1. Ad Hoc on Use of Non-Authoritative Data for Decision Making
106th OGC Technical Committee
Orléans, France
Chairs of Data Quality, Citizen Science, Smart Cities & GUF
19 March 2018
Copyright © 2018 Open Geospatial Consortium

2. Copyright © 2018 Open Geospatial Consortium
Introduction
The use of non-authoritative data for decision making is a topic that has been whirling at OGC/TC meetings for quite some time already
Latest discussions between Chairs of the DQ & Citizen Science DWGs at the last OGC/TC in Palmerston NZ.
Discussions are recurrent, but not clear what standpoint the OGC has (or should have) on this matter - hence this ad-hoc.
Copyright © 2018 Open Geospatial Consortium

3. Copyright © 2018 Open Geospatial Consortium
Important Note
We recognise the lack of consensus on terminology, so for today we use the term ‘non-authoritative data’ to describe any data contributed from other than officially recognized spatial data producers (e.g. government agency or other nominated data custodian).
We seek to agree (propose) an acceptable term during the discussion of this ad-hoc session.
Adhoc did not agree on descriptive term, but discussions suggested that “Non-Authoritative” should be avoided and would be better to consider other terms already in use, such as crowd sourced or volutunteered.
Copyright © 2018 Open Geospatial Consortium

4. Copyright © 2018 Open Geospatial Consortium
Agenda
Adhoc heard presentations on the topic from a variety of view points:
OGC prior art (Benjamin Proß)
Data Quality DWG (Sam Meek)
Citizen Science DWG & GUF SWG (Joan Masó)
Smart Cities DWG (Jo Abhayaratna)
All presentations are available from the meeting folder:
Copyright © 2018 Open Geospatial Consortium

5. Selection of Comments (1)
Uncertainty of quality undermines confidence to use
Policy and legislation can constrain, even prohibit use
To fully realise usage potential, need to facilitate the enablement of trust and (over time) influence legislators to be more open to use based on benefits case.
Quality indicators need more than just ISO tests.
Not all submissions are equal; need to understand the credentials of who the data providers are and which methods used to capture data.
Assurance could be enhanced through peer review and known quality assessment processes (c.f. ISO 19158)
Copyright © 2018 Open Geospatial Consortium

6. Selection of Comments (2)
Will need to think carefully about GDPR and similar.
At what granularity should quality be reflected.
Consider different levels of assuredness to inform on use.
Copyright © 2018 Open Geospatial Consortium

7. Copyright © 2018 Open Geospatial Consortium
Next Steps
Not specifically discussed during meeting, following might be considered:
Chairs to draft discussion paper/blog to gain further insight
Link in with other DWGs where interest/experience may exist, e.g. defence & intelligence, SOS and SWE
Tap into regional forums before next TC
Run a second ad hoc at Fort Collins TC
Seek to develop best practices guides, at different levels
Assess whether a charter for a new DWG is merited
Who will volunteer to draft charter and what would the goals be
Copyright © 2018 Open Geospatial Consortium

8. Copyright © 2018 Open Geospatial Consortium
Discussion
NAD, non-traditional sources, crowdsourcing, VGI, any other suggestions? (I’m using crowdsourcing for now)
Do people acknowledge the value of crowdsourcing?
Is anyone using it for decision making? If so, how?
Anything you’d like to add to the conversation?
Copyright © 2018 Open Geospatial Consortium

9. Copyright © 2018 Open Geospatial Consortium
EXPLORE
ENGAGE
Copyright © 2018 Open Geospatial Consortium