Interessante post di Slashgeo <http://slashgeo.org/>, che rimanda al blog canadese datalibre.ca: http://datalibre.ca/2007/07/17/cost-recovery-policies-are-not-synonymous-with-data-quality/
[...] For *Parcel Datasets* the study discovered that datasets that were assembled from a centralized authority were judged to be technically more advanced while those that require assembly from multiple jurisdictions with standardized or a central institution integrating them were of higher quality while those of multiple jurisdictions without standards were of poor quality as the sets were not harmonized and/or coverage was inconsistent. Regarding non-technical characteristics many datasets came at a high cost, most were not easy to access from one location and there were a variety of access and use restrictions on the data. For *Topographic Information* the technical averages were less than ideal while for non-technical criteria access was impeded in some cases due to involvement of utilities (tendency toward cost recovery) and in other cases multiple jurisdictions - over 50 for some - need to be contacted to acquire a complete coverage and in some cases coverage is just not complete. [...] ... che a sua volta cita un paper della Delft University of Technology (Bastiaan van Loenen <http://www.bastiaanvanloenen.nl/> e Jitske de Jong)<http://www.tudelft.nl/live/pagina.jsp?id=44426a15-cce8-4fad-b8f0-bb2d5aa88757&lang=nl> "The impact of institutional choices relative to access policy and data quality on the development of geographic information infrastructures"<http://www.gsdi9.cl/english/papers/TS8.2paper.pdf> pg -- Piergiorgio Cipriano [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ Gfoss mailing list: 234 iscritti (13-07-2007) [email protected] http://www.faunalia.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gfoss
