data, and less commonly dig into
the hard work of framework creation / maintenance, even with
opportunities such as OSM. As a result, many otherwise intriguing
"mash-ups" end up as rather useless collections of pushpins over
street maps, because of the effort involved in bringing more
appropriate framework data, analyses, and visual representations
together.
Institutions look at SDI mainly from the cost and effort of framework
data, as a means of realizing an appropriate return on that
investment. In too many cases, the spatial data infrastructure is seen
more as a means of controlling and profiting from spatial framework
data than as a means of facilitating access and use. SDI becomes the
clockwork for a branded portal which mainly asks for the user's credit
card number.
In a broader view, however, common framework geodata comprises the
digital model of the world on which to hang all other information.
Free and open availability of organized and quality framework geodata
has a long history of being the catalyst for massive economic
benefits. How do we emphasize the value of both the data framework and
the transportation system, the rails and the trains?
If there are other names to identify and value each of these senses of
SDI appropriately, I'm all for it. They are both critically important
and mutually dependent. GeoWeb seems to me a pretty good term for the
transportation system. There are various terms for framework geodata,
such as "framework layers", "National Map", etc. Perhaps Geodata
Commons is a useful term here, but that seems to emphasize the
availability of data more than its organization into a contextual
framework. "GeoMatrix" seems too much like certain sci-fi films...
Others use the term SII (Spatial Information Infrastructure) to
emphasize the organization and interpretation which must go into a
usable framework.
Still thinking about this one.
--Josh
On Dec 29, 2007, at 9:24 AM, Allan Doyle wrote:
On Dec 29, 2007, at 9:04 AM, Allan Doyle wrote:
On Dec 29, 2007, at 2:40 AM, stephen white wrote:
On 29/12/2007, at 5:33 AM, Allan Doyle wrote:
Perhaps the most obvious watering and fertilizing of the neo-SDI
bits would be in the area of freeing up more data for the neo-geo
"kids" to play with.
The "neo" part makes me gag... it makes me think of Indiana Jones
exploring some tomb of VRML, collecting the baubles and trinkets
of thousands of projects that tried to define standards before
coding, then bursting out in a flourish of black leather
trenchcoats and pencil necks snapping in the breeze.
I think you have it backwards. ISO and to some extent OGC (although
they will deny it and point to the interoperability program) define
the standards before coding.
Let me amend that... OGC does have coding before the standard is
issued. But the standard can change between the coding and the
issuing, and there really should be more real-world use in the IETF
sense before the standard is real. Right now, the situation as it is
leads to some specs that see a lot of use and others that are really
not picked up at all without a lot of additional work.
That balance of stability and usability for commercial standards is
pretty hard to achieve. It is certainly a potential boon to OGC and
everyone else if there is are active and innovative developer / user
communities for both the standards and commercialization processes to
draw from. The challenge on all sides often seems to be to listen well.
I'm not big on the term "neo", either, but we seem to be stuck with
it until someone comes up with a better one.
Allan
--
Allan Doyle
Director of Technology
MIT Museum
+1.617.452.2111
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
--
Allan Doyle
Director of Technology
MIT Museum
+1.617.452.2111
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
_______________________________________________
Geowanking mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
