NDSA:Geo February 2013: Difference between revisions
m 10 revisions imported: Migrate NDSA content from Library of Congress |
|||
| (7 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
= February 15, 2013 Meeting Notes = | |||
== Participants == | |||
Bob Nutsch, Brett Abrams, Elizabeth Perkes, Glen McAnnich, Steve Morris, Diane Papineau, Bob Downs, Erin Engle | |||
== | == Meeting Notes == | ||
Brett lead a discussion about what the group wanted to focus on in the next few months. The following topics were agreed upon: | |||
Investigating collections and archival approaches at the Federal and State Level: Brett thought it might be helpful to understand the collections and archival approaches federal and state libraries and archives take with respect to archiving geodata. Brett offered to provide NARA's approach with Federal agencies and geodata. Diane suggested that it may be useful to find out what some commonalities are across state institutions involved in archiving, specifically modeling agencies that are the data creators and those that are the data archivers. Modeling for similarities may surface patterns in approaches for these two types of organizations. Glenn mentioned the GeoMAPP final report, which in part focused on data creators and approaches of data exchange. He offered to present on the 3 commonalities of the GeoMapp states (Utah, NC, KY with their input/review) and look at GIS relationships with local providers. Diane suggested that we should keep in mind the audience for the content that's being created, and it would be helpful to consider the data producers as an audience. We could reach out to them with our findings. | |||
Open source vs. proprietary formats: Brett mentioned that the U/HDWG will have a presentation by opengeo.org, which opened up a conversation about OS formats and proprietary formats. Steve Morris offered to give a presentation to the group on the current landscape of the issue. Brett suggested this may be helpful in providing the group with some guidance about how to approach the issues as a group. | |||
== Action Items == | |||
Brett: on the next call will present on NARA's scheduling and working with Federal agencies creating geodata and report back to the group about the opengeo.org presentation | |||
Glen: work on modeling commonalities of the GeoMAPP states and GIS relationships with local providers (will present to the group not before April) | |||
Steve: provide the group with an overview organizations and projects working on open source and proprietary format issues | |||
Brett and Butch: discuss scheduling and logistics for the new few calls | |||
Latest revision as of 14:19, 11 February 2016
Return to the Geospatial Content Team main page.
February 15, 2013 Meeting Notes
Participants
Bob Nutsch, Brett Abrams, Elizabeth Perkes, Glen McAnnich, Steve Morris, Diane Papineau, Bob Downs, Erin Engle
Meeting Notes
Brett lead a discussion about what the group wanted to focus on in the next few months. The following topics were agreed upon:
Investigating collections and archival approaches at the Federal and State Level: Brett thought it might be helpful to understand the collections and archival approaches federal and state libraries and archives take with respect to archiving geodata. Brett offered to provide NARA's approach with Federal agencies and geodata. Diane suggested that it may be useful to find out what some commonalities are across state institutions involved in archiving, specifically modeling agencies that are the data creators and those that are the data archivers. Modeling for similarities may surface patterns in approaches for these two types of organizations. Glenn mentioned the GeoMAPP final report, which in part focused on data creators and approaches of data exchange. He offered to present on the 3 commonalities of the GeoMapp states (Utah, NC, KY with their input/review) and look at GIS relationships with local providers. Diane suggested that we should keep in mind the audience for the content that's being created, and it would be helpful to consider the data producers as an audience. We could reach out to them with our findings.
Open source vs. proprietary formats: Brett mentioned that the U/HDWG will have a presentation by opengeo.org, which opened up a conversation about OS formats and proprietary formats. Steve Morris offered to give a presentation to the group on the current landscape of the issue. Brett suggested this may be helpful in providing the group with some guidance about how to approach the issues as a group.
Action Items
Brett: on the next call will present on NARA's scheduling and working with Federal agencies creating geodata and report back to the group about the opengeo.org presentation
Glen: work on modeling commonalities of the GeoMAPP states and GIS relationships with local providers (will present to the group not before April)
Steve: provide the group with an overview organizations and projects working on open source and proprietary format issues
Brett and Butch: discuss scheduling and logistics for the new few calls