Map Portals and Geoarchiving:
New Opportunities in
Geospatial Information
Services
Steve Morris
Head of Digital Library Initiatives
NCSU Libraries
GIS Technology: Sustaining the Future
& Understanding the Past
Case Western Reserve University
October 13, 2005
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
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
2
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 valueadded derivatives
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
3
Library Geospatial Data Services:
Discovery Tools
Web documentation
Author and publish metadata
Searchable metadata
catalogs
Integrate data into library
catalog
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
4
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)
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
5
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
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
6
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
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
7
NC Local Government Map Services
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
# ##
# #
#
#
#
#
##
#
#
City Map Services
County Map Services
#
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
#
#
8
County Government Map Server
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
9
State Government Map Server
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
10
Federal Government Map Server
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
11
Open Geospatial Consortium
(OGC) Technology Overview
The Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) is a not-forprofit, 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.”
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
12
National Approaches
USGS National Map
Integrated WMS services
Services catalog
Geospatial One-Stop
Searchable services
Specialized Portals
FEMA Mapping
Katrina Portal
HUD E-Maps
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
13
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
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
14
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
15
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
16
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
17
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
18
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
19
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.
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
20
Geospatial Web Services:
Advantages
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
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
21
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
22
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
23
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
24
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
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
25
Geospatial Web Services:
When 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
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
26
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?
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
27
Geospatial Web Services Rights Issues
Example: 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
Accessible ArcXML Services
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
28
Geospatial Data:
Discovery and Selection Issues
Data extent
Thematic content & attributes
Currency
Format, coordinate system, datum, etc.
Licensing restrictions
Ease of access
Metadata availability
More …
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
29
Geospatial Web Services:
Discovery 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
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
30
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
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
31
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
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
32
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
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
33
Community Practices in Cascading Map Services
Example: Layer Names, Symbology, Classification
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
34
“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
API’s 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
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
35
Integrating Traditional Geospatial Data
and Services with New Services
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
36
Integrating Traditional Geospatial Data
and Services with New Services
But who preserves the data …?
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
37
Today’s geospatial data as tomorrow’s cultural heritage
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
38
Time series – vector data
Parcel Boundary Changes 2001-2004, North Raleigh, NC
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
39
Time series – Ortho imagery
Vicinity of Raleigh-Durham International Airport 1993-2002
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
40
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
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
41
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
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
42
NCGDAP Philosophy of Engagement
Take the data
as in the manner
In which it can
be obtained
Wrangle
and archive
data
Provide feedback
to producer
organizations/
inform state
geospatial
infrastructure
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
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
43
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
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
44
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 …
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
45
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)
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
46
Managing Time-versioned Content
Many local agency data layers continuously
updated
E.g., some county cadastral data updated daily—
older 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?
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
47
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 ‘METSlike problem’
GeoDRM a likely trigger—wrapper to enforce
licensing (MPEG 21 references in OGIS Web
Services 3)
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
48
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
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
49
Preserving Cartographic Representation
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
50
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
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
51
Preserving Geodatabases
Spatial databases in general vs. ESRI Geodatabase
“format”
Not just data layers and attributes—also 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)
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
52
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.
Cities: Street Centerline Formats
Counties: Street Centerline Formats
Geodatabase
Geodatabase
Shapefile
Shapefile
Coverage
Coverage
Other
Other
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
53
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
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
54
Questions?
Contact:
Steve Morris
Head, Digital Library Initiatives
NCSU Libraries
Steven_Morris@ncsu.edu
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of
respondents to each question
55