standardview vol. 2, no. 3, september/l994...

Henry Tom NATIONAL INSTIWTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY

n The emerging 618 standards infrastructure presents signlflernt fmpllcs- tlons and poses substantial challenges. The mcugnitlon, receptlvIty, and respon- slvensss of the 618 and information technology communithw tu this GIS standards infmslruclum ctmfhte an Impor- tant measure of the progress and potential of GIS technolugy.This article traces the evolution of GIS technology, outlines the GIS standards Infrastructure, and Identifies issues impacting GIS standards. The dispusltion and reso- lution of such issues WIN reflect the validity of this GIS standards Infrastructure.

n essence, Geographic Information Sys- tems (GIS) answer the question: where? Information derived from data organized, managed, and queried by location provides an enabling technology for many diverse applications. GIS form a distinct class of information systems through their unique requirements for collecting, converting, storing, retrieving, processing, analyzing, creating, and displaying any and all data that can be referenced by location.

Despite recent economic downturns, the 500 million dollar GIS software market managed an overall growth rate of 16

percent during 193. Within the market, the low cost desktop segment achieved almost a 37 percent growth rate. Currently, annual public expenditures for the collection, maintenance, and manipulation of GIS data are estimated to be between six and ten billion dollars a year nationally. The continuing integration of GIS technology with Intelligent Vehicle High- way Systems (M-IS) and Global Positioning Systems (GPS) may very well sustain this healthy rate of growth. Estimates indicate that government and industry within the United States will spend over 200 billion dollars on M-IS during the next twenty years and the enhancement of GPS technology will also number in the biiions of dollars.

Market analysts are expecting many large software developers to integrate GIS capabilities into their products. A recent example is the incorporation of Atlas GIS, a desktop mapping/cIS software package, into Lotus 123. Other major software vendors such as Microsoft are including mapping into their own prod- uct lines. Although GIS began in the earth science realm of environmental/natural resources applications and mapping, the business/corporate applications of GIS technology will have the most widespread deployment over the long term.

StandardView Vol. 2, No. 3, September/l994 lS3

D igitizing street intersections . . . and streets . . . in the GBF/DM.E system for all the major cities in the U.S. was quite an undertaking.

61s lwwlemy The origins of GIS technology began with the quantitative revolution in the field of geography during the 1950s. The focus on quantitative geography was reinforced by the introduction of statistical methods and computers, giving rise to analytical spatial analysis. In the late W&s, the Harvard Laboratory for Computer Graphics and Spatial Analysis released SYMAP, Cal- form, and other computer mapping programs. SYMAP was a computer mapping program producing primitive computer maps through overprinting by high-speed line printers connected to mainframe computers. This was quickly followed by pen plotter outputs actually resembling traditional maps, thereby initiating the era of computer-assisted cartography.

Computer mapping requires a digital representation of the location of features and/or cartographic boundaries. This was first accomplished by digitizing and now includes scanning technology. The earliest form of digitizing was to overlay a grid on a map to record the Cartesian coordinates of the boundary or location. Early electronic digitizing was not directly linked with mainframe computers, since sharing of the central processing unit (CPU) by multiple programs could result in the digitizing program being swapped out, losing the points digitized. This changed as minicomputers became available and could be totally dedicated to digitizing.

During the 1970s pioneering innovations at the U.S. Bureau of the Census provided a foundation for GIS technology. J.P. Corbett 119791, a Census math- ematician, applied topology, a branch of mathemat- ics, to cartography. Points, lines, and polygons were used to describe cartographic features, boundaries, and areas, each representing real world spatial entities. Topology provided a mathematical basis on which to determine adjacency and connectivity rela- tions between cartographic features. This instituted a digital and mathematical approach for integrating modern spatial analysis with cartography. Digital cartographic files of boundaries and entities included topological information that enables them to be “intelligent” and subject to query. These files were a major improvement over the original “spaghetti” files which did not contain such information and only provided a graphical tracing of spatial features and boundaries. Topologically structured files reduced the large size of digital cartographic files and made them efficient. This was the impetus for developing the Geographic Base Files/Dual Independent Map En- coding (GBF/DIME) System. Since Decennial Census- es consisted primarily of mailoutimailback question-

134 StandardView Vol. 2, No. 3, September/l994

naires, the address range information within the GBF/DIME files was significant in the distribution, collection, and collation of responses according to political, administrative, and statistical areas. Digitiz- ing street intersections (nodes) and streets (line seg- ments) in the GBF/DIME system for all the major cities in the U.S. was quite an undertaking.

The GBF/DIME system has now evolved into the Topological Integrated Geographic Encoding Refer- ence (TIGER), which provides much of the urban geographic databases in GIS systems today. Its com- plementary topographical (natural features) equivalent is the Digital Line Graph (DLG) produced by the U.S. Geological Survey. The software and systems development for both the TIGER and the DLG were large, expensive GIS, capable of mapping and analytical functions. At this stage in the 1970s only major organizations could afford to own large mainframe computers or to maintain large programming and digitizing staffs to create such large geographic databases. Many of the existing cartographic data structures are variants of these two forerunner systems. Throughout the 1970s most efforts were concerned with automating cartography in terms of digitizing paper maps and producing high-quality computer maps. Over two dozen cartographic data structures now exist.

During the 19X&, the availability of workstations and personal computer hardware/software with ever increasing capabilities at dramatically decreasing costs, along with the widespread acceptance of relational database management systems @DBMS), were the major forces in providing affordable computer mapping systems and GIS. At first there was some confusion about the difference between a computer mapping system and a GIS. Generally, a GIS had, in addition to computer mapping, a set of functions for spatial analysis. GIS are generally turnkey systems with GIS software controlling a relational database management system @DBMS). The software handles the geographic attribute data and allows access to analytical and computer mapping functions operating on digital cartographic files and the geographic database. The vast majority of GIS incorporate some generic RDBMS engine.

Although the application of topology to digital cartographic files established a strong database foundation to GIS technology, many spatial analytical functions could only be achieved through graphical solutions such as polygon overlays, Traditionally, digital cartographic files were either vector or raster in nature. Each data type had its own domain of applications and users. In recent years, GIS applications

have begun to incorporate other technologies such as expert systems and object-oriented techniques. Be- cause much of GIS technology is feature-based, it is a very natural model for GIS applications to align with the object-oriented paradigm.

Vendors who in the beginning were purveyors of computer mapping systems then added the spatial analytical functions to make their systems full- fledged GIS. This change was most evident in the case of desktop mapping packages which were transformed into a GIS. Within the GIS industry, there are approximately 160 vendors offering ser- vices covering digitizing, data conversion, consulting, and specializing in a particular application domain. The overwhelming majority of vendors are small firms. Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) and Intergraph Corporation collectively ac- count for over 50 percent of market shares both in the federal and commercial sectors. Some of the for- mer defense contractors and vendors view GIS, GPS, and M-IS technologies as migration paths to civilian applications and markets.

Governmental organizations at the federal, state, and local levels are major users of GIS. Historically, government organizations have broad scopes of responsibility in terms of the data they collect to achieve their mission. They use GIS to manage their activities. These organizations are also major produc- ers of data for GIS users. Many of the substantial GIS procurement contracts are derived from govemmen- tal programs that are national in scope.

Standards are an undeniable reality of GIS technology. The successful sharing and integration of spatial data from diverse sources, integration of GIS with computer hardware and software, and the integration of GIS with other information technologies are beginning to occur. The development of standards for GIS technology reflects the mainstream trends occurring in the standards world, namely, the anticipatory development of standards, increasing participation of users, integration of standards, and the integration of

technologies. Such trends are emerging within the world of GIS standards.

The term “GIS standards” is ubiquitous. Yet what it refers to is, at best, vague. The following may be use- ful in clarifying the meaning and scope of GIS standards.

8lS8tmlrr6 GIS standards refer to information technology standards and/or spatial data standards. A GIS standard may be an information technology standard, a generic computer standard, adopted or adapted for GIS applications (Figure One). An example is the GIS extension to the Structured Query Language (SQL) currently under development. A GIS stan&rd may also be a spatial data standard. Spatial data standards are specific standards developed for defining, describing, and processing spatial data. The Spatial Data Transfer Standard (SDTS) is an example of a spatial data standard. Generic computer standards can also be adopted or adapted to define, describe, or process spatial data.

In standards development, a common practice is to first consider the adoption or adaptation of an existing standard. Developing a standard is usually a last resort, since the time for developing and approving standards is a lengthy process. Standards should be available when needed, so standards development needs to be anticipatory rather than reactive. Integrat- ing other standards during development insures the interoperability of these standards, while confor- mance testing of standards provides confidence in their implementations.

Th@msst8w8mInlnrhrcsm To be viable, the GIS standards infrastructure must be part of the existing formal standards infrastructure. For the U.S., this infrastructure is based primarily on three organizations. The National Institute of Stan- dards and Technology (NISI? develops information

FIGURE ONE

Doiinltion of OIS standards.

StandardView Vol. 2, No. 3. September/l994 1%

I

W i&out true consensus, a standard will not last.

technology standards for Federal organizations. The American National Standards Institute MNSI) coordinates the development of voluntary national standards within industry and the private sector. The In- ternational Organization for Standardization (ISO) coordinates the development of international standards. Within the IS0 community, ANSI represents U.S. interests. While within the U.S., ANSI provides the necessary liaison to the IS0 community (Figure Two). Because the applicability of many technical standards is generic, many standards approved in these organizations are mutually accepted through adoption or adaptation. Although these organizations represent different audiences, the process of standards development and approval is similar.

The modus operandi and legitimacy of standards organizations is predicated on due process. The process of developing and approving standards is designed to be open and fair, with balanced patticipa- tion and consensus. These principles prevent any single interest from dictating or dominating the outcome. Without true consensus, a standard will not last. Within the standards development process, there are specific procedures for voting, commenting, and appealing. As all these organizations conform to this process, they form an effective infrastructure for standards development characterized by participation, co- operation, and coordination. Each standards organization supports a specific community of users. This provides varying viewpoints for the development and application of standards within the overall standards infrastructure.

The GIS standards infrastructure also includes organizations that encourage or develop de facto stan-

dards. These standards do not undergo a formal approval and acceptance by a recognized standards organization. Yet, such organizations provide many of the proposals and specifications that become de jure standards. The following outlines the organizations producing de jure and de facto GIS standards within each of the three environments comprising the GIS standards infrastructure.

THE GOVERNMENT COMPONENT During the 19&s, the Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) Program was established to stan- dardize Federal usage of computers. The FIPS Pro- gram is administered by the National Institute of Stan- dards and Technology (NET), formerly the National Bureau of Standards (NBS). FIPS are government standards for federal agencies and organizations.

Geographic coding standards were among the first FIPS developed. Generally known as FIPS codes, this set of standards consists of alphanumeric codes to uniquely identify, locate, and reference data. PIPS codes identify digital cartographic boundary files, the locations of geographic features, and spatially reference social, economic, or demographic data. FIPS standards for geographic codes and information technology constitute the core of Federal standards for GIS technology.

Prior to the development of FIPS 173, Spatial Data Transfer Standard (SDTS) played a minor role in the Federal geographic and cartographic communities. Starting in 1975, digital computers for automating mapping were just being introduced in these communities. As computer power increased and computer size decreased, the GIS tools that were previously ap-

GIS Standards Infrastructure

Standards Organizations

National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST)

Standards User Organizations

Federal Geographic Data Committee

(FGDC)

American National Standards Institute

(ANSI) X3L1, GIS TC

International Organization for Standardization (ISO) IS0 TC 211, Geographic InformationlGeomatics

Open GIS Consortium National Stabs G qaphic Information Councrl ( SGIC)

Int. Cartographic Assn. Int. Hydrographic Office

Digital Geo . Info. Work Group ( 8 IGIWG)

FIGURE TWO

618 standards infrastructure.

136 StandardView Vol. 2, No. 3, September/l 994

plied by only a few major organizations rapidly became common among many federal agencies. As the application of computers in geography and cartography grew within the federal government, it became apparent that earth science data standards would be needed.

In 1980, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed by the National Bureau of Standards and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) designating USGS as the lead agency in developing earth science data standards for the federal government. During 1981, the USGS initiated efforts with the American Congress On Surveying and Mapping (ACSM) to establish a standards committee, the National Committee for Digital Cartographic Data Standards (NCDCDS). The National Committee included academia, industry, federal, and state/local government users of computer mapping and GIS.

In 1982, the General Accounting Office identified the need to coordinate the prolific efforts in digitizing maps and computer mapping within the federal government. The Office of Management and Budget COMB) issued a memorandum directing federal agencies to coordinate their digital mapping efforts. This memorandum established the Federal Interagency Coordinating Committee on Digital Cartography (FIC- CDC) chaired by the USGS.

After the formation of the NCDCDS and the FIC- CDC, they each developed a standard for the transfer of spatial data. In 1987, the USGS formed a task force to consolidate the two standards into one. The result- ing standard, renamed the Spatial Data Transfer Stan- dard (SDTS), was reviewed, revised, and tested by academic, industry, and government representatives over the next three years. SDTS became Federal In- formation Processing Standard (FIPS) 173 on July 29, 1992.

Throughout the ten-year process of developing SDTS, the importance of GIS standards was stressed in two major ways. The technical work to develop the requirements and specifications for this standard was a substantial intellectual activity. Concurrently, there was an equal if not greater effort to overcome attitudes held by those unaccustomed to standards development and to gain open and balanced participation by the diverse communities of potential users. This was the greater challenge.

Entire sessions and workshops at various confer- ences of major professional societies, each year over the ten years, were designed and devoted to publiciz- ing the standard, educating others about it, and gain- ing support for it. The extent to which SDTS has been discussed and written about is formidable, as evidenced by professional literature, government documents, and industry and public commentary. This ten-year development period, reinforced by an increasing recognition that standards facilitate the sharing and integration of spatial data, served to grad- ually assimilate the importance of standards to an entire generation of users.

The SDTS effort has sensitized and raised the con- sciousness of the GIS community, across disciplinary lines, to the importance of GIS standards in their craft. The formal development of SDTS as a standard started within the federal community, but its influ- ence is spreading to academia, industry, and state and local users. SDTS was a national effort that served as a model for similar international efforts. Over two dozen countries are part of this movement to develop, adopt, or adapt a spatial data transfer standard.

SDTS instituted a receptive mindset for the accep tance of future GIS standards, which was integral to the growth of GIS technology. Most people no longer question why we need standards; rather, they ask which standards need to be developed next and when we can have them. These concerns converge on establishing a structure and process for the formal development of GIS standards within the federal government, nationally and internationally.

The formal approval of SDTS as a FIPS was a milestone for several reasons. First, SDTS provides the federal government with a common means to exchange digital spatial data. The FIPS audience for standards is primarily federal, although it indirectly affects state and local governments and industry organizations due to their interactions with the federal government. Second, SDTS initiated the formal approval of GIS standards. The legacy of FIPS geographic coding standards, the NBS/USGS memorandum of understanding, and the existing FIPS process facilitated the approval and acknowledgement of SDTS as a government standard. As SDTS provides a common standard for interchanging, integrating, and sharing spatial data across many applications, it will initiate standardization of the technical domains within individual disciplines. Standardization will be ac- celerated further by the increasing use of computers and applications of other technologies.

Within the federal government, the major organization promoting the development of GIS standards is the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). Al- though not a formal standards organization, FGDC has the support of the White House and OMB. Dur- ing the past two years, FGDC has advanced the development of a National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) for the accessing and sharing of spatial data. In April 1994, the President signed Executive Order 12906, directing all affected federal organizations to participate in establishing the NSDI. FGDC, an out- growth of FICCDC, is an interagency committee of federal organizations concerned about spatial data. Extensive efforts have been made to include the participation of the entire spatial data community within FGDC. The Standards Working Group, FGDC, is sponsoring the development of a spatial metadata (information about data) standard. FGDC is in the process of establishing a clearinghouse for spatial data. Vice President Gore’s National Performance Re- view has identified NSDI as one of its objectives.

StandardView Vol. 2. No. 3, September/l994 137

lhr NanoMl CM ANSI, representing the interests of the private sector, did not have a specific geographic or GIS standards committee until recently. The proposal to develop an ANSI standard for the exchange of digital spatial data, with the possible adoption or adaptation of an existing PIPS SDTS, initiated the formation of a new GIS technical committee. An ANSI SDTS was not proposed for development under an existing ANSI sanc- tioned technical committee in order to establish a separate technical committee that could address the development of GIS standards independently. With this new technical committee, X3L1, (GIS) was formed in June 1993. The interests of federal, state and local governments and professional organizations are represented. This technical committee is currently considering the adoption of PIPS 173, Spatial Data Transfer Standard (SDTS), as an American National Standard and is working closely with the X3H2 Data- base Committee in developing a GIS extension to SQL; x3Ll is also considering the formation of working groups to address data quality and a spatial ob ject library.

Actual technical specifications for standards are not written by ANSI. Specifications for standards are developed by ANSI-accredited standards developing organizations @DOS) such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), by accredited standards committees (ASCs) such as X3 Information Technology, or by the canvass method through a recognized body such as NIST. The new GIS technical committee, X3L1, was established under X3, Informa- tion Technology. X3 serves as part of the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) for the Joint Technical Com- mittee 1 (JTCl), Information Technology, Interna- tional Organization for Standardization (ISO), and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). ISO/IEC JTCl has produced approximately one third of all IS0 standards.

Nationally, a standards committee was recently formed under the auspices of the National States Geographic Information Council (NSGIC). NSGIC is comprised of most of the GIS state coordinators. NSGIC, as many of the GIS-related professional societies do, can inform, educate, and represent the views of their constituents. NSGIC, however, provides the formal representation of states and will emerge as a powerful voice for state/local governments. Amid all these activities, standards committees have been established within professional organizations such as the American Congress on Surveying and Mapping (ACSM), Association of American Geog- raphers (AAG), and the Urban Regional Information Systems Association (URISA). The chairpersons of the standards committees within these professional organizations also participate in X3L1, Geographic Infor- mation Systems (GIS) Technical Committee. Another new member of X3Ll is the Open GIS Consortium.

The Open GIS Consortium is promoting the development of an Open Gecdata Interoperability Specifi-


cation (OGIS). OGIS is a consonium of vendors, aca- demics, government and private organizations from the GIS and computer communities, This forum seeks to achieve interoperability through three approaches. These approaches are: the integration of GIS and/or information technology standards; the sharing of data; and the sharing of applications and their functionality. Although OGIS is a very recent effort, it has increasing support and great potential. OGIS at- tracts users because of its direct interaction with major GIS vendors. GIS vendors, through the OGIS specification, are able to offer more data, functionality, and integration with related technologies such as GPS and M-IS. The advantage of the OGIS forum is the rapid development and testing of a specification, with a broad base of ownership prior to any formal submittal for approval by a standards organization.

TIM lnlaluuwrl caqmml Internationally, a new IS0 Technical Committee 211, Geographic Information/Geomatics, was approved in April 1994. During the balloting process, there was substantial concern about this committee’s name, scope of work, and secretariat because of its possible impact on the priority, nature, and timing of GIS and related standards being developed. There was even some discussion as to establishing this new activity as a separate technical committee or as a new technical subcommittee under ISO/IEC JTCl. Of the three countries, France, Norway, and United Kingdom, that volunteered to serve as secretariat for this new technical committee, Norway was selected. The inaugural meeting for IS0 TC 211 was set for November 1994 in Oslo, Norway.

The level of activity and interest in GIS is high among individual countries as well as multinational and international organizations. The European Com- mittee for Standardization (CEN), representing the 16 countries of the European Community (EC), is also a player. CEN Technical Committee 287 is charged with defining standards for geographic information, and several international organizations are prominent players in international standards activities. The Digi- tal Geographic Information Working Group (DIGI- WG) composed of representatives from the North At- lantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries developed DIGEST, a spatial data interchange standard originally intended for military applications. The International Cartographic Association (ICA) has a commission on digital cartographic transfer standards. This commission published a survey of international spatial data exchange standards, and a monograph on the parameters for the evaluation of spatial data exchange standards is forthcoming. The International Maritime Organization @IO) and International Hy- drographic Organization (IHO> have also developed DX-90, a spatial data exchange standard. The Euro- pean Committee of Representatives of Official Cartog- raphy (CERCO) is a multinational organization of twenty countries. Each country is represented by the

director of its civilian national mapping agency. CERCO is attempting to develop a European Transfer Format (ETF). The participation of these organizations within IS0 will be based on liaison relationship.

Collectively, these federal, national, and international organizations constitute the GIS standards infrastructure, which forms the foundation for standardization within the GIS community. It also allows for interdisciplinary standardization, as well as integration of other existing and emerging information technologies with GIS technology.

Issues impacting GIS standards can be viewed from data, information technology standards, and institutional perspectives. Each perspective includes several closely related issues within the realm of GIS standards as well as external interactions.

DATA ISSUES The ability to spatially reference most data by coordinate systems, geographic names, or geographic codes enables the vast majority of all data to be geo-referenced. Given this capability, the use of geographic codes as spatial data standards constitutes a significant issue within the GIS community.

Geographic coding standards enable the association of any data to various geographic entities such as countries, states, counties, places-administratively and statistically defined areas. Traditionally, the domi- nant users of these geographic coding standards are not from the geographic or cartographic communities Rather, they are involved in social, economic, demographic, and statistical applications.

One of the most formidable sources of social, economic, and demographic data is the U.S. Bureau of

the Census. All census data are geocoded. In addition, numerous companies and organizations in the private sector, state, county, and municipal govem- ments code their own data with geographic codes. However, many data files are not geocoded, and there is a naive belief that the zip code associated with the data will provide the locational index when needed.

In order to attain geographic comparability between geocoded data and data that relies only on zip codes for location, several issues must be addressed. This is because the zip code provides coverage at only one level of geography, while the geographic coding standards provide many levels of geographic coverage, none of which is consistent with zip code

geogwb There currently exists a separation between the

GIS and the other applications communities. There does not currently exist a recognition by the GIS community that potential data for GIS applications are not normally locationally referenced by geographic coordinates and/or names. At the same time, users outside the main GIS community are not aware of the geocoding standards that are available.

If these communities could be integrated by the application of geocoding standards, GIS users would gain the availability and access to social, economic, demographic, and corporate data while at the same time this would make GIS technology more available for use by other diverse applications.

GIS standards for data currently include standards for data transfer, geocoding, metadata documenta- tion, and formats (Figure Three). Emerging GIS standards will cover data quality and a spatial object library. A standard for spatial data quality and its inherent implications will likely be controversial. The

QIS Standards

Federal National International

FIPS 6 -States ANSI X3.36 - Slates

FIPS 6 -Counties ANSI X3.31 - Counties

FIPS 6 - Motm. Amas

FIPS 9 -cOng. Wt.

FIPS 10 -Counties ISOlANSlMlSO 3166 IS0 3166 - Counties

FIPS 55 - Places ANSI x3.47 - Places

FIPS 70 - Goog. Lot. ANSI X3.61 - Geog. Lot. IS0 6709 - Geog. Lot.

FIPS 103 - Hydro. Units

FIPS 173 - SDTS

‘Content Standards for Spatial M&data

(DW

‘Open Geodata lnteroparability Spec. (Under Development)

l GlS lmplemantation of IS0 9679~Remota Data Access (RDA)

FIGURE THREE

GIS standrrds.

StandardView Vol. 2, No. 3, September/l994 139

1 Distributed Hmterogmeous Spatial Dat8b8s.s 1

- MOSAIC-HTTP l

RDA ’ I RDA I RDA

“ZE A RDA

DL%P

, \ c . 1 Database 1

FIGURE FOUR

Remote data access (RIM) foundation.

spatial object library is important for maintaining compatibility between the GIS Extension to SQL and the OGIS Data Model and serves as a major interface between the object and GIS worlds. Spatial data are interdisciplinary because location is a fundamental way of organizing data. Accordingly, as the spatial data community is both broad and diverse, the development of common data standards will necessarily be comprehensive and broad in scope. Yet, in order for spatial data to be accessible for many applications, generic information technology standards for data should be adopted or adapted. Furthermore, spatial data need to be fully integrated with corporate data within enterprise databases.

Another issue associated with spatial data is that of perception. For some, there seems to be the need to differentiate GIS standardization between geographic information and GIS technology. This was significant for the majority of the participants within the new IS0 211, Geographic InformatiorUGeomatics Technical Committee, in terms of name and placement. The name is important because it largely defines the scope and program of work, while placement resulted in es tablishing a separate technical committee rather than placement as a component within ISO/IEC JTCl, In- formation Technology.

For the future, a considerable effort in GIS standards will be concerned with data. Standards for data administration and database management will be the priority and a mainstay for quite a while. As GIS technology is embedded within other software products and location-based applications, GIS technology will require ongoing integration with generic information technology.


INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ISSUES The development and deployment of GIS standards require the integration of information standards to incorporate the capabilities of existing and emerging info-technologies while allowing the introduction of GIS technology into other enabling technologies. This interplay of GIS and information technology standards requires constant attention because of the dy- namic nature of the technologies.

Information technology standards provide for the integration of the NSDI with the NIL The Clinton administration, through the National Performance Re- view (NPR) and Executive Order 12906, has identified the NSDI as a major milestone. The FGDC, chaired by the Secretary of the Interior, is another in- dication of the visibility and priority of this effort. The establishment of the NSDI Clearinghouse for accessing geospatial data is a primary goal for the FGDC. FGDC is promoting the use of FIPS 173, SDTS, for data transfer and has just completed Content Stan- dards for Spatial Metadata (CSSM). Concurrent with these activities within the NII, a new Government In- formation Locator Service (CBS) is undergoing approval as a FIPS. GILS will be used for identieing and locating all government data. In large part, GILS is based on the ANSI/National Information Standards Organization (NISO) 239.50 Search and Retrieval Standard. Based on the NPR, the Administration released an “Agenda for Action,” describing the role of the government in promoting the NII and calls for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NISI? to establish an interagency panel to review the government’s involvement in establishing standards for the MI. The Committee on Applications and Tech-

T oday, GIS technology provides a possible renaissance for modern geography.

nology chaired by the director of NIST under the In- formation Infrastructure Task Force (IITF), which is chaired by the Secretary of Commerce, has identified several major application areas. Environmental moni- toring is one such area. A significant issue will be how this application area relates to the NSDI. If there is close compatibility, will the NSDI provide the spatial foundation for all the application areas identified by the Committee on Applications and Technology? Critical to the success of the NSDI is the actual imple- mentation of the NSDI clearinghouse. One viable so lution is provided by the GIS consortium, OGIS.

OGIS is working to produce an Open Geodata In- teroperability Specification within a distributed computing environment. Several distributed computing environments, primarily based on the object-oriented paradigm, are being closely examined. The OGIS forum seeks to attain interoperability in increments. This begins with fundamental data access and sharing and then moves up through distributed computing of shared applications and functionality. One identified Applications Programming Interface (API) is the Re- mote Data Access (RDA) API. The OGIS testbed, as part of the NIST RDA testbed, is focusing on testing the RDA API. Since much of GIS data are managed under RDBMS technology, the OGIS RDA testbed provides an immediate opportunity for implementing a prototype for the FGDC clearinghouse. The OGIS RDA API testbed is based on the Part 2: SQL Special- ization, ISO/‘IEC 9579-2: 1993 RDA standard. Because SQL implements the RDA standard, the OGIS RDA testbed also provides the foundation for testing the emerging GIS extension to SQL. When finalized, this GIS/SQL extension will provide the general computing community with a limited set of GIS functions, without GIS software. This extension will facilitate the management of software and data by GIS software vendors. It also provides a migration path between relational and object-oriented databases through its Ab stract Data Type (AD’0 capability of defining an ob ject equivalent within an RDBMS. Finally, many of the transactional issues such as the “long duration transac- tion” occurring over several weeks or months and temporal issues will be addressed.

Another concern is the relationship between FGDC and the OGIS Foundation. If a formal agreement is established between FGDC and OGIS, what is the nature of this association and how much responsibility will OGIS assume in terms of data, GIS, and information technology standards and applications within the context of interoperability? Since both FGDC and OGIS represent major GIS standards efforts, there needs to be a division of labor, coordination, and co-

operation for either group to achieve its objectives. To a large extent, the OGIS effort may well represent a change in the philosophy of major data, user, and vendor organizations within the GIS community.

INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES The rapid pace of computer technology, the synergy of technology integration, emerging info-structures, and plain necessity of just getting a bigger bang for the buck are converging and driving many efforts to wards the common goal of interoperability. Modem technology in the personal and media communica- tions industries, as evidenced by cellular phones and live coverage of events, has made indelible changes in what is expected by the public. As the world moves towards a consumer society, the demand for information and technology remains unabated. In truth, many other technologies are under pressure to measure up. Advances are no longer measured by a few pioneers, but by the advance of an industry as a whole, because the world as a whole is becoming a consumer society.

The promise and potential of the NII, supported by various directives, are beginning to change the philosophy, operation, and viewpoint of many govem- ment organizations. Major government organizations that produce traditional paper map and data products are in a process of transition. They are converting their paper products to digital equivalents on different types of media and making these products available on computer networks. OMB Circular A130 sets the policy for federal organizations in how information resources will be managed in terms of the ownership, liability, and costs of federal information resources. In addition, other changes are expanding the traditional role of these government organizations.

With the Cold War over, organizations once primarily military in orientation must now respond to civilian requirements. Expanding the role of an organization with financial constraints forces the consoli- dation of previously single-purpose systems. Interop et-ability is desired by most organizations; what is not clear, however, is how an organization is going to achieve it individually, since each organization has its own unique set of circumstances. There seems to be a recognition that standards are critical in attaining a vertical integration within a particular technology such as GIS and integrating horizontally across several technologies. If there is agreement that standards are a solution, the question then is: which ones?

GIS standards, like other standards, are viewed by many organizations and users as a primary form of technology transfer. Rapidly changing technologies,

StandardView Vol. 2. No. 3, September/l994 141

pervasive and complex, present increasingly more difficult issues in terms of technology integration, costs, and the technical expertise available to any one individual or organization. Standards provide a mech- anism for both management and technical staff to address both immediate and strategic problems. Major institutions such as professional organizations are re- alizing that as technologies mature, there is increasing pressure to identify and support standards re- sponsive to the needs of their constituents. Various GE applications are confronting issues that are global in scope. Such problems require solutions that are only possible and effective if international standards are used by all parties. Hence, the increasing interest in IS0 standards. Interest in IS0 standards extends beyond GIS requirements. Institutions are adopting a more enterprise-driven model in their corporate data, applications, and business plans to achieve critical objectives.

lHECMUEN6E Geography was once considered the mother of all sciences. Over time, the perceived importance of geography has declined. Today GIS technology provides a possible renaissance for modem geography.

This GIS standards infrastructure offers an unprece- dented means for the GIS world to interact, on an equal and mutually beneficial basis, with the world of information technology standards. What really mat- ters is that the GIS community participate within the GIS standards infrastructure. Such an infrastructure serves not only as a standards forum, but it also es- tablishes a community of concern and ownership in developing specifications to resolve issues common to all. For a successful union, many of the identified issues must be resolved. As GIS standards infrastruc- tures emerge within other countries, they will ulti- mately converge withii the IS0 environment. Global GIS standards will reflect the solutions and solidarity of the international GIS world. SV

A portion of this paper was taken from an article in an upcoming issue of Cartography and Geographic Information Syslems. the Journal of fhe American Congms and Sumtying and Maflping.

Blblllr;r~ ACM. 1993. Proceedings of Ihe Conference on

Informarion and Knowledge Management (Crystal City, Va., Nov.). ACM, New York.

ACSM. 1992. Implementing the spatial data transfer standard. Cariograpby Geographic In/. Sysr. 19, 5 (Dec.).

ACSM. 1988. The proposed standards for digital cartographic data. Am. Cartographer 15, 1 (Jan.).

ACSM. 1974. Proceedings of the Intenwlional Conference on Automation in Cartography (Reston, VA., Dec. 9-12). American Congress on Surveying and Mapping.

ANSI/NISO. 1992. Information retrieval application service definition and protocol for open systems interconnection. ANSINSO 239.50.

CORBETT, J. P. 1979. Topological principles in cartography. Tech. Paper 48, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington DC., Dec.

CSIA. 1994. Standards develooment and information infrastructure: ‘Center for Science anb International Affairs, Harvard Univ., Cambridge, Mass., May.

EOP. 1994. Coordinating geographic data acquisition and access: The national spatial data infrastructure. Executive Order 12906, Executive Office of the President, Washington D.C., April 11.

FGDC. 1994. Content standards for digital spatial data. Draft, Federal Geographic Data Committee, Washington D.C., March 31.

GAO. 1982. Duplicative federal computer-mapping programs: A growing problem. GAO/RCED-83-19, General &counting &fke, Washington D.C., Nov. 22.

IEEE. 1994. Mass storage svstems workshoo on me&data for scientific and technical dita ?May 16-18). IEEE Computer Society Technical Committee on Mass Storage Systems, IEEE, Washington D.C.

IITF. 1993. The national information infrastructure: Agenda for action. Information Infrastructure Task Force, Sept. 15.

ISO. 1993. IS0 working draft multimedia and application packages (SQL/MM). Pan 3: Spatial, N1614, SQL/MM Mun-005. ISO/IEC JTCl/SC21 WG3, Sept.

ISO/IEC. 1993. Information technology-open systems interconnection-remote database access, Part 1: Generic model, service and protocol, part 2: SQL specialization. ISO/IEC 9579.

LEIBS, S. 1994. Throw out the push pins. Information Week uune 6).

MOLLERING. H. (Ed.). 1991. SDatial Database Transfer Standards: C&ent I&&atio&l Stat& Elsevier, New York. a

NBS. 1980. 26408 data elements and representations; standardization; automated earth science systems Gse; memorandum of understanding with Geological Survey. NBS Nolices, Federal Register 45, 77 (April 18).

NIST. 1992. Federal information processing standard (FIPS) 173, spatial data transfer standard (SDTS). National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Washington D.C., Aug.

OMB. 1993. Federal information and resources management (circular A-130). revision notice. Fedemf R@s#e~ (Iuly 2).

OMB. 1990. Coordination of surveying, mapping, and related spatial data activities, circular A-16. Office of Management and Budget, Washington DC.

OMB. 1983. Coordination of federal digital cartographic data programs. M-83-12, Executive Ofice of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington D.C., April 4.

ROBINSON, V. B. AND TOM, H. (Ed.). 1993. Towards SQL database language extensions for geographic information systems. NISTlR S258, National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington D.C., Aug.

SKINNER, L. 1994. On the virtual road: No more maps in laps. Washington Tecbnoi. (June 23).

SONNEN. D. H. 1994. Standards and interooerabilitv: kev to GIS market growth. Grass Clippings: J. Open &ogrq&c It& SjM 7,3 (Winter).

WARNECKE, L. 1994. A national ap roach to geographic information will 1994 make the d ip ference? Government Imaging.

This work was done while the author was an employee al the U.S. Government.


standardview vol. 2, no. 3, september/l994...

Documents