spatially enabling australia review of consultancy report › sites › default › files ›...

Intergovernmental Committee onSurveying and Mapping

Spatially Enabling

Australia

Review of ConsultancyReport

Version 1.0

17 June 2008

Copy: Uncontrolled

Review of Consultancy Report – Version 1.0

Acknowledgements

The contribution of the following individuals in preparing this document is gratefully acknowledged:

Garry West, Paul Harcombe, Russell Priebbenow, Peter Kentish,

John Gallagher, Dave Mole, Bill Hirst, Peter Murphy


DOCUMENT ACCEPTANCE and RELEASE NOTICE

This document is version 1.0 of the Review of Consultancy Report.

This is a managed document. For identification of amendments, each page contains a versionnumber and a page number. Changes will only be issued as a complete replacement document.Recipients should remove superseded versions from circulation. This document is authorised forrelease once all signatures have been obtained.

PREPARED: DATE: 17 / 06 / 2008(for acceptance) Peter Murphy, Chair ASDI Working Group

ACCEPTED:______________________________________________ DATE: ___/___/___(for release) Garry West, Chair, Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping

BUILD STATUS:

Version Date Author Reason Sections

0.A 6 May 2008 Peter Murphy Draft for review All

1.0 16 June 2008 Susie Salisbury Addition of comments Appendix B

DISTRIBUTION:

Copy No Version Issue Date Issued To

1 0.A 6 May 2008 Workshop participants

2 1.0 17 June 2008 ANZLIC

Electronic


Table of Contents

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

2 BACKGROUND 5

3 WORKSHOP PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES 6

4 WORKSHOP INTRODUCTION 6

5 LYNX2 - PSMA AUSTRALIA LTD 6

5.1 Discussion 8

6 WORKSHOP OUTPUTS 9

6.1 Comments on the Report 9

6.2 Recommendations to be Adopted 9

6.3 Actions to be Implemented 9

6.4 Organisations to Implement 9

6.5 Terms of Reference 9

6.6 Report to ICSM 10

APPENDIX A: PARTICIPANTS 11

APPENDIX B: DECISIONS ON RECOMMENDATION & ACTIONS 12


1 Executive Summary

The meeting of the ASDI Working Group with other interested ICSM members was convened tocomplete a detailed review of the output from the consultancy by Geomatic Technologies.

The meeting was held 10:00 am to 5:00 pm on 17 March 2008 in the Legal Services ConferenceRoom at the Department of Lands Office, Queens Square, Sydney.

The participants heard verbal reports about ANZLIC’s consideration of the draft report1 during itsmeeting on 11 and 12 March 2008.

PSMA Australia Ltd also provided a briefing on its current initiative known as LYNX2 so that thiscould be taken into account as the group considered the recommendations and actions contained inthe report.

All of the recommendations and actions identified by Geomatic Technologies were discussed toconfirm those to be adopted by ICSM.

General agreement with the majority of the recommendations was confirmed however there werea significant number of the actions that are not within ICSM’s scope to carry out.

This report contains the details of the considerations during the meeting and a completecompilation of the final decisions. It forms the basis for recommending the future work program forthe ASDI Working Group and ICSM.

A list of participants is included at Appendix A.

2 Background

In November 2005, the Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping (ICSM) developeda new strategic plan for the period 2005 – 2010. This plan was based around ICSM’s role as astanding working group of ANZLIC – the Spatial Information Council.

ANZLIC’s strategic plan had indicated that responsibility for the Australian Spatial DataInfrastructure (ASDI) should pass to ICSM. ICSM agreed that this transfer of responsibilities wasappropriate and undertook to revitalise the ASDI. This undertaking was subsequently reflected inICSM’s 2005–2010 strategic plan. It was agreed that the current model for the ASDI should bereviewed and possibly refreshed.

ICSM established a working group that reviewed the current status of the ASDI and produced someinitial discussion papers. A stakeholder workshop was also held in Melbourne in August 2006 todevelop a direction for the ASDI and to identify any issues for implementing the vision. A workshopreport and some further elaboration of ideas in key areas have been produced. A proposal for theASDI vision for “Spatially Enabling Australia” was suggested to ANZLIC.

ANZLIC considered this early work and defined the direction for further work by ICSM in thedevelopment of new concepts for the ASDI based on collaboration and partnerships for:

• Building support for the national vision;

• Providing mechanisms for contribution of and access to information and services;

• Establishing and maintaining governance arrangements; and

• Reviewing the current data and systems.

1 Spatially Enabling Australia Recommendations, V2.1, Geomatic Technologies, 2008


Geomatic Technologies was engaged by ICSM to further develop proposals within these parameters.The consultancy commenced on 1 October 2007. ICSM referred the draft report to ANZLIC forcomment in February 2008.

3 Workshop Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of the workshop was to review the report “Spatially Enabling AustraliaRecommendations”, Version 2.1 to:

• Provide ICSM with overall comments on the report;

• Identify the recommendations that are to be adopted;

• Identify the actions that are to be implemented; and

• Nominate the organisation best placed to carry out the actions.

This review is to result in a work program for ICSM and the ASDI Working Group to implement inthe future and provide the basis for additional advice to ANZLIC about the ownership of actions.

It was also planned:

• To develop the Terms of Reference for the ASDI Working Group including proposedobjectives, strategic Plan alignment and membership;

• Identify the actions that are to be implemented; and

• To draft a report to ICSM about the workshop.

4 Workshop Introduction

The objectives for the workshop were outlined and the verbal reports from ANZLIC’sconsideration of the report were discussed.

Reported comments included:

• The report could have gone further with its recommendations

• The move away from data towards services needed further emphasis

• The need for standards for services could have been explored

• An ASDI toolkit could have been considered

• The relationship with the position paper on framework data is not clear

ANZLIC has undertaken to prepare a paper on the objectives of the ASDI to position the ASDI forthe future.

The review started with discussion about the ASDI vision and associated recommendations. Thiswas suspended for the briefing on LYNX2.

5 LYNX2 - PSMA Australia Ltd

Dan Paul noted that this Working Group needs to be aware of the overlaps with PSMA’s initiatives.

LYNX was developed with the objective of improving the end-to-end efficiency and effectiveness ofdata maintenance, integration and supply. PSMA plans to automate data logistics.

• Thirteen suppliers � PSMA � Data Manager � PSMA � thirty resellers.


LYNX delivers:

• Integrated data model at its core � other benefits

• Physical implementation for the Harmonised Data Framework

• Data logistics facility � up and down load and monitor

The whole process requires more work:

• Acquisitions from custodians to be automated � data pull

• Automated data integration

These are the key challenges � delivery to meet markets then relatively easy.

The role of standards is to be balanced with business drivers. PSMA needs to be sufficiently flexibleto deal with the difference through technology and data sufficiently well developed.

The PSMA mechanisms are to achieve consistency at a national level:

• To support jurisdiction supply for national level

• Requires sufficiently flexible systems to accept multiple combinations

LYNX2 is to close data supply and return loop:

• Dynamic, flexible, extensible

• Near real time

• Requires externally exposed web services � service oriented architecture

Geomatic Technologies have been working on a high-level implementation plan and an infrastructuredocument over the last three or four months.

• Fourteen business requirements defined

• May be developed in priority – Acquire � manage � deliver � value add � update

PSMA concept approval in late 2006

LYNX2 extends initial concept:

• Similar to SLIP2

• Central servers linked with local servers

• A current suggestion is to put hardware in the jurisdictions

• Conceptually could extend again � direct server update

• Hub and spoke model

• LYNX2 link with mini LYNX

• Commonality of services

− Western Australia and Victoria have offered services for this model

− Address validation, online notification and edit

− Remote monitoring of services

• Practical sharing of a common engine with multiple branding

− Powerful concept improving service availability and quality

The value is in closing the gap between jurisdiction systems and a PSMA-loaded server operating asa local LYNX2.

2 Shared Land Information Platform


PSMA is to talk with jurisdictions about what they need over the next eight weeks. Alignment ofneeds with PSMA business case will produce greater additional benefit.

The potential for more options for data feed lifts the availability to become more robust. It includesredundancies with fail-safe switch over and disaster recovery.

PSMA’s international benchmarking showed that Ordinance Survey systems are similar though morelimited.

There is potential to extend the network to other agencies. For example, a Geoscience Australiagateway to LYNX2 local links.

PSMA has funded work up to the definition of the architecture. Future components will be fundedas separate initiatives.

5.1 Discussion

The practical considerations needed to deliver the PSMA initiative include:

• Lack of standards across jurisdictions

• Standardising access

• Pragmatic approach towards a standardised approach

• Commercial approach

− Creates markets

− Could be upset by government policy on pricing

• Recognition of returns to jurisdictions

It was noted:

• That LYNX2 would not be the ASDI

• This doesn’t threaten jurisdiction or ICSM work

• That role of standards needs more discussion

− Will PSMA create standards?

− Should ICSM work on custodians’ standards?

− There is tension between pragmatism and standards.

− Does ICSM need to identify standards needed by PSMA?

− What about standards of data from utilities?

• There may be value in a gap analysis between the ASDI and LYNX2

− Interoperability enhancements gap?

In summary:

• LYNX2 will move to a higher level of interoperability with jurisdictions; potentially othercontributors e.g. Australia Post, Telstra

• Over time there will be convergence of standards, systems and services

• There is synergy with the ASDI concept proposal; same language, similar concepts, physicalimplementation model at Government level.


6 Workshop Outputs

6.1 Comments on the Report

The report draws together information and concepts for the ASDI in the areas selected by ANZLICfor ICSM’s further development.

It is based on consultation across government, industry and the academic sectors as well aspreliminary documentation for ICSM work on revitalising the ASDI. ICSM has noted that there aresome aspects of the report that will need further discussion and acknowledges that the report wasintended to provide a catalyst for that discussion.

In particular, the example used to demonstrate the principles for future governance associated withthe ASDI includes the Australian Spatial Consortium concept. It is understood that this may notnecessarily reflect the actual governance. Similarly, the concept of PSMA taking the leading role inthe supply of government data is a suggestion of a future possibility rather than an approach agreedwithin ICSM.

The report has been given in-principle acceptance within ICSM through a recent teleconference andthis report summarises a more detailed review of the recommendations and actions.

This will be the basis for defining the action to be taken by ICSM in those areas and for makingappropriate recommendations to ANZLIC.

6.2 Recommendations to be Adopted

It is noted that these are generally quite high-level recommendations that are consistent with bothindustry views and emerging trends. However those that are ‘accepted’ with comments are notseen as critical for moving forward and those that are ‘noted’ only are seen as difficult to achieve.

The level of ICSM support for each recommendation is detailed in Appendix B.

6.3 Actions to be Implemented

ICSM has determined that it is not the appropriate organisation to lead the actions identified in thereport. While ICSM can contribute to one third of the actions and take a limited or advisory role inanother third, there is no role for ICSM in the remainder of the actions.

For those actions where ICSM has some role, the ASDI Working Group will need to identify theICSM work for inclusion in its work program.

The comments for each action are included in Appendix B.

6.4 Organisations to Implement

There was insufficient time at the workshop to examine the actions in sufficient detail to be able tosuggest the appropriate organisations to involve in implementing these actions.

6.5 Terms of Reference

The ASDI Working Group agreed to consider draft terms of reference at its meeting in AliceSprings on Tuesday 20 May 2008.


6.6 Report to ICSM

This document is the basis for the report to ICSM.

While the ASDI Working Group of ICSM commissioned the report by Geomatic Technologies andis broadly supportive of the directions suggested, it does not necessarily endorse allrecommendations or actions. In particular, the governance model suggested is recognised asrequiring further consultation and development.

The Group also recognises that ANZLIC intend to “Prepare a paper (two-pager) on the objectivesof the ASDI and positions ASDI for the future” and that this statement will provide a framework toguide discussion, debate and the future development of the ASDI.

The Working Group will consider the ANZLIC statement as part of its preparation of its futurework program.


Appendix A: Participants

Subject: ASDI Working Group – Review of Consultancy Report

Date: Monday 17 March 2008

Time: 10 am – 5 pm

Venue: Legal Services Conference Room at the Department of Lands Office,

Queens Square, Sydney.

Jurisdiction Representative

Tasmania Peter Murphy

Queensland Russell Priebbenow

Northern Territory Garry West

New South Wales Paul Harcombe

Victoria John Gallagher

South Australia Peter Kentish

Australian Capital Territory Bill Hirst

New Zealand Dave Mole

PSMA Australia Ltd Dan Paul


Appendix B: DECISIONS ON RECOMMENDATION & ACTIONS

R=Recommendation A=Action

VISION

#Description

Decision

Comments

R1

The ASDI should facilitate the spatial enablement of Australia

‘Spatially enab

ling Australia’ will invo

lve leve

raging an

d m

axim

ising the potential of the sp

atial

inform

ation that is cu

rren

tly lock

ed away in co

rporate and gove

rnmen

t datab

ases. The

spatial attribute/co

mponen

t that exists w

ithin a ran

ge of data sets can

and sho

uld be used to

help correlate inform

ation previously regard

ed as disparate, allo

wing grea

ter an

alysis and

impro

ved dec

ision m

aking. Additionally, sp

atial en

ablemen

t im

plie

s more than

just pro

viding

acce

ss to data; the ASD

I sh

ould accommodate an

d pro

vide acce

ss to service

s an

d business

pro

cesses.

Agree

dEmphasis on more than

just

inform

ation acce

ss i.e.

acce

ss to service

s an

dbusiness pro

cesses as well as

inform

ation.

R2

The ASDI should contribute to and help support the Virtual Australia concept

Virtual A

ustralia describes a vision of a kn

owledge

base that includes complete, co

rrec

t an

dcu

rren

t inform

ation ab

out the natural an

d built enviro

nmen

t, toge

ther w

ith sp

atial

inform

ation ap

plications in a usable and

rea

dily available m

anner.

Agree

dOf co

urse! Pro

vided

‘Virtual

Australia’ is the un

derstood

and agree

d conce

pt

nationally. V

irtual A

ustralia,

ASD

I lin

kage

s nee

d further

pro

motion – see

A2.


#Description

Decision

Comments

R3

The ASDI should include a range of information

Traditionally SDI definitions have focu

sed on iden

tifying a set of fram

ework or fundam

ental

data sets for which the po

licy, standards an

d access ap

ply. Moving forw

ard, the ASD

I should

not be restricted

to only a set of fundam

ental d

ata sets but rather should be ab

le to suppo

rta dyn

amic set of data, inform

ation, service

s, publications or so

ftware.

The ASD

I sh

ould inh

eren

tly pro

mote the reuse of data (‘co

llect once

, use m

any times’),

lead

ing to

efficiencies related

to eco

nomics an

d tim

e.

Agree

dEmphasis on ‘dyn

amic’ in

time, them

e an

d conten

t.

R4

The ASDI should act as a foundation for the delivery of resources

Curren

tly the ASD

I can be regard

ed as a co

llection of tech

nologies and service

s that deliver

spatial inform

ation to tho

se that nee

d it, in the timeframes that they

req

uire, as a resu

lt of

stan

dards, pro

toco

ls and gove

rnan

ce framew

orks. The ASD

I sh

ould pro

vide a foundation

from w

hich data, solutions, business pro

cesses and applications can be built. It m

ust be

stab

le, reliable, scalab

le, intero

perable and distributed. Like other infrastructure, the ASD

Ish

ould be free

or of minim

al cost to use, but value ad

ded

service

s built upon it m

ay be

pro

vided

for a fee.

Agree

dSo

me ove

rlap

with other

reco

mmen

dations; defines

characteristics.

R5

The ASDI should provide efficient and timely delivery of resources to users

The ASD

I must supp

ort efficient acce

ss, retrieval an

d delivery of data, in

form

ation, services,

publications or so

ftware to

users. Efficient an

d tim

ely delivery en

compasses both the time

take

n to extract the ap

pro

priate reso

urce, as well as any pro

cessing required

in ord

er to

render the reso

urce on the requ

esting dev

ice (ran

ging from desktop computers thro

ugh

to

mobile

dev

ices).

Agree

d


#Description

Decision

Comments

R6

The ASDI should provide resources for a ‘reasonable’ price

Without dev

aluing the data, inform

ation, services, publications an

d software that the ASD

Iwill offer, co

st should not be a barrier to its use. Options for so

urcing or ge

nerating the

nec

essary funding to

build

and m

aintain the infrastructure should be ex

amined

– e.g. can

funding be obtained

fro

m gen

eral tax

es or from a small pe

rcen

tage

of the fee ch

arge

d for

services built upon the infrastructure? In a practical sen

se the ad

ministration an

d contro

l of

funding may be lin

ked to the go

vern

ance

arran

gemen

ts for the ASD

I.

Agree

dCosts sh

ould not be a

barrier to use, h

owev

erjurisd

ictions nee

d some

flexibility for their particu

lar

business models.

R7

The ASDI should seamlessly serve society

Typ

ically a tho

rough

awaren

ess an

d understan

ding of spatial co

nce

pts and principles is not

prevalent thro

ugh

out society. Howev

er the popularity of sp

atially enab

led systems su

ch as

Micro

soft V

irtual Earth, G

oogle Map

s an

d G

oogle Earth indicate that an in dep

thunderstan

ding is not nec

essarily req

uired

in ord

er to perform

queries an

d und

ertake

dec

ision m

aking using sp

atial inform

ation. The ASD

I sh

ould be ab

le to pro

vide acce

ss to

spatial reso

urces in an ea

sy to use and sea

mless m

anner; users sho

uld not have to

understan

d or ev

en be aw

are that they

are relying on the ASD

I.

Agree

d

R8

The ASDI should have a national focus

Inco

rporating data, inform

ation, services, publications an

d software from various

jurisd

ictions, the ASD

I should be ab

le to supp

ort data from a variety of leve

ls – e.g. fro

mhighly localised

and spec

ialised

stree

t leve

l data thro

ugh

to gen

eralised

national data, the

services nec

essary to deliver the

data also

nee

d to be su

pported

by the ASD

I.

Agree

d


#Description

Decision

Comments

R9

The ASDI should be implemented with interoperability in mind

Given

that spatial p

roblems rarely exist so

lely w

ithin state or national boun

daries, the

ASD

Ish

ould be im

plemen

ted so that it can

be inco

rporated as required

with other

national/reg

ional SDI initiative

s (e.g. thro

ugh

interfaces such

as Google Earth or W

orld

Wind).

Agree

d

R10

A review of the term ASDI should be undertaken

Deb

ate has commen

ced on w

hether the ASD

I term

appro

priately describes the pro

posed

role of the su

ppo

rting stru

cture that allo

ws sp

atially related

dec

ision mak

ing, or whe

ther an

updated

term is required

. W

hile

the SD

I term

has gained

accep

tance

internationally, it is

curren

tly unclea

r whether it can adeq

uately represent the vision of sp

atial e

nab

lemen

t that

the revised A

SDI is inten

ded

to ach

ieve

. H

owev

er, the ‘in

frastructure’ elem

ent of the ASD

Imay rem

ain as a build

ing block

, upon which the sp

atially enab

ling services are pro

vided

inwhich case the term

will not be hea

vily publicised

or pro

moted outside the sp

atial industry.

Accep

ted

Nee

d to rev

iew the scope

of

the definition ; SDI’s are w

ell

acce

pted internationally;

ICSM

considers this to be a

low priority.

#Description

ICSM Role in

Action Item

Comments

A1

Dev

elop a network of sp

atial r

esources (data, inform

ation, service

s, publications an

dso

ftware) fro

m gove

rnmen

t, private and academ

ic sec

tors

Contributor

ICSM

is ab

le to contribute to

establishing a go

vern

men

tbased

network of sp

atial d

ata

and service

s – but has a

limited

role in other asp

ects.


#Description

ICSM Role in

Action Item

Comments

A2

Pro

mote the ASD

I co

nce

pt outside the sp

atial industry

Contributor

ICSM

has lim

ited

influ

ence

outside the sp

atial industry,

but has some to

ols w

hich

could be utilised, including:

•

ICSM

web

site

•

ICSM

NEW

S•

ICSM

subscription list.

A3

Publicise the co

nten

t of the ASD

I (to pro

mote reu

se)

Contributor

The primary to

ol available to

ICSM

is its web

site.

A4

Iden

tify standards an

d pro

toco

ls that w

ill be su

ppo

rted

by the ASD

IContributor

This role is dep

enden

t upo

nreso

urces being mad

eavailable to ICSM

.

The most significant ro

le for

ICSM

is in the dev

elopmen

tof data related national &

intern

ational standards an

dpro

motion of their

consisten

t use – particu

larly

to gove

rnmen

t.

(Includes A9, A15.)

A5

Dev

elop a pricing stru

cture policy for ASD

I infrastructure

No role


#Description

ICSM Role in

Action Item

Comments

A6

Dev

elop m

etrics to assess effic

iency of the ASD

INo role

A7

Dev

elop a pricing stru

cture policy for ASD

I co

mpo

nen

ts (actual data/service price

s sh

ould

be ab

le to be set by individual service

pro

viders within the po

licy)

No role

A8

Dev

elop guidelines for services and interfaces that do not require sp

atial k

nowledge

or

expertise

No role

A9

Exam

ine stan

dards used by other SDI initiative

s, in ord

er to ensu

re interoperab

ility w

ith

stan

dards selected

for the ASD

IContributor

Part of A4.

A10

Exam

ine ap

pro

priaten

ess of the term

ASD

INo role

See R10 commen

ts.


COMPONENTS

#Description

Decision

Comments

R11

The ASDI should avoid resource duplication where possible

Differen

t organ

isations have differen

t definitions for ‘fu

ndam

ental’ data sets. W

hile

the

ASD

I’s ability to referen

ce m

ultiple copies of data acro

ss the same sp

atial ex

tents

contrad

icts the co

llect once

, use m

any ap

pro

ach that it pro

motes, the scen

ario should not

be pro

hibited

. The data storage

enviro

nmen

t(s) of the ASD

I should be ab

le to act as a

reposito

ry for histo

rical data as w

ell a

s cu

rren

t data an

d thus the definition of ‘duplication’

nee

ds to

be clarified

.

Agree

d‘C

olle

ct once

, use m

any’ is

the man

tra; duplication of

authoritative

sources is to

be

avoided

; ch

allenge

is how

histo

rical data is m

anaged

.

R12

A mechanism to register resources with the ASDI will be required

New

resources should be ab

le to be ad

ded

to and m

ade available thro

ugh

the ASD

I at any

time. Additionally, ex

isting reso

urces m

ay nee

d to be revised/updated

as they

evo

lve.

Agree

dAn expan

ded

‘ASD

D typ

e’mec

han

ism to enco

mpass

services, to

ols, etc is nee

ded

.May not be

a cen

tralised

register. Strong ro

le for

definition of ‘standard’

seman

tics.

R13

Mechanisms to modify resources within the ASDI should be provided

In the future, with the ASD

I acting as the main and authoritative

source for reso

urces

registered

within it, m

echan

isms for reso

urce modification and update sh

ould be pro

vided

(e.g. allowing au

thorised users to direc

tly ed

it data within the ASD

I fram

ework).

Agree

dAn expan

ded

‘ASD

D typ

e’mec

han

ism to enco

mpass

services, to

ols, etc is nee

ded

.May not be

a cen

tralised

register. Strong ro

le for

definition of ‘standard’

seman

tics.


#Description

Decision

Comments

R14

A standardised approach to licensing should be defined for spatial resources

Lice

nsing arrange

men

ts that enco

mpass user au

then

tication sh

ould be dev

eloped

and form

part of the ASD

I’s access policies. Given

that the vision is for reso

urces to be au

tomatically

chained

toge

ther, m

ethods for au

tomated

licen

sing crea

tion an

d assessm

ent sh

ould be

considered

.

Agree

dEminen

tly sensible

R15

The ASDI should consist of Policy, Standards, Data, Access Service, Integration

Service and User Interface components

The ASD

I co

mpone

nts sho

uld interact w

ith one an

other thro

ugh

standards. as shown in

Each compo

nen

t will be defined

and operate within a set of po

licies an

d standards, as will

the co

hesive stru

cture of the co

mbination of the co

mponen

ts.

Agree

d

R16

Policies should be developed for each ASDI component at a national level

In ord

er to ach

ieve

the nationally focu

sed vision for the ASD

I, policies will nee

d to be

dev

eloped

and m

andated

at a national lev

el.

Agree

dThe nee

d for po

licies at

national lev

el is agreed

,howev

er ‘man

dated

’ should

be replace

d by ‘enco

urage

d’.

R17

Australia should present a focused approach on a variety of standards

development boards

The ASD

I is and

will rem

ain to be highly dep

enden

t on stand

ards, thus an

awaren

ess of

existing an

d emerging stan

dards is imperative. A bro

ader discu

ssion and pro

motion of

stan

dards activities w

ill help to ensu

re that A

ustralia can

have a say in the dev

elopmen

t of

stan

dards that impact an

d are of relevance

in our sp

ecific co

ntex

t.

Agree

dAvailability of ex

pertise lim

its

capacity in this area; ’gap

analysis’ by IC

SM is ne

eded

to id

entify m

issing an

dessential standards - sh

ould

be nee

ds drive

n.


#Description

Decision

Comments

R18

Services arising from the ASDI should be able to be chained together

In ord

er to deliver spatial b

usiness pro

cesses that can

be integrated

into standard w

orkflo

ws

or pro

cesses, ASD

I services should be ab

le to be ch

ained

toge

ther. Initially this is ex

pected

to be a man

ual pro

cess of iden

tifying the relevant services to exec

ute, but in future could be

a pro

cess undertake

n direc

tly machine-to-m

achine.

Agree

dLY

NX2 will help solve this

for data that is delivered

by

PSM

A.


#Description

ICSM Role in

Action Item

Comments

A11

Dev

elop guidelines by which resources are defined

to help avoid duplication

Contributor

ICSM

’s role lies with

understan

ding an

d sharing

national infrastructure and a

register of reso

urces.

All IC

SM W

orking Gro

ups

have a primary purp

ose of

pro

moting the co

nsisten

t use

of national / international

stan

dards.

A12

Dev

elop guidelines to distingu

ish histo

rical ve

rsus cu

rren

t reso

urces

Contributor

ICSM

’s particu

lar

contribution to this is

related to estab

lishing data

stan

dards an

d in

fluen

cing

how jurisd

ictions arch

ive

their data.

A13

Dev

elop a tool to m

anage ASD

I reso

urces (including registration and

modification)

Contributor

May be ab

le to assist an

dpro

vide ad

vice

if required

.

A14

Dev

elop a standardised

appro

ach to resource licen

sing

No role

A15

Iden

tify the stan

dards thro

ugh

which A

SDI co

mponen

ts sho

uld interact

Contributor

See A4.


#Description

ICSM Role in

Action Item

Comments

A16

Dev

elop a policy for ea

ch A

SDI co

mponen

tContributor

Participate in policy

dev

elopmen

t if required

.

ICSM

’s role gen

erally

invo

lves the im

plemen

tation

of po

licy (dev

eloped

by

‘policy’ organ

isations su

ch as

ANZLIC or COAG) as

opposed to having an

actual

role in policy dev

elopmen

t.

A17

Pro

mote awaren

ess of stan

dards groups an

d existing stan

dards

Contributor

Tools available to ICSM

include:

•

ICSM

web

site

•

ICSM

NEW

S•

ICSM

subscription list.

A18

Impro

ve industry invo

lvem

ent in stand

ards dev

elopmen

t an

d organ

isations

Contributor

ICSM

has a partial role only

bec

ause its sphere of

influ

ence

is go

vern

men

t.

Other organ

isations can have

a more significant im

pact (eg

Google).


ACCESS

#Description

Decision

Comments

R19

Policies describing the access to services should be established

Policies sh

ould be dev

eloped

that cove

r the sp

ectrum of issu

es enco

mpassed w

ithin D

igital

Rights M

anagem

ent (D

RM) as it relates to

spatial data an

d service

s (e.g. ownersh

ip, acce

ss,

maintenan

ce, d

istribution and stewardsh

ip.

Guidelines for the pricing of data sh

ould be dev

eloped

, an

d a dec

ision mad

e as to the price

of go

vern

men

t sp

atial data. Fe

edback rece

ived

to date on this issue has suggested that

gove

rnmen

t data sh

ould be mad

e available for free

, howev

er tho

se adding value to

it (either

gove

rnmen

t or the private sec

tor) m

ay the

n charge

users.

These po

licies sh

ould be dev

elope

d by a national organ

isation.

Agree

dHowev

er a nationally agree

dpricing policy fram

ework for

data has bee

n pro

blematic to

date. This nee

ds further

definition of ‘data’ and

‘service

s’.

The Australian Spatial

Conso

rtium (ASC

) co

uld be

the logical ‘carrier’ for this.

R20

A policy should be established to recommend that all government agencies

provide access to their resources via the ASDI

The ASD

I sh

ould be regard

ed as the main fram

ework for acce

ss to gove

rnmen

t reso

urces.

While

also including a range

of non-gove

rnmen

t reso

urces, initially gove

rnmen

t reso

urces

will form

the bulk of the co

nten

t within the ASD

I an

d thus pro

motion w

ill be required

.Private organ

isations, academ

ia and the ge

neral public w

ill also nee

d to be en

courage

d to

contribute to the ASD

I.

Noted

Disco

very rather than

access

should at least be thro

ugh

ASD

I.


#Description

Decision

Comments

R21

Interfaces for the discovery of ASDI resources should include all registered

resources

The ASD

I does not nee

d to be a single physical data storage

facility, b

ut rather a unified

interface sh

ould exist for the disco

very of all reso

urces reg

istered w

ithin the

ASD

I.

Agree

d

R22

Resource access should be provided as seamlessly as possible

In ord

er to facilitate spatial d

ata an

d inform

ation as a ubiquitous co

mmodity, access to

it

must be pro

vided

as seam

lessly as po

ssible. D

ata tran

sfer standards sh

ould be ad

opted and

employe

d and pricing an

d licen

sing should not be a barrier to the use of data/inform

ation;

Users should not have to

be aw

are that they

are relying on the ASD

I.

The ASD

D sho

uld be revised to ensu

re usability amongst a range

of users, not just spatial

pro

fessionals.

Agree

dASD

D should be replace

drather than

rev

ised

.

R23

A policy should be established to enforce the inclusion of metadata for all

resources available through the ASDI

Metad

ata will be the ke

y co

mponen

t in iden

tifying an

d assessing reso

urces for particu

lar

purp

oses. As su

ch, it should be man

datory to includ

e metad

ata as part of the reso

urce

registration pro

cess. T

he stru

cture and content of the required

metad

ata elem

ents m

ust be

defined

. The minim

um set of metad

ata elem

ents should allo

w an assessm

ent of data quality

of the reso

urce to

be mad

e.

The metad

ata po

licy sh

ould allo

w for the possibility of restricted

data sets, a

nd ind

eed

restrictions in m

etad

ata elem

ents them

selves.

Noted

Some form

of en

forcem

ent

(minim

al) will be required

.Potential for rating metad

ata

(e.g. three stars). Pro

per

disclosu

re lim

its liability.


#Description

ICSM Role in

Action Item

Comments

A19

Dev

elop policies to

describe acce

ss to A

SDI mec

han

isms an

d service

sMinim

al

A20

Inve

stigate Digital R

ights Man

agem

ent as it applie

s to

ASD

I reso

urces

Minim

al

A21

Dev

elop guidelines for reso

urce pricing

Minim

al

A22

Dev

elop a policy en

couraging the co

ntribution of reso

urces to the ASD

I by go

vern

men

tagen

cies

Minim

alSe

e co

mmen

ts to A16.

A23

Dev

elop guidelines to enco

urage

the co

ntribution of reso

urces to the ASD

I by private

organ

isations, academ

ia and the ge

neral public

Minim

al

A24

Iden

tify standards for the seam

less access of reso

urces

Minim

alLimited

to data related

stan

dards.

A25

Rev

ise the Australian Spatial Data Direc

tory to enh

ance

its usability and functionality

Advice

A26

Dev

elop a policy to

man

date the inclusion of metad

ata for ASD

I reso

urces

Advice


GOVERNANCE

#Description

Decision

Comments

R24

The governance model of the ASDI should incorporate:

• education/outreach

• collaboration/partnerships

o

acco

untabilities, repo

rting stru

ctures, resources and operational asp

ects

• standards, policy and legal issues

• custodianship

o

resp

onsibilities

o

inco

rporating po

ints of truth, single au

thority sources, distribution points

• resource delivery and maintenance

o

including data crea

tion an

d colle

ction

o

fram

ework data

• metadata

The go

vern

ance

model should pro

vide the institutional arran

gemen

ts for delivering sp

atial

inform

ation an

d service

s in a coord

inated

and integ

rated enviro

nmen

t, and

where possible

should lev

erage ex

isting fram

eworks/co

llaborative

arran

gemen

ts (e.g. PSM

A’s relationsh

ipwith jurisd

ictions, and ju

risd

ictions relationsh

ips with local go

vern

men

t)

Agree

dGove

rnan

ce should

‘consider’ rather than

‘inco

rporate’ item

s listed.


#Description

Decision

Comments

R25

The governance of the ASDI should be a collaborative effort between

government, the private sector and academia

The go

vern

ance

model should accommodate all SD

I stak

eholders (e.g. m

anufacturers,

supplie

rs, users and resea

rchers).

Gove

rnmen

ts are see

n as having an

ove

rarching ro

le w

ith reg

ards to

the pro

vision of

fram

eworks an

d service

s to

the co

mmunity. Unlik

e other bodies, gove

rnmen

ts are in a

unique po

sition in terms of kn

owledge

of strategic direc

tion an

d planning an

d can

often

guaran

tee that pro

posed strateg

ies are indee

d implemen

ted.

The private sec

tor’s im

med

iate focu

s is on solving business pro

blems. W

ith a grea

tkn

owledge

of cu

rren

t an

d emerging tech

nology, pro

cesses and

practices, the private sec

tor

understan

ds the tech

nical and commercial practicalities of delivering services to customers.

Academ

ia can

help to

pro

vide new

idea

s an

d direc

tions as w

ell as valuab

le context an

dco

mparison on local, national and intern

ational lev

els. The foresigh

t an

d vision that results

from academ

ic resea

rch can

help to

ensu

re that strateg

ies an

d policies pro

posed today w

illstill be relevant in the future.

Additionally estab

lished

community group

s (e.g. those created

within the em

erge

ncy service

sector or natural reso

urce man

agem

ent area

) sh

ould be invo

lved

in the form

ation and

crea

tion of the go

vern

ance

model.

Agree

dGove

rnmen

t will initially

nee

d to have the major ro

le.


#Description

Decision

Comments

R26

Government agencies should participate in the policy, coordination and

provision of data/products

Issu

es related

to policy dev

elopmen

t an

d coord

ination w

ill principally rem

ain the focu

s of

gove

rnmen

t agen

cies, howev

er should be undertake

n w

ithin the co

llaborative

framew

ork of

gove

rnmen

t, private sec

tor an

d academ

ia.

Agree

d

R27

An independent body should coordinate the governance of the ASDI

The ge

neration an

d distribution of funds for the crea

tion, mainten

ance

and operation of the

ASD

I sh

ould be ad

ministered by a national age

ncy responsible for the ASD

I. T

his

organ

isation m

ay nee

d to be established

or the priorities of an

existing organ

isation

adjusted

. To be effective, this organ

isation will req

uire au

thority to define policies an

den

courage

conform

ance

to standards an

d practices, an

d w

ill nee

d a strong co

nnec

tion

betwee

n ea

ch of the jurisd

iction’s gove

rning bodies.

Existing stru

ctures su

ch as the Council o

f Australian G

ove

rnmen

ts (COAG) an

d the

pro

posed A

ustralian Spatial Conso

rtium (ASC

) sh

ould be used as a model for operational

organ

isation and collaborative

initiative

s that should be em

ploye

d by the ASD

I go

vern

ing

body.

Noted

A new

body would be

dep

enden

t up

on new

funding

and bro

ad accep

tance

.

ANZLIC could coord

inate.


#Description

ICSM Role in

Action Item

Comments

A27

Estab

lish a gove

rnan

ce m

odel for the delivery of sp

atial inform

ation an

d service

s from the

ASD

I that enco

mpasses go

vern

men

t, private industry and academ

ia

No role

A28

Define a policy to

enco

urage

the participation of go

vern

men

t agen

cies in the policy,

coord

ination and pro

vision of reso

urces for the ASD

I

No role

A29

Rev

iew and iden

tify an indep

enden

t organ

isation to coord

inate the go

vern

ance

of the ASD

INo role


STANDARDS

#Description

Decision

Comments

R28

Reviewing and monitoring data standards and systems should be the

responsibility of all ASDI stakeholders

In support of a self go

vern

ing ap

pro

ach for the ASD

I, review

ing an

d m

onitoring pro

cesses

should be ab

le to be perform

ed by all ASD

I stak

eholders.

Agree

d

R29

The process of monitoring standards and systems should be automated where

possible

The ex

tent to w

hich the ASD

I will nee

d to ensu

re the quality of the reso

urces that it

pro

vides nee

ds to

be defined

, ho

wev

er idea

lly this should be perform

ed in an

auto

mated

man

ner w

ith no

or little human

interaction. Ben

efits asso

ciated

Agree

d

R30

Metadata standards should be defined and enforced

Accurate m

etad

ata facilitates data an

d service

disco

very. A

standard for the description of

metad

ata has bee

n dev

eloped

for Australia, but sh

ould be more strongly man

dated

and

enforced

.

Noted

Rec

ogn

ise that some minim

alleve

l of metad

ata co

mpliance

is essen

tial. Enco

urage

full

compliance

via m

etad

ata

tools and education.


#Description

Decision

Comments

R31

Resources should be required to meet a base standard in order to be included

within the ASDI

The ‘base stan

dard’ m

ay sim

ply be a requirem

ent that m

etad

ata (o

f a particu

lar form

)acco

mpan

ies the reso

urce. Actual details for the ‘base stan

dard’ will nee

d to be research

edan

d iden

tifie

d.

Noted

Rec

ogn

ise that some minim

alleve

l of metad

ata co

mpliance

is essen

tial. Enco

urage

full

compliance

via m

etad

ata

tools and education.

#Description

ICSM Role in

Action Item

Comments

A30

Dev

elop guidelines for ASD

I stak

eholder responsibilities

Advice

A31

Dev

elop pro

cesses to auto

matically m

onitor stan

dards an

d systems use

Advice

A32

Dev

elop a policy for reso

urce metad

ata

Advice

A33

Iden

tify a ‘base stan

dard’ for ASD

I reso

urces

Advice


ORGANISATION

#Description

ICSM Role in

Action Item

Comments

A34

Define an

d adopt an

organ

isational vision that enab

les industry w

ide co

llabo

ration an

dben

efit

No role

ICSM

would be co

nsu

lted

.

A35

Nominate lead

er organ

isations to

drive

ASD

I im

plemen

tation

No role

A36

Dev

elop a commercial framew

ork that ensu

res service quality an

d pro

vides inve

stmen

tsecu

rity

No role

spatially enabling australia review of consultancy report › sites › default › files ›...

Documents