[Aust-NZ] Confusion on the use of the term SDI? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

[Ian.Batley at ga.gov.au]

NSDI is a combination of technology, policies, standards and human resources
necessary to acquire, process, store,

distribute, and improve utilization of geospatial data. Conceptual parts of
NSDI: 1. Institutional framework defines

the policies, legal and administrative support to create, maintain and apply
the standards to fundamental data sets; 2.

Standards define technical characteristics to fundamental data sets; 3.
Fundamental data sets require geodetic

framework, topographic and cadastre data bases; 4. Technological framework
allows the users to identify and

receive the access to fundamental data sets (from GSDI Cookbook, 2000).

 

Some other information on the ASDI

http://www.anzlic.org.au/get/2383541438.doc

http://www.anzlic.org.au/publications.html (all sorts of documents here)

http://www.anzlic.org.au/infrastructure_ASDI.html

http://www.ga.gov.au/nmd/asdi/

 

With the benefit of hindsight, when we were creating the documentation for
the ANZLIC Metadata Profile we probably should have included information to
show how metadata and the Profile are parts of the whole ASDI.

 

Ian

-------------------------

Ian Batley

ian.batley at ga.gov.au

02 6249 5825

 

-----Original Message-----
From: aust-nz-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:aust-nz-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of
Bruce.Bannerman at dpi.vic.gov.au
Sent: Tuesday, 24 June 2008 10:34 AM
To: Aust-NZ OSGeo
Subject: [Aust-NZ] Confusion on the use of the term SDI?

 


IMO: 


_On SDIs_ 

In recent posts and conversations with people around the country, I've
noticed that people have different views of the term SDI. 

This email thread has been sparked by a recent GeoNetwork paper put together
by Cameron. 


To start with, SDI is another one of those difficult to define terms (like
search) that everyone has their own interpretation. 


I'll start with my view, if anyone else wants to throw in two bobs worth,
please do so. 



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). 

My summary of the key 'bits' of an SDI, from this work is: 

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: 

*         What spatial information is available; 

*         Who is responsible for the data; 

*         How the data can be accessed; 

*         If there are any restrictions on the use of the data; 

*         The suitability of the data for a given purpose;


*** “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). 

The key components of a Spatial Data Infrastructure can be defined as
follows: 

*         Framework Spatial Data 

*         Metadata 

*         Policy Framework 

*         Coordination – Strategic and Operational




When viewed in this context ANZLIC has done an admirable job in 'fostering'
and 'developing' an SDI within Australia. 




You may also like to check out a recent article by Roger Longhorne on the
confused use of the term SDI: 

http://www.geoconnexion.com/burning_issue_int.php 




Bruce Bannerman


[1] 

Craglia M. and M. Blakemore 2004 “Access Models for Public Sector 
Information: the Spatial Data Context” in Aichholzer G. and Burkert H.
(Eds.). 
Public Sector Information in the Digital Age. Cheltenam: Edward Elgar,
pp.187-216; 









؉

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/oceania/attachments/20080624/9aef8800/attachment.html>