Inter-Agency Committee on Geomatics Canadian Geospatial Data Infrastructure Workshop on Core Data Ottawa, October 15th,
1998 Timothy V. Evangelatos |
|
||||||||||||||||||
| John Turnbull
(Sask. Geomatics) Ed Shaw (CCRS) Mark Corey (GC) Sheila Rambeau (Statistics Canada) Phyllis Charlesworth (GSC) David Viljoen (GSC) Valerie Hume (DIAND) Peter Schut (Agr.) David McKellar (DND) Jim Sarcinello (DND) C. Douglas O’Brien (IDON) |
Sylvain
Latour (CTI) Denis DeGagne (CTI) Don Vachon (DFO) Bob O’Neil (CCRS) Peter Paul (CCRS) Richard Post (Environment Canada Dan Racicot Canada Post) Jeff Labonte (CGDI Sec.) Sandra Mackie (CGDI Sec.) Paula Rojas (CGDI Sec.) Tim Evangelatos (CGDI Sec.) |
Tim Evangelatos introduced the object of the workshop by reviewing the status of the Framework Data thrust of CGDI and more specifically the Core Data component of the Framework Data. (Attachment 2). The underlying concepts were developed in IACG Workshops in 1997 and have been very useful in fostering and obtaining national support for the CGDI. Tim also reported on the recent CGDI Roundtables held in Toronto, Victoria, Regina, and St. John’s, and the strong support that the provinces are giving to CGDI, but it has become clear that although the current IACG approach to Framework Data might satisfy some federal needs, it was not in a form that could effectively integrate with the existing and evolving provincial data frameworks.. In response to an inquiry from Ed Shaw, John Turnbull confirmed that this was a present concern for the provinces which needed to be addressed at policy, partnering and operational levels. As a primary goal of the CGDI is to provide a national solution incorporating federal, provincial and territorial requirements Tim argued that we need to revisit the IACG Framework Data proposal and also look at some of the tools and processes needed to implement and support the concept. Due to time limitations it was agreed that the scope of the workshop should be limited as much as possible to a discussion of core data. A second workshop on Framework Data is planned for the future. Tim then asked Bob O’Neil to give an update on his Division’s activities related to core data.
GeoGratis: In the development
of CEONet Bob O’Neil sees many options where his division can contribute
to the furthering of the CGDI. Bob described the use of framework
data in his division which goes beyond data discovery, to re-useable
framework datasets, tools for aggregation and generalization of
data, and for simplifying data collection (Attachment 3). One aspect
that has evolved is GeoGratis that offers free geospatial for research
and education purposes. In his presentation Bob described the technology,
the data sets now available and those that will be on-line shortly.
The latter are particularly interesting as they include all of NRCan’s
data at 1/1M and smaller. These data sets are summarized in the
following table.
| Data Sets Available Now | Data Sets Coming Soon |
|
|
Global Geospatial Information Infrastructure: The military has developed an advanced geospatial data framework to support their requirements as they move into a completely digital data based environment. Led by NIMA, with the cooperation of its allies, it provides an integrated view of the "battle-space". As Jim Sarcinello explained in his presentation (Attachment 4) the military’s approach could provide many ideas for many several aspects of the CGDI. The following diagram from Jim’s presentation illustrates the key elements of the GGII Framework.
SaskGIS: John Turbull was asked to give an summary of his group’s activities in building a geospatial data infrastructure in Saskatchewan and specifically those aspect bearing on the goals of this workshop. Saskatchewan has been working on a provincial infrastructure for many years. The SaskGIS initiative is now almost complete and is being used by all sectors of the province as the foundation for building a modernized land information infrastructure. The SaskGIS Model consists of a basic spatial framework, property, topographic, and other multi-user databases; standards for data exchange; and collaborative financial and operational relationships between key stakeholders. The SGDI has become a capital asset of $35M. It is important that the SGDI principles, partnerships and products that have been developed with Saskatchewan stakeholders remain effective, and the CGDI should be careful to preserve and compliment these. This is true for other provinces as well. Within this context, Saskatchewan supports the concept of the CGDI and John sees that it can help the country save a lot of money if we can bring "it" all together. Saskatchewan is prepared to help build the national/provincial GDI as a collaborative initiative.
Data Alignment Layer: Denis De Gagné reported on the status of CDAL. The first version has been prepared from the most current NTDB data sets and is compliant with the approved specifications. The first data set is a flat ASCII file that is now available at "http://www.ctis.nrcan.gc.ca/~cdal," but it can also be reached through the CGDI web site "http://www.geoconnections.org". A contract to develop the database to manage CDAL has been prepared and it is planned to have this work completed by March 31, 1999. The CTI plan to work with provinces and other interested organizations to develop and improve the tools needed to use and maintain CDAL.
Mark Corey asked John Turnbull to report on the evaluations that Saskatchewan had done on the data alignment points. John’s staff had done a comparison of points extracted from the CDAL and compared them with more accurate Saskatchewan data at larger scales and demonstrated that the points were within the specified accuracy of the 1/50K NTDB data but did indicate significant discrepancies with the detailed provincial data sets.. Sylvain Latour noted that when the more accurate data is obtained from Saskatchewan it would be made available in CDAL. David McKellar wondered if CDAL would be made compliant to the developing TC211 standards. Sylvain reminded Dave that TC211 has developed a set of rules for describing features but is not creating standard feature catalogues. Although it was agreed that CDAL should comply with TC211 standards, it was not entirely clear what parts of the CDAL specification would be affected. Mark also asked about the relationship between CDAL and TC204, which is supported by the Road Transportation Association of Canada. Following some discussion on standards it was recommended that the experts meet later and review the status of CDAL with regard to the TC211 work (Action: Tim Evangelatos, David McKellar, C. Douglas O’Brien, Denis De Gagné, and Sylvain Latour).
Tools and the Integration of Framework Data. Sylvain Latour was responsible for the initial development of the Data Alignment Layer and he has been thinking about the how the DAL will be used, the tools needed to support its use and any other related tools needed to provide and use framework data sets. As Sylvain explained in his presentation (Attachment 6) the CGDI Data Framework is more than data. Using a practical example Sylvain illustrated that the following sorts of tools would be required for a user to complete his/her task:
David McKellar reminded the group that the Mercator Alliance has been looking at the tools needed to create the CGDI. A Mercator Alliance Proposal was tabled at the May 98 IACG Meeting and was circulated with the Minutes of that meeting. Further both Bob O’Neil and David McKellar are looking at tools as part of their task of leading the Data Access thrust. C. Doug O’Brien also noted that the OGDI Research Institute is looking at these issues and a CGDI Special Interest Group would need to look at all these related activities. Bob added that CEONet also has a lot of the tools that will be required.
Sylvain clarified that he was not suggesting that the SPG develop any tools but provide a focus for the definition of what is needed. We need to consider all levels of users, enabling them to deal with a wide variety of interoperability issues. It was agreed that the tools themselves should be developed by the private sector.
Ed Shaw summarized the discussion. As he understood it there are real issues that Sylvain is trying to get defined and then resolved. Ed suggested that if we focus on concrete examples it would help us bring people together from the various levels of government. Ed felt that this could be accomplished in a workshop that focused on the integration of data. Peter Schut agreed; in his view we need to show people how the data sets come together, not just alignment point by alignment point but through an automated process. He sees it as a big job and we need a lot of tools.
David McKellar wondered about the problems of using DAL to align small scale data sets, like DCW. He felt that it might not be feasible. Bob said that they were tackling this problem in the National Atlas. It has been proposed that this data will be part of the CGDI Data Framework and that it will be maintained and made freely available. His group will also require generalization tools to provide linked data at different scales, 1/1M and smaller. This precipitated a discussion of the need to generalize not only from 1/50K to smaller scales but to also consider provincial data at 1/20K and larger. Fortunately the GeoAcess Division will be investigating the use of CDAL to correct the DCW and will be able to provide feedback on the feasibility and process of doing it. (Action: Bob O’Neil and Peter Paul)
David Viljoen described a unique situation in GSC. He felt that the CDAL was not useful to his agency since they are now aligning their geological products with the NTDB but do not include any of the NTDB data in the distributed product in order to avoid licensing costs and issues. However the group suggested that the GSC should include an overlay of the CDAL points in the GSC products as this would make it easier for other users to integrate other data. David also expressed the need geologists have for generating base map or other working documents showing the data alignment points.
John Turnbull noted that there are growing sets of users who need current, dependable data sets that are easy to combine. He recommended that a workshop on data integration should be convened to investigate what is possible. This idea was accepted and was developed later, but first the group decided to identify the issues related to core data and to the integration of such data. This list follows:
Core Data Issues:
Both Peter Schut and Mark Corey agreed with John and Mark further suggested that we consider looking at new ways of supplying topographic data to the federal agencies and at the same time work towards a single agreement with the provinces. This may be a step toward the "open skies’ idea proposed by OMNR’s Glenn Holder.
A similar set of issues were identified with respect to the Data Alignment Layer. The first six issues were identified as being those with the highest priority for discussion and action.
Data Alignment Layer Issues:
The workshop ended up focusing on the aspects of dealing with the data integration, the issues identified above for the data alignment layer, and on the revision of the definition of CGDI "core data". Many of these data integration issues are independent of data as suggested by Sylvain Latour in his presentation
.It was decided to organize a technical workshop to deal with data integration and the tools needed to support that task. Denis De Gagné offered to host such a workshop at the Center for Topographical Data in Sherbrooke on November 4th and 5th, 1998. An announcement will be prepared by Sylvan Latour and Paula Rojas and will be circulated to IACG, CCOG, GIAC, and Mercator Alliance members. Industry will be encouraged to participate since the tools will eventually be provided by them.
It was also decided to revise the specification of "core data" in order to be compatible with those that have been developed in the provinces. The "core data" will be divided into a number of basic themes that in turn will be sub-divided into "levels" reflecting the different uses of the data at provincial, territorial and federal levels. The CGDI Secretariat was tasked to develop a revised definition of CGDO ‘core data" based upon the workshop discussions that will be circulated and then reviewed again at a national CCOG/IACG workshop on Framework Data to be held in Ottawa in January 1999. It is planned to hold this workshop the day preceding a second joint IACG/CCOG meeting that will be convened to discuss distribution policies.
(Action: CGDI Secretarial/CCOG Secretariat)
Attachments:Created by the Inter-Agency Committee on Geomatics and the GeoConnections Secretariat
TOP