|
The subgroup meetings began at 7:30 am.
1. Call to Order
Chairperson Sydow called the meeting order at 8:30 am. The meeting was held at the ISD 623 Offices in
Roseville.
Members Present: David Arbeit, .LMIC and Chair of the MetroGIS Coordinating Committee; Pat Cook, North
Suburban Cable Commission; Ben Ferguson, Coon Rapids; Lt. Gary Gary, Ramsey County Sheriff Department; Rick Gelbmann,
Metropolitan Council; Allen Hoffman, Anoka County; Susanne Maeder, LMIC; Julie Parshall, BRW Inc.; Jim Sydow, TIES; Jan
Vanderwall, Roseville Area Schools (ISD 623)
Members Absent: Tom Bisch, Heritage Development; Lisa Freese, Eagan; Carol Kaszynski, Richfield; Tim Morehead,
USWest Communications, Inc.; Linda Tomaselli, OSM; Ben Verbick, LOGIS
Support Staff: Tanya Mayer
2. Introductions and Acceptance of the Agenda
Introductions of team members were made. No additions or modifications were made to the agenda.
3. June 6th Meeting Summary
The June 6th meeting summary was unanimously approved.
4. June 27th Coordinating Committee Meeting Summary
Recommendations to the Coordinating Committee: Jim Sydow explained why the Coordinating did not accept the
proposal to include "security" in the Team's name but did revise the Team's purpose statement as recommended by the
Team.
Jan Vanderwall requested copies of the MetroGIS Coordinating Committee Meeting minutes be sent.
Identifying Users: Jim Sydow explained that the Policy Advisory Team was working on a definition of
stakeholders at the same time the Access Advisory Team requested a working definition of Users. The Policy Advisory
Team has defined 3 types of users, Essential, System Enhancer, and Secondary Beneficiary (definitions in the agenda
packet). The team agreed that these definitions would work for now, with a possibility that there will be a request to
change if it does not meet our needs.
Federal Grant Proposal: Jim Sydow stated that a Federal grant proposal was sent to the FGDC that, if approved,
would replicated the data modeling process that the Data Content Advisory Team is working on for state needs. David
Arbeit, Chair of the MetroGIS Coordinating Committee, explained the grant proposal. Through the NSDI project, the FGDC,
is trying to identify a model for clearly identifying local data needs that relate to national needs, and through this
grant, are encouraging demonstration projects that integrate data as the building blocks for a national database. The
awards will be announced for the Federal grant on Sept. 15, 1996. The Metropolitan Council is supporting the first step
of this project, regardless of an award of Federal funds, which includes focus groups and a 2-day data modeling
workshop to identify core regional datasets.
Policy Advisory Team: Jim Sydow described the endorsement strategy that the Coordinating Committee accepted:
1) Identify the organizations of essential participants, 2) get concurrence to participate, 3) get representatives from
system enhancers, 4) identify the policy board members. Rick Gelbmann stated that Carver County was furthest along in
the endorsement process. Dakota County and Scott County are also in the process of endorsement. Jan Vanderwall asked
about municipalities, and what efforts are being made to include other units of government. Rick Gelbmann stated that
the focus was on the 7 counties as essential participants, and are holding back on any public announcements because
there are no agreements yet. They are also encouraging a hierarchical structure, such that counties will form
relationships with their municipalities and other units of government, like the Ramsey County or Dakota County models.
There are concerns with revenue streams away from counties and changes to established relationships. A hierarchical
structure is realistically more manageable. David Arbeit commented that cities, school districts, and watershed
districts will be represented on the policy board as a class, for example a person from the Association for
Metropolitan School Districts for all metro school districts.
5. Governor's Council Clearinghouse and Data Access Subcommittee Update
Susanne Maeder summarized the work that the Clearinghouse and Data Access Subcommittee has done this past
year. This subcommittee is oriented to state agencies. They have broken into 4 subgroups related to a what a
clearinghouse would look like: 1) documentation, 2) storage and archive, 3) external justification, and 4) data and
metadata access. Each group has identified and filled out a template of issues. Next year they plan to fit these pieces
back together. There is a 2-page report and a full report available if anyone is interested.
David Arbeit pointed out that the Access Subcommittee is defining a model for a clearinghouse and LMIC has
developed a proposal to MN LCMR to develop a catalog, following guidelines of the Access Subcommittee. The Metropolitan
Council, DNR, and MN DOT are cooperators. The clearinghouse model is on a conceptual level and is intended for other
partners to be able to plug into it.
Jim Sydow suggested that we have a presentation of what the Clearinghouse and Data Access Subcommittee is
doing to accelerate our work. Jan Vanderwall stated that we could see if we agree or disagree with it or identify
anything that is missing. Gary Gary thought that this was a good way to show local support. The 2 page report will be
sent to MetroGIS Access Advisory Team members and a presentation by the Governor's Council Clearinghouse and Data
Access Subcommittee is scheduled for the September 5 meeting at LMIC.
6. Work Program: Subgroup Meeting Summaries:
Index:
Rick Gelbmann, Julie Parshall: They generated a list of issues to be addressed on how an index would be
developed (attached). Susanne Maeder asked how they plan to find out who has what, and if it is some type of a survey,
then the data transfer subgroup has a couple of questions to add to the survey. She also suggested that they
coordinated with the Data Standards team in regards to metadata, and how that can be used in the index. Jan Vanderwall
suggested that the structure of the index be like an umbrella that allows users to get there with a search engine.
David Arbeit stated that the design of the index has not been done. Jim Sydow stated that the assumptions should be
made that it is dynamic and can't be made into a simple paper document. Jan Vanderwall suggested that public access
points (public libraries or public works buildings) may be the option to paper products and that brochures point people
to the public access points.
Physical Infrastructure:
Pat Cook, Allen Hoffman: They discussed issues that arise during connections and what medium to take based on
need, which includes speed, reliability, cost, current system specifications, and data flow. They plan to explore pilot
projects to help make recommendations to the team. David Arbeit suggested that they identify tasks and functions needed
to be funded and supported to make this a viable long-term project.
Security:
Gary Gary, Jim Sydow, Jan Vanderwall: They identified these issues: 1) what data can be made available, 2) if
access is available, what are the guidelines of security or what subset of the data will be made available via
operational security controls or public access system, 3) data can not be individually identifiable, but must be
discrete enough to display other data. Jan Vanderwall stated that there are two sides of the issue: 1) how to get data
we need, and 2) how to provide secure access. Rick Gelbmann stated that the pitfalls with summary data is when combined
information is based on different summary units. Individual information may be identifiable. Rick also asked what the
legal implication was with summary data, because it may be legally required to provide source information in any type
of legal matter.
Gary Gary stated that providers own the data, but this does not provide a good network of data. David Arbeit
suggested copyright law may apply and that we should restrict our view to data that is essential to MetroGIS. Rick
Gelbmann suggested that there may be a subgroup of information sharing, and a question of how to address security for
these two levels: 1) core MetroGIS information, and 2) individualized information. Jan Vanderwall commented that not
anymore data will be available than before, but it may be used in a different way, may be easier to get to, may be in
useable formats. Allen Hoffman stated that people will browse and use data that they did not know existed. David Arbeit
pointed out that the LMIC web site has a crude index to available data.
Interface and Data Transfer:
Ben Ferguson, Susanne Maeder, Tanya Mayer: They identified that there were two parts to this issue, 1) how
people deliver the data, and 2) how people get the data. They discussed 2 issues that need to be initially addressed,
1) local web site interfaces needed to be identified as good examples, and 2) during the survey to define what people
have, we need to ask questions that identify format of the data and how it's stored (FORMAT), identify formats
available for transfer (DISTRIBUTIVE FORMAT), identify how the data will be accessible (ACCESS CAPABILITIES), and to
what extent it is documented (DOCUMENTATION).
Jan Vanderwall suggested a fee structure could be recommended for specialized requests to get providers
willing to provide access to data. This is where the private sector may come in for custom data. David Arbeit stated
that this approaches the Governor's Council Access Subcommittee model that includes a part called value added data.
7. Next Meeting
The next meeting date is August 1, 1996, 8:30-10:30 at the City of Coon Rapids; subgroups meet at 7:30. Future
meetings scheduled: September 5, 1996, 8:30-10:30 at LMIC.
8. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 AM.
Prepared by Tanya Mayer, GIS Specialist
|
