Federal Geographic Data Committee:
The following comments by the University Consortium for Geographic Information Science (UCGIS) are based on the draft 1996 revision of "A Strategy for the NSDI". A few individuals contributed substantially to this statement. It was put out for review to all UCGIS delegates and received minor comments. Therefore it represents the views of the UCGIS.
First, the UCGIS would like to commend the Federal Geographic Data Committee for providing leadership in updating the NSDI Strategic Plan. Soliciting the participation of the broad geographic information community will ensure that the renewal of the plan is relevant to a broad range of stakeholders.
Since many of the FGDC tasks are non-specific, there were only minor comments on the broader objectives. In general, UCGIS members would like to see more specifics on how the content of the 1996 strategic plan is different from the 1994 plan. In other words, what new substantive activities does the updated plan propose to undertake?
More detailed comments are noted below under each SECTION heading.
1. FUTURE:
The first and forth paragraphs of the Future section suggests that many environmental problems would be more easily "solved" if GIS systems were more widespread and data were more available. Rather than using the word "solve", it would be more realistic to suggest that GIS are well suited to "address" geography-related problems or "support" decision making, participation, work/collaboration.
The plan mentions the term "access" as a favorable goal. While overall "accessibility" is desirable, there are complex institutional and legal issues (e.g. overall availability of data, treating government information as a commodity, revenue generation objectives, information privacy concerns, and potential use liabilities, etc.) that potentially conflict with this assumption. The forth paragraph of this section would be an appropriate place to identify the access issues confronting the development of an NSDI.
There is some confusion regarding the example of Sugandha Johar looking for data about western Indian seaports. This example seems to confuse the idea of a NATIONAL (USA) data infrastructure. Since Sugandha's plight is common and the international dimension is an important consideration, perhaps a similar example within a US domain may be more appropriate. For example, a US researcher or government administrator inquiring about the availability of Canadian or Mexican datasets to support a transborder environmental monitoring could make the point.
The sentence flow of the forth paragraph in the FUTURE section is choppy. Sentences switch back and forth between promise of technology and associated problems of technology, resulting in a confusing message.
2. VISION:
Discard the sentence beginning with "If this vision of the NSDI were irrelevant ..." Phrase this in a more positive light (e.g. "Individuals and organizations within and outside the Federal government have responded and contributed significantly to the vision").
3. TOOLS:
The FGDC statement suggests that the process of developing the vision for the 1996 plan is different from the 1994 plan. However, the 1996 statement does not explain what new activities will be undertaken. Are the substantive activities of the 1996 plan merely a continuation of 1994 activities? We would like to see more specifics here.
The fact that the new plan is an evolving document with both short and long term vision is welcome.
4. PROGRESS:
The FGDC has done commendable work in promoting NSDI activities and should explicitly recognize its contributions. Consider using bullets to highlight the three major initiatives from the rest of the text.
Restate the second to the last sentence of the second paragraph positively (e.g. The goals and strategic actions of the new Strategic Plan form a structure by which to extend these important activities").
5. PARTNERS:
Consider replacing the term "languages" with "voices" -- since the plan refers to the comments of three individuals.
A richer example for the first sentence of the last paragraph might be: "A university professor would develop a seminar on spatial metadata for a distance learning course in geographic information systems. Students at various sites would collaborate in developing a prototype metadata catalog for a course project by using high speed communication and networking tools".
This section could benefit from specific examples of ongoing partnership activities. The previously mentioned Ecotrust and Mountain Area Information Network are likely examples. In addition, the Oak Ridge/TVA National Environmental Decision-Making Information Infrastructure (NEDII) provides an interesting example of an information infrastructure project that provides decision support services.
6. PROCESS:
It would be meaningful to provide examples from the NSA/MSC committee workshop that were included in the plan. Likewise, specifics on how "broad public review" is being undertaken would be informative (e.g. FGDC workshops at conferences, state and regional conferences and workshops).
7. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES:
While the new plan continues to support the ongoing activities of the 1994 plan, it does not identify new contributions. Certainly this is not due to a lack of demonstrated need. Perhaps the community could be specifically asked to identify new areas of inquiry to undertake under the 1996 plan.
Overall, the stated goals and objectives seem quite sound. The importance placed on education and research is certainly appreciated.
Goal 3: An additional objective might be to "Facilitate the creation of institutional partnerships that lead to the creation and maintenance of critical framework and thematic datasets".
Goal 3: The objectives of this goal should explicitly acknowledge the legal and policy conditions that facilitate and/or impede the creation of relationships among organizations. For example, the third objective of Goal 3 might read: "Research personal, institutional, and economic behaviors, POLICIES AND LEGAL FRAMEWORKS that affect the development of the NSDI.
UCGIS Contributions
The UCGIS stands ready to help in whatever way it can in realizing the goals of the NSDI. The consortium has recently announced its top ten research priorities that address fundamental technological and institutional issues facing the geographic information science community. The priority research areas (in no particular order) include:
These priority items have been formulated by UCGIS scientists over the last year. We look forward to establishing a dialog with the FGDC to discuss these research items and to identify those that are of high priority to its activities. The Consortium also looks forward to cooperating with the FGDC in undertaking specific education and research activities that advance our mutual interests for the development of a national spatial data infrastructure.
We hope that these comments are useful. The draft strategic plan provides a welcome blueprint for action and demonstrates the kind of leadership necessary for the development and integration of spatial information infrastructure at all levels. We wish the FGDC much success in the renewal the 1996 NSDI Strategic Plan.
Xavier R. Lopez
School of Information Management and Systems (SIMS)
102 South Hall
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720-4600
xavier@sims.berkeley.edu