Establishing the UK National Geospatial Data Framework

Les Rackham and David Rhind

Presented at SDI, Ottawa, Canada, June 1998

Summary

There has been a long history in Britain of formal consideration of geographic information policies and problems. Most of these studies - all of which have had some beneficial effect on the GI industry - have been heavily centred on government as a provider and user of data; the sequence of studies cited however has shown a progression to wider considerations, starting with a focus on Ordnance Survey&REG; and spreading (e.g. in the Chorley Report) to a wide range of geospatial data.

The National Geospatial Data Framework (NGDF) concept has now been widely accepted by the geospatial community in the United Kingdom and the first steps have been taken towards its realisation. The growth of geospatial data services and their fusion with larger integrated information services will assist development at all levels with potential benefits for all in the form of new commercial services and better government through to the individual. In the absence of central government funding it is being taken forward by partnership of public and commercial players. Its aim is to improve the access to and the quality and level of use of Geographic Information (GI) of all types, plus to generate added value through data linkage and the growth of information services. It is entirely consistent with - but anticipated - various UK government policies on openness, such as are expressed in the White Paper government.direct. From its conception in late 1995 and start in 1996; initial funding, management and development structures have been established and substantial progress made to address some of the key issues. The parallels to what is happening in the rest of the world are set out. Finally, progress to date is reviewed and plans for the future are laid out.

It is concluded that we have learned useful lessons from phase 1 of the project. The nature, role and structure of NGDF is now under a long-planned review. Though nothing certain can yet be said, it seems likely that, in phase 2, additional financing is required, a change to a not-for-profit-based legal entity may be advantageous and that much greater political support is essential if NGDF is to progress satisfactorily.

The problem

Governments hold and maintain large amounts of information and data as a necessary part of meeting their functions. About three quarters of this appears to be geographically or spatially referenced (i.e. has some means - such as postcodes, grid references, place names or postal addresses - of relating it to 'space'). This means that data collected quite separately by diverse bodies can be linked together, creating potential added value virtually for free.

Collection of geographic information is an expensive business is typically expensive. Ten years ago, the US federal government was estimated to spend over $6 billion annually on it and this sum was probably matched by local and state governments. The corresponding figure for the UK is almost certainly in excess of Ł1 billion but is impossible to estimate with any precision.

In the past, the information has been collected by a multiplicity of bodies and its use has largely been restricted to that body. Ordnance Survey mapping and Population Census statistics have been the two widely used exceptions. As a consequence of this separateness, the data have typically been inconsistent in important respects (e.g. in accuracy and resolution, timeliness, classification and terms and conditions of use). The difficulties have been compounded by the fact that knowledge of what existed was not widespread and there were no incentives for departments to make this metadata or the data itself widely known.

The change in technology exemplified by the decreasing costs of computing power (about a factor of 1000 in the last 10-15 years), the widespread use of networking such as through the Internet and the advent of easy-to-use facilities like the World Wide Web have transformed what is technically possible. In addition, the private sector is coming to play a much more central role in some areas of data collection and exploitation. The prime barriers - and they are considerable ones - to making much better use of what is available are therefore now institutional, legal, economic and educational ones.

What is the NGDF?

In 1995, the specific problems to be resolved in the UK were (and still are) seen as:

information about geographical (or geospatial) data sets is difficult to obtain;
the information available varies greatly in quality between organisations;
valuable data sets are held, especially by government bodies, but are not currently available for many reasons;
existing data sets have been collected to different specifications so it is not easy to integrate data safely from multiple sources;
data is often not easy to access physically; and
there are presently few services based on data combinations and extraction of added value.

NGDF objectives

As a result of the problems defined above, Ordnance Survey staff (Nanson et al 1995) proposed at the 1995 national GIS conference the need for a national initiative which has resulted in the NGDF. In no sense was this something wholly novel: the list of antecedents, which date back to the 1930s at the latest, is shown below:

the 1938 report of the Davidson Committee which urged the creatiojn of a consistent, coherent and continuously maintained map framework for Britain as part of the infrastructure of the modern state;
the report of the Serpell Committee in 1979 which examined the role of mapping as a framework and what form this should take, who should have access to it, etc;
the House of Lords Select Committee report on 'Digital mapping and remote sensing' in 1984 which was perhaps the first senior report to national government which highlighted the inetractions between different geographical data sets and the consequences of these interactions;
the pioneering Chorley Committee report of 1987 which arose from the previous one and which was the first world-wide to examine the Geographic Information industry, including the user community, as a whole; and
the advent of the US National Spatial Data Infrastructure in 1994;

The mission of the National Geospatial Data Framework is 'to develop an over-arching UK framework to facilitate and encourage efficient linking, combining and widespread use of geospatial data which is fit for purpose'. The objectives of NGDF are to:

facilitate and encourage collaboration in the collection, provision and use of geospatial data;
facilitate and encourage the use of standards and best practice in the collection, provision and use of geospatial data; and
facilitate access to geospatial data.

Achievement of these objectives is built upon the three NGDF 'pillars'. These are:

Collaboration, developed through:

identifying key players e.g. data and service providers, systems suppliers, consumers;
identifying key sources of geospatial data;
persuading, facilitating, sharing experience and knowledge; and
encouraging new partnerships and collaborative ventures for data exploitation

Use of standards

Data linkage is the key to creating added value and generating new GIS applications. But world-wide experiences demonstrate that it is easy to create meaningless data sets at great expense by this means: results may be totally erroneous and misleading unless the data sets are well-documented, adhere to agreed and published standards and the likely effects of mixing two data sets have been adequately researched. NGDF will therefore set a framework for defining business driven standards, best practice and specifications for data and services, drawing on existing national, European and international work.

Access

The simplified NGDF model is shown in figure 1. NLIS is the National Land Information Service, a prototype land conveyancing service for England and Wales now in pilot form and involving data inputs from HM Land Registry, Ordnance Survey, local governments and up to about 10 other sources. ScotLIS is the Scottish equivalent. This figure emphasises the crucial point: NGDF is not a service and is not designed to generate revenue. It is a framework within which a variety of services should operate, many of them revenue-generating. As it is inevitable that other services will grow up - indeed, that is to be desired and can not be prevented - the objective is to ensure these take advantage of experience gained in earlier services and are 'NGDF-compliant' so as to future proof any subsequently desired interactions between the services. Many of these services may well be operated by private sector organisations, sometimes in partnership with public sector bodies. It is central to NGDF's success that it will encourage the development of 'many-to-many' relationships between data suppliers, data brokers and consumers.

Figure 1 The simplified NGDF information service model

Making NGDF happen: the first phase

The principles on which NGDF was founded can be summarised as follows:

the user community had to be actively involved in NGDF;

those paying for its activities and (especially) the consequences of any activities should be centrally involved. In practice this necessitated the involvement of major primary data providers (see below) - the great bulk of them in the public sector - being on the Board;

the numbers on the Board should be kept to a level in the first instance which did not inhibit taking and implementing decisions;

the private sector should also be intimately involved, rather than being wholly outside the structures;

there should be a review of the initial activities, structures and membership after about 18 months of activities (in addition, a sunset clause was written into the constitution).

NGDF has hitherto operated through a structure shown in figure 2. The Board consists of (mainly) public and private sector information suppliers and it is advised by a Council representing the end user, the software industry, academic and other interests. This Advisory Council is based in the Association for Geographic Information, the British GI 'umbrella body' which funded a post to act as the Secretary General of the Advisory Council. Members of that Council were chosen by election from the AGI membership constituency although spare 'slots' were set up for representatives of other interests who were found to be appropriate but who were not formally members of the AGI. The chair of the AGI acts as the chair of the Advisory Council and has an 'as-of-right' membership of the NGDF Board. Secretariats of the two organisations attend each other's meetings as observers. Table 2 shows the initial membership organisations supplying members to the Board or the Council, the latter representing a wider constituency than their own organisation.

Figure 2 The NGDF structure

Table 2 The founding players of the NGDF

        Founder Members of the UK National Geospatial Data Framework          

NGDF Board                                  NGDF Advisory Council members are  
                                            employed in these organisations    

HM Land Registry                            Anglian Water Services Ltd         

IGGI (Central Government co-ordination      Birkbeck College, University of    
group)                                      London                             

IMAG (Local Government co-ordination        ESRI (UK) Ltd                      
group)                                                                         

Landmark Information Group Ltd              Dataview Solutions                 

Natural Environment Research Council        Environment Agency                 

NGDF Advisory Council                       Friends of the Earth               

Office for National Statistics              Geo-UK Ltd                         

Ordnance Survey                             MVA Systematica                    

Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland         NGDF Secretary General             

Property Intelligence Plc                   Public Record Office               

Registers of Scotland                       University of Newcastle            

The Post Office                             University of Sheffield

The work of the NGDF is largely accomplished through the Task Force and Working Groups. Membership of the latter is open, within very wide limits, to all who wish to make a contribution. The Task Force is specifically responsible for implementing the NGDF work programme, all elements of which have a timetable and milestones to completion. The Task Force is run by a Programme Director (Les Rackham) and consists of the convenors of the NGDF working groups. These working groups currently are:

NGDF Programme Definition
Metadata
Research
Development of Best Practice Guidelines (using the implementation of the Environment Act Part II A as a worked example though it is very relevant to NGDF in its own right)
Education and Promotions
Accreditation and Standards
Data Availability and New Requirements
The UK Standard Geographic Base

Areas under development include:

investigating potential new data markets and requirements;
how to widen the availability of data;
accrediting metadata, standards and best practice (a very complex area);
increasing awareness through education and promotions; and
researching new technologies, opportunities and methods of reducing risk in use of GI.

Under the present programme, the currently sought NGDF deliverables include:

fully linked metadata (descriptions of data) services to replace the ageing SINES metadata service in use for several years;
fostering the creation of NGDF - compliant datasets which can be easily linked and integrated; and
fostering commercially-driven, NGDF-compliant services focusing on real user needs.

It is intended that these will be supported by:

new and pragmatic best practice guidelines;
an NGDF accreditation service;
an NGDF education programme and web site; and
a coherent framework for core geospatial data initiatives.

Given all of the above, the existing NGDF can be summarised as shown in figure 3 below.

Motivations for institutional involvement in NGDF

The 1990s reforms of UK government bodies, notably the sharp focusing on their own published corporate plans and annual targets and continuing need to demonstrate ever-better Value For Money (VFM) in the services they provide, has had dramatic effects upon their ability to think widely and long term about intangible public good benefits (see, for instance, Foster and Plowden 1996, Rhind 1997). Why then has it been possible to engage some of the most senior staff from a variety of public (and private) sector) bodies in something which has as few immediate benefits as NGDF? The authors can not readily answer that for any organisation other than their own so the Ordnance Survey rationale now follows.

Though OS has expended relatively little cash in initiating and fostering NGDF, it has devoted significant amounts of senior management energies to this stage. The Director General chairs the Management Board and a Director leads the Task Force and is Programme Director. OS staff service the Board and the Task Force. There are many other opportunities for use of these resources. The rationale for all this - which has been discussed and agreed by the OS Management Board - is three-fold:

OS believes that it has an obligation to foster better use of government resources in an area of our own expertise, not least because the Director General is formally the advisor to all UK government on Geographical Information Systems, survey and mapping;

Ordnance Survey sees considerable direct and indirect benefits to itself arising from the wider use of other information since OS provides the framework on which almost all other geographic information is collected and used. There is thus a potential win/win situation; and

if OS does not participate actively, the whole thing will certainly go much more slowly. Our critical mass, expertise, connections and contacts (in UK and outside) and reputation are necessary - but far from sufficient - requirements for success.

The international dimension

The merits of having launched NGDF are indirectly supported by the almost synchronous springing up of similar schemes elsewhere in the world. The earliest was probably the National Spatial Data Infrastructure initiative in the USA, supported by President Clinton (see Tosta 1997). Other important parallel developments with which NGDF is in touch have occurred in Canada, in the Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand, Asia and the Pacific (as a multi-national group) and elsewhere. In addition, the advent of discussions on a Global Spatial Data Infrastructure - though fraught with even greater difficulties than the national versions (see Coleman and McLoughlin 1997 and Rhind 1997b) - encourages the belief that NGDF is tackling a generic and profound challenge.

Some comparisons with other NSDI-type organisations

There are major differences between NGDF and equivalents elsewhere (see Masser 1998). Some of these differences at least are rooted in profound national differences in government structure, culture, the existing role of the private sector and the status quo. For the purposes of fostering discussion, these differences seem to us to be:

the British organisation attempts to include the public and private sector within its decision-making Board (the Canadian and Dutch SDIs have separate structures and the US one has a primary focus at federal government level);

the Dutch and US organisations have the greatest level of formal political support (and hence some centrally-contributed financing);

the UK initiative is intermediate between the 'can do' approach in Canada and the committee-rich structure in the USA (see, for instance FGDC 1998 'One of the FGDC's main roles is to help implement standards that define complex geospatial data types that are broadly accepted and used by professionals in the federal, state local and private sectors...In order to carry out this role, much of the FGDC's day to day work involves coordinating committees and working groups.';

the NGDF seems much more explicitly underpinned by the need to foster information services and facilitate business, rather than by a concern for data per se, than do some other initiatives.

Progress to date and lessons learned in phase 1

Significant real progress has been made to date (see Annex A). Particular areas of success include the definition of metadata standards and services, definition of a research agenda and a growing awareness of NGDF throughout government and the industry - if not yet more widely (this is a design aim, publicity being restricted until there are more obvious 'deliverables').

It has however become clear that the initial model requires at the very least some tuning to enable it to work more effectively. The key conclusions to arise from a review of operations to date are:

some tensions have arisen (and been managed) between the Advisory Council - which seeks to take a leading role - and the Board itself. This has arisen from the natural inclination of committed 'players' to seek an influential role and a belief that the Board should be providing stronger leadership;

expectations of progress have been high (though the nature of that desired progress can rarely be articulated) and periodic disappointment at apparent lack of progress have readily taken root;

reliance on mostly voluntary efforts have inevitably led to some slower-than-desired progress in certain areas;

the legitimacy of the Board, as manifested by its composition (defined initially of 'major players' amongst data providers, largely in the public sector) has been called into question. This is partly because of the difficulties arising from having a small number of private sector bodies on the Board. but also from the AC questioning of why only data providers should constitute the Board (the Board's view is unequivocal - those who are investing very large sums in the information should decide how and when to invest. Since most of them answer to Ministers, it would be wholly unacceptable for any executive body to be outside their 'owner's' control). Those not thus represented - especially software vendors - initially saw themselves as being disadvantaged;

the funding of the Board's activities has been minimal and much has been achieved by voluntary effort, through a Ł2000 per annum subscription paid by each Board member and by various subsidies. Given the disadvantages of primary reliance on voluntary efforts (see above), this approach is unsustainable in the longer term;

a Strategic Plan is needed to highlight the way forward and, from this, a Business Plan needs to be forged and implemented;

greater levels of political support are required, akin to those in the Netherlands where there is strong support from the Minister of Housing who has a government-wide remit for co-ordination in the Geographic Information arena.

Into the future: phase 2 of NGDF

Based on experience with phase 1 and the lessons learned to date, the NGDF Board and the Advisory Council have recently discussed a draft Strategic Plan. From this discussion, it has been decided to hold a further meeting to chart out the future nature and course of NGDF. The result will necessarily be a refined action plan.

The reconsideration of NGDF strategies assumed the following:

NGDF will participate in commercial activities whilst still being a non profit making organisation;

NGDF will, where possible, be compatible with other European initiatives;

NGDF will be constrained by resources, but this Strategy Plan will not assume the nature of any constraint;

There will be a business model that will allow NGDF to proceed;

NGDF will recognise the existing state of copyright laws, Freedom of Information Act, pricing policies etc. And it will aim to evolve in conjunction with any changes to these laws.

Other important considerations influencing the new Plan

Political/Legal factors

The main sources of base data for the UK belong to government agencies. Their ability to make data more widely available, to collaborate with each other and to interact flexibly with the private sector is constrained by rules imposed by the government of the day.

Outcomes of the Freedom of Information White Paper, the review of Crown Copyright, the Green Paper reviewing the production on National Statistics and the changes to competition law will inevitably effect NGDF. It could be argued that the current political framework is an obstacle to achieving NGDF.

Other political factors affecting NGDF include the accelerating pace of technological and economic change affecting the information industries and the length of public sector procurement exercises making it difficult for agencies providing data to keep pace with current and future developments.

Internally; NGDF currently has no legal status and this is resulting in problems with, amongst other things, commissioning work. It also has no ministerial champion who can raise the profile of NGDF, legitimise it in the eyes of the community and encourage adoption throughout the geospatial data industry.

Economic factors

The principal economic factor affecting the NGDF is the growth of the information industries, driven by the fall in cost of communications, digital media and printing.

Other issues which are economic in nature are politically driven and will be resultant from the proposed changes in legislation affecting Freedom of Information and Copyright, for example a review of pricing models.

Internally; NGDF lacks a business model to illustrate how it can exist as a self-sustaining non-profit making organisation. This is resulting in confusion over how to pursue the enabling of the services for metadata, standards and accreditation and certification.

Social factors

The widespread possession, both in private homes and small enterprises, of computers, coupled with access to burgeoning communications networks is creating a social revolution. Widespread use of digital mapping, for example, was previously confined to institutions with very expensive computing resources and a corresponding skill base. Now PCs able to manage high volumes of data are universally available. This will inevitable create an increased and increasing demand for digital data. It is the objective of NGDF to ensure that this demand can be met in a usable format.

Technical factors

Technology and technological capability underpin the concept of NGDF. As costs of production and, consequently costs to the end user, have fallen, markets have expanded and the inflow of investment into research and development has accelerated the pace of technological advance even further. The technology required to 'build' NGDF is already achievable. There are few real technological problems but many technological choices.

Internally, technological issues can be dealt with via the procurement of technical consultancy (this step has already been taken: see Annex B).

Who is to be involved and how should NGDF be organised in future?

There is no ideal constitution or structure of NSDIs - as shown by the discussions and conclusions of the review of the situation in the USA carried out by the National Academy for Public Administration (NAPA 1997). Four different models for the structure of NGDF have been floated, each with some advantages and disadvantages. These are:

a commercial body in which those who pay the fees control the agenda (akin in some respects to the Open GIS Consortium). This - if successful in attracting supporters - has the advantage of involving the private sector directly and of permitting normal contracting of work to be carried out i.e. minimising the call on voluntary effort. On the other hand, it restricts membership and influence and undermines the initial NGDF principle of user involvement. Arguably, the creation of de facto standards (OGC) is very different to fostering a GI community (NGDF) and wider data use;

a body similar to that of RAVI in the Netherlands where the Board would be formed of the primary data providers e.g. government departments and agencies, local government, with ministerial support. They would pay an annual subscription and lead in creating strategic policy. Commercial Members would be drawn from the business community and would be expected to pay an annual subscription, possibly larger than that paid by the Board members. The Commercial Members contribution would be at the structural and technical, rather than the policy, level. This would give better control over deliverables and but at the risk of excluding non governmental supporters;

to retain the existing organisation but with an increased level of funding from all parties. This would enable the commissioning of work rather than relying on voluntary efforts - but it does not address the concerns expressed by the user fraternity about composition and role of the Board and supporting structures.

to introduce a single structure, consisting of representatives from the entire GI community, data producers, system vendors and end-users, but with a flexible subscription regime. From these a Management Board is elected which is responsible for the strategic direction of NGDF. This has substantial disadvantages if NGDF is to be anything except a talking shop (see above).

Though some commercial sector opinion has held that political support is irrelevant if the NGDF is properly set up on a self-sustaining basis, this view has certain problems. For instance, most of the key GI data sets originate within the public sector. Thus perhaps the single greatest 'external' need to foster NGDF is for political support. This needs ideally to represent government in some sense as a whole, rather than being a manifestation of support by individual department.

It can be concluded that the UK NGDF has had a number of successes in its formative phase. These include:

the bringing together of key players (such as the Post Office and the Research Council community) who previously have never previously discussed these issues collectively;

the growth of awareness of the need for greater inter-working on an organisational/institutional - as well as technical - basis;

significant advances in some areas of activity, such as definition of metadata standards;

On the other hand, the model as initially conceived is under-resourced and has ignited debate on key issues which are generic for all NSDI-type activities. These include:

can any one body or organisation be 'in charge'? If the answer to that is no, how is real progress to be made to a consistent plan without continuous 'tacking' to suit the views of individual organisations or groups who feel strongly about one issue?

what is the appropriate role for the private sector?

how best should the user fraternity be included, especially those who have no money to sway out-turns? how can the 'representativeness' of the end user view be assured (especially given the very large and growing range of GIS applications)?

what are appropriate measures of success?

how should national and pan-national initiatives fit together - especially since the institutional, policy and legal frameworks differ so much from country to country?

It is self-evident from everything above that NGDF - and most NSDIs - are not simply projects like major infrastructural constructions. They involve a complex of agendas, policies and objectives each supported by different 'players', often contradictory. Simple milestones may be possible to set in individual sub-projects but judgements of the entity as a whole is analogous to judging the success of a government - some of it can be done on 'facts' but much is a matter of perception and even subliminal assessments.

References

Coleman D and McLoughlin J (1997) Defining a global geospatial data infrastructure (GGDI). Theme paper # 1 at Global Spatial Data Infrastructure Conference, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, October 19-22 1997 (see http://www.gov.state.nc.us/gsdi97/).

FGDC (1998) Subcommittees Key to FGDC Mission. Federal Geographic Data Committee Newsletter, NS 2, 1, 1, US Geological Survey, Washington DC (see http://www.fgdc.gov).

Foster C D and Plowden F J (1996) The state under stress. Open University Press, Buckingham.

Masser I (1998) Governments and GIS, Taylor and Francis, London.

Nanson B., Smith N. and Davey A. (1995) What is the British National Geospatial Database?, AGI'95 Conference Proceedings 1.4.1 - 1.4.5

NAPA (1998) Geographic Information for the 21st Century: Building a Strategy for the Nation. National Academy for Public Administration, Washington, DC.

Rhind D (1997) Facing the challenges: redesigning and rebuilding Ordnance Survey. In Rhind (1997) (ed) Framework for the World, 275-304. Cambridge, GeoInformation International.

Rhind D (1997b) Implementing a global geospatial data infrastructure (GGDI). Theme paper # 2 at Global Spatial Data Infrastructure Conference, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, October 19-22 1997 (see http://www.gov.state.nc.us/gsdi97/).

Tosta N (1997) National Spatial Data Infrastructures and the roles of National Mapping Organisations. In Rhind D (ed.), Framework for the World, 173-186, Cambridge, GeoInformation International.

Annex A NGDF deliverables achieved to date

Working Group   Proposed Deliverables           Due    Delivery  Comments       
                                                Date     Date                   

WG1 -           Draft NGDF Programme          12/05/97   09/97                  
Programme                                                                       

Management      Final Version of NGDF         23/06/97                          
                Programme                                                       

                2nd Version of NGDF           10/09/97                          
                Programme                                                       

WG2 - Metadata  Draft Metadata Content        22/09/97   11/97                  
                Guidelines                                                      

                Final Metadata Content        22/12/97                          
                Guidelines                                                      

                Metadata Workshop             17/11/97   12/97                  

                Final Guidelines for Lookup   20/04/98     -                    
                Tables                                                          

                Proposals for Collection &    20/04/98     -                    
                Maintenance of Metadata                                         

                Strategy for and NGDF         20/04/98     -                    
                Infrastructure                                                  

                Implementation Plan           20/04/98     -                    

                Project proposals for                    12/97   Not in         
                research into Z39.50                             original plan  

                Pilot Metadata service                   01/98   Not in         
                                                                 original plan  

WG3 - Research  Research Workshop             12/05/97   05/97                  

                Research Agenda               14/07/97   11/97                  

                Final Version of Research     06/10/97                          
                Agenda                                                          

                Survey of other NGDF like     20/04/98     -                    
                Initiatives                                                     

                Commissioned Research         22/06/98     -                    
                Projects                                                        

                Project Proposals for                    02/98   Not in         
                Scoping Studies                                  original plan  

                Research agenda for                     1/5/98   Not in         
                submission to Research                           original plan  
                Councils                                                        

WG4 - Best      Draft Terms of Reference      14/07/97           Project held   
Practice                                                         up due to      
Guidelines                                                       delays in      
                                                                 legislation    

                Agreed Terms of Reference     25/08/97                          

                Series of Draft Guidance      29/12/97                          
                Notes                                                           

                Report on Cambridge Pilot     29/12/97                          
                Project                                                         

                Interim Report and            29/12/97                          
                Recommendations                                                 

                Final Report and              22/06/98     -                    
                Recommendations                                                 

WG5 -           NGDF Leaflet V1.0             21/04/97   05/97                  
Education &                                                                     

Promotions      NGDF leaflet v2.0             23/06/97   10/97                  

                Interim NGDF Web Site         19/05/97     ?                    

                Final NGDF Web Site           15/09/97     ?                    

                NGDF logo & Strapline         23/06/97     ?                    

                Presentational Material       23/06/97     ?                    

                Draft Paper for GIS '97       23/06/97     ?                    

                Final Paper for GIS '97       06/10/97     ?                    

                GIS 97 NGDF Press Release     06/10/97                          

                Brand Management Guidelines               ? &    Not in         
                v1.0 & v2.0                              01/98   original plan  

WG6 -           Proposed NGDF Standards       15/09/97   11/97                  

Accreditation   NGDF Adopted Standards        26/01/98                          
&                                                                               

Standards       Accreditation Proposal        26/01/98                          

                Established Accreditation     23/03/98     -                    
                Process                                                         

WG7 - Data      Report on Key Data            19/01/98                          
                Requirements                                                    

Availability    Proposals for Improving       23/03/98     -                    
                Availability of Key Datasets                                    

                Draft mission statement  on              11/97   Not in         
                standards for geographic                         original plan  
                information                                                     

WG8 - UKSGB     Detailed Implementation                    ?                    
                Plans                                                           

                Agreed set of core spatial               02/98                  
                units on the Internet

? Delivered but Delivery Date Unknown

Not Delivered

- Future Deliverable

Annex B A recent NGDF advertisement in the national press

  National Geospatial Data Framework (NGDF)    
            http://www.ngdf.org.uk             
    Research, Consultancy and Development      

NGDF is the name given to the UK Spatial Data  
Infrastructure whose aim is to facilitate the  
 unlocking of geospatial information through   
      providing better awareness of data       
availability, improved access to the data and  
 improved data through encouraging the use of  
                  standards.                   
 It consists of a diverse range of people and  
  organisations, from users who provide the    
 demand for improved value-added data to the   
  data producers, service providers and GIS    
                   vendors.                    

 NGDF is seeking expressions of interest from  
 individuals and organisations interested in   
    carrying out research, consultancy and     
 development work in all areas that will help  
 NGDF achieve its aim including such areas as  
  standards for data and metadata, internet    
   service provision, geospatial legal and     
   technical issues, geospatial markets and    
  related fields. This work may be advanced    
through invitations to tender or requests for  
                  proposals.                   

 Organisations, Companies or Individuals who   
  wish to register an interest and who would   
 like more information should apply by letter  
                  or Fax to:                   
              Debbie Cable, C530               
               Ordnance Survey                 
                 Romsey Road                   
                 Southampton                   
                   SO16 4GU                    
              FAX: 023 8079 2078                

                                                
  Ordnance Survey is                            
  currently acting as                           
    agent for NGDF