|
The subgroup meetings began at 7:30 am.
1. Call to Order
Vice Chairperson Ferguson called the meeting order at 8:45 am. The meeting was held at the City of Coon
Rapids.
Members Present: Ben Ferguson, Coon Rapids; Rick Gelbmann, Metropolitan Council; Carol Kaszynski, Richfield;
Tim Morehead, USWest Communications, Inc.
Members Absent: David Arbeit, LMIC and Chair of the MetroGIS Coordinating Committee; Tom Bisch, Heritage
Development; Gina Buss, BRW Inc.; Pat Cook, North Suburban Cable Commission; Lisa Freese, Eagan; Lt. Gary Gary, Ramsey
County Sheriff Department; Allen Hoffman, Anoka County; Susanne Maeder, LMIC; Jim Sydow, TIES; Ben Verbick, LOGIS; Jan
Vanderwall, Roseville Area Schools (ISD 623).
Support Staff: Tanya Mayer, Metropolitan Council.
2. Introductions and Acceptance of the Agenda
No additions or modifications were made to the agenda.
3. September 6th Meeting Summary
The September 6th meeting summary was unanimously approved.
4. Coordinating Committee Update
The Coordinating Committee has not met since the last Access Advisory Team meeting. The next Coordinating
Committee meeting is scheduled for October 24, 1996.
5. Governor's Council on Geographic Information: Clearinghouse and Data Access Committee Update
The Clearinghouse and Data Access Committee has yet to meet this fiscal year, so there is no update.
6. MN GIS/LIS Panel Presentation
Participant Ben Ferguson was a panel presenter at the Friday, September 27th MetroGIS Panel Presentation for
the Data Access Advisory Team. Ben's talk focused on 5 items for the Data Access Team: 1) Purpose Statement; 2)
Strategic Issues; 3) the 4 working groups and the emphasis put on security; 4) relationship with the GCGI Clearinghouse
and Data Access Committee; and 5) the decentralized theme of access. Ferguson reported a good variety of people in the
audience, many audience members were from the State of MN or local entities. Ferguson felt that the presentation
(including overview from David Arbeit, Chair of the Coordinating Committee) gave a clear picture of the whole MetroGIS
project.
7. MetroGIS Modeling Focus Group Update
Rick Gelbmann provided an update on the 6 focus group sessions held during the MetroGIS Information Needs
Forum (described in the September 6th Meeting Summary). The information gathered from this forum is being used as a
foundation to build the Business Object Model for MetroGIS. On September 19, 1996, 96 participants formed focus groups
with 20 facilitators and recording analysts at the Kelly Inn in St. Paul. Advanced Strategies, Inc. (ASI) has been
contracted for the entire object modeling process. The goal for this first set of focus groups was to gather
information from 6 different "work" groups to identify common data needs throughout the region. Groups include: 1.
public works, transportation, and telecommunications; 2. public safety, judicial; 3. property records; 4. community
development, planning, research, demographics, housing; 5. parks and recreation, environmental proctection, natural
resources; and 6. human, social and educational services, public health, and libraries.
Over 700 items (or infomation needs) were collected. A first draft of the list from ASI is due for review on
10/4/96, which is essentially a standardized recording of needs from each focus group. ASI, Inc. will be doing analysis
on the items collected to group them into objects so that they can display all the items in a model and show
interconnections. The next step is a 2-day meeting on October 30 and 31, 1996. Thirty-four people, representing each of
the focus group themes will participate. They will verify the information ASI, Inc. has proposed, give definition to
the proposed model, add value to it, and make sure that the objects belong in the model. ASI, Inc. will take the
information gathered at these meetings and refine it into a final Business Object Model for MetroGIS.
Rick stated that the model clarifies specific data needs and their relationship to each other (e.g. the
definition of a parcel or a road); and also identifies which data are core sets needed initially for MetroGIS. There
will be 2 "products" delivered from this process: 1) a list of all the items collected and 2) the model including a
report. These products will be made available to MetroGIS team as soon as possible.
8. Work Program: Working Group Meeting Summaries
Tanya Mayer handed out a working groups status report and a list of strategic issues assigned to the Data
Access Advisory Team.
Index
Rick Gelbmann: Rick reviewed the status of the group. Gelbmann would like to move forward with planning the
design of an index; other events such as the object model process are developing in a way that fits nicely with the
index. Gelbmann stated that the following discussion should take place again when attendance is higher.
Gelbmann stated that people are interested in two levels of access: data and information. He defined
information as data that has been summarized or mapped; and data as the raw facts statistics or characteristics used to
create these summarization(s) or map(s). For instance, policy makers seldom want raw data, instead they are usually
interested in the information derived from the data. This information may be in the form of standard map products or
even on-line interactive mapping capability.
Dividing the access mechanism for MetroGIS into 2 methods may be useful: 1) Index and Information accessible
on the Internet and 2) MetroGIS Data access/transfer on an intranet accessible only to participants. This would quickly
fulfill the majority of requests (primarily information requests), using standardized formats and interactive mapping.
The remaining needs (primarily for data), could be filled through a more secure system and would require MetroGIS
participation for access.
Securing financial and political support for MetroGIS was a major concern of the forums held in October, 1995.
A good way to gather this support is to provide policy and decision makers with information to build their
understanding of the importance of MetroGIS. The data must also be supported since it is the source for these
information products. Ben Ferguson affirmed that there is a lot of merit to this comment and noted an example of this
method: Census Bureau has an interactive mapping program on the web to serve the general public with common
information.
Ben Ferguson commented that questions of cost arose at the MetroGIS Panel Presentation at GIS/LIS. Although it
will vary, he understands that the overall goal of this process is to drive costs down to make it less expensive for
everyone.
Rick Gelbmann stated that information and data can be managed separately, depending on their use. There may be
different policies and procedures to handle each. The goal he envisions is to provide the ability for a broad base of
people to get what they need from MetroGIS with a minimum of effort. Tim Morehead pointed out that the definitions for
information and data are always evolving based on the demand from users. If specific data is requested many times, it
may be made available for broad distribution (via Internet, web or CD-ROM, for example). Carol Kaszynski noted that
access through the web site and interactive mapping is a great way to assess and track the need and use of provided
information and data. Gelbmann noted this may be a way to get sensitive information to the public without violating to
the public without violating privacy laws. By generalizing the data, the originators can make some information public
while keeping the detailed data private as required by law. The generalized information would meet most of the demands
for this kind of information and still abide by privacy requirements. It was noted that privacy issues and providing
generalized information should be explored. Gelbmann noted that Access team role is to define the mechanisms but not to
decide what goes in it.
The team agreed that this concept should be sent to the Coordinating Committee after discussion by the whole
Access Team. There may be other approaches that we could take based on the needs of the user. Ferguson noted that if we
move from data provider based to information provider based there may be more resources for design and set-up issues.
Rick Gelbmann stated that there were technical issues to setting up access to information. This Team needs to define a
mechanism to get the information accessible (e.g. on a clearinghouse). This would provide a framework within which to
work. For example: a series of maps which address a specific city issue could be accessed through the MetroGIS index.
The responsibility would not be centralized, but allow each organization to determine their involvement. The Team
should focus on providing mechanisms that facilitate information transfer and guidelines for use of the mechanism.
Physical Infrastructure
Tim Morehead: Tim Morehead stated that the handout summarized the issues that the Physical Infrastructure
working group has identified. It may be useful for the working group to provide a guideline of access issues based on
data transfer/access needs. Ben Ferguson stated that a providing a guideline or mechanism to transfer large datasets
via some sort of electronically recorded media (e.g. CD-ROM, or zip drives) would be useful. He stated that
recommendations on how to physically record large datasets on these types of media would be useful as well.
Security
No members of the Security Working Group present.
Interface and Data Transfer
Ben Ferguson, Carol Kaszynski, Tanya Mayer: Tanya handed out a list of web sites that are good examples of
geographic information clearinghouses. She stated that the group plans to review these sites and others to document
which types of interfaces and data transfer mechanisms work best and worst. They also plan to come up with a list of
2-3 sites that are good examples to bring to the full team.
9. Other Items
Ferguson asked that the next agenda include an item to Formalize Working Group goals. The team agreed to move
meeting times ahead an hour, since fewer people are attending each meeting. Working groups will begin their meetings at
8:30 a.m. The Team meeting will be held from 9:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m.
10. Next Meeting
The next meeting date is: November 7, 1996, 9:30-11:30. Room 3A, Metropolitan Council, Downtown St. Paul
Future meetings scheduled: December 5, 1996, 9:30-11:30. City of Richfield
11. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 AM.
Prepared by Tanya Mayer, GIS Specialist
|
