|
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 Land Management Information
Center (LMIC).
Members Present: Pat Cook, North Suburban Cable Commission; Ben Ferguson, Coon Rapids; Lisa Freese, Eagan; Lt.
Gary Gary, Ramsey County Sheriff Department; Rick Gelbmann, Metropolitan Council; Susanne Maeder, LMIC; Tim Morehead,
USWest Communications, Inc.; Jim Sydow, TIES.
Members Absent: David Arbeit, LMIC and Chair of the MetroGIS Coordinating Committee; Tom Bisch, Heritage
Development; Gina Buss, BRW Inc.; Allen Hoffman, Anoka County; Carol Kaszynski, Richfield; Ben Verbick, LOGIS; Jan
Vanderwall, Roseville Area Schools (ISD 623).
Guest Speakers: Christopher Cialek, Chair of the Governor's Council on Geographic Information (GCGI) Standards
Committee, LMIC; Carl Hardzinski, Chair of the GCGI Clearinghouse and Data Access Committee, US Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Minneapolis Area Office.
Support Staff: Tanya Mayer, Metropolitan Council.
2. Introductions and Acceptance of the Agenda
Introductions of team members were made. No additions or modifications were made to the agenda.
3. July 11th Meeting Summary
The July 11th meeting summary was unanimously approved.
4. Governor's Council Clearinghouse and Data Access Committee
Carl Hardzinski, Chair of the Governor's Council on Geographic Information (GCGI) Clearinghouse and Data
Access Committee started with an overview of the committee. The Clearinghouse and Data Access Committee was formed two
years ago, after a survey of user data needs revealed that users felt that data was not accessible. At their first
meetings, a number of representatives from state agencies attended because they had the desire but not the means for
sharing data. Hardzinski reported that the committee's purpose is to define guidelines and to provide a mechanism for a
statewide clearinghouse.
The GCGI Access Committee has identified 4 key issues regarding a data clearinghouse: 1) Documentation
(metadata); 2) Data Storage and Archive; 3) Access to Metadata; and 4) Access to Data. A Prototype Statewide Spatial
Data Clearinghouse Model for Minnesota (handout) shows how these issues relate. The committee took each issue as a task
and developed subcommittees. This past year, each subcommittee has developed an Issue Template. The committee presented
5 recommendations to the Governor's Council in their 1996 Annual Report: 1) Establish a single point of contact for
data users to obtain information about data; 2) Give data providers an organization to make data available for others;
3) Use the internet for computer links for information and sharing services for data; 4) Designate LMIC as the key
agency to manage the clearinghouse process; 5) Task the key agency with creating the vehicles for cooperation and
sharing among agencies and organizations.
Carl Hardzinski concluded with describing the committee's future directions. Even though the clearinghouse
model provides a conceptual framework for it's functionality, many details require resolution. Specific tasks of the
committee for the coming year include: 1) providing policy guidance from the Governor's Council for the LCMR
Clearinghouse Proposal if the project is approved; 2) coordinate clearinghouse activities with functions discussed by
other committees such as Standards; 3) coordinate with other organizations examining access to public information like
the Government Information Access Council (GIAC) and MetroGIS; 4) examine the Tactical-level Templates to form base
recommendations concerning the operation of the clearinghouse.
Chris Cialek, Chair of the Governor's Council on Geographic Information Standards Committee began with a
description of the proposal for a Statewide Clearinghouse which went to the Legislative Commission on Minnesota
Resources (LCMR) ("Building an Accessible Geographic Information Clearinghouse (G4)"- handout). He described the six
basic project results/goals of this proposal
- Provide an infrastructure to efficiently store core geographic data.
- Design and develop a fully documented, internet compatible catalog of major geographic databases.
- Provide on-line access to a fully documented catalog of major geographic databases and to the databases
themselves.
- Develop partnership agreements with principal data providers and with the Minnesota universities and
libraries providing public access to the Clearinghouse.
- Provide training to improve the public's ability to use the Clearinghouse.
- Continue off-line access to established users.
Since the proposal, LCMR has asked LMIC to go back with 2 other proposals, merge the 3, and come back with
another proposal with 25% of the original funding requests of the 3 original proposals. Chris Cialek stated that, if
approved, the funding would get the project started, possibly investing it in metadata, storage of metadata and storage
of a core set of data. Another initiative is now being drafted for the next legislative session with the Information
Policy Council, which is an advisory group to the Department of Administration. Also, there are national initiatives.
The Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) is looking at 1) metadata initiatives, 2) framework data (ground rules for
base specifications for data collected locally for a national coverage, like roads), and 3) clearinghouse initiatives.
For more information on what is happening at the federal and the state level check the following web sites:
http://www.fgdc.gov/clearinghouse and http://www.lmic.state.mn.us/gc/gc.htm.
5. Discussion of Presentation
Jim Sydow asked if and how the GCGI is dealing with security issues. Chris Cialek stated that he thinks
security has been dealt with under the current model. Data can be stored at the data providers site or at an off-site
repository with periodic updates. The data provider can decide how and if the data will be provided with an access
statement in the metadata. Carl Hardzinski clarified that a Clearinghouse should be thought of as a process and not a
place. Chris Cialek stated that there are two parts of the Clearinghouse, 1) how do you technically do this,
(mechanism); and 2) policy issues (i.e. costs, standardization, or security). Since one will slow down the other, these
issues should be separate. Hardzinski thought that MetroGIS will deal with many security issues and that MetroGIS
Access Team will need to clearly articulate the security problems of the clearinghouse and develop some policies. Ben
Ferguson stated that ultimately, the data providers are responsible for developing guidelines or options on security.
Chris Cialek stated that this team could provide options on policies to fulfill needs of data providers. Gary Gary and
Chris Cialek both stated that metadata will describe what the policy is on data distribution.
Sydow emphasized that a critical security issue for many is data that is individually identifiable. It is
critical to find a level of geography where data provided is not individually identifiable even when combined with
other data. Rick Gelbmann suggested that when providing access to data, a policy could state a specific number be
identified (the number that could be individually identifiable) and if a geographical unit has data below that number,
then no data is provided for that unit.
Gary Gary asked that if the recommended clearinghouse process is through the internet, would data be
downloaded through the internet? Some smaller governmental agencies and businesses don't have access to equipment.
Chris Cialek stated that there could be a series of options for data access, like an order form. Since this is the 3rd
time for the proposal, Gary Gary asked if the concept of the proposal was acceptable. Chris Cialek stated that when
explained and understood, yes, but the problem was that it wasn't an interesting political issue and there are other
competing interests.
Lisa Freese stated that once there is a broader knowledge and awareness of available datasets, there may be
more demand for the data; however, data providers may not have enough staffing capabilities. Cialek suggested the LMIC
format of providing access to other organizations' data. For example, the DNR distributes the National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI) data through LMIC. Right now, LMIC is trying to make access to data most efficient. Susanne Maeder
stated that the State Climatologist is spending time on explaining the data and not time on data distribution anymore.
Cialek stated that as we make data more accessible, the real price of providing access will go down, especially by
taking people out of the data access process. Gary Gary stated that we should be aware of the State Attorney General's
Office fee structure for data. Rick Gelbmann stated that MetroGIS is a phase process. By identifying and setting up
access to core datasets of essential providers, the task of adding future data providers is minimal. Gary Gary wants
to make clear that local support for the Clearinghouse is out there.
Sydow thanked Hardzinski and Cialek, stating that the metadata will be very beneficial. He also asked that the
GCGI Clearinghouse and Data Access Committee be a standard agenda item. Cialek added that the hand out materials from
the Metadata Workshop at the GIS/LIS Conference will be available at the next Access Team meeting.
6. MN GIS/LIS Panel Presentation
Participant Ben Ferguson will be a panel presenter at the Friday, September 27th MetroGIS Panel Presentation
for the Data Access Advisory Team. Items Ben has been asked to communicate are: 1) relationship with the GCGI
Clearinghouse and Data Access Committee; 2) Work Groups; and 3) Decentralized theme of access. Further agenda items for
this presentation are due to Tanya Mayer or Rick Gelbmann, by Friday, September 13, 1996.
7. August 23rd Coordinating Committee Meeting Summary The August 23, 1996 Coordinating Committee Meeting
summary was handed out at the meeting. The June 23, 1996 Coordinating Committee Meeting summary was mailed with the
agenda packet.
Jim Sydow briefly described the highlights of the August 23rd MetroGIS Coordinating Committee meeting. The
main focus of the meeting was on the process of MetroGIS Endorsement from System Enhancers for cities, watershed
districts and school districts. Jim Sydow noted that no organization represents all School Districts and he will
explore possibilities with MetroII and Minneapolis School Districts.
The GIS/LIS presentation was also discussed, and it was agreed that the panel should focus on current
activities and how MetroGIS is moving forward.
A copy of the MetroGIS Update memo to the Coordinating Committee and a copy of the MetroGIS Team Work
Overviews were included in the agenda packet.
Rick Gelbmann reported on the Data Content Team activity. On September 5th, ASI, who is contracted to create a
Business Object Model for MetroGIS, held their first meeting with key project members. The Business Object Model is a
conceptual framework for MetroGIS data and their relationships which defines a common understanding of the information
that we plan to share. Having a common understanding of what we all mean by "parcel" or "road" is the foundation of any
data sharing we are attempting to do through MetroGIS. On September 19, 110 participants will be involved with 6 focus
group sessions. Facilitation will include 18 staff in addition to the ASI staff. These focus group sessions will
provide the foundation to build the object model. This ties nicely to the Access Team issues. Various levels of
government, dispersed throughout the 7 county metropolitan area will be represented. The goal is to include as many
different perspectives as possible. The focus group sessions will be held at the Kelly Inn in St. Paul on the afternoon
of 9/19. The following Data Access Team members will be participating in this forum: Lt. Gary Gary, Tim Morehead, Jim
Sydow, and Jan Vanderwall.
The Coordinating Committee's next meeting is scheduled for Thursday October 24, 1996 from 8:30 a.m. - 10:30
a.m.
8. Work Program: Subgroup Meeting Summaries:
Index:
Rick Gelbmann, Lisa Freese: Re-grouped with new members on what has been done so far.
Physical Infrastructure:
Pat Cook, Tim Morehead: Discussion focused on types of access available, including internet access, telephone
cable access, and frame relay. Most of the differences in types of access are in speed and air-waves. The big question
for people accessing and providing data will be what the volume of data is. Then the cost will control most of the
decisions.
Security:
Gary Gary, Jim Sydow: The issues of security that they discussed were handled by the GCGI presentation by
Chris Cialek and Carl Hardzinski. The outline of how the GCGI metadata structure handles a lot of the issues of direct
access, problems with individually identifiable data, etc.
Interface and Data Transfer:
Ben Ferguson, Susanne Maeder, Tanya Mayer: The group focused on two areas: 1) Determining what type of data
accessibility is available through the index survey. This will support larger issues of interface and data transfer. 2)
Over the next 4 weeks, example sites of interface and data access will be sought and categorized according to their
purpose. They plan to identify 2-3 sites that are most similar to the vision for MetroGIS for review and comment from
the Access Team.
Rick Gelbmann asked that the Team formalize Subgroup goals at the next meeting.
9. Next Meeting: The next meeting date is: October 3, 1996, 8:30-10:30 at the City of Coon Rapids; subgroups
meet at 7:30. Future meetings scheduled: November 7, 1996, 8:30-10:30. December 5, 1996, 8:30-10:30.
10. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 AM.
Prepared by Tanya Mayer, GIS Specialist
|
