Difference between revisions of "Geodata Packaging Working Group"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
** Edu: what should be the contents of an [[Edu Data Package]] (training dataset) | ** Edu: what should be the contents of an [[Edu Data Package]] (training dataset) | ||
** other Datasets: content | ** other Datasets: content | ||
| − | ** Naming Convention: Descriptive file/map names should be used | + | ** Naming Convention: Descriptive file/map names should be used, see some examples of standardized names: |
| + | ***http://nc.gisinventory.net/, easy to understand, well organized | ||
| + | *** USDA-wide convention used for naming core geospatial data, locally acquired geospatial data and derived geospatial data in the Manual for Managing Geospatial Datasets in Service Centers, Version 4.0, available from the "Geospatial Technology" page on the [http://www.mo.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/geotech_index.html Missouri NRCS web site]) | ||
* Set up metadata guidelines: | * Set up metadata guidelines: | ||
** [[Geodata Metadata Requirements]] | ** [[Geodata Metadata Requirements]] | ||
| Line 36: | Line 38: | ||
== Existing and related projects == | == Existing and related projects == | ||
| − | Any possibility of replacing Spearfish, SD with an equally well-mapped place like Cambridge, MA? Or is the interest in updating Spearfish for the 21st Century? [[User:SchuylerErle|SchuylerErle]] | + | * Any possibility of replacing Spearfish, SD with an equally well-mapped place like Cambridge, MA? Or is the interest in updating Spearfish for the 21st Century? [[User:SchuylerErle|SchuylerErle]] |
| + | : '''Done''': The replacement North Carolina Data set is available from here [http://www.grassbook.org/data_menu3rd.php], see also related info [[Edu Data Package North Carolina|on related wiki page]]... (MN, HM) | ||
| − | + | * [[Geodata processing at telascience.org]] | |
== See Also == | == See Also == | ||
| Line 44: | Line 47: | ||
* [[Geodata Discovery Working Group]] | * [[Geodata Discovery Working Group]] | ||
* [[Geodata Licensing Working Group]] | * [[Geodata Licensing Working Group]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Public Geospatial Data Committee]] | ||
Latest revision as of 18:32, 29 September 2007
This is a project of the Public Geospatial Data Committee
While OSGeo can provide guidance as to finding good sources of open and public geodata, it would be good to offer maintained packages of high-quality data and metadata for education and demonstration that can be used by the software projects.
Focus
- Packaging / Quality Control / Metadata Augmentation / Documentation (focus on education, create educational/training data sets such as the GRASS Spearfish)
Participants
- Markus Neteler: Interested in data processing and development of quality measures
- Frank Warmerdam: Interested in processing data into more usable form, and providing foundation hosted or related download options, possibly also geotorrent.org.
- Florian Kindl: Interested in defining metadata and qc guidelines, processing data and documentation.
- David Bitner: Interested in creating packages of data formatted for use in MapServer or other OSGEO projects where optimization could come into play.
- Perry Nacionales: What they said! :)
- Jeff McKenna: Interested in setting guidelines for data distribution (formats etc)
- Dan Putler: Interested in methods to augment public geodata to improve its usefulness.
- Arnulf Christl: Interested in building an infrastructure to collaboratively maintain a library of web map and data services.
- Please add your details!
Tasks
- Choose a data format for package distribution
- Define data sets
- Edu: what should be the contents of an Edu Data Package (training dataset)
- other Datasets: content
- Naming Convention: Descriptive file/map names should be used, see some examples of standardized names:
- http://nc.gisinventory.net/, easy to understand, well organized
- USDA-wide convention used for naming core geospatial data, locally acquired geospatial data and derived geospatial data in the Manual for Managing Geospatial Datasets in Service Centers, Version 4.0, available from the "Geospatial Technology" page on the Missouri NRCS web site)
- Set up metadata guidelines:
- Geodata Metadata Requirements
- Relevant OGC Specs (WCS?)
- Quality Control
- Involve Community (feedback)
- Cross-check data sets spatially (VMAP0 over MODIS over ...), develop correction mechanisms
- Offer means to easily correct data
- Any possibility of replacing Spearfish, SD with an equally well-mapped place like Cambridge, MA? Or is the interest in updating Spearfish for the 21st Century? SchuylerErle
- Done: The replacement North Carolina Data set is available from here [1], see also related info on related wiki page... (MN, HM)