Distributed Geolibraries

Spatial Information Resources Summary of a Workshop

Panel on Distributed Geolibraries

Mapping Science Committee

Board on Earth Sciences and Resources

Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources

National Research Council

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Distributed Geolibraries Spatial Information Resources Summary of a Workshop Panel on Distributed Geolibraries Mapping Science Committee Board on Earth Sciences and Resources Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C.

OCR for page R1
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. Support specifically for this project was provided by the National Science Foundation and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The project also utilized resources provided to the Mapping Science Committee by the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, the U.S. Geological Survey and the Federal Geographic Data Committee, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of the Census. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the agencies that provided support for this project. International Standard Book Number (ISBN) 0-309-06540-2 Copies of this report are available from Mapping Science Committee Board on Earth Sciences and Resources National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20418 Cover: Backdrop for the collage is a digital orthophoto of the Boston, Massachusetts, area. The figure was downloaded from the Internet from MIT/MassGIS Digital Orthophoto Project (see Appendix D) Copyright 1999 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
PANEL ON DISTRIBUTED GEOLIBRARIES MICHAEL F. GOODCHILD (Chair) University of California, Santa Barbara PRUDENCE S. ADLER, Association of Research Libraries, Washington, D.C. BARBARA P. BUTTENFIELD, University of Colorado, Boulder ROBERT E. KAHN, Corporation for National Research Initiatives, Reston, Virginia ANNETTE J. KRYGIEL, National Defense University, Ft. Lesley J. McNair, Washington, D.C. HARLAN J. ONSRUD, University of Maine, Orono NRC Staff THOMAS M. USSELMAN, Senior Staff Officer JENNIFER T. ESTEP, Administrative Assistant

OCR for page R1
MAPPING SCIENCE COMMITTEE MICHAEL F. GOODCHILD (Chair) University of California, Santa Barbara KAREN C. SIDERELIS (Vice-Chair) North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, Raleigh BRIAN J. L. BERRY, The University of Texas at Dallas CLIFFORD A. BEHRENS,+ Telcordia Technologies, Morristown, New Jersey BARBARA P. BUTTENFIELD,* University of Colorado, Boulder NICHOLAS CHRISMAN, University of Washington, Seattle DAVID J. COLEMAN, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton MICHAEL J. FOLK,* University of Illinois, Urbana HENRY L. GARIE, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton BARRY GLICK, Carillon Consulting, Arlington, Virginia NINA S-N. LAM, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge JOEL L. MORRISON,+ Ohio State University, Columbus HARLAN J. ONSRUD, University of Maine, Orono C. STEPHEN SMYTH, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington REX W. TRACY, GDE Systems, Inc., San Diego, California A. KEITH TURNER, Colorado School of Mines, Golden LYNA L. WIGGINS, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey NRC Staff THOMAS M. USSELMAN, Senior Staff Officer JENNIFER T. ESTEP, Administrative Assistant *   Term of appointment ended December 31, 1998. +   Term of appointment began in 1999.

OCR for page R1
BOARD ON EARTH SCIENCES AND RESOURCES J. FREEMAN GILBERT (Chair) University of California, San Diego JOHN J. AMORUSO, Amoruso Petroleum Company, Houston, Texas PAUL B. BARTON, JR., Emeritus, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia KENNETH I. DAUGHERTY, Marconi Information Systems, Reston, Virginia BARBARA L. DUTROW, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge RICHARD S. FISKE, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. JAMES M. FUNK, Shell Continental Companies, Houston, Texas WILLIAM L. GRAF, Arizona State University, Tempe RAYMOND JEANLOZ, University of California, Berkeley SUSAN M. KIDWELL, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois SUSAN KIEFFER, Kieffer & Woo, Inc., Palgrave, Ontario PAMELA LUTTRELL, Mobil Corporation, Dallas, Texas ALEXANDRA NAVROTSKY, University of California, Davis DIANNE R. NIELSON, Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Salt Lake City JILL D. PASTERIS, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri EDWARD M. STOLPER, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena JOHN R. G. TOWNSHEND, University of Maryland, College Park MILTON H. WARD, Cyprus Amax Minerals Company, Engelwood, Colorado NRC Staff ANTHONY R. DE SOUZA, Director TAMARA L. DICKINSON, Senior Program Officer ANNE M. LINN, Senior Program Officer THOMAS M. USSELMAN, Senior Program Officer VERNA J. BOWEN, Administrative Assistant JENNIFER T. ESTEP, Administrative Assistant JUDITH L. ESTEP, Administrative Assistant

OCR for page R1
COMMISSION ON GEOSCIENCES, ENVIRONMENT, AND RESOURCES GEORGE M. HORNBERGER (Chair) University of Virginia, Charlottesville RICHARD A. CONWAY, Union Carbide Corporation (Retired), S. Charleston, West Virginia THOMAS E. GRAEDEL, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut THOMAS J. GRAFF, Environmental Defense Fund, Oakland, California EUGENIA KALNAY, University of Oklahoma, Norman DEBRA KNOPMAN, Progressive Policy Institute, Washington, D.C. KAI N. LEE, Williams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts RICHARD A. MESERVE, Covington & Burling, Washington, D.C. JOHN B. MOONEY, JR., J. Brad Mooney Associates, Ltd., Arlington, Virginia HUGH C. MORRIS, El Dorado Gold Corporation, Vancouver, British Columbia H. RONALD PULLIAM, University of Georgia, Athens MILTON RUSSELL, University of Tennessee, Knoxville THOMAS C. SCHELLING, University of Maryland, College Park ANDREW R. SOLOW, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts VICTORIA J. TSCHINKEL, Landers and Parsons, Tallahassee, Florida E-AN ZEN, University of Maryland, College Park MARY LOU ZOBACK, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California NRC Staff ROBERT M. HAMILTON, Executive Director GREGORY H. SYMMES, Associate Executive Director CRAIG SCHIFFRIES, Associate Executive Director for Special Programs JEANETTE SPOON, Administrative and Financial Officer SANDI FITZPATRICK, Administrative Associate MARQUITA SMITH, Administrative Assistant/Technology Analyst

OCR for page R1
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF REVIEWERS This report has been reviewed by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC's Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the authors and the NRC in making their published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The content of the review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report: Christine L. Borgman Presidential Chair in Information Studies University of California, Los Angeles Edward A. Fox Department of Computer Science Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Blacksburg Kenneth D. Gardels Research Program in Environmental Planning and Geographic Information Systems College of Environmental Design University of California, Berkeley John L. King Department of Information and Computer Science University of California, Irvine Xavier R. Lopez Spatial Products/Data Server Division Oracle Corporation Nashua, New Hampshire

OCR for page R1
Clifford A. Lynch Executive Director Coalition for Networked Information Washington, D.C. Hugh C. Morris El Dorado Gold Corporation Vancouver, British Columbia Jane Smith Patterson Senior Advisor for Science and Technology Office of the Governor Raleigh, North Carolina James F. Williams II Dean of Libraries University of Colorado, Boulder While the individuals listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, responsibility for the final content of this report rests solely with the authoring committee and the NRC.

OCR for page R1
Preface The Mapping Science Committee serves as a focus for external advice to federal agencies on scientific and technical matters related to spatial data handling and analysis. The purpose of the committee is to provide advice on the development of a robust national spatial data infrastructure for making informed decisions at all levels of government and throughout society in general. The concept of a national spatial data infrastructure (NSDI) was first advanced by the Mapping Science Committee (MSC) in its 1993 report, Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Subsequent MSC reports have addressed specific components of the NSDI, including partnerships (Promoting the National Spatial Data Infrastructure Through Partnerships, 1994), basic data types (A Data Foundation for the National Spatial Data Infrastructure, 1995), and future trends (The Future of Spatial Data and Society, 1997). When the NSDI was defined in 1993, few users or producers of geospatial data* made much use of the Internet or the World-Wide Web (WWW). Although there was emphasis on digital geospatial data, the primary method of dissemination was by magnetic tape. There were virtually no digital online catalogs of geospatial data or methods for searching for data across computer networks. Moreover, since most useful geospatial data were produced by a small number of federal agencies, there was little problem locating the appropriate source. Today, the WWW has grown into an enormously successful tool and has had a profound impact on the entire environment for geospatial data acquisition. At the same time, it has presented a growing problem as the number of potential suppliers has mushroomed, in its inability to deal effectively with the task of *   The report follows evolving practice in the NSDI community by adopting the term geospatial to refer to maps and images of the Earth's surface and near surface and their digital equivalents. The terms geographic and spatial are often used almost synonymously but are avoided here.

OCR for page R1
discovering what geoinformation exists and of locating an appropriate source. This report can be understood therefore as an updating of the MSC's concept of the NSDI in the era of the WWW. In organizing this effort and producing this report, the committee is expressing its view that the WWW has added a new and radically different dimension to its earlier conception of NSDI, one that is much more user oriented, much more effective in maximizing the value of the nation's geospatial data assets, and much more cost effective as a data dissemination mechanism. Distributed geolibraries reflect the same basic thinking about the future of geospatial data, which emphasizes sharing, universal access, and productivity but in the context of a technology that was almost impossible to anticipate prior to 1993. A panel under the aegis of the MSC convened a workshop to explore the following topics: Development of a vision for geospatial data dissemination and access in 2010. Comparison of current efforts in digital library research, clearinghouse development, and other data distribution and search activities. Suggestion of short- and long-term research and development needed to achieve the vision. Identification of the policy and institutional issues, particularly for convergence of efforts to realize the vision. By clarifying the vision of distributed geolibraries and identifying some of the key issues, it is hoped that the workshop and this report will provide a common focus for the many efforts already under way and will stimulate new and expanded efforts. The workshop was only a first step in this process, and many issues remain to be clarified by further discussions, research, and development of prototypes. The report makes extensive use of the traditional library as a framework for discussion because it is so familiar and well understood. Undoubtedly, much future work in researching and developing distributed geolibraries will occur within this framework,

OCR for page R1
but the framework will also be constraining in some respects. Exactly how distributed geolibraries develop and how closely they follow the metaphor of the library remain to be seen. Moreover, the metaphor is used selectively, since many of the functions of libraries that may have no equivalent in distributed geolibraries were not discussed at the workshop, and may not be relevant. The workshop began on Monday, June 15, 1998, and followed the agenda given in Appendix C. Workshop participants were selected in such a way that all major sectors of the NSDI community and geospatial data activity were represented by their respective stakeholders, with an appropriate balance among them. Of the participants, 35 percent were from federal and state government, 39 percent were from academia, 12 percent were from the private sector, and 14 percent were from other sectors (e.g., associations). See Appendix A for a list of participants. Another way of considering the participants is by their primary focus—44 percent with a geospatial background, 36 percent from computing science and engineering, 12 percent from the library sciences, and 8 percent ''other." The Panel on Distributed Geolibraries coordinated the preparation of a series of white papers in advance of the workshop to stimulate discussion on certain key issues. These were posted on the WWW several weeks prior to the workshop and were available to participants and others who happened across them. Titles of the white papers for the workshop are given in Appendix B. This report reflects the consensus of the panel regarding the discussions that took place at the workshop, the issues that arose there and in the white papers, and the workshop's broader context.

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is interim president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and interim vice-chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.

OCR for page R1
Contents     Executive Summary   1     Characteristics and Benefits of Distributed Geolibraries   2     The National Spatial Data Infrastructure   2     Contents, Services, and Functions of Distributed Geolibraries   3     Architecture of Distributed Geolibraries   4     Intellectual Property Issues   5     Organizational Issues   5 1   Introduction   7     Examples   8     Emergency Response   8     Housing Relocation   10     Public Health   11     Natural Resource Planning   12     A Common Theme   13 2   A Vision for Distributed Geolibraries   15     Recent Developments   15     A Library Vision   19     Defining a Distributed Geolibrary   20     A Distributed Library   20     Geoinformation   22     Characteristics of a Distributed Geolibrary   25     Distributed Geolibraries and the NSDI   28     Distributed Geolibraries and Digital Earth   32

OCR for page R1
3   The Distributed Geolibrary in Societal and Institutional Context   35     Local Focus   36     Library Considerations   37     The Library as an Institution   37     Economic Considerations   38     Distributed Geolibraries and the Existing Library Institution   39     Data, Information, and Knowledge   40     Intellectual Property Concerns   42     Uses of Data, Information, and Knowledge   43     Access   45     Summary and Additional Issues   47 4   Services and Functions   53     Library Services   53     Distributed Geolibrary Services   55     The Need for Distributed Geolibrary Services   56     Services as Collections of Function   57     Necessary Distributed Geolibrary Functions   58     Search by Geographical Location   58     Search by Place Name   60     Search by Subject Theme or Time Period   61     Item Display and Description   62     Collection Creation and Maintenance   63     Searching over Distributed Assets   65     Integration, Analysis, and Manipulation   66     Assisting Users   69     Assessment and Feedback   69     Options for the Delivery of Distributed Geolibrary Services   70 5   Building Distributed Geolibraries   73     Requirements   73     Standards and Protocols   75     Data Sets   77     Georeferencing   79