|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| Back to [[NDSA:Content teams]]
| | National Archives and Records Administration has a transfer guidance for the transfer of geospatial data. It promotes the transfer of open formats, including Spatial Data Transfer Standard, GML v. 3, and military standards. |
|
| |
|
| | | In practice, NARA takes in Shape files from agencies to capture simple databases. We also have taken in military standards for imagery. |
| ==Scope==
| |
| The Geospatial Content Team is interested in exploring challenges and solutions to the long-term preservation, stewardship and accessibility of digital mapping information.
| |
| | |
| [[NDSA:Draft Mission Statement]]
| |
| | |
| ==Team Facilitators==
| |
| *Brett Abrams
| |
| *John Faundeen
| |
| | |
| ==Team Members==
| |
| | |
| [[file: geo-subgroup-members_v2.xls]] Spreadsheet of participants with contact information.
| |
| | |
| ==Current Activities==
| |
| | |
| Higher Priority:
| |
| *Industry Outreach: Archives and Libraries act in conjunction with geospatial users in government to meet with ESRI and discuss need for published or open formats.
| |
| | |
| *Appraisal: Consider effort toward appraisal: particularly what kind of data needs to be preserved (raw, intermediate, or final stage, all, some)
| |
| *Spatial Data Infrastructure: Understanding the state GIS Clearinghouse relationship with local data providers and details regarding the data transfer between the two:
| |
| (a) acquisition of data (by the clearinghouse) on specific schedules;
| |
| (b) data sharing agreements between the two entities; (c) definition of framework layers and those preserved vs. not preserved (appraisal
| |
| process) in an eventual archive; (d) metadata and minimum documentation required by both clearinghouse and archive
| |
| *Proprietary vs. open formats (and ESRI). Recently, there was an interesting blog post about this very subject that had been floating around the web (with some interesting comments at the end!). It made its way to our campus GIS email lsitserv here at UW-Madison recently and folks were buzzing about it:
| |
| http://www.structuralknowledge.com/2012/02/03/why-esri-as-is-cant-be-part-of-the-open-government-movement/
| |
| We, of course, have our own issues with file geodatabases and how to deal with those in a preservation environment, etc. | |
| *Rights and Access: Copyright and other issues surrounding 'Access Rights' to Geospatial
| |
| Data: (a) copyright, licensing and legal implications of language such as indemnification/hold harmless clauses in data distribution agreements; (b) administrative metadata for dealing with access rights
| |
| (c) Costs/fees for obtaining local public geospatial data and implications for archiving (i.e. continually purchase new versions based on retention schedule?)
| |
| *File formats, naming conventions and best practices: (a) Export feature classes out of geodatabases and archive as shapefiles?; (b) re-name files for archiving purposes, but retain link (via database?) back to original file from original data producer?
| |
| *GeoMAPP did a ton of work in this area and we are sifting through all of that documentation now...but it might be interesting to hear about other's workflows.
| |
| | |
| Metadata: ISO standards, preservation standards, preservation-based metadata formats
| |
| | |
| Lower priority:
| |
| | |
| *Generate effort to find a location for geospatial data that a state or other kinds of archives cannot afford to maintain.
| |
| | |
| ==Meetings==
| |
| | |
| Next meeting is schedule for:
| |
| | |
| Wednesday May 23 at 11:00 a.m. EASTERN.
| |
| | |
| '''Meeting Minutes'''
| |
| | |
| [[NDSA:February 2012]]
| |
| *April 2012
| |
National Archives and Records Administration has a transfer guidance for the transfer of geospatial data. It promotes the transfer of open formats, including Spatial Data Transfer Standard, GML v. 3, and military standards.
In practice, NARA takes in Shape files from agencies to capture simple databases. We also have taken in military standards for imagery.
