System design and organization, access to data
developpé par la Commission géologique du Canada (Atlantique). Les
avantages de l'assemblage du casse-tête sont explorés en fonction des
succès obtenus dans le cadre de ces trois programmes.
Introduction
The creation and improvement of databases and data and information
management is one of the important instruments for rhe sustainable
development of coastal zones and their resources (E1 Sabh et al., 1998;
Fabbri, 1998; Huggett, 1998).
The present situation for information in the coastal zone can be characterized by a puzzle, a puzzle apart or a puzzle partially put together.
Some of the puzzle pieces fit together. Others don’t. To further complicate
this picture, the puzzle pieces are owned by different organizations.
The purpose of this paper is to explore some general issues with examples
from Atlantic Canada which inhibit or loster the process of developing
a well-structured database to support integrated coastal management,
the completed puzzle.
Interoperability
Interoperability is an important precursor to put the puzzle together.
For a comprehensive discussion ol interoperability issues, the reader is
referred to the special issue of the International Journal of Geographical
Information Science, Volume 12, Number 4, June 1998. Two papers in
that special issue are ot particular note.
Laurini (1998) describes difficulties to overcome: the diversity of spatial
representations, the diversity of global projections, the diversity of
values for the same item from different organizations, the diversity of
spatio-temporal sampling, the variability of definitions over time and
space, discrepancies in co-ordinate values, and discrepancies in boundary
alignment.
Bishr ( 1998) defines six levels of interoperability. He states there is no
known GIS that provides interoperability at the data model level and
application semantics level.
He goes on to say that “geographical objects stored in independent
remote databases can vary m their geometric syntactic representation,
in their class hierarchies, or in their semantics, even though they may
refer to the same real world feature."
Semantic heterogeneity can be a significant barrier to interoperability
and is usually the source of most data sharing problems.
For coastal data specifically, Kucera (1995) cites several difficulties
which are different from terrestrial data: three spatial dimensions in air,
sea and underground, and the dynamics of spatial data in fluid motion.
Laurini (1998) also defines inter-organizational problems: copyrights,
access rights, results property, ownership of products made from data
from different organizations, accounting problems, and difficulties
81
developpé par la Commission géologique du Canada (Atlantique). Les
avantages de l'assemblage du casse-tête sont explorés en fonction des
succès obtenus dans le cadre de ces trois programmes.
Introduction
The creation and improvement of databases and data and information
management is one of the important instruments for rhe sustainable
development of coastal zones and their resources (E1 Sabh et al., 1998;
Fabbri, 1998; Huggett, 1998).
The present situation for information in the coastal zone can be characterized by a puzzle, a puzzle apart or a puzzle partially put together.
Some of the puzzle pieces fit together. Others don’t. To further complicate
this picture, the puzzle pieces are owned by different organizations.
The purpose of this paper is to explore some general issues with examples
from Atlantic Canada which inhibit or loster the process of developing
a well-structured database to support integrated coastal management,
the completed puzzle.
Interoperability
Interoperability is an important precursor to put the puzzle together.
For a comprehensive discussion ol interoperability issues, the reader is
referred to the special issue of the International Journal of Geographical
Information Science, Volume 12, Number 4, June 1998. Two papers in
that special issue are ot particular note.
Laurini (1998) describes difficulties to overcome: the diversity of spatial
representations, the diversity of global projections, the diversity of
values for the same item from different organizations, the diversity of
spatio-temporal sampling, the variability of definitions over time and
space, discrepancies in co-ordinate values, and discrepancies in boundary
alignment.
Bishr ( 1998) defines six levels of interoperability. He states there is no
known GIS that provides interoperability at the data model level and
application semantics level.
He goes on to say that “geographical objects stored in independent
remote databases can vary m their geometric syntactic representation,
in their class hierarchies, or in their semantics, even though they may
refer to the same real world feature."
Semantic heterogeneity can be a significant barrier to interoperability
and is usually the source of most data sharing problems.
For coastal data specifically, Kucera (1995) cites several difficulties
which are different from terrestrial data: three spatial dimensions in air,
sea and underground, and the dynamics of spatial data in fluid motion.
Laurini (1998) also defines inter-organizational problems: copyrights,
access rights, results property, ownership of products made from data
from different organizations, accounting problems, and difficulties
81