<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">IMO:</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">_On SDIs_</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">In recent posts and conversations with
people around the country, I've noticed that people have different views
of the term SDI. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">This email thread has been sparked by
a recent GeoNetwork paper put together by Cameron.</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">To start with, SDI is another one of
those difficult to define terms (like search) that everyone has their own
interpretation.</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I'll start with my view, if anyone else
wants to throw in two bobs worth, please do so.</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The best description that I have come
across was by Max Craglia and Mike Blakemore [1] where Max and Mike compared
the SDI's from a number of countries around the world (including
Australia from Memory).</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">My summary of the key 'bits' of an SDI,
from this work is:</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">In order for an organisation to be able
to effectively utilise spatial information as an aid to decision making,
it is necessary to be able to determine:</font>
<br>
<ul>
<li><font size=2 face="sans-serif">What spatial information is available;</font>
<li><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Who is responsible for the data;</font>
<li><font size=2 face="sans-serif">How the data can be accessed;</font>
<li><font size=2 face="sans-serif">If there are any restrictions on the
use of the data;</font>
<li><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The suitability of the data for a given
purpose;</font></ul>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">*** “This requires a framework of policies,
institutional arrangements, technologies, data and people that makes it
possible to share and use effectively geographic information. The term
Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) encapsulates such a framework.” ***
(from Craglia and Blakemore).</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The key components of a Spatial Data
Infrastructure can be defined as follows:</font>
<br>
<ul>
<li><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Framework Spatial Data</font>
<li><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Metadata</font>
<li><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Policy Framework</font>
<li><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Coordination – Strategic and Operational</font></ul>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">When viewed in this context ANZLIC has
done an admirable job in 'fostering' and 'developing' an SDI within Australia.</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">You may also like to check out a recent
article by Roger Longhorne on the confused use of the term SDI: </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">http://www.geoconnexion.com/burning_issue_int.php</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Bruce Bannerman<br>
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
[1]</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Craglia M. and M. Blakemore 2004 “Access
Models for Public Sector</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Information: the Spatial Data Context”
in Aichholzer G. and Burkert H. (Eds.).</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Public Sector Information in the Digital
Age. Cheltenam: Edward Elgar, pp.187-216;</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<SMx
j["퍢{N51N5;-W