GRADE Kickoff Meeting

NDIIPP Project:North Carolina Geospatial Data Archiving Project

Partners:

NCSU LibrariesProject Lead: Steve Morris

NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis

Project Lead: Zsolt Nagy

GRADE Kickoff Meeting Sept. 28, 2005

Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 2

Project Context

Partnership between university library (NCSU) and state agency (NCCGIA)Focus on state and local geospatial content in North Carolina (state demonstration)Tied to NC OneMap initiative, which provides for seamless access to data, metadata, and inventory informationObjective: engage existing state/federal geospatial data infrastructures in preservation

Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 3

Targeted Content

Resource TypesGIS “vector” (point/line/polygon) dataDigital orthophotography Digital mapsTabular data (e.g. assessment data)

Content ProducersMostly state, local, regional agenciesSome university, not-for-profit, commercialSelected local federal projects

Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 4

North Carolina Local GIS Landscape

100 counties, 92 with GIS80 counties with high resolution orthophotography65+ counties with unique map servers.Growing number of municipal systemsValue: $162 million plus investment

Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 5

Local agency data vs. state/federal data

Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 6

Time series – vector dataParcel Boundary Changes 2001-2004, North Raleigh, NC

Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 7

Digital orthophotography

Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 8

Digital orthophotography

Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 9

Digital orthophotography

Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 10

Time series – Ortho imageryVicinity of Raleigh-Durham International Airport 1993-2002

Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 11

Tabular data: tax parcels, land use, zoning, etc.

Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 12

Today’s geospatial data as tomorrow’s cultural heritage

Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 13

Risks to Digital Geospatial Data

Producer focus on current dataTime-versioned content generally not archives

Future support of data formats in questionVast range of data formats in use--complex

Shift to “streaming data” for accessArchives have been a by-product of providing access

Preservation metadata requirementsDescriptive, administrative, technical, DRM

GeodatabasesComplex functionality

Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 14

Earlier NCSU Acquisition Efforts

NCSU University Extension project 2000-2001

Target: County/city data in eastern NC“Digital rescue” not “digital preservation”

Project learning outcomesConfirmed concerns about long term accessNeed for efficient inventory/acquisitionWide range in rights/licensingNeed to work within statewide infrastructureAcquired experience; unanticipated collaboration

Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 15

Workplan in a Nutshell

Work from existing data inventoriesNC OneMap Data Sharing Agreements as the “blanket”, individual agreements as the “quilt” Partnership: work with existing geospatial data infrastructures (state and federal)Technical approach

METS with FGDC, PREMIS?, GeoDRM? Dspace now; re-ingest to different environmentWeb services consumption for archival development

Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 16

Rights Issues

Various interpretations of public records law53.9% of local NC agencies charge for data43.7% of local NC agencies restrict redistribution

Desire for downstream control of dataDisclaimer click-through; liability concernsFiltered locations/individuals; post 9/11 issuesRestrictions on redistribution; commercial resale

Web services area in “Wild West” stageBoth content and technical agreementsGeoDRM initiative in the works

Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 17

Big ChallengesManagement of data versions over time

How to “get current object/metadata/DRM”?

Relation of the ‘ideal’ metadata package to the ingest (and export) metadata package

Tailor to repository environment or make the acquaintance when needed?

Format migration paths (geodatabases, etc.)Preserving cartographic representation

The counterpart to the map is not just the dataset—also models, symbology, interpretation, etc.

Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 18

Preserving Cartographic Representation

Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 19

Project StatusCompleting inventory analysis stageStorage system and backup deployedDSpace testing done, moving to production systemMetadata workflow finalizedIngest workflow near finalizationContent migration workflow near finalizationRegional site visits planned for coming monthsWide range of outreach/collaboration: FGDC, NARA, EDINA, USGS, etc.Pilot project, georegistering digital archival geologic maps

Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 20

Questions?

Contact:

Steve Morris

Head of Digital Library Initiatives

NCSU Libraries

[email protected]

Phone: (919) 515-1361

More information:

http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/ncgdap/

Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 21

Content Identification and Selection

Work from NC OneMap Data InventoryCombine with inventory information from various state agencies and from previous NCSU effortsDevelop methodology for selecting from among “early,” “middle,” and “late” stage productsDevelop criteria for time series developmentInvestigate use of emerging Open Geospatial Consortium technologies in data identification

Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 22

Content AcquisitionWork from NC OneMap Data Sharing Agreements as a starting point (the “blanket”)Secure individual agreements (the “quilt”) Investigate use of OGC technologies in captureExplore use of METS as a metadata wrapper

Ingest FGDC metadata; Xwalk to MODS? PREMIS?Maybe METS DRM short term; GeoDRM long termConsider links to services; version managementGet the geospatial community to tackle the content packaging problem (maybe MPEG 21?)

Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 23

Partnership Building

Work within context of NC OneMap initiativeState, local, federal partnershipState expression of the National MapDefined characteristic: “Historic and temporal data will be maintained and available”Advisory Committee drawn from the NC Geographic Information Coordinating Council subcommittees

Seek external partnersNational States Geographic Information Council FGDC Historical Data Committee… more

Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 24

Content Retention and Transfer

Ingest into DspaceExplore how geospatial content interacts with existing digital repository software environments

Investigate re-ingest into a second platformChallenge: keep the collection repository-agnostic

Start to define format migration pathsSpecial problem: geodatabases

Purse long term solutionRoles of data producing agencies, state agencies; NC OneMap; NCSU

Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 25

Remote sensing data (satellite imagery)

Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 26

Geodatabase Availability

Local agencies, especially municipalities, are increasingly turning to the ESRI Geodatabase format to manage geospatial data. According to the 2003 Local Government GIS Data Inventory, 10.0% of all county framework data and 32.7% of all municipal framework data were managed in that format.

Cities: Street Centerline Formats

Geodatabase

Shapefile

Coverage

Other

Counties: Street Centerline Formats

Geodatabase

Shapefile

Coverage

Other

Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 27

Managing Time-versioned Content

Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 28

NC OneMap Initial Data Layers Produced by Cities and Counties

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Ortho Cadastral Roads Municipal Bnd.County Bnd. ETJs Surface Waters ElevationLand Use Airports Schools UniversitiesHospitals Storm Surge Police Stations Fire StationsLandfills Watersheds Wetlands Hazardous Disposal SitesBuilding Footprints Future Land Use Water Lines Sewer Lines