|
Joint Meeting of the MetroGIS Data Content Advisory Team & MetroGIS Data Standards Advisory Team
Chair Rick Person called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. at the Earle Brown Conference Center at the
University of Minnesota in St. Paul.
Data Content Members present: Cities: Chairperson Rick Person (City of St. Paul), Private Research: Kent
Treichel (Wilder Foundation); Counties: Jane Harper (Washington County); John Connelly (St. Paul & Ramsey County
Charter Commissions); Metropolitan: Kathy Johnson (Metropolitan Council), Nancy Pollock, (Metropolitan 911 Board);
Academic: Will Craig (UM CURA); Cities: Roger Carlson (City of Minneapolis); State: Don Yaeger (LMIC)
Data Content Members absent: State: Tom Eiber (DNR Forestry); Business Geographics: Joe Ryan (Oppidan
Investment Co.); Cities: Maria D'Andrea (City of Robbinsdale), Judie Erickson (City of St. Louis Park); Utilities: Mike
Wood (Waypoint Technologies); Public Safety: Mark Tente (Lake Johanna Fire Dept), Dave Schroeder (Police Support
LOGIS); Private Consultants: Rebbecca Blue (SEH, Inc.);. Metropolitan: Michael Munson (Metropolitan Council) Marcel
Jouseau (Metropolitan Council Environmental); Marcia Broman, (Metropolitan 911 Board); Utilities: Dale Nikkola (Anoka
Electric Cooperative). Counties: David Claypool (Ramsey County), Tim Zimmerman (Hennepin County)); School Districts:
Robert D. Nelson (Richfield Public Schools)
Standards Team Members present: Cities: Chairperson David Windle (City of Roseville); Federal: Ron Wencl
(USGS), State: Chris Cialek (LMIC); Counties: Paul Leegard (Anoka County)
Visitors: Tanya Mayer, MetroGIS Data Access Advisory Team Support Staff; Rick Gelbmann, Metropolitan Council
GIS Coordinator and member of the MetroGIS Access Team; Randall Johnson, MetroGIS Staff Coordinator; David Arbeit,
MetroGIS Coordinating Committee Chairperson
Support Staff: David Vessel; Heidi Welsch, Mark Kotz
2-3. Acceptance of the agenda and meeting summary.
The agenda for this meeting and the summary for the January 24, 1997 meeting were accepted.
4. Business Information Needs / Object Modeling Project
4a. Overview of the Project
The team agreed that the staff report on the project was very helpful in summarizing the chronology of events.
Randy Johnson noted that the final project presentation will be 22 May 1997 in the afternoon at Maplewood Community
Center. There were no other questions regarding background summary of the project.
4b. Preliminary Business Information Needs Survey Results
David Arbeit distributed a hand-out to the meeting participants regarding the survey and analysis process of
this project. Arbeit and Will Craig worked together to design the survey and analysis. Arbeit explained that the survey
data was analyzed using the software package SPSS. Craig and Arbeit identified classification options; defined rules
for reflecting organizational and functional interests; and developed repeatable analysis "templates". The analysis
procedure computed a score for each information need based on the mean score of all 88 surveys for "importance" and
"dependence". The formula for a composite score weighted "importance" and "dependence" equally. The top 10 needs
(paraphrased) based on the mean of all responses were
- Jurisdictional boundaries
- Street addresses
- Land use plans
- Rights to property
- Parcel boundaries
- Lakes, wetlands and other water features
- Existing land uses
- Boundaries of census areas
- Where people live
- Regulations that affect land
Arbeit reported that the next step was to identify the highest priority for the classes of organizations which
are represented on the MetroGIS Policy Board. Additionally, any need which fell in the top 10 of two or more functional
classes of participants (i.e. property records, environmental protection/natural resources, etc.) was added to the
list. Any need with any overall ranking score of less that 2.75 was dropped from the list. Four priority needs which
were not included in the overall top 10 were added:
- Highway and road networks
- Socioeconomic characteristics of areas
- Parcel identifiers
- Contaminated sites
Abeit reported that this list of 14 needs met more that half off all classes of organizations except for the
Policy Board. He noted the small sample size of Policy Board member. Craig noted that at the last Policy Board meeting,
preliminary results were distributed and board members expressed satisfaction with the list. The top 14 also meet at
least half of the top ten needs for every functional class except Public Safety. Arbeit noted the specialized nature of
many public safety concerns as well as the possibility of combining other high priority needs to achieve more public
safety needs. For example, locating incidents for public safety work involves the need for street addresses and road
and highway networks. While location of incidents is not among the top 14 in the analysis, street addresses and road
and highway networks are.
One survey response was received after the analysis was completed. The team agreed that one response is not
likely to make any changes to the results and that it should not be added in to the analysis.
The team agreed that the analysis method was appropriate and that an equal weighting of 'importance' and
'dependence' makes sense. Jane Harper commented that the list may need to be shortened in order to focus the work ahead
of MetroGIS. The team agreed. Arbeit stated that there were no natural breaks in the data. The team agreed to finalize
the list at the next meeting.
4c. Business Object Model Fragment Identification
Chris Cialek distributed two hand-outs to the meeting participants. He explained how the object model may be
used to develop data specifications and standards. Cialek began by describing the parts to the object model. There is a
graphic and text part to the model. The object model must now be connected back to the business information needs that
were identified at the forum in September and consolidated through the modeling process. Attributes of each entity and
relationship in the model must be defined. Cialek reported that the attributes will be gleaned from: original need
statements; modeling session notes; survey comments; and the minds of the SME's (Subject Matter Experts). Cialek noted
that the project management team will be meeting on Thursday, April 10 to discuss the next steps of in this process.
5. Special Data Content Advisory Team Meeting
Because the final presentation of the findings and next steps process of this project are planned for 22 May
1997, the Data Content Team needs to send a recommendation to the coordinating committee at their next meeting on April
24. Arbeit stated that a good format for this recommendation would be in 2 parts: 1) a list of the top information
needs identified in this project and 2) a outline of the process to move forward with this project. Harper voiced
concern that the process is well developed and organized for the 22 May meeting. The team agreed that this is
important.
6. Role of the Standards Advisory Team following completion of the BOM Project
Mark Kotz, staff to the Standards Advisory Team, distributed a hand-out. Kotz explained that the Standards
team will be reviewing the top information needs and associated data needs to determine what types of standards or
guidelines may be needed. Several of the MetroGIS Standards Team members have also been involved with the Governor's
Council on GIS Standards Committee. The team agreed that the work already completed by the Governor's Council on
Standards issues will be helpful to the MetroGIS efforts.
7. Next Meeting: April 18, 1997 1:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m. LMIC 3rd. Floor Centennial State Building Cedar St. (south
from Capitol)
Prepared by Heidi Welsch, Assistant MetroGIS Liaison
|
