Map Portals and Geoarchiving: New Opportunities in Geospatial Information Services Steve Morris Head of Digital Library Initiatives NCSU Libraries

1
Map Portals and Geoarchiving New Opportunities
in Geospatial Information Services Steve
MorrisHead of Digital Library InitiativesNCSU
Libraries
GIS Technology Sustaining the Future
Understanding the Past
Case Western Reserve University October 13, 2005
2
Overview

• Brief overview of library roles in digital
  geographic information services
• Geospatial web services opportunities and
  challenges for libraries
• Long-term preservation of digital geospatial data

3
Library Geospatial Data Services Data Collections

• Acquire data (licensed and public domain)
• License data for in-library or campus use
• Provide networked access
• Acquire or create value-added derivatives

4
Library Geospatial Data Services Discovery Tools

• Web documentation
• Author and publish metadata
• Searchable metadata catalogs
• Integrate data into library catalog

5
Library Geospatial Data Services Reference and
Technical Support

• Assistance with finding and selecting data
• GIS reference interview
• Line between reference support and technical
  support is extremely fuzzy
• Support or administration of campus GIS software
  licenses
• Reference support for locating software tools
  (e.g. scripts for ArcView and ArcGIS)

6
Library Geospatial Data Services Workshops and
Outreach

• In-library workshops and class visits
• Online workshops (Virtual Campus)
• Marketing and Outreach
• Work to engage broader number of academic
  departments in GIS activity
• Work to lower barrier to entry in GIS work
  (access to software, data, training, support)
• Library as neutral ground well suited to
  coordinate with campus GIS infrastructure

7
Library Geospatial Data Services Timeline
Map Collections
Data Collections
Map Servers
Map Portals

• Map Collections
• Paper Maps
• Data Collections
• CD-ROMs, File server FTP access
• Map Servers
• Integrate collected data, Web-based mapping
• Map Portals
• Integrate distributed, streaming data

8
NC Local Government Map Services
9
County Government Map Server
10
State Government Map Server
11
Federal Government Map Server
12
Open Geospatial Consortium(OGC) Technology
Overview

• The Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) is a
  not-for-profit, international consortium focus
  on data interoperability
• Operates a Specification Development Program that
  is similar to other Industry consortia (W3C,
  etc.)
• Also operates an Interoperability Program (IP), a
  partnership-driven engineering and testing
  program designed to deliver proven specifications
  into the Specification Development Program.
• OGC used to talk about web-enabling GIS, now
  they talk about geo-enabling the web.

13
National Approaches

• USGS National Map
• Integrated WMS services
• Services catalog
• Geospatial One-Stop
• Searchable services
• Specialized Portals
• FEMA Mapping
• Katrina Portal
• HUD E-Maps

14
State Approach NC OneMap

• Data integration through OGC specifications
  (currently just WMS)
• Data sharing agreements
• Metadata outreach
• Ongoing data inventories
• Practices and guidelines vis-à-vis map service
  configuration

15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
(No Transcript)
18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)
20
Geospatial Web Service Types

• Image services
• Deliver image resulting from query against
  underlying data
• Limited opportunity for analysis
• Feature services
• Stream actual feature data, greater opportunity
  for data analysis
• Other
• Geocoding services
• Routing
• .etc.

21
Geospatial Web ServicesAdvantages

• Time- and location-independent access
• Access to extremely large datasets
• Access to most current data
• Ad hoc access to data for which there is
  typically low demand
• Reduce barriers imposed by differences in
  formats, coordinate systems, etc.
• Access to geoprocessing functionality

22
(No Transcript)
23
(No Transcript)
24
(No Transcript)
25
Geospatial Web Services Shortcomings

• Application performance will frequently not match
  that of locally loaded data
• Up-time reliability issues
• Many demonstration services, persistence is open
  to question
• Dynamically changing content can lead to analysis
  surprises
• Does not replace aesthetic value of paper map

26
Geospatial Web ServicesWhen Most Useful?

• User needs most current data
• Data is subject to frequent change update
• User needs access to extremely large datasets
• User wishes to preview data prior to use
• User just needs background display
• Need to integrate data into portable devices
• Data not otherwise available

27
Geospatial Web Services Integration Challenges
for Libraries

• Services difficult to discover and select from
• In case of commercial services, campus licensing
  models not well evolved
• Linking data objects with services that act upon
  them is not well supported by existing metadata
  and catalog schemes
• Ambiguous rights issues
• How to integrate into the physical browse
  environment of the map library?

28
Geospatial Web Services Rights IssuesExample
Desktop GIS-accessible ArcIMS

• 39 of 100 NC counties have desktop GIS-accessible
  ArcIMS services
• It is difficult to know how many of these
  counties actually expect users to either
• A) access data through desktop GIS for viewing
  only, or
• B) extract and download data

29
Geospatial DataDiscovery and Selection Issues

• Data extent
• Thematic content attributes
• Currency
• Format, coordinate system, datum, etc.
• Licensing restrictions
• Ease of access
• Metadata availability
• More

30
Geospatial Web ServicesDiscovery and Selection
Issues

• Inherits many data selection issues such as
  coordinate system, etc.
• Service type image, feature, geocoding,
• Access protocol OGC specs (WMS, WFS, WCS ),
  SOAP, ArcXML (ArcIMS image and feature services,
  specialized APIs (e.g. Google Maps)
• Reliability, up-time performance, speed
• Licensing scheme
• Functions annotation, saved maps, etc.
• Image services image formats

31
Facilitating Discovery of Services Example
Directory of County Map Services
Among top 15 most used resources on library web
site 99.5 of directory users from outside
ncsu.edu
32
Library Opportunities to Provide Geospatial Web
Services

• Publish WMS servers from public domain content
  not already available
• Fill holes in service availability
• Publish archival content
• counter bias towards current content in the
  industry
• Publish cascading map services
• Create specialized front-ends to existing,
  distributed services

33
Cascading Map Services Problems

• Different versions of OGC standards
• e.g., WMS 1.1.0, WMS 1.1.1
• Differences in layer naming
• cadastral vs. parcels vs. property
  boundaries
• Differences in classification schemes
• e.g., inconsistent land use, zoning schemes
• Service reliability, addressing stability, uptime
• On top of standards specifications, need
  community overlay of best practices

34
Community Practices in Cascading Map
ServicesExample Layer Names, Symbology,
Classification
35
Web mash-ups and the New Mainstream Geospatial
Web Services

• New services such as Google Maps, MSN Virtual
  Earth, Yahoo Maps
• Static, tiled images for efficient access
• APIs for developer access
• Positioning for mobile device-oriented
  application development
• Engaging mainstream IT and general public
• AJAX Asynchronous Javascript and XML
• New forms of map and service publishing

36
Integrating Traditional Geospatial Data and
Services with New Services
37
Integrating Traditional Geospatial Data and
Services with New Services
But who preserves the data ?
38
Todays geospatial data as tomorrows cultural
heritage
39
Time series vector data Parcel Boundary Changes
2001-2004, North Raleigh, NC
40
Time series Ortho imagery Vicinity of
Raleigh-Durham International Airport 1993-2002
41
Risks to Digital Geospatial Data

• Producer focus on current data
• Kill and fill, absence of time-versioned
  content
• Future support of data formats in question
• Vast range of data formats in use--complex
• Shift to streaming data for access
• Archives have been a by-product of providing
  access
• Preservation metadata requirements
• Descriptive, administrative, technical, DRM
• Geodatabases
• Complex functionality

42
NC Geospatial Data Archiving Project (NCGDAP)

• 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
• Part of Library of Congress National Digital
  Information Infrastructure Preservation Program
  (NDIIPP)
• Objective engage existing state/federal
  geospatial data infrastructures in preservation

43
NCGDAP Philosophy of Engagement
Provide feedback to producer organizations/ inform
state geospatial infrastructure
Take the data as in the manner In which it can
be obtained
Wrangle and archive data
Note the Project in North Carolina Geospatial
Data Archiving Project the process, the
learning experience, and the engagement with
geospatial data infrastructures are more
important than the archive
44
Earlier NCSU Acquisition Efforts

• NCSU University Extension project 2000-2001
• Target County/city data in eastern NC
• Digital rescue not digital preservation
• Hurricane Floyd flood response
• Project learning outcomes
• Confirmed concerns about long term access
• Need for efficient inventory/acquisition
• Wide range in rights/licensing
• Need to work within statewide infrastructure

45
Big Geoarchiving Challenges

• Format migration paths
• Management of data versions over time
• Preservation metadata
• Harnessing geospatial web services
• Preserving cartographic representation
• Keeping content repository-agnostic
• Preserving geodatabases
• More

46
Vector Data Format Issues

• Vector data much more complicated than image data
• Archiving vs. Permanent access
• An open pile of XML might make an archive, but
  if using it requires a team of programmers to do
  digital archaeology then it does not provide
  permanent access
• Piles of XML need to be widely understood piles
• GML need widely accepted application schemas
  (like OSMM?)
• The Geodatabase conundrum
• Export feature classes, and lose topology,
  annotation, relationships, etc.
• or use the Geodatabase as the primary archival
  platform (some are now thinking this way)

47
Managing Time-versioned Content

• Many local agency data layers continuously
  updated
• E.g., some county cadastral data updated
  dailyolder versions not generally available
• Individual versioned datasets will wander off
  from the archive
• How do users get current metadata/DRM/object
  from a versioned dataset found in the wild?
• How do we certify concurrency and agreement
  between the metadata and the data?

48
Preservation Metadata Issues

• FGDC Metadata
• Many flavors, incoming metadata needs processing
• Cross-walk elements to PREMIS, MODS?
• Metadata wrapper
• METS (Metadata Encoding and Transmission
  Standard) vs. other industry solutions
• Need a geospatial industry solution for the
  METS-like problem
• GeoDRM a likely triggerwrapper to enforce
  licensing (MPEG 21 references in OGIS Web
  Services 3)

49
Preserving Cartographic Representation

• The true counterpart of the old map is not the
  GIS dataset, but rather the cartographic
  representation that builds on that data
• Intellectual choices about symbolization, layer
  combinations
• Data models, analysis, annotations
• Cartographic representation typically encoded in
  proprietary files (.avl, .lyr, .apr, .mxd) that
  do not lend themselves well to migration
• Symbologies have meaning to particular
  communities at particular points in time,
  preserving information about symbol sets and
  their meaning is a different problem

50
Preserving Cartographic Representation
51
Repository Architecture Issues

• Interest in how geospatial content interacts with
  widely available digital repository software
• Focus on salient, domain-specific issues
• Challenge remain repository agnostic
• Avoid imprinting on repository software
  environment
• Preservation package should not be the same as
  the ingest object of the first environment
• Tension between exploiting repository software
  features vs. becoming software dependent

52
Preserving Geodatabases

• Spatial databases in general vs. ESRI Geodatabase
  format
• Not just data layers and attributesalso
  topology, annotation, relationships, behaviors
• ESRI Geodatabase archival issues
• XML Export, Geodatabase History, File
  Geodatabase, Geodatabase Replication
• Growing use of geodatabases by municipal, county
  agencies
• Some looking to Geodatabase as archival platform
  (in addition to feature class export)

53
Geodatabase Availability

• 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.

54
Harnessing Geospatial Web Services

• Automated content identification
• capabilities files, registries, catalog
  services
• WMS (Web Map Service) for batch extraction of
  image atlases
• last ditch capture option
• preserve cartographic representation
• retain records of decision-making process
• feature services (WFS) later.
• Rights issues in the web services space are
  ambiguous

55
Questions?
Contact Steve Morris Head, Digital Library
Initiatives NCSU Libraries Steven_Morris_at_ncsu.edu