lnd data structures that can
. We really need to push the
,oking at the water column
iSt such as tides and wate;
=m vendors are starting to
-erall theme of the last ES RI
)mpany gave the clear mese coastal and ocean regions
, their interest (as weIl that
~nt data structures and soft'ical modelling of the envi1, an approach which is not
in this area has been very
lopefully be a conference,
l.tegrating environmental
1Llmber of papers presented
IS of, and frameworks for,
covering sorne of the issues
: politicians, policy makers
to such matters at present,
, a lot of new legislation is
e impact of technology in
e a lot of research, and also
-ith mapping for safe naviary data sets (bathymetry,
ln features) come from this
starting to organize inter::h more standardised, and
-een access to data and use
'ut members of the hydrotowards the shore, which
1 to anything that doesn't
rigation. Thus, while they
;vhen it cornes to creating
to throw away any bath ytheir immediate needs. If
example, or other places
canyons or to a deep area
of a shoreline, data update
4
Conclusion
may not happen if the shoreline is eroding, whereas it would be more
likely if the shore was accreting. And yet these are also basic primary
data layers that we need in the coastal zone for use by a much wider
community. Since the money is clearly there to create the data sets for
navigation purposes, we need to try to make their creators look at the
broader picture, and rem ove the biases, so the data may acguire added
value.
Roger Longhorn
Metadata
The coastal community is often not aware that the CEN/TC 287 committee completed aIl o~ its GIS-related standards over a year ago. The
committee is acruaUy wound up. The drafts of the standards have aU
been published, and are with the national standards bodies, though
most of these bodies are not implementing the standards because they
only are draft agreed standards, not manda tory ones, mainly because
ISO was also producing standards in roughly the same areas.
What is still missing, though, is having a much higher level, a top level,
of standards information, that enables us to find data more easily. And
the only real standard that is coming in this latter area is not being pushed
from a standards body at aIl. It is coming from the Dublin Core working
group (named after Dublin, Ohio). We are trying to get an initiative
going now, using Dublin Core "read data" fields to get into GIS, and
geographic information generaUy, and we need to move that into the
coastal zone as weU.
Interoperability
On the interoperability side, under "systems", interoperability is also
a standards issue. The Open GIS Consortium (OGC) is making tremendous strides in interoperability of GI systems, i.e. GIS tools, because
the OGC is totally industry-based and is even paid for by the industry. It
does have two or three national mapping agencies down the line, and
one or two university research groups are also involved, but it is totally
user-driven, and most of the standards it produces are developed by
professional standards people who are seconded to the committee. But
the OGC is only looking at systems, they are not looking at data; and
basically the average GIS vendor is saying that it is important that his
system be able to accommodate aU different types of data formats that
exist . To a certain extent ClUTent systems aU do that. There are still a
few specific data conversion problems, but the software is getting more
clever, and the hardware is al ways getting more powerful for less money.
In most cases, you need not worry too much about what standard you
are following, provided that you are following a standard, because the
vendor will normally have something that is able to handle that standard.
313
. We really need to push the
,oking at the water column
iSt such as tides and wate;
=m vendors are starting to
-erall theme of the last ES RI
)mpany gave the clear mese coastal and ocean regions
, their interest (as weIl that
~nt data structures and soft'ical modelling of the envi1, an approach which is not
in this area has been very
lopefully be a conference,
l.tegrating environmental
1Llmber of papers presented
IS of, and frameworks for,
covering sorne of the issues
: politicians, policy makers
to such matters at present,
, a lot of new legislation is
e impact of technology in
e a lot of research, and also
-ith mapping for safe naviary data sets (bathymetry,
ln features) come from this
starting to organize inter::h more standardised, and
-een access to data and use
'ut members of the hydrotowards the shore, which
1 to anything that doesn't
rigation. Thus, while they
;vhen it cornes to creating
to throw away any bath ytheir immediate needs. If
example, or other places
canyons or to a deep area
of a shoreline, data update
4
Conclusion
may not happen if the shoreline is eroding, whereas it would be more
likely if the shore was accreting. And yet these are also basic primary
data layers that we need in the coastal zone for use by a much wider
community. Since the money is clearly there to create the data sets for
navigation purposes, we need to try to make their creators look at the
broader picture, and rem ove the biases, so the data may acguire added
value.
Roger Longhorn
Metadata
The coastal community is often not aware that the CEN/TC 287 committee completed aIl o~ its GIS-related standards over a year ago. The
committee is acruaUy wound up. The drafts of the standards have aU
been published, and are with the national standards bodies, though
most of these bodies are not implementing the standards because they
only are draft agreed standards, not manda tory ones, mainly because
ISO was also producing standards in roughly the same areas.
What is still missing, though, is having a much higher level, a top level,
of standards information, that enables us to find data more easily. And
the only real standard that is coming in this latter area is not being pushed
from a standards body at aIl. It is coming from the Dublin Core working
group (named after Dublin, Ohio). We are trying to get an initiative
going now, using Dublin Core "read data" fields to get into GIS, and
geographic information generaUy, and we need to move that into the
coastal zone as weU.
Interoperability
On the interoperability side, under "systems", interoperability is also
a standards issue. The Open GIS Consortium (OGC) is making tremendous strides in interoperability of GI systems, i.e. GIS tools, because
the OGC is totally industry-based and is even paid for by the industry. It
does have two or three national mapping agencies down the line, and
one or two university research groups are also involved, but it is totally
user-driven, and most of the standards it produces are developed by
professional standards people who are seconded to the committee. But
the OGC is only looking at systems, they are not looking at data; and
basically the average GIS vendor is saying that it is important that his
system be able to accommodate aU different types of data formats that
exist . To a certain extent ClUTent systems aU do that. There are still a
few specific data conversion problems, but the software is getting more
clever, and the hardware is al ways getting more powerful for less money.
In most cases, you need not worry too much about what standard you
are following, provided that you are following a standard, because the
vendor will normally have something that is able to handle that standard.
313