Working Group 3 Policies for image data sharing, GIS data sharing, and field data sharing

1
Working Group 3 Policies for image data
sharing, GIS data sharing, and field data sharing

• Jim Wood, Don Leckie, Malcolm Gray, Joan Luther,
  David Goodenough, Paul Pilon

2
. What should be the policy on remote sensing
data acquired from government agencies? To whom
should we make this data available?

• Open data policy, free access, freely distributed
  - EOSD can only recommend
• fallback - consortium with other users within
  LTSP - resource management, ice, cryosphere (AES)

3
2. What should be the policy on commercial remote
sensing data?

• Do we buy commercial data?
• Purchase where appropriate
• purchase at lowest cost
• negotiate the copy right with suppliers
• may need to buy a distribution license

4
3. We have agreed to share remote sensing data to
provincial organizations in exchange to access to
their topographic, GIS, and field data. There is
a wide variety in provincial policies with
respect to data distribution. What do you
recommend for the EOSD project?

• Data Needed for EOSD
• Landsat (1990)
• 1250,000 topo (avail at low cost)
• 150,000 for some parts of Canada (avail at cost)
• 120,000 BC, Alberta, Ont, NB, most provinces
  (orthocorrection)
• baseline thematic mapping (low cost)

5
3. Cont.

• ecological classification (Canadian ecozones,
  forest regions) - harmonization of FEC in Canada
• operational forest cover (provinces will sell
  this data to anyone - distribution remains an
  issue)

6
3. Cont.

• Recommendations for EOSD
• define data needed from provinces to answer the
  questions
• accept processed data rather than demanding raw
  data
• hold provincial data in house, access to data at
  no charge, full coverage, use to generate
  products required (e.g. forest change maps)

7
4. The more transparent we are nationally and
internationally, the easier it is to convince the
public and the international community that
Canadas forests are well managed. What right of
access should the public have and to what?

• Imagery Products
• public should have open access to raw data,
  classified data and data products
• if managing appropriately, transparency will help
  industry and Canada

8
4. cont

• Reservations
• having to respond to inappropriate actions that
  become apparent from open access of data,
  misinterpretation of the data
• exclusive rights use to protect researchers? for
  how long?2 yrs?

9
4. Cont.

• If cant have open data policy, what can be made
  available to the public?
• paper maps, views (e.g. bitmaps)

10
5. Would you have a different set of policies for
educational institutions? For industry?

• No, open to public

11
6. What policy should we follow with respect to
intellectual property (IP)? Should we retain IP
for ease of technology transfer to multiple
agencies? Should we restrict IP to companies
with whom we have contracts?

• default is that companies have the IP - need to
  be explicit if government is to have the IP
• government should retain the IP for EOSD products
  
• adv - maintain access/control over technology,
  CFS visibility
• disadv - may hinder private sector involvement
• give away, focus, or sell as appropriate
• underlying philosophy is to get the software out
  there in the most appropriate way!

12
7. Any recommendations on organization,
provincial involvement, academic involvement,
industrial opportunities?

• Provincial involvement (primary data supplier)
• hierarchy of advisory committees
• NFIS level
• EOSD level (technical committee -provinces,
  industry, university, federal gov)
• Project Organization
• CFS MC --- (CSA)
• CFS Directors (LMN)
• EOSD
• Task Groups (Production, Automation, NFI, change,
  innovations, forest management systems)