Preprints of the Metadiversity Conference Proceedings

  Session 4: Building the Infrastructure

The National Spatial Data Infrastructure: Coordinating Geographic Data Acquisition and Access

JOHN MOELLER, Staff Director, Federal Geographic Data Committee

We have been discussing the linkage of biological information, using the link of the NBII to a global biological network as one example. Across the globe, there are a number of nations–at least 24 to 30 countries of which we are aware–that are either building spatial data infrastructures or discussing the needs and opportunities for developing a global spatial data infrastructure. In fact, next week in Australia there will be another conference to talk about working together to construct at least the beginnings of a global spatial data infrastructure. Today, I would like to talk to you about such an infrastructure: the National Spatial Data Infrastructure.

Geographic Information and the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI)

First, let’s think about the importance to geographic information, particularly as it relates to communities. These communities can be thought of as towns, cities, counties, and so on. But they also can be watersheds, biological communities, ecosystems– anything that has a geographic component and base to it.

In a political context, geographic information in this country has historically been held by communities. Geographic information has long driven decision processes at the community level, where it is used to figure out issues like how and where to develop road networks. But as we have moved to more a centralized government, with increased power of state and local governments (a move aided by the computer revolution), we have seen that much of the local data that had historically been used by citizens in communities began to be removed from the communities. However, I think that now, with today's political environment and technology environment, such trends have been reversed. We see that more and more communities today have the necessary tools and technology, as well as the continued interest, to have that data and information restored to them to be used in dealing with issues that are important to people at the local level. In fact, Mark Shaffer, Assistant Secretary for Water and Science within the Department of Interior, has pointed out that we can think of geographic information technologies as Jeffersonian technologies. In other words, these are technologies that facilitate the democratic process, that begin to bring people back in touch with the place where they live and back in touch with the information and decision processes associated with where they live.

So geographic information is important. Place matters. We all live somewhere, we all work somewhere, we all play somewhere. So, this information is really important both to us as individuals as well as organizations, and I think we are seeing more and more recognition of the value and importance of place. In 1998 there was a study done by the National Academy of Public Administration that looked at geospatial data for the 21st century. In that study, researchers identified geographic information as being a fundamental underpinning for about 50% of all U.S. economic activity. They identified 12 major sectors that relied on geographic information in dealing with issues important to those sectors and those sectors comprised about 50% of our gross national product. So economically geographic information is important.

Government activities in counties, cities, and states are geography-based and so geographic information likewise is important to them in meeting their responsibilities. I think we will see continued trends in that direction as governments take a cross-jurisdictional approach to various issues. For example, rivers flow through communities–they don't very often start and stop within the same community. Ecosystems–or almost anything else that you want to talk about–almost always begin and end in different kinds of administrative jurisdictions. This creates the need for a common understanding among jurisdictions. This common understanding is a fundamental geography of where we are, the capabilities that exist within that particular place, and the common understanding of the potential solutions on which we can focus. Likewise, in the devolution of government, more and more of the focus is being placed back on communities and community solutions. And so we see that geographic information is becoming more an integral part of place-based government. However, effective, placed-based government requires that more and more of that information be available–not just to governments and a few select organizations, but also to all citizens.

What we found, as I am sure many of you are aware, is that geographic information is difficult to use. It is difficult to find. And if you find it, it is hard to integrate. In addition, much of the data are not current, not documented, or not complete. Hence, we have the establishment of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure.

The Vision of the NSDI

In April, 1994, Executive Order 12906 was issued. It established the National Spatial Data Infrastructure as an initiative to try to bring about better coordination, better sharing use, and better dissemination of geographic information. The basic purposes of the Executive Order are fourfold:

1. One purpose is to advance the goals of the National Information Infrastructure and to build on the emerging network and improved information technology capabilities that are available within the country.
    
2. Our second goal is to reduce duplication of effort that takes place in collecting and using geographic information. In the early 1990s, there was a quick survey done of federal government geographic information activities, and it was estimated that at that time federal agencies annually spent about $4 billion on geographic data. We know that there is a lot of overlap and duplication. In addition there is no good estimate of the amount of money expended by state governments and local governments, but I am willing to guess that if we collected that information, we would find that it is several times that which is expended at the federal level. So, there are a lot of dollars going into geographic information. And there is a lot of duplication that can be avoided, which would allow us to make more efficient use not only of the data but also of the economic resources available to us.
    
3. Third, we could get more effective management by all levels of government if we can move toward this vision of greater sharing, access, dissemination, and use of geographic information.
    
4. The fourth goal of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure is to find ways to improve how we acquire, distribute, and use geographic data and geographic information.

The vision that was established for the NSDI–a vision that was reaffirmed in 1997–is a lofty vision: It is to have readily available current and accurate geospatial data that will contribute locally, nationally, and globally to sustainable development or to economic growth, environmental quality, and social progress.

What is the geospatial data to which NSDI’s vision refers? What are some of the kinds of information that are being incorporated into the National Spatial Data Infrastructure, and what kinds could be incorporated into it in the future? Geospatial data includes field-measurement information, or information about the natural or built environment. Species, habitat, streams, water quality, and transportation networks all are kinds of field-measurement information. Geospatial data also includes remotely sensed information. This is information that comes from airplanes, satellites, or any kind of platform that collects remotely sensed images. Map information–information that has historically been stored on maps, held on maps, or that you can think of placing on a map in the future–is part of geospatial data as well. And so is a lot of data–data about biology, land records, land ownership, social information–any data that have connections to place. These data have been spatially referenced but have been stored in a variety of different media in records in museums, records in county courthouses, and in records held at other places. So, all information that has a relationship to a place–that is on, above, or below the surface of the earth–can be envisioned as becoming part of and being available through the National Spatial Data Infrastructure that is being constructed.

Components of the NSDI

Now I would like to speak about the principal elements that we are considering as we build the National Spatial Data Infrastructure.

The Framework

The first element around which we are building is geographic data, geographic information, which will form what we call the framework. What we have found through research is that anybody who is building a Geographic Information System (GIS) has need for some basic core data. Research has shown that there are anywhere from six to eight fundamental data sets that almost everyone uses when they begin to build a geographic information system or begin to build geographic data sets. As a result, we have identified seven basic fundamental layers as framework data sets–core "building blocks" of data–that will compose the National Spatial Data Infrastructure. The intent is to build these skeletal framework data sets consistently and seamlessly across the country so that they can be used as building blocks for anyone developing spatial data; as a way to add further attribute information; and as a referencing network or as a framework to tie other geographic information. Those seven framework data sets within the NSDI are:

1. digital ortho-imagery
    
2. elevation data
    
3. geodata control
    
4. hydrography, or the basic outline of the river and water network of the country
    
5. a basic transportation network
    
6. administrative boundaries, such as county, city, and state jurisdictions and boundaries of large federal holdings, such as national parks, national forests, military reservations, Indian reservations, and other administrative boundaries
    
7. a basic land survey network in the western part of the United States that would include the public land survey system and other, similar kinds of basic land registration networks that may already exist in the eastern part of the country

Metadata

Metadata is fundamental. A basic description of information is critical for people to be able to access, understand, and begin to use spatial data sets.

The Clearing House

Within the National Spatial Data Infrastructure we are trying to establish a network of interconnected geospatial data providers to have universal access to geospatial information. Right now if you went out on the network and just did a search for vegetation through one of the other basic, commercial search engines, you would get back all different kinds of information. What we are working towards is the establishment of this network of interconnected nodes that serve geographic information and that give people the ability to go to one place–the Clearing House–and do one search of all the spatial data sets that are registered through the Clearing House.

In providing for search and access methods through the Clearing House, there are some fundamental steps that involve metadata. The first–and the most difficult–step is the preparation of new metadata, the documentation of the sets. There is software available for validation and staging, through which you can run your metadata records. It will tell you if there are errors and give you keys to correct those errors, so that you will have a valid metadata record that can be inserted into the Clearing House and that will create the capability for using the Clearing House as a search method. Publication would be in a Clearing-House node, with user access provided through the Clearing House and through the software available for implementation of the NSDI Clearing House.

This is a growing network. It has been in operation for about three years. Within the past year we have seen a doubling of the number of nodes that are available on the network. We are now at about 90 to 95 nodes that serve metadata. But more and more of the nodes are actually beginning to serve the data themselves, so you can access and extract the data directly from the NSDI Clearing House.

The Development of Standards

A fourth component is the development of standards. Within the NSDI there are two different types of standards that are being developed–technology standards and data standards.

In geoprocessing technology standards, the leading organization for development is the Open GIS Consortium. This is a group of about 140 organizations, about 100 of which are technology providers, hardware/software companies, telecommunications companies that deal with geospatial information. They are working on interoperability standards so that this vision of "plug-and-play" geoprocessing technologies and the ability to move data sets and the applications of information from one vendor platform to another will, in fact, become a reality. We are not there yet, but in the next couple of years we see these interoperability specifications really moving to where they will become mainstream and available through the venders.

On the data side, the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) is providing the leadership for geospatial data standards and data management standards, such as transfer standards, metadata, and content standards. We have between 22 and 24 subcommittees or working groups within the FGDC, and many are dealing with data-thematic content or classification standards. The Biological Data Working Group, for example, is working with biological standards.

There are 10 standards that have been approved, and there are another 25 standards that are in some state of development by FGDC subcommittees. The intent of the standards-development process of the FGDC is to develop standards that will be useful for any level of government, any level of academia, or any part of the private sector.

The Executive Order calls for federal agencies to implement standards as they are approved by the FGDC. But implementation of standards is voluntary outside the federal government. Therefore, we are encouraging the subcommittees and working groups to involve interested parties–not just from the federal government but from all levels of government and from all sectors–in the development of standards so that, hopefully, these standards can be useful and applicable across all sectors.

We are also working to link the FGDC standards activities to other national standards development work and to international standards development work. So we are in the process of developing a harmonization or a cross-working mechanism with the International Standards Organisation (ISO) process so that we won't be duplicating steps if we move an FGDC standard into the national arena or into the international arena. That seems to be going quite well right now.

Partnerships

The last part that is really fundamental to building the NSDI is partnerships. No one organization or entity really has the financial resources or the mission capability at this time to collect all the geospatial data that it needs so the organization can deal with the mission activities or the decisions that it must make. So we see partnerships, such as the partnership with the NBII, as being a fundamental cornerstone of building the space. We are working with as many organizations as we can across the country to try to figure out the roles that different sectors can play in helping build the NSDI.

The NSDI and the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC)

The Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) was established in 1990 by an order of the Office of Management and Budget and further reaffirmed in the Executive Order of 1994. It was given the federal leadership position for coordination of federal agency activities and the responsibility for trying to bring together all sectors across the country to work together to build the NSDI.

Organization. Right now the FGDC consists of 16 cabinet and executive level agencies at the federal level, as well as the bureaus and sublevel organizations within those cabinet-and executive-level agencies. It includes organizations such as the EPA, the Department of Interior, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Library of Congress, the National Archives and Records Administration, and a number of others.

But broader than the federal level, what we are also trying to do is involve as many stakeholder members or stakeholder organizations as possible in the development of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure. For example, we have partnerships with the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, with the International City/County Managers Association, with the Open GIS Consortium, and with the University Consortium for Geographic Information Sciences. A partnership has also been created with the National States Geographic Information Council, an organization that represents probably 45 or more state GIS coordinating councils and a very effective organization at trying to bring together state coordinating bodies to get their involvement in the development of the spatial data infrastructure. I think states are becoming very, very effective now in coordinating geographic information within their jurisdictions.

FGDC has benefited from the very effective chairmanship of Secretary Babbitt. Mr. Babbitt is knowledgeable about the need for geospatial information and the importance of both geospatial information and biological information. He was the one who handed out the Hammer Award for the ITIS project. He has been very, very supportive of data management and data coordination activities, because he sees this information as something that can help the department, the federal government, and–in fact–the whole nation in dealing with its science issues, as well as in dealing with the need for better land use and natural resource management decision processes. Within the FGDC, we have standing orders regarding the steering committees Mr. Babbitt chairs–we schedule those committee meetings only when the Secretary can attend. He runs the meetings. And he does a very effective and articulate job of talking about metadata. It has been wonderful.

FGDC Metadata Standard

We do have a metadata standard within the FGDC. Its basic purpose is to organize our internal investment in spatial data by providing ways to inventory, to have quality information that is available to others, and also to provide information that can help others in processing and interpreting data that they get in a transfer. The standard was called for in the Executive Order, and it was adopted in 1994 as the format for federal use (although one of the challenges remains getting organizations to actually implement the metadata standard as they develop new spatial data sets). The metadata standard also can be used as the search vocabulary in the Clearing House.

The FGDC Metadata Standard has a lot of data elements. It also has 10 sections that organize different components of the standard for navigation and organization. Some of these sections are mandatory components and are really important for transfer and for basic understanding of what is contained within a spatial data set. Those are things such as identification, reference information, citation information about a data set, the basic kind of abstract information, the time period to which the data set pertains, and contact information.

One of the things that we are working on is improving the FGDC metadata standard. FGDC Metadata Version 2 was passed in August, 1998, and allowed for extensions, additional profiles, and other things that enable the building of a biological profile. Similarly, a cultural and demographic profile is being developed.

We are also working at the international level in the development of an international metadata standard. That standard is built fundamentally on the FGDC standard and the U.S. will be developing a profile that will pretty much follow the same standard elements that the FGDC has developed, so that the investments that people have made in the FGDC standard will be preserved. We will be working to provide a transition to the international standard, so no one will lose work that has already been done.

The NSDI and the NBII

We have already heard about the National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII). I would just like to touch on a couple of points again to show that the NBII and the NSDI are compatible, that the ways they have been developed support and compliment each other. As you know, the NSDI focus is on spatial data and information, while the NBII focus is on biological data. Those biological data that have a spatial component are being included in the NSDI. As the NBII is being developed, it is intended for that information to be accessible and available through the National Spatial Data Infrastructure. Both of them are conceptually quite the same. Both deal with diverse content, diverse communities and groups of users, and distributed networks. In addition, both are looking to build on common standards, to increase accessibility and use, and to create partnerships.

The biological data activities within the National Spatial Data Infrastructure include biological metadata, the profile of which is an extension of the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) standard; the FGDC Biological Data Working Group, which is looking at the need for and promoting the development of biological standards; and extensive work of the biological community with other FGDC working groups which encompasses groups such as earth cover, vegetation subcommittee, hydrographic or water data subcommittees, and other subcommittees that have a relationship to and a bearing on biological information.

Challenges for the NSDI

The NSDI is intended to promote access to data and to facilitate sharing for decision processes. One challenge that we face is regarding metadata. Metadata is critical for access, understanding, and use of data. But it still needs a lot more work, a lot more involvement and participation of people from all levels of government and of specialists in all different communities in the development of the metadata records.

In addition, we see geographic information becoming increasingly vital to the decision-making needs of the community, and we need to continue to expand tools, technology, and information to support the communities. As I said, many organizations are not yet making the needed investments, particularly for legacy information.

I find it interesting that often, state organizations or non-federal organizations that voluntarily adopt metadata and the principles of the NSDI are doing a better job than those that are required to collect metadata. The lesson we can learn about mandatory versus voluntary participation and the correlation to acceptance of standards is that we should focus on making the case based on standards as a good business practice and that managers need to be involved. We need to bring our managers, our executives, into the process, because they are the ones who really can support and encourage organizations in better data management , and they are the ones who will use it in decision processes.

As we face these challenges, we must remain aware that it is the strategies that address the decision-making needs of communities and organizations are the strategies that we have seen being the most successful. That kind of strategy will help us move forward even more quickly.

If you wish to find out more about NSDI, you can visit our Web site at http://www.fgdc.gov.

Previous | Next

Copyright © 2003 NFAIS. All rights reserved. No part of this product or service may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written consent.

Privacy Policy