The Future of Digital Earth Michael F. Goodchild University of California Santa Barbara.

The Future of Digital Earth

Michael F. Goodchild

University of California

Santa Barbara

A digital globe timelineJan 1998: Gore speech on Digital EarthApril 1998: UCGIS Congressional BreakfastSummer 1998: UCGIS meets in Park City

interest in developing a research program around Digital Earth vision

Nov 1999: First International Symposium on Digital Earth

Early 2005: Google releases Earth client2005: Google Earth API, Microsoft Virtual

Earth, etc.

Client-server architectures• Data volumes are massive

– 5 x 1014 elements at 1m resolution

• On-the-fly rendering in the client problematic– refresh from the server problematic

• The Keyhole (Google Earth) solution– precompute and pre-render a hierarchy of tiles on

the server in a standard DGG– fetch tiles when needed– warp tiles on the client to fit the current view

What made this possible?• Abundant supplies of Earth data

– especially fine-resolution remote sensing– the base layer

• Fast Internet access• Fast graphics accelerators in PCs beginning

in 2000• Published APIs enabling third-party

applications and data integration

Two versions of client functionality

1. Projected functions back-projected to the sphere

– inverting the projection equations

2. Doing the spherical (or ellipsoidal) geometry– no straight lines (only arcs of ellipses)– no lengths (only subtended arcs)– a new kind of computational geometry

Successes to date• Speed

– video refresh rates via thin pipe– powerful graphics universal– browser or thin client

• 3D– elevation relative to the ellipsoid

• User-centric– mashups– API-based apps

Significant gaps• Models of the surface only

– not the solid Earth and atmosphere

• Lack of access to the grid– no support for computational models that might

use the grid as a collection of finite elements– but compare open-source alternatives such as

NASA’s Worldwind

• Lack of access to the base data

The Digital Earth

going to the library

drilling down

accessing information about a placemany media, one location

the geolibrary

the informed citizen at City Hall

the child at school

By the year 2005:

Possible to assemble all relevant information from the resources of the Internet

based on known location

Possible for a child to learn about Earth and its infinite variety through the medium of digital technology

from global to local

Status: Clarifying Digital Earth• The 1998 Gore speech

– Earth in the Balance, 1992– Neal Stephenson’s Snowcrash

• a mirror world

• Who is Digital Earth for?– “a young child”– someone needing geospatial data

• a researcher• an educator or student• a stakeholder

– a citizen interested in the planet and its future– a developer– “build it and they will come” (Field of Dreams)

• it seemed like a good idea at the time

What should Digital Earth do?• The use cases of Digital Earth

– “a magic carpet ride”– a method of publication

• mashups– copy GIS– more visual, intuitive, subjective

• search for anomalies, interesting patterns• search for similarities

– a source of data• geoportal• interoperable• hidden tiling• intuitive interface• creative commons

Use cases (contd.)• The reality of data access

– virtual globes do not allow data download– downloadable data:

• are not interoperable (syntax and semantics)• tiling is exposed• projections are exposed• no metadata

• Simulation of social and environmental processes– functions, rules that transform the system at time t

to the system at time t+1

Digital Earth as a simulation engine• A platform for transforming the world

– visualizing the Earth’s future– in an accessible package– a child-of-ten interface– what the Earth used to look like

• and what it will look like in the future

Broader success• Engagement of the citizen

– child of 10 in 10 minutes– citizen as producer and consumer (prosumer)– neogeography

• A communication medium– compare “GIS as media”– presenting the results of global science

• to the citizen, not the shelves of a library

– the full life cycle of Earth data– past, present, and future

Prospects: Where are we now?• The digital globes implement only parts of the

Gore DE vision– data access

• geoportals are not integrated• limited syntactic, semantic interoperability• limited accuracy

– future scenarios• simulations• how the world looks today• limited perspectives on the past

The Vespucci research agenda• Developed at a specialist meeting in

Florence, Italy, in 2008• M. Craglia, M.F. Goodchild, A. Annoni, G. Camara,

M. Gould, W. Kuhn, D.M. Mark, I. Masser, D.J. Maguire, S. Liang, E. Parsons (2008) Next-generation Digital Earth. A position paper from the Vespucci Initiative for the Advancement of Geographic Information Science. International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructure Research 3: 146–167.

The Vespucci specialist meeting• Florence, June 2008• Re-visioning Digital Earth

– the next generation• Participants:

Max Craglia, European Commission Joint Research CentreMike Goodchild, University of California, Santa BarbaraAlessandro Annoni, European Commission Joint Research CentreGilberto Camara, National Institute for Space Research, BrazilMike Gould, University Jaume I, Castellon, SpainWerner Kuhn, University of Münster, GermanyDavid Mark, State University of New York at BuffaloIan Masser, University College London David Maguire, ESRI, RedlandsSteve Liang, University of Calgary, CanadaEd Parsons, Google

Published report

Editorial: Next Generation Digital Earth

International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructure Research 3: 146-167 (2008)

http://ijsdir.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.php/ijsdir/article/viewFile/119/99

An eight-point vision

1. Not one Digital Earth, but multiple connected globes/infrastructures addressing the needs of different audiences: citizens, communities, policymakers, scientists, educators.

2. Problem oriented: e.g. environment, health, societal benefit areas

3. Allowing search through time and space to find similar/analog situations with real-time data from both sensors and humans

4. Asking questions about change, identification of anomalies in space in both human and environmental domains

5. Enabling access to data, information, services, and models as well as scenarios and forecasts: from simple queries to complex analyses across the environmental and social domains

6. Supporting the visualization of abstract concepts and data types (e.g. low income, poor health, and semantics)

7. Based on open access, and participation across multiple technological platforms and media (e.g. text, voice and multi-media)

8. Engaging, interactive, exploratory, and a laboratory for learning and for multidisciplinary education and science.

Back to discrete global grids• Two dimensional

– representing the ellipsoid, elevations above and below it

– three-dimensional features• Google Sketchup integrated with Google Earth

• Three dimensional– representing the solid Earth

• opening connections to other sciences

– how to handle the ellipsoid as a specific surface?– what about the geoid?

Spheroid Degenerated-Octree Grid (SDOG)Prof WU Lixin, Beijing Normal University

International Society for Digital Earth• Next-generation visioning meeting, Beijing,

March 2011• Symposium in Perth, August 2011• Long paper

– Craglia M, de Bie K, Jackson D, Pesaresi M, Remetey-Fülöpp G, Wang C, Annoni A, Bian L, Campbell F, Ehlers M, van Genderen J, Goodchild MF, Guo H, Lewis A, Simpson R, Skidmore A, Woodgate P (2012) Digital Earth 2020: towards a vision for the next decade. International Journal of Digital Earth 5(1): 4-21

• Forthcoming short paper in PNAS

Earth information: a basic human right?

• We are all invested in the future of the planet– it’s the only one we will ever have

• National governments have less control over the flow of information

• DE facilitates access as never before• DE can offer effective communication between

science and citizen– about the planet’s state and future

• Greater emphasis on prediction, how the planet works– than in the Gore speech or current DE implementations

What’s missing?• Commercial software as a 90% solution

– able to satisfy 90% of applications• but applications will self-select

• What don’t the 90% care about?– scientific replicability

• no black box

– provenance• few metadata

– scientific rigor– principles of the scientific method are absolute

Improving scientific communication• (Scientist) Only a minority of people are

capable of understanding the limitations of science– only a minority can be trusted with data and

results

• (Citizen) Scientists are reluctant to communicate in terms that the citizen can understand– accepting 90% solutions doesn’t help

Where is this headed?• Not the virtual reality of Gore’s speech

– a separate, mirror world

• An augmented reality– in which technology provides information that is

beyond our senses

• A world in which physical and virtual realities are fully integrated– technology is largely invisible and

incomprehensible– a new kind of incomplete awareness, control– at once exciting, powerful, frightening

Concluding points• Virtual globes have come a long way since

1998• Much remains to be done

– a new generation is needed

• A concerted effort is needed to define, promote, and develop the next generation

• Two major elements:– communication between science and the citizen– achieving scientific rigor

• Are these two objectives compatible?