The activities of the US Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) and in relation to the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) - which was strongly fostered by President Clinton's Executive Order in 1994 - have been paralleled in some respects in the UK by the National Geospatial Data Framework (NGDF). But there are many differences thanks to the different problems being addressed, the differences in national culture and government structures, etc. John Moeller, the Staff Director of the FGDC, proposed that - since various people from both countries were attending the four yearly meeting of the world association of surveyors (FIG) in July in Brighton, there would be merit in getting together to discuss aspects of what has happened in the UK and USA. This was accepted with alacrity by the British side, not least because outline proposals for such a bilateral meeting had been previously made to the Mapping Science Committee of the US National Research Council and all sides had agreed it had some merit.
The objectives of the meeting were to:
The mode of operating was quite deliberately defined as being open, informal and designed to foster honest discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the respective schemes. Speakers were drawn from different sectors. Some 35 people attended, including a small number of guests from other countries as observers; those present are employed in different parts of the public sector and in a multiplicity of roles in the private sector. The programme - which was followed approximately (!) - is attached as an annex. Copies of the slides of a number of the presentations are being placed on the NGDF web site (www.ngdf.org.uk).
This was a constructive, extremely honest, instructive and good-humoured meeting.
It opened with a presentation by John Moeller who stressed the breadth of involvement in NSDI as well as the basic aims, history and progress of the initiative. Bryan Nanson responded with a summary of the equivalents in regard to NGDF. Both also looked to the future. Differences in how end users, the private sector and other parties were engaged, in the levels of resourcing involved, in the levels of political commitment achieved and in the drivers for action were identified. Similarities were however also numerous, ranging from a common interest in fostering collaboration to the difficulties in having to rely in many crucial cases on voluntary efforts from key players.
Whilst the actions of central/federal government were important in creating both NSDI and NGDF, other players are now of considerable importance. Andrew Larner set out how local government in Britain saw their role in national and local geographic information in future and hence their views about many elements of NGDF. He surprised some present by his description of information trading at this level of government, the formation of the Local Government Information House and the local government's role in creating the BS 7666 standards for addresses, etc.
Larry Ayers then spoke, drawing on his long experience within the US federal government, as a senior figure in a commercial software vendor, as a leading contributor in the Open Geographic Consortium, as a one-time member of the Mapping Sciences Committee and as a member of the panel formed by the National Academy of Public Administration (a body chartered by Congress). The report from this panel on the future of survey, mapping and Geographic Information in the USA is an important contribution of relevance far beyond that country. It was somewhat reassuring to hear that things do not always go as planned and serendipity contributes to successes!
Vanessa Lawrence of Autodesk set out a view from the private sector stressing their interests in NGDF and NSDI as one means of enhancing services to customers, of fostering the whole GI industry and of generating revenue - the lifeblood of activities employing the bulk of the world's workers. She set out some principles of what the private sector was seeking (for instance, no special advantage being given to any one player). And she proposed one example of how the private and public sectors might interact through the creation of vendor-specific 'front ends' to the virtual metadata services now being constructed - with the aim of ensuring quality in the metadata through independent accreditation.
The formal contributions were concluded by talks from Mike Warboys, chair of the NGDF Working Group on research, and Harlan Onsrud, member of the Mapping Science Committee of the National Research Council and of the University Consortium for GIS (UCGIS). They set out what are seen as the key research requirements. Considerable similarities existed, particularly in the identification by both sides of the importance of the socio-economic, legal and public policy factors affecting the success of NGDF and NSDI. There are however also a number of technical issues of significant research importance.
The concluding discussion ranged over many of these points, some of it necessarily being considered as 'under Chatham House rules' (i.e. the views of any one individual can not be reported outside the room!). Common to both sides however was the recognition of the importance of linking a 'less than sexy' issue like NSDI or NGDF to major government initiatives and policy changes. The linkage of NSDI to the US President's National Performance Review and the Vice-President's National Information Infrastructure initiative was acknowledged. The current UK government concerns with 'joined up government' and the imminent appearance of the 'Better Government' White Paper, allied to a set of recent developments (like government.direct) might present equivalent opportunities. Specific ideas which arose were suggestions that, ten years after the Chorley Report, a new government-sponsored review of the GI world might be valuable in the UK, taking some lessons from the NAPA report. OR is this the time to carry out a multi-national study?
The strong consensus of those attending was that:
(i) the meeting had been worthwhile on many levels
(ii) there was merit in holding further bi-lateral meetings to discuss issues in more depth. These would of course have to be planned carefully to obtain good value. Those involved in leadership of NGDF and of NSDI and MSC should take this forward.
David Rhind
26 July 1998