1. Long-Term Preservation of At-Risk Digital Geospatial Data: The North Carolina Geospatial Data Archiving Project Steve Morris NCSU Libraries

2. Risks to Digital Geospatial Data
.shp
.mif
.gml
.e00
.dwg
.dgn
.bsb
.bil
.sid
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

3. Risks to Digital Geospatial Data
Producer focus on current data
Also, archiving data does not guarantee “permanent access”
Future support of data formats in question
Need to migrate formats or allow for emulation
Data failure
“Bit rot”, media failure
Preservation metadata requirements
Descriptive, administrative, technical, DRM
Shift to “streaming data” for access
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

4. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

5. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

6. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

7. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

8. Today’s geospatial data as tomorrow’s cultural heritage
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

9. Time series – vector data
Parcel Boundary Changes , North Raleigh, NC
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

10. Time series – Ortho imagery
Vicinity of Raleigh-Durham International Airport
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

11. NC Geospatial Data Archiving Project
Partnership between university library (NCSU) and state GIS agency (NCCGIA)
Focus on state and local geospatial content in North Carolina (state demonstration)
Tied to NC OneMap initiative, which provides for seamless access to data, metadata, and inventory information
Objective: engage existing state/federal geospatial data infrastructures in preservation
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

12. Local Government GIS in NC
Data resources are highly distributed and subject to frequent update
More detailed, current, accurate than federal/state data resources
North Carolina local agency GIS environment
100 counties, 95 with GIS
85 counties with high resolution orthophotography
Growing number of municipal systems
Hundreds of millions of dollars investment
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

13. NCGDAP Targeted Content
Resource Types
GIS “vector” (point/line/polygon) data
Digital orthophotography
Digital maps
Tabular data (e.g. assessment data)
Content Producers
Mostly state, local, regional agencies
Some university, not-for-profit, commercial
Selected local federal projects
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

14. Work plan in a Nutshell Work from existing data inventories
NC OneMap Data Sharing Agreements as the “blanket”, individual agreements as the “quilt”
Partnership: work with existing geospatial data infrastructures (state and federal)
Technical approach: blend emerging digital library technologies with geospatial technologies
Metadata: METS, FGDC, PREMIS?, GeoDRM?
Repository: Dspace and others
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

15. Big Challenges Format migration paths
Management of data versions over time
Preservation metadata
Harnessing geospatial web services
Preserving cartographic representation
Keeping content repository-agnostic
Preserving spatial databases
More …
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

16. Vector Data Format Issues
Vector data much more complicated than image data
‘Archiving’ vs. ‘Permanent access’
An ‘open’ pile of XML might make an archive, but if using it requires a team of programmers to do digital archaeology then it does not provide permanent access
Piles of XML need to be widely understood piles
GML: need widely accepted application schemas (like OSMM?)
The spatial database conundrum
Export feature classes, and lose topology, annotation, relationships, etc.
… or use the spatial database as the primary archival platform (some are now thinking this way)
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

17. Managing Time-versioned Content
Many local agency data layers continuously updated
E.g., some county cadastral data updated daily—older versions not generally available
Individual versioned datasets will wander off from the archive
How do users “get current metadata/DRM/object” from a versioned dataset found “in the wild”?
How do we certify concurrency and agreement between the metadata and the data?
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

18. Preservation Metadata Issues
FGDC Metadata
Many flavors, incoming metadata needs processing
Cross-walk elements to PREMIS, MODS?
Metadata wrapper
METS (Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard) vs. other industry solutions
Need a geospatial industry solution for the ‘METS-like problem’
GeoDRM a likely trigger—wrapper to enforce licensing (MPEG 21 references in OGIS Web Services 3)
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

19. Harnessing Geospatial Web Services
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

20. Harnessing Geospatial Web Services
Automated content identification
‘capabilities files,’ registries, catalog services
WMS (Web Map Service) for batch extraction of image atlases?
last ditch capture option
preserve cartographic representation
retain records of decision-making process
… feature services (WFS) later.
Rights issues in the web services space are ambiguous … GeoDRM in development
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

21. Preserving Cartographic Representation
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

22. Preserving Cartographic Representation
The true counterpart of the old map is not the GIS dataset, but rather the cartographic representation that builds on that data:
Intellectual choices about symbolization, layer combinations
Data models, analysis, annotations
Cartographic representation typically encoded in proprietary files (.avl, .lyr, .apr, .mxd) that do not lend themselves well to migration
Symbologies have meaning to particular communities at particular points in time, preserving information about symbol sets and their meaning is a different problem
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

23. Repository Architecture Issues
Interest in how geospatial content interacts with widely available digital repository software
Focus on salient, domain-specific issues
Challenge: remain repository agnostic
Avoid “imprinting” on repository software environment
Preservation package should not be the same as the ingest object of the first environment
Tension between exploiting repository software features vs. becoming software dependent
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

24. Preserving Spatial Databases
Spatial databases in general vs. ESRI Geodatabase “format”
Not just data layers and attributes—also topology, annotation, relationships, behaviors
ESRI Geodatabase archival issues
XML Export, Geodatabase History, File Geodatabase, Geodatabase Replication
Growing use of geodatabases by municipal, county agencies
Some looking to Geodatabase as archival platform (in addition to feature class export)
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

25. NCGDAP Philosophy of Engagement
Provide feedback to producer organizations/
inform state geospatial infrastructure
Take the data
as in the manner
In which it can
be obtained
“Wrangle”
and archive
data
Note the ‘Project’ in ‘North Carolina Geospatial Data Archiving
Project’– the process, the learning experience, and the engagement
with geospatial data infrastructures are more important than the archive
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question

26. Questions? Contact: Steve Morris Head of Digital Library Initiatives
NCSU Libraries
Phone: (919)
NCGDAP website:
Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question