1. Content and Practice: Background to the NC Geospatial Data Archiving Project Steve Morris NCSU Libraries

2. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 2 Project Context Partnership between university library (NCSU) and state agency (NCCGIA) Focus on state and local geospatial content in North Carolina (state demonstration) Addressing the NC OneMap objective “Historic and temporal data will be maintained and available One of eight projects in the first NDIIPP funding round: “Building a Network of Partners”

3. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 3 Targeted Content Resource Types GIS 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

4. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 4 Value of Content National State Geographic Information Council estimate for NC: $162 million (2003) Local content also forms basis of many state/federal data resources Value over time: Greatest demand for current data Increasing (yet still small) demand for older versions of data Older versions impossible to replace once lost

5. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 5 Large scale, current, attributed vector data

6. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 6 High resolution digital orthophotography

7. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 7 County Digital Orthophotography Specifics Source: NC OneMap Data Inventory 2004

8. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 8 Value as part of cultural heritage

9. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 9 Data Quantity County Digital Orthophotos 88 counties with, estimated 154 flights by 2006 Estimated 30 gb/flight – 4.6 TB total County, City, COG Vector Data Variable mix of layers; some continuous update 92 of 100 counties with GIS systems 51 municipalities with GIS systems State Agency Data 1993 and 1998 statewide orthos – 800 gb Terabytes of vector data and other imagery 17-20 TB of LIDAR data

10. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 10 NC OneMap Initial Data Layers Produced by Cities and Counties Source: NC OneMap Data Inventory 2004

11. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 11 Content Organization (tiling, etc.) State agency data Vector data: statewide, river basin, quarter quadrangles, counties Imagery: quarter quadrangles, local images County data Vector data: county, tax map units Orthophotos: tax map units, county mosaics Increasing: spatial databases (SDE, PostGIS, etc.) Municipal data Vector data: city, tax map units

12. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 12 Metadata FGDC CGDSM implemented by major state GIS agencies starting in 1994 NC CGIA Metadata Outreach: regional workshops, phone support, training materials Adoption Some adoption by county agencies (21 of 92 county GIS systems as of Spring 2004) Some adoption by municipal agencies and COGS (13 of 51 municipal GIS systems by Spring 2004) Rare adoption by private, university, NGO’s

13. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 13 Local Agency Geospatial Metadata Source: NC OneMap Data Inventory 2004

14. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 14 Versioning and Updating Orthophotos County digital orthophotos reflown every 2-7 years Statewide digital orthophoto plan: every 5 years (alternating B&W and color infrared) Vector Data State agency vector data: some static, some periodically updated, relatively fewer continuously updated County/City/COG vector data: many data layers continuously or periodically updated Old versions supplanted, exist on relatively inaccessible backups

15. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 15 Time series – vector data Parcel Boundary Changes 2001-2004, North Raleigh, NC

16. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 16 Content Use Much sharing between agencies (all levels) Municipal agencies use county data (orthos, centerlines, parcels) as base layers State and federal agencies use local data to improve their own data (linework adoption/improvement or attribute conflation) Local agencies use LIDAR (control points, etc.) Problems with different data structures, naming, coding schemes (e.g. parcels) NC OneMap framework data standards in development

17. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 17 Local Applications Where GIS Is Used Source: NC OneMap Data Inventory 2004

18. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 18 Knowledge Required for Use Most data published in widely used formats Vector: shapefile, coverage, geodatabase, MIF Image: TIFF, MrSID, BIL LIDAR data: range of early/middle/late stage products requiring different skills Semantic issues: different naming schemes across counties; need data dictionaries and ancillary documentation Early stage image products (e.g. pre- rectification orthos) require greater knowledge, but are not widely available

19. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 19 Associated Applications/Web Services Largely compatible with predominate commercial software packages Exception: several counties using Understanding Systems GIS software NC OneMap viewer system: Cascading map server based on drawing on local/state/federal WMS sources Geocoding function on the NC OneMap map viewer uses the commercial geocoding web service

20. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 20 GIS Software Used Source: NC OneMap Data Inventory 2004

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

22. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 22

23. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 23

24. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 24

25. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 25

26. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 26

27. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 27

28. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 28 Data/Metadata Workflow: Community Data Orthophoto work contracted out to commercial firms Some vector data contracted out (notably parcels) Most other vector data produced in-house Early, middle, late, and late-late stage products Metadata Metadata published by producer, with NC Metadata Outreach Program support Metadata published to NC NSDI clearinghouse, Geospatial One-Stop, and NC OneMap

29. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 29 GIS Data Management Source: NC OneMap Data Inventory 2004

30. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 30 County Street Centerline Specifics Source: NC OneMap Data Inventory 2004

31. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 31 County Cadastral Specifics

32. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 32 County Surface Water Specifics

33. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 33 Data/Metadata Workflow: Project Data identified through a mix of eight different existing inventory processes NC OneMap Inventory starting from 2004 Data acquired through a variety of means Download, WAN, CD/DVD, external drives, tapes Will experiment with OGC technologies for identification and transfer of data Ingest existing metadata and augment Normalize existing FDGC and create minimal if none Wrap descriptive, adminstrative, technical metadata into METS records; links to services

34. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 34 Data/Metadata Workflow: Project Ingest into Dspace open source digital repository software Explore issues surrounding ingest of geospatial content into generic, widely available repository environments Maintain independence of preservation object from ingest object of a given repository environment Explore re-ingest into a different repository environment – avoid “imprinting” on a single environment Explore a mix of federal/state/local options for longer-term archiving

35. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 35 Is Content Being Archived Now? Records retention requirements don’t necessarily ensure preservation A wide range in practice – in general custodian and consumer energies are focus on current data Where archiving is occurring “permanent access” is generally not supported A variety of different state/regional/local approaches (focus of project site visits)

36. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 36 Integrating with NGDA? Community: Would need to be relatively effortless and inexpensive local GIS shops are small, strapped for staff time long-term access is a low priority need automation, web services–based archive development (and GeoDRM?) Rights issues must be cleared; need to address concerns about disclaimer provision, liability, etc. Project: Interest in exploring re-ingest into a separate repository environment

37. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 37 Intellectual Property Rights Issues Subject to Public Records Law Public record: no privacy issues … … but records for some individuals may be filtered Disclaimer viewing important (liability) Restrictions on commercial reuse – desire for downstream control of data Great deal of variability in access/use policy Trust between agencies is important; interpersonal and interorganizational relationships a key part of the infrastructure

38. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 38 Obtaining Local GIS Data Source: NC OneMap Data Inventory 2004

39. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 39 NC OneMap Data Sharing Agreements NCCGIA working to clarify legal issues surrounding redistribution Striking MOAs with local agencies as part of NC OneMap framework for open access One of stipulations: “… AGREE that the data shared under this agreement may be further redistributed with applicable metadata by either agency WITHOUT FEES in the public domain and without restriction, unless otherwise noted herein and/or unless otherwise subject to public laws of governing authorities … As of 2004 MOAs distributed to 55 counties in draft form, 24 signing with option for redistribution

40. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 40 Transition Plan for Content NCSU/CGIA NDIIPP Project Project timeline: 3 years, 2004-2007 Commitment to retain data 5 years after project termination State/Regional/Local Agencies Variable NC OneMap and other initiatives evolving Role of State Archives?

41. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 41 Questions? Contact: Steve Morris Head of Digital Library Initiatives NCSU Libraries Steven_Morris@ncsu.edu Phone: (919) 515-1361