Response to RFI for US Gov GeoSpatial - Revision history

Wiki-MikeD at 05:44, 8 May 2006

2006-05-08T05:44:35Z

Wiki-JoWalsh: /* ''Lifecycle Activities'' */

2006-05-05T20:23:52Z

''Lifecycle Activities''

Wiki-Cholmes at 19:51, 5 May 2006

2006-05-05T19:51:07Z

Wiki-Nedhorning: Added contact info

2006-05-05T17:25:30Z

Added contact info

Wiki-Cholmes: fix from commercial -> proprietary

2006-05-05T15:44:44Z

fix from commercial -> proprietary

Wiki-Kevin1216: /* Introduction */

2006-05-05T14:32:56Z

Introduction

Wiki-JoWalsh: /* ''Lifecycle Activities'' */ first pass for typos, repetitions, sentence length etc, nothing really refactored.

2006-05-05T03:17:52Z

''Lifecycle Activities'': first pass for typos, repetitions, sentence length etc, nothing really refactored.

Show changes

Wiki-JoWalsh: /* More notes */

2006-05-04T21:43:35Z

More notes

Wiki-Nedhorning: Added citation to section 2.2.9

2006-05-04T21:39:06Z

Added citation to section 2.2.9

Tmitchell: /* ''Lifecycle Activities'' */

2006-05-04T21:33:16Z

''Lifecycle Activities''

@@ Line 149: / Line 149: @@
 While data accuracy can be a difficult metric to measure shared spatial data by, it is probably the most important factor when relying on such data for business processes.
-Easier to measure is the level of consistancy maintained by shared spatial data.  Data that follows an established standard (ie. SDSFIE) [''reference?''] can be graded based on how well it follows and implements said standard.
+Easier to measure is the level of consistancy maintained by shared spatial data.  Data that follows an established standard (ie. SDSFIE) [https://tsc.wes.army.mil/ https://tsc.wes.army.mil/] can be graded based on how well it follows and implements said standard.
 Another important metric for coordinating use geographic data is the length of time required for changes made by the data steward to be reflected in the shared dataset.  Minimizing this refresh time is critical if the shared datasets are to be considered an authoritative source of information.

@@ Line 179: / Line 179: @@
 ''2.2.12	What governance model do you use or would you recommend for coordinating the use of geographic information or optimizing related spatial data activities?''
-A refined and clear cut governance model for coordinating the use of geographic information and related activities does not yet exist. As with developing standards, this should be developed using an open process.  The success of the World Wide Web, the open source software movement, and online initiatives like Wikipedia, point to the success of what Benkler calls 'commons-based peer production' in Coase's Penguin (http://www.yale.edu/yalelj/112/BenklerWEB.pdf).  The prerequisite of such activities is that the work is made available under an open access license (thus a commons), that a community of peers can collaborate on to improve.  Value is built by coordination of a diverse group of individuals and institutions, located in many different places, to do an iterative set of tasks.
+A refined and clear cut governance model for coordinating the use of geographic information and related activities does not yet exist. As with developing standards, this should be developed using an open process.  The success of the World Wide Web, the open source software movement, and online initiatives like Wikipedia, point to the success of what Benkler calls 'commons-based peer production' in ''Coase's Penguin'' (http://www.yale.edu/yalelj/112/BenklerWEB.pdf).  The prerequisite of such activities is that the work is made available under an open access license (thus a commons), that a community of peers can collaborate on to improve.  Value is built by coordination of a diverse group of individuals and institutions, located in many different places, to do an iterative set of tasks.
-There is potentially much to be applied to the geospatial domain, looking to a bottom up process that is oriented towards users instead of a top down process dominated by producers.  Ultimately most agencies are also potential consumers of geospatial information, and so a focus on the user needs should work for all.  Since geospatial information is so diverse, and comes with varying quality of metadata, a top down coordination mechanism will likely crumble under its own weight.  Instead open access should be a prerequisite, and that access should be simplified, not requiring lots of expensive software or training.  It should be accessible online, for quick connection and integration in to other applications.  If enough value is released in to an open environment, then potential users can contribute to the coordination and optimization of spatial data.  The open source movement and commons-based peer production leaves it to users to figure out what tasks of coordination and use they are most effective at, instead of leaving it to a narrow choice of available employees.  Just as some users of Amazon are excited to write reviews of thousands of books, so too there may be potential users of geospatial data who are motivated to write metadata and classify the quality, scale, year, and domain of available geospatial data.  Instead of a culture of fear around putting out data without the accompanying metadata, producers should be able to release their data in to an open environment that can actually assist with the classification and additional information needed by other users.
+In Benkler's analysis of a "bottom up" process that is oriented towards users, rather than a "top down" process dominated by producers, that can be applied to the geospatial domain.  Ultimately most agencies which produce geographic information are also potential consumers of it; a focus on the user needs should work for all.  Since geospatial information is so diverse, and comes with varying quality of metadata, a top down coordination mechanism may be prone to crumble under its own weight.
-The governance model for commons based peer production can not be dictated in advance, as it is different across domains and individuals involved.  But those that have met success, after an iterative bootstrap period of figuring out the appropriate model, have changed their respective domains.  If access is truly open, not just in license but in real availability, then it becomes possible to leverage the joint efforts of all users to coordinate a process that no single agency could do alone.  The open source software community, wikipedia, the world wide web, and smaller communities like slashdot, clickworkers, and others, all point to the real world success of such processes.  Beyond mere metadata Open Street Map (http://openstreetmap.org) starts to show the potential of coordinating the creation and maintenance of actual geographic data.
+Open access should be a prerequisite, and that access should be simplified, not requiring lots of expensive software or training.  Geographic information should be accessible online, for rapid re-use and integration into other applications.  If enough value is released into an open environment, then potential users can contribute to the coordination and optimization of spatial data.

@@ Line 179: / Line 179: @@
 ''2.2.12	What governance model do you use or would you recommend for coordinating the use of geographic information or optimizing related spatial data activities?''
-<p>A refined and clear cut governance model for coordinating the use of geographic
+A refined and clear cut governance model for coordinating the use of geographic information and related activities does not yet exist. As with developing standards, this should be developed using an open process.  The success of the World Wide Web, the open source software movement, and online initiatives like Wikipedia, point to the success of what Benkler calls 'commons-based peer production' in Coase's Penguin (http://www.yale.edu/yalelj/112/BenklerWEB.pdf).  The prerequisite of such activities is that the work is made available under an open access license (thus a commons), that a community of peers can collaborate on to improve.  Value is built by coordination of a diverse group of individuals and institutions, located in many different places, to do an iterative set of tasks.
-information and related activities does not yet exist. As with developing standards, this should be developed using an open process. There is a wealth of information related to governance models that can be drawn from the open source software community. The open source software community is thriving by leveraging the expertise and interests from a diverse group of individuals and a similar model can be used to benefit from, and better coordinate, the use of geographic information and to optimize related spatial data activities. </p>
 ''2.2.13	What is the best approach for assembling and using multiple data sets from diverse fields where scale, units of analysis and data types differ?''

@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 ''Contact information (provide a point of contact, phone number and e-mail address):''
-* whoever sends it in could naturally be their contact
+<p>Primary contact:
 == ''Lifecycle Activities'' ==

@@ Line 109: / Line 109: @@
 Training Issues
 <ul>
-<li>Cost of use, training materials derived from open source packages vs commercial packages.</li>
+<li>Cost of use, training materials derived from open source packages vs proprietary packages.</li>
 <li>Simple is better, if something is easier to use, it's more likely to be used.</li>
-<li>Commercial vs OpenSource</li>
+<li>Proprietary vs OpenSource</li>
 </ul>

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 # Mike Davis (interspersed as workload permits)
 # Bob Basques (as workload permits)
+# Kevin Yam
 ==== Notes to use ====

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 Place any additional notes about our information here...
-Note that we don't have to respond to every question.  The RFI says 'If you choose not to respond to a question, indicate “no response” and identify the rationale.'
+Note that we don't have to respond to every question.  The RFI says 'If you choose not to respond to a question, indicate “no response” and identify the rationale.' One can bypass a whole section (e.g. the scenarios, to which no-one has made a response here);
 == RFI Questionnaire Section 1: Respondent Information ==

@@ Line 129: / Line 129: @@
 ''2.2.9	How do you ensure and manage ongoing innovation in geospatial coordination and optimization?''
-<p>The most effective way to ensure continued innovation with regard to geospatial coordination and optimization is to promote and adopt open standards for the creation/collection, storage, access, and processing of geospatial data. This includes contributing to the development of open source geospatial software. It is in the data users’ and producers’ interest to have interoperable solutions and the most effective way to accomplish this is to include them in the process of developing standards and software. The benefits of using open methods are becoming well publicized (could use a citation here). To further benefit from current open approaches it is necessary to fund research to further develop open geospatial-focused standards for improved interoperability and access. Research should also be conducted on innovative open approaches for creating and maintaining geospatial data layers in an open environment. The potential of openness in the geospatial sector is great but funded research is needed to expedite the realization of these benefits.</p>
+<p>The most effective way to ensure continued innovation with regard to geospatial coordination and optimization is to promote and adopt open standards for the creation/collection, storage, access, and processing of geospatial data. This includes contributing to the development of open source geospatial software. It is in the data users’ and producers’ interest to have interoperable solutions and the most effective way to accomplish this is to include them in the process of developing standards and software. The benefits of using open methods are becoming well publicized (for example see: http://www.amso.army.mil/cc-tteam/PMG_04_MOSA.pdf). To further benefit from current open approaches it is necessary to fund research to further develop open geospatial-focused standards for improved interoperability and access. Research should also be conducted on innovative open approaches for creating and maintaining geospatial data layers in an open environment. The potential of openness in the geospatial sector is great but funded research is needed to expedite the realization of these benefits.</p>
 ''2.2.10	What are the incentives and disincentives for participation in geospatial coordination and optimization as a collaboration partner, a customer and as a service provider?''

@@ Line 61: / Line 61: @@
 ''2.2.2	What are the critical change management issues and best practices for successful transition to and full implementation of common solutions?''
-<p>A fundamental change management issue is to promote and adapt open standards for the collection (protocols), storage (file formats, media, and metadata), access, and processing of geographic data. A recently released report by the Digital Connections Council of the Committee for Economic Development, “Open Standards, Open Source, and Open Innovation: Harnessing the Benefits of Openness” (http://www.ced.org/projects/ecom.shtml#open) highlights the benefits from adapting open standards. This report found that openness can be used effectively to build standards that in turn can be used to enhance interoperability.</p>
+<p>A fundamental change management issue is to promote and adapt open standards for the collection (protocols), storage (file formats, media, and metadata), access, and processing of geographic data. A recently released report by the Digital Connections Council of the Committee for Economic Development, “Open Standards, Open Source, and Open Innovation: Harnessing the Benefits of Openness” (http://www.ced.org/projects/ecom.shtml#open) highlights the benefits from adopting open standards. This report found that openness can be used effectively to build standards that in turn can be used to enhance interoperability.</p>
-But standards alone are not a cure all.  The Open GeoSpatial Consortium (OGC) has made great strides in developing a solid set of standards, which precisely defines a common solution that would go quite far towards true interoperability.  But uptake has been slow, as few outside of the standards writers see compelling reason to upgrade, while they also see a large investment needed to adopt a standard - in the form of an upgrade to their current software, an entirely new piece of software, or significant time investment to get an open source solution running.
+But standards alone are not sufficient.  The Open GeoSpatial Consortium (OGC) has made great strides in developing a solid set of standards, which precisely defines a common solution that would go quite far towards true interoperability.  But uptake has been slow, as few outside of the standards writers see compelling reason to upgrade.  There are often large investment needed to adopt a standard.  This may come in the form of an upgrade to their current software, creating an entirely new piece of software, or investing significant time in getting an open source solution running.
 Both of these issues can be improved upon, which would greatly increase the chances of common solutions.  The first is to provide some compelling reason to transition a current solution.  While the OGC community passed by promotion of their standards to write newer, more niche ones geared towards higher overhead uses, Google Earth came along with a compelling, user friendly environment with lots of available data.  Far more organizations are making their data available as KML, the Google Earth standard, than have set up a WMS, since with it they can visualize their data in ways they couldn't before.  With WMS one tends to only replicate functionality that was already available, albeit in a more open way.  What is needed is a compelling example of the power of interoperability, so that a new investment is attractive to stakeholders, and not merely a requirement demanded from above.  The essence of this is a top down versus bottom up approach.  The bottom up approach is exemplified by the World Wide Web, where it became so compelling and so important that it was not a question of implementing some html and http standard to share one's information, but instead a question of just missing the boat.  If the GeoSpatial Web becomes as compelling as the World Wide Web, in potential if not initially in actual content, then common solutions will naturally be implemented as it is to everyone's advantage.  But that potential must be able to be immediately percieved, something must be working now, or uptake will always be felt to be enforced from above.