Cooperative Agreement
Number: 1434-95-A-01414
Cooperative Award Recipient:
Project Implementation Approach
Project Changes and Challenges
This project, as proposed by the Nebraska Library Commission and eleven
collaborating agencies, had four primary objectives:
Project Accomplishments. Over the Performance Period (9/15/95
- 9/14/96) for this Cooperative Agreement No. 1434-95-01414 major
accomplishments have been achieved in each of these four areas. A few of
these are highlighted below.
In addition to these highlighted accomplishments, the Detailed Project Implementation Steps section of this report provides a more detailed overview of the project steps that have been taken over the Performance Period for this Cooperative Agreement.
The Cost of Geospatial Data. More than 80 percent of all the
information used by local governments is geographically referenced, according
to the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (URISA). Locational
references play a similar role in the information maintained and used at
the state and federal levels of government. The Federal government has
estimated that it spends approximately $4 billion annually on the collection,
management, and dissemination of geospatial data. As governmental bodies,
at all levels of government, seek to improve both the efficiency and effectiveness
of their handling of this type of information, they are increasingly turning
to specialized information management systems known collectively as geographic
information systems (GIS).
Geographic Information Systems are capable of utilizing the locational
component of the information as a basis for analysis, and as a basis upon
which to integrate information about other phenomenon located in the same
geographic area. This ability to integrate data from different sources
is one of the real strengths of GIS. It has the potential to greatly facilitate
data sharing and thereby significantly reduce the need for duplication
of data management efforts among a wide variety of governmental offices
that maintain similar information.
A GIS is commonly described as having three components: computer hardware
and software, skilled personnel and institutional arrangements, and properly
format and organized geo-referenced data. When an agency considers an investment
in GIS technology, the initial focus is usually first on the costs of hardware
and software, second on the costs of training or hiring skilled personnel,
and finally on the costs of data development. This is the exact opposite
of how these investments should be ordered, relative to the likely amount
of the investment and/or the likely return from the investments. Most GIS
experts would suggest that 70 to 80% of GIS implementation costs are commonly
related to data development. Not only does data development frequently
require a much larger investment, if done correctly, it is usually an investment
that continues to provide a return over a much longer period than the other
two GIS components. By now, most people are familiar with how quickly computer
hardware and software become out-dated in today's fast changing technology
(3-5 years). Even in today's mobile society, one might reasonably expect
investments in training or hiring skilled personnel to have a longer period
of return (5-10 years). However, a well-development, digital geospatial
data layer of roads, property parcels, soils, or rivers and streams - if
properly maintained - could be still be productively used in a wide variety
of applications 10-25 years from now.
Reducing Costs. Given the significance of the investment that
is required to develop geospatial data for use in a GIS, efforts to reduce
the level of investment required and to maintain the value of the investment
made become particularly important. The Nebraska Geospatial Data Clearinghouse
and metadata development initiative are two efforts focused on those objectives.
One of the surest way to reduce the level of investment required for
geospatial data development is to locate existing geospatial data sets,
developed by someone else, that will meet some, or all, of your data needs.
The Nebraska Geospatial Data Clearinghouse is intended to provide a central
location where geospatial data users can search for the existence of a
Nebraska-related data set that might meet their needs. Even in today's
situation where there are still relatively few producers of Nebraska-related
geospatial data in our state, federal and local government agencies and
in the private sector, it is difficult to determine if a particular data
set already exists. As GIS technology is adopted by more agencies, this
problem will be compounded.
To facilitate data location and data sharing - on a larger, automated
scale - it is necessary for someone to create a description of each data
set. This is the purpose of the geospatial metadata development initiative.
Metadata is data about data. The most useful metadata describes the content,
quality, condition, and other characteristics of the data.
Because geospatial data is created for and used by a very wide variety
of disciplines, metadata which is recorded in a standardized manner is
most helpful in facilitating data sharing. Because there is an interest
in sharing geospatial data between all levels of government and the private
sector, the federal government has taken a leading role in developing standards
for metadata content. The Nebraska GIS Steering Committee has adopted these
standards, which are known as the Content Standards for Digital Geospatial
Metadata. The purpose of the metadata development component of these project
is encourage and assist state, local and federal agencies and private enterprises
to develop metadata describing their data sets which is consistent with
the Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata. It is this information,
this metadata, which will be the information foundation for the Nebraska
Geospatial Data Clearinghouse.
Maintaining the Value of Our Investment. The creation of metadata
is not only important for facilitating data sharing. It is also an important
step for each geospatial data producer to take to protect its investment
in the development of a geospatial data set. In the development of most
geospatial data sets, there are a wide range of judgments, assumptions,
measurements, processes, and coding schemes that are undertaken. These
judgments, assumptions, measurements, processes, and coding schemes all
impact the nature of the resultant data set. In many cases these specifics
are relevant to how, or if, a given data set is most appropriately used
in a given analysis. In most instances, a data set is created by one individual
or a small team. Frequently, these individuals (or their cryptic notes)
are the repository of the historical nuances of how a particular data set
was developed and they are relied on to make judgment calls regarding the
appropriateness of a particular use of a given data set. A problem arises
when these individuals are no longer available. This is a common situation
with today's highly mobile technical personnel. The data producing agency
is then left in the situation of not knowing, or not being able to defend,
the use of a data set in particular manner as part of a problem analysis
or policy decision. Consequently, the substantial investment made in the
development of data set may be lost, and/or earlier decisions made based
on that data set can no longer be defended. The creation of standardized
metadata for each geospatial data set is a valuable tool for maintaining
the value and usefulness of data development investments.
Geospatial Metadata and Clearinghouse - Two Key Complementary Components. The development of standardized geospatial metadata and a central Nebraska Geospatial Data Clearinghouse are two complementary components of a larger state and federal effort to reduce costs by facilitating data sharing and to protect our growing public investment in spatial data. Properly constructed metadata is a valuable tool to help an organization organize and maintain its investment in data. The development of standardized metadata is the foundation which allows central clearinghouses or data catalogs to be effective. These clearinghouses help to minimize the expense of unnecessary duplication of effort in the development of geospatial data sets. Once located, comprehensive metadata is the key to enabling one organization to determine how, and if, they can best use the data developed by another organization.
The progress and shape of this Nebraska project have been significantly
influenced by early decisions regarding the implementation approach. The
implementation approach adopted was two pronged, and involved: 1) placing
a priority on early establishment of a functioning Nebraska Geospatial
Data Clearinghouse Web site, and 2) focusing early metadata training and
development efforts on a core of Lincoln-based state and federal agencies.
The focus on the early establishment of a functioning Clearinghouse
Web site was based primarily on a perceived need to build interest in the
merits of metadata development. The Nebraska Library Commission, the Nebraska
GIS Steering Committee, and several state agencies had cooperated in an
earlier pilot project to develop an online Nebraska GIS Data Inventory.
A dial-up geospatial data catalog and a significant amount of metadata
was developed as part of this earlier pilot project. However, because the
project was initiated prior to the adoption of the Content Standards for
Digital Geospatial Metadata, the metadata developed as part of this earlier
project was not compliant with the Content Standards. The adoption of national
standards for metadata and for a national Clearinghouse network made it
difficult to justify continued development of a data catalog along the
model of this pilot project. Consequently, these changes adversely impacted
the development of any momentum toward metadata development in Nebraska.
It was hoped that the early establishment of a functioning Clearinghouse
site would help us to build interest in the overall project, and metadata
development in particular.
The decision to focus early metadata training and development efforts on a core of Lincoln-based state and federal agencies was also related to the priority placed on the early establishment of a Clearinghouse Web site. With a few exceptions, this core consisted of staff members from agencies that were involved in the earlier pilot project to establish a data catalog and to produce the earlier pilot project metadata. This core also represented the agencies who are responsible for the development of most of the statewide geospatial data. It was largely a practical decision to work initially with these staff members to facilitate a joint effort to gain an understanding of the Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata and to then to work with them to upgrade existing pilot project metadata to the new standards. The close geographic proximity of these staff members allowed for regular meetings and their early intensive involvement made it more likely that their agencies would have both the knowledge and motivation to make the investment to upgrade previously developed non-compliant metadata. This approach also increased the likelihood that these staff members could rely on each other for assistance and consultation as they sought to develop metadata. This core group of state and federal agency staff members, along with project coordinators Steve Jonas and Larry Zink, evolved into a Clearinghouse Working Group that guided the implementation of the overall project. All of these factors, made it more likely that we could indeed achieve an early functioning Clearinghouse web site.
On the positive side, this approach achieved one of its major objectives,
the early establishment of a functioning Nebraska Geospatial Data Clearinghouse
accessible on the Web. This approach also resulted in most of the agencies,
who had developed earlier metadata, making a commitment, establishing a
timeline, and making very significant progress in upgrading the earlier
metadata to meet current national standards (see Appendix). Another side
benefit of this approach has been the development of a fair level of understanding
of the Content Standards by staff members in several different agencies.
These people also worked together to conduct the metadata training session
and will now be available as a resource to assist others in their agency,
and other agencies, as they seek to understand and work with these Standards.
On the negative side, is the remaining challenge of working with and
motivating of those agencies or agency staff members who were not part
of this initial core that worked together to gain an understanding of the
Metadata Standards. These agencies, either because of their geographic
location or their choice, did not gain the benefits of the esprit de corps
of the Clearinghouse Working Group toward the metadata development effort.
Nor did those agencies gain an agency administrative-level commitment to
metadata development, which occurred for the Working Group agencies via
the necessity of securing approval for their staff time commitments. In
many cases, special efforts will now be needed to educate and involve these
agencies and/or staff members in the Clearinghouse and metadata development
efforts.
The metadata training workshop, conducted in June 1996, provided a productive means to begin the process of involving those agencies who were not part of the initial core Working Group. As a result of that training session, many of those agencies now have staff members with at least an initial understanding of metadata, its value, the standards, and the tools and resource people that are available. However, at the time of the writing this final report, only one of those agencies (Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality) has submitted compliant metadata for inclusion in the Clearinghouse. Additional effort will likely be needed to follow-up and encourage the development of metadata by these other agencies.
Since its inception, this project had two primary coordinators: Steve
Jonas, the original Cooperative Agreement Principal Investigator and a
Programmer / Analyst for the Nebraska Library Commission, and Larry Zink,
Coordinator for the Nebraska GIS Steering Committee. Steve Jonas took the
lead in the hardware and software implementation issues related to the
Clearinghouse and in the reformatting and manipulation of specific metadata
databases. Larry Zink took the lead in issues related to interagency coordination,
the development of agency timelines for metadata development, training,
monitoring metadata compliance, outreach, and overall project management.
Key Staff Turnover. This team approach worked well and the project benefited from the specialized knowledge and roles of both individuals. Unfortunately, near the mid-point of the award performance period, Steve Jonas left his position with the Nebraska Library Commission for a position in the private sector. The Nebraska Library Commission had only one other computer programming staff member, and Steve's departure put some Clearinghouse-related initiatives on hold while the Library Commission reassessed several competing library automation projects and issues. In the meantime, Vern Buis, Computer Services Director for the Library Commission, was assigned to provide limited technical assistance to the Clearinghouse project. As part of the semi-annual report, the FGDC was notified of the potential delays that this personnel change might cause for the project and that Vern Buis had been named as the new Principal Investigator for the project.
Before he left, Steve Jonas established a functioning Clearinghouse
web site, at the Nebraska Library Commission, using the Isearch component
of the ISite software, which was made available in the latter part of 1995.
This software enables metadata searches utilizing specified standard metadata
fields. At the time of Steve Jonas' departure, the transition to the Z39.50
search component of the ISite software was the next planned implementation
step. This transition to the Z39.50 search component of ISite, and a few
other Clearinghouse-related initiatives which require computer programming
or systems analyst's expertise, have been delayed due to Steve Jonas' departure.
Factors Hindering Adjustment. Timely project adjustments to Steve
Jonas' departure were complicated not only by the small number of computer
support personnel at the Nebraska Library Commission, but also by a process
of re-assessing how Nebraska State Government will provide online information
services. During the time (late 1994 and early 1995) of the development
of the original project proposal for this Cooperative Agreement, the Nebraska
Library Commission was assuming increasing responsibilities for providing
a growing range of online information services for state government. At
that time, the technical support for these new responsibilities was being
provided by in-house hardware/software and technical staff. During the
performance period of this Cooperative Agreement, a policy decision was
made to transition support for these rapidly growing, state government,
web-based information services to a private network manager, under contract
with the Nebraska Library Commission. During this same period, the Nebraska
Legislature responded to the rapid growth of the demand for these services,
and to the relative newness and complexity of the issues related to making
public information digital available, by initiating a Legislative review
of how state government should provide online services. The concurrence
of the turnover of a key project staff member with expertise in computer
programming, and a process of re-evaluating how state government will provide
online information services, made it difficult to quickly make the policy
decisions required to provide the technical support necessary to continue
moving the project rapidly forward.
However, these issues are being steadily worked through. The Nebraska
Library Commission has informed the Nebraska GIS Steering Committee, that
given the changes discussed above, it does not feel it will be able to
provide long-term, in-house support for the Clearinghouse. The Library
Commission has assured the Steering Committee that it will continue to
provide interim support, for up to a year, as a new institutional arrangement
is developed for hosting the Nebraska Geospatial Data Clearinghouse. The
Nebraska GIS Steering Committee is currently considering three different
offers from entities willing to act as a host for the Nebraska Geospatial
Data Clearinghouse. One of these offers is from the Nebraska Library Commission
and it involves transitioning the support for the Clearinghouse to the
private network manager, under contract to the Library Commission for the
provision of online services. This private manager is offering to provide
support for the Nebraska Geospatial Data Clearinghouse at no cost to the
users or the Nebraska GIS Steering Committee. The other two hosting offers
are from the Nebraska Natural Resources Commission and the University of
Nebraska Library System. The GIS Steering Committee will be considering
these offers at its January 1997 meeting.
Impact on Project. In addition to the delay in transitioning
the Clearinghouse web site from its current use of the Isearch component
of the ISite software to the Z39.50 search engine component, this temporary
shortage of technical support for the Clearinghouse project also impacted
the development of the Clearinghouse in a few other ways. It has slowed
the pace of the on-going process of integrating new metadata and the removal
of outdated metadata. The Clearinghouse project has also not had the technical
resources available to upgrade to the latest version of the ISite software.
Some of the tangential initiatives related to the development of a broader,
decentralized Nebraska Geospatial Data Clearinghouse network, such as providing
technical support for efforts to develop agency-specific, but integrated
Clearinghouse nodes have been put on temporary hold. Likewise, initiatives
to integrate other existing online data catalogs that contain significant
amounts of Nebraska-related geospatial data have also been put temporarily
on hold. Examples of such existing data catalogs are the Omaha Branch of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
While the shortage of technical support caused by a key staff turnover
slowed some aspects of the Nebraska Clearinghouse Metadata Development
Initiative, overall the project achieved most of its objectives and efforts
are well underway to secure the needed technical support to achieve those
that have been delayed. All three entities who have offered to become new
hosts for the Nebraska Clearinghouse, have also offered to help with the
technical assistance needed to move the delayed aspects of the project
forward. Because the Nebraska Library Commission was temporarily unable
to provide all the technical support for this project that they had originally
intended, the agency did not request reimbursement for approximately $4,000
of the $15,000, that was originally budgeted for technical support, in
the original Cooperative Agreement proposal.
In spite of these unanticipated difficulties, the project succeeded in its objective of upgraded an existing data catalog to establish an online geospatial data clearinghouse based on standardized metadata; over 40 people have received metadata training; a core cadre of metadata specialists has been developed as a resource for the Nebraska GIS community; 45 geospatial data sets have been documented with FGDC compliant, or near-compliant, metadata; and several outreach efforts have made the Nebraska GIS community much more aware of the value of metadata and of the growing geospatial data clearinghouse network.
In spite of the unanticipated difficulties the project encountered,
this project has served as a building block for the various components
of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) in Nebraska. The project
laid a solid foundation for the continued development of a central, online
search site for available geospatial data related to the geographic area
of Nebraska. An online data inventory catalog, which had been developed
prior to the adoption of the metadata and national geospatial data clearinghouse
standards, was upgraded to near compliance with those standards (see Changes
and Challenges section above).
The momentum for the development of metadata has been re-established
in Nebraska, after it had stalled due to the changes in metadata format
that came with the adoption of national standards. Over 40 people, representing
a variety of agencies, have received metadata training and a core cadre
of metadata specialists have been developed as a resources for the Nebraska
GIS community. Compliant (or near compliant) metadata has been developed
for 45 geospatial data sets related to geographic area of Nebraska. Outreach
efforts have substantially increased the awareness in the Nebraska GIS
community of the value of metadata and of the growing geospatial data clearinghouse
network.
The project has also reinforced the institutional role of the Nebraska GIS Steering Committee as the primary interagency, intergovernmental coordinating body for GIS community in Nebraska. This successful interagency project will further enhance the ability of the Nebraska GIS Steering Committee to strengthen the lines of communication within the GIS community, and to facilitate other cooperative ventures envisioned in the Framework discussions, particularly in the areas of policy establishment, area integration, and data production.
In keeping with the required deliverables for this Cooperative Agreement,
a formal oral presentation on the project was given by project co-coordinator
Larry Zink at the 1996 National States Geographic Information Councils
(NSGIC) Annual Meeting in Tucson, AZ in September 1996 (see Appendix
for presentation outline). The presentation was part of a breakout
session entitled, "The Nuts and Bolts of Coordination: How to Make
It Happen". As part of that presentation, the follow points were raised
as "Lessons That Might Be Learned". While none of these points
break new ground in organizational theory, they are may be useful to review
in the context of designing an interagency project.
Secure Ownership in Overall Project and Specific Tasks Early. In
interagency work, securing ownership in a project is particularly important
and frequently difficult to achieve. In this project, the effort to secure
ownership began early, with Interagency Letters of Understanding (LOU)
which stated support for, and intentions to cooperate with the project.
These LOUs were incorporated into the original project proposal. These
LOUs, coupled with a specific motion of endorsement by the Nebraska GIS
Steering Committee, provided a solid basis for interagency cooperation
as the project moved forward. In addition, once the project was underway,
the general approach and specific tasks were discussed and agreed to by
members of the interagency Working Group. By mid-point in the project performance
period, each agency had also developed a listing of the specific geospatial
data sets that were to be documented with metadata and established a timeline
for that work. This listing was invaluable as a motivational device to
encourage the actual development of the metadata in a timely manner.
Don't Re-invent the Wheel - Build on Previous Efforts. In interagency
projects, where available resources are frequently quite limited, one should
always be on the lookout for how one can build on previous efforts. In
this project, there were several points in which we debated the merits
of a new effort, versus building on the foundation of a previous one. The
most significant choice in this regard was probably the decision to build
the project around the core of a working group from a previous data inventory
pilot project, versus focusing significant early efforts on recruiting
a new and larger working group. The ultimate decision to build on the previously
existing group, allowed us to save the time otherwise required to recruit
a new and larger group, to build on the previous group's positive interpersonal
dynamics and their existing understanding of the project needs, and consequently,
to get the project off to a faster start. The down side of this decision,
was that additional outreach is now needed to bring other groups into the
coordinated clearinghouse/metadata development effort.
In a similar vein, the Working Group decided to not divert available
early project resources to the development of yet another metadata collection
tool, but to use what was available from other groups. This allowed us
to focus early efforts on developing a functioning Clearinghouse web site
and on actually developing the needed metadata. Likewise, an early project
proposal to examine the merits of developing a subset of the extensive
standard metadata fields was resolved in favor of using the existing standards,
and not revisiting the ground already plowed by many groups at the national
level.
Look for Synergy Among Project Components and Other Activities. As
noted above, available resources for interagency projects are frequently
quite limited. In states with a relatively small population, like Nebraska,
that commonly means the key staff members, from a few key agencies, are
called on over and over again for interagency projects. This reality makes
it particularly important for project managers to look for ways in which
these various projects, or project components, can be designed to support
each other, rather than compete for available resources. During the performance
period of this project, many of the same people were working both on this
project and on organizing the first large Nebraska GIS Symposium. The project's
phasing was designed to adjust for this concurrent dual demand for interagency
project resources. The project design also took advantage of the gathering
of the state's GIS community at the Symposium to make a presentation on
metadata and the Clearinghouse and to generally raise the community's awareness
of these initiatives.
In addition, the project's phasing also built upon on the growing knowledge
and understanding of metadata that was being developed within the Working
Group. WG members initially focused on a joint effort to review the metadata
standards. Many WG members then developed metadata for at least one geospatial
data set, both to have that metadata available as a sample for metadata
training session, and to deepen their understanding of the standards. The
in-depth preparation of WG members for the actual metadata training session
further enhanced this understanding. Following the metadata training session,
WG members had developed a solid understanding of the standards, and were
then relieved of other demands directly related to this project, to focus
on actual metadata development.
Look for Useful Deadlines and Milestones. Another reality of
interagency work, is that Working Group members have many competing demands,
both from within and outside their agencies, on their time and resources.
The identification of project deadlines or milestones can be very useful
in helping Working Group members and their administrators prioritize their
time. To serve this function, it is important that these deadlines are
not artificial, but are realistic and meaningful for the project, and that
their significance is well understood by WG members and their administrators.
In this project, the Nebraska GIS Symposium, approximately halfway through
the performance period, provided a useful timeline for developing a functioning
Clearinghouse web site and initial outreach materials on the Clearinghouse.
The semi-annual report provided a useful deadline for the compilation of
agency-specific listings of geospatial data sets for which metadata development
was planned, and projected timelines for that development. The metadata
training session provided a useful, understandable, and realistic timeline
for each WG member to develop metadata to document at least one geospatial
data set. And finally, the end of the award performance period, and the
award report deadline, provided useful deadlines for motivating several
agencies to focus on their planned metadata development efforts. All of
these deadlines or milestones provided useful, practical means to assist
both project management and WG members to schedule project tasks and to
motivate themselves and others to complete project tasks.
Provide Project Team with Tools. Early project efforts focused
on educating WG members on the metadata standards and on a review of existing
metadata collection tools. The FGDC has done a excellent job of providing
educational tools related to the metadata standards. At the time of the
initial project planning, the tools for metadata collection were significantly
less advanced, than were the educational tools. The WG considered the merits
of an early focus on the development of a metadata collection tool, but
determined that such an early focus would significantly delay making a
standard collection tool available to WG members and therefore probably
delay the overall effort to develop metadata. Consequently, following a
quick review of available collection tools, it was decided to adopted modified
word processing templates, as at least an initial standard metadata collection
tool.
While educational and metadata collection tools are fairly obvious needs
for project team members, tools to assist team members to organize their
work and their internal agency communications are equally important. One
such tool, was the project effort to develop agency-specific listings of
existing geospatial data sets, for which metadata development were planned
and the projected timelines for that work. This effort provided a useful
tool for WG members to raise these issues within their departments and
to engage their administrator's in making determinations about the resources
that would be committed to this effort.
Importance of Thank Yous and Communication. An obvious point,
but one that is easily overlooked. As each phase of the project is completed,
thank yous are in order. Thank yous should not be limited to the specific
team members, but also occasionally they should be extended to their administrators.
This provides not only an opportunity to acknowledge the contribution of
both the staff member and the agency, but also an opportunity to communicate
with those key administrators about the progress of the overall project.
Regular communication with team members allows project leaders to identify
potential problems early, and also to keep the project nearer the top of
team members "to do lists".
Be Cautious of Over Dependence on Key Players. The problems that
this project encountered as the result of the departure of one key team
member highlights the importance of this consideration in overall project
planning. This is particularly important in the area of information technology,
where personnel tends to be very mobile, and where the technology and the
related institutional arrangements are changing very rapidly relative to
project planning and implementation timelines. In many cases, there are
no easy answers to this potential problem, but it is an issue that should
be considered in project planning.
Identify and Address Potential Problems Early. When a potential
problem is identified in an interagency project, it is best to explore
more fully, in a timely manner, the likelihood and nature of the potential
problem, rather than delaying to see if an actual problem develops. If
approached diplomatically, this allows for more timely adjustments to be
made, and potentially for an avoidance of the problem all together. In
this project, an agency was represented on the WG by one staff member,
and yet the tentative plans called for another staff members to actually
create the metadata for that agency. There were early indications that
there might be problems with this arrangement, but the project management
chose to not explore those potential problems more fully at that time.
While this agency's metadata was eventually developed, the work was significantly
delayed by the need to work through the problems that were initially indicated
at an earlier period in the project timeline.
Return
to Table of Contents
1. Review and gain thorough understanding of the Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata.
a. Review available printed material on Metadata Standards with the objective of understandings requirements for fields related to data quality, organization, status, lineage, themes, attributes, distribution, and contacts.
b. Attend a NSDI Training workshop on Geospatial Metadata Standards
The efforts of project staff to gain an understanding of the Content
Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata have been greatly assisted by
the quality educational materials that FGDC and other groups have developed.
Particularly worthy of note are the Metadata Workbook and clickable image
map by Susan Stitt of the National Biological Survey. These tools are a
great improvement over the actual Content Standards document itself - a
tough document to digest.
The educational process on both the metadata standards and the practical
realities of implementing a clearinghouse node were given a good kick start
by the NSDI Partnership Workshop held in Charleston, SC, on August 20-22,
1995. This initial orientation meeting was attended by both Steve Jonas,
principal investigator for the project from the Nebraska Library Commission,
and Larry Zink, Coordinator for the Nebraska GIS Steering Committee, who
has served as co-coordinator for the project from its inception. In addition
to the Charleston session, Larry Zink also attended the workshop on Geospatial
Metadata Standards given by Billy Tolar at the NSGIC meeting in Burlington,
VT, in September 1995, and at the Mid-America GIS Symposium in Kansas City
in April 1996.
In addition to making use of these out-of-state resources, an early
project effort here in Nebraska was the pulling together of a Clearinghouse
- Metadata Working Group, with representatives from several state and federal
agencies (Conservation and Survey Division-University of Nebraska, Nebraska
Department of Administrative Services, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission,
Nebraska Library Commission, Nebraska Natural Resources Commission, Nebraska
Department of Roads, and the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service).
The initial meeting of this Working Group, was on September 14, 1995, the
day before the beginning of the performance period for the project cooperative
agreement. The initial focus of this Working Group meetings was a review
of the Metadata Standards. This Working Group also was the primary organizational
basis for later project efforts to present metadata training to the larger
community and to actually develop a large amount of metadata for existing
geospatial data sets.
One of the early issues related to this project, that this Working Group
and the larger GIS Steering Committee, struggled with, was whether to attempt
to identify a subset of the metadata standards (probably the identification
section) to really push to get developed. The concern was, and remains,
that the metadata standards are so overwhelming, that it will be difficult
to get agencies to invest the time and effort to develop the comprehensive
metadata. Following a review by the Working Group, it was recommended to
the GIS Steering Committee that we should not work on attempting to identify
a subset of metadata, but attempt, as much as possible, to get agencies
to develop comprehensive metadata. This recommendation did not reflect
a sentiment within the Working Group that it would be easy to get agencies
to do this work, but rather, an assessment that the work to identify a
subset was probably not a productive investment of resources, over the
long-term.
2. Gain a thorough understanding of WAIS software.
a. Retrieve WAIS software and documentation from an Internet FTP site.
b. Review documentation.
c. Compile WAIS software for NLC Unixware server.
Steve Jonas, principal investigator for the Nebraska Clearinghouse /
Metadata Development Project took the lead in investigating and gaining
a thorough understanding of the Z39.50 WAIS software, and the concept behind
its implementation for a decentralized metadata clearinghouse. Unfortunately,
due to Steve's departure from his Nebraska Library Commission position,
at roughly the midpoint of the award performance period, much of the familiarity
he had developed with the WAIS/ISITE software was lost. Some of this ground
will need to be retraced as the Clearinghouse is moved to a new host provider
(see Changes and Challenges section of this report). In pursuit
of this objective, Steve retrieved and digested much of the Z39.50 documentation
available on the Web. Steve also downloaded the ISITE software (with a
Z39.50 component) from the Web and successfully installed it on a Nebraska
Library Commission server. The installation of the ISITE was not without
problems. Initial plans were to install it on a Unixware server, but this
proved to be difficult. Efforts were then made to install ISITE on an NT
server, which also met with difficulties. Finally, the ISITE software was
successfully installed on a Sun Solaris workstation.
Early in the project implementation process, Principal Investigator
Steve Jonas provided the Clearinghouse Working Group with a briefing on
the concept and the practical software realities of how a decentralized,
but integrated Clearinghouse network would function. The Working Group
was highly supportive of working toward an ultimate goal of developing
a decentralized, but integrated Nebraska Clearinghouse network, such that
not all of the metadata would need to be stored in one central database.
However, it was the decision of the Working Group to initially focus on
getting one centralized Nebraska Geospatial Data Clearinghouse web node
functioning and then work on implementing a decentralized Nebraska Z39.50
server network. Based on this decision, an initial Nebraska Geospatial
Data Clearinghouse Web page has been established utilizing the Isearch
component of the ISITE software. This web site is currently located at
"http://geodata.state.ne.us".
The metadata currently accessible at this site, is a mix of FGDC compliant
metadata and non-compliant metadata, from Nebraska's earlier GIS Data Inventory
pilot project This non-compliant metadata has been reformated to fit into
FGDC Standard Metadata fields. The Working Group decided this approach
would allow for a smoother transition from the earlier non-compliant metadata
to FGDC compliant metadata. This approach will allow for both to co-exist
for a period on the same Web site and be accessed by the same search engine.
The plan is to replace the non-compliant metadata with FGDC standard metadata,
as it becomes available for each database.
Return to Table of
Contents
3. Obtain standard metadata recording templates and guides for use in implementing the Metadata Standards.
a. Determine if there is existing software for collecting metadata using national standards.
b. Contact FGDC and post message on NSDI_L for most up-to-date information
related to templates and guides and incorporation of Metadata Standards
into vendor software packages.
The Nebraska folks shared the frustration of most of the participants
at the Charleston, SC, NSDI Partnership Workshop Meeting that no FGDC compliant
metadata development tool existed yet. Following the Charleston meeting,
Steve Jonas took the lead in investigating several possible metadata development
tools and/or initiatives to determine their potential applicability to
the Nebraska project. Among the metadata tools and approaches that were
investigated were the following: the Army Corps of Engineers' CorpsMet,
the State of Florida's Data Directory, the State of Montana's metadata
collector, and ESRI's Document AML. While all of these offered some level
of increased automation to metadata collection, at the time, they all had
the significant weakness that they did not seem to be FGDC Geospatial Metadata
Standard compliant in some key areas.
Based on this initial research, the Working Group decided to not use
existing metadata collectors which produced metadata that was not compliant
with the existing standard, to lay the foundation of a Nebraska Clearinghouse.
Consequently, the Working Group decided to base its initial metadata development
efforts on available word processing templates which were compatible with
the Metadata Workbook and the metadata parser. To implement this decision,
existing metadata templates were downloaded from the Web. These templates
were modified in minor ways to more closely follow the Workbook and, based
on trial-and-error, to conform more closely to the formats required by
the metadata parser.
The Working Group decided that the metadata development process would
be greatly facilitated if the template included the Workbook section reference
numbers. These were added to the Nebraska template. These section numbers
then created a problem with using the metadata parser. Both a Unix and
DOS routine was written to automatically remove these section reference
numbers prior to running the metadata file through the parser. These word
processing metadata templates are available on the Nebraska Clearinghouse
Web site (http://geodata.state.ne.us)
in a Wordperfect, Word, and Text format, along with both a DOS and Unix
version of the routine to remove the reference numbers and the metadata
parser. When Nebraska folks participated in a FGDC Teleconference Call
back in December, 1995, we strongly seconded the opinion of many other
conference call participants that the metadata template and parser would
be significantly enhanced if they could incorporate the Workbook section-reference
numbers.
Up to this point, these word processing templates have been the basis
for almost all of the new metadata developed under this project. Future
plans call for using both the Nebraska GIS Update Newsletter and a mailing
to the metadata training session participants to update the community on
the results of the analysis of available metadata tools by the MITRE Corporation.
Return to Table of
Contents
4. Modify the existing Nebraska GIS Data Inventory program to meet the Contents Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata.
a. Change structure of existing FoxPro database to fit the metadata standard.
b. Convert existing data to fit the new database structure to the extent possible.
c. Change data entry screens to accommodate changes in database structure.
As part of an earlier effort to develop an online Nebraska GIS Data
Inventory a metadata collection tool was developed and a significant amount
of metadata was collected from state agencies. This effort pre-dated the
adoption of the FGDC Geospatial Metadata Content Standards, and consequently
neither the metadata, nor the metadata collection tool were compliant with
those standards. The metadata collected as part of this earlier effort
focused on elements similar to those outlined in the current Standards'
"Identification" section.
The Clearinghouse Working Group decided that it wanted to continue to
make this non-compliant metadata available, while the more comprehensive,
and compliant metadata was being developed. To accomplish this, and to
allow for a smoother transition to the new compliant metadata, this earlier
metadata was reformated into the database structure and fields of the FGDC-compliant
metadata. This reformating has allowed the Clearinghouse to have in the
same database, and to search, both the compliant and non-compliant metadata.
This reformated non-compliant metadata is currently accessible through
the Nebraska Clearinghouse Web site, along with the newly created compliant
metadata. As the currently existing, non-compliant metadata is updated
to meet current standards, the old metadata will be replaced by the new,
on a case-by-case basis.
As initially conceived, this project was to include a revision of the
existing FoxPro-based metadata collection tool to serve as a collection
tool for the more comprehensive FGDC-compliant metadata. With a fuller
understanding of the complex structure of FGDC-compliant metadata, and
an increased awareness of the numerous actors in this arena, it was decided
to at least initially defer this component of the project. This decision
was based in large part on the strategic decision of the Working Group
to focus efforts initially on getting a functioning Clearinghouse Web site
up and running, with at least a core of FGDC-compliant metadata available
on the Clearinghouse Web site. It was also based on the awareness of several
parallel efforts that held a promise of producing a FGDC-compliant metadata
collection tool(s), noteworthy among these was the MITRE Corporation effort
to evaluate existing tools, and the various efforts related to ESRI's Document
AML. The existence of these other metadata development tool efforts, the
success of the word processing templates, and the unexpected shortage of
technical support for this project (see Changes and Challenges section),
lead to a decision to not pursue an effort to develop another metadata
collection tool at this time.
Return to Table of
Contents
5. Collect metadata from participating agencies.
a. Distribute modified Nebraska GIS Data Inventory program.
b. Include metadata previously collected from participants in the new database format.
c. Consult, as necessary, with the participating agencies to revise
metadata to current standards.
As noted above, the Working Group decided to defer efforts to develop
a revised the metadata collection tool due to an awareness of several related
efforts at the national level, and due to an unanticipated shortage of
technical support for the project. Instead, the Working Group modified
the word processing metadata collection templates available from the FGDC
Web site and use them as the primary metadata collection tool. These templates
were modified to include the Metadata Workbook section reference numbers
and were distributed both through the Nebraska Clearinghouse Web site and
through diskettes given to all metadata training session participants.
The non-compliant metadata, that had been developed as part of the earlier
Nebraska GIS Data Inventory program, was reformated into fields that parallel
the FGDC Geospatial Metadata Content Standards. This reformated, non-compliant
metadata is currently accessible on the Nebraska Clearinghouse Web site
(http://geodata.state.ne.us) and
will be replaced, on a case-by-case basis, with FGDC-compliant metadata
as it becomes available.
At the time of this final technical report, the members of the Clearinghouse Working Group have been responsible for most of the compliant metadata that has been developed as part of this project. The Working Group included representatives of most of the state and federal agencies which developed metadata as part of an earlier Nebraska GIS Data Inventory program. By the mid-point of the award performance period, each of these agencies had identified the data sets for which they intended to create compliant metadata, and a timeline for creating this new metadata or updating earlier, non-compliant, pilot project metadata.
In fact, the occasion of the Semi-Annual Progress Report proved to be
a very good device for stimulating agencies to make an assessment of which
data sets they intended to document with metadata, and to establish a timeline
and allocate resources for that purpose. The request for this specific
information for the Semi-Annual Progress Report, assisted Working Group
members in getting the attention of their agency management for this project,
and in securing their commitment of time and resources for the project.
Once documented, this listing of data sets and timelines for metadata development,
proved to be very valuable, both for project coordinators and for agency
staff members attempting to juggle several competing projects. These agency
lists also proved to be valuable motivational devices as the end of the
award performance period neared, and even as the later deadline for the
Final Technical Report approached.
At the time of this Final Technical Report, 45 geospatial data sets
have been documented with compliant, or near compliant, metadata. The agency
databases documented with FGDC-compliant metadata are outlined in the Appendix
of this report..
Return to Table of
Contents
6. Implement NSDI Clearinghouse node.
a. Index metadata collected from participating agencies and organizations.
b. Provide access to WAIS server from NLC WWW home page.
Significant progress has been made on this over arching project objective,
but additional work remains to be completed. At noted above, we have a
functioning Clearinghouse Web site at "http://geodata.state.ne.us".
The metadata currently accessible at this site is a mixture of newly created
compliant metadata, and reformated, non-compliant metadata developed as
part of the earlier Nebraska GIS Data Inventory pilot project. This earlier
metadata has been reformated to conform to the metadata field structure
of Geospatial Metadata Content Standards.
This Clearinghouse Web site is, however, currently short of being a
fully compliant NSDI Clearinghouse node. In line with the Clearinghouse
Working Group's priority to get a functioning Clearinghouse Web site up
and running as soon as possible, this Clearinghouse Web site was initially
established using the Isearch component of ISITE, instead of the Z39.50
search engine component of ISITE. Follow-up plans to upgrade the site to
a fully-compliant NSDI Clearinghouse node status by incorporating the Z39.50
server component of ISITE were delayed by the departure of Principal Investigator
Steve Jonas from his position at the Nebraska Library Commission in February
1996. A timely adjustment to this unexpected key staff turnover, was hindered
both by a shortage of additional technical staff at the Library Commission
and by the initiation, during this same time period, of a state government
review of how online information services should be provided (see Changes
and Challenges section of this report).
Current plans to upgrade the site to full NSDI compliance, including
the utilization of the Z39.50 search engine, awaits a decision by the Nebraska
GIS Steering Committee on selecting a future host for the Clearinghouse.
As is outlined in more detail in the Changes and Challenges section of
this report, three agencies (including the Nebraska Library Commission)
have offered to provide new hosting arrangements for the Nebraska Geospatial
Data Clearinghouse. All three offers will include the provision of the
technical support needed to complete the incorporation of the Z39.50 search
engine component. The Nebraska GIS Steering Committee is scheduled to review
these proposals at its January 1997 meeting.
In the meantime, the Nebraska Geospatial Data Clearinghouse is functioning
at: "http://geodata.state.ne.us"
and it provides an online means to search for existing geospatial data
sets, related to the geographic area of Nebraska, using standard metadata
fields. The complete integration of this Clearinghouse node, with the larger
FGDC Clearinghouse network, awaits the transition of the Nebraska Clearinghouse
to a new hosting arrangement and the incorporation of the Z39.50 search
software component.
Return to Table of
Contents
7. Organize and conduct at least one workshop on Metadata Standards
a. Attend a NSDI Training workshop on Geospatial Metadata Standards
b. Adapt and/or develop Geospatial Metadata Standards training materials for Nebraska.
c. Work with state, local, and federal government agencies and entities to schedule and publicize a Geospatial Metadata Standards workshop.
d. Conduct Geospatial Metadata Standards workshop.
As has been noted earlier in this report, both Steve Jonas, Principal
Investigator for this project and Nebraska Library Commission staff member,
and project co-coordinator, Larry Zink, Coordinator for the Nebraska GIS
Steering Committee, attended the NSDI Partnership Workshop, and Billy Tolar's
metadata presentation, that was held in Charleston, SC, on August 20-22,
1995. In addition to this, Larry Zink attended Billy Tolar's metadata workshop
at the NSGIC Annual Meeting in Burlington, VT, in September of 1995 and
at the Kansas City Mid-America GIS Symposium in April 1996.
Upon review of the training resources that were currently available:
the Metadata Workbook, the clickable image map by Susan Stitt of the National
Biological Survey, and Billy Tolar's Metadata slides, it was decided that
the development of additional metadata training material for Nebraska was
probably not necessary, at least in the short-term. The challenge was not
the need to develop additional training materials, the challenge was to
find or develop opportunities to use those currently available.
In pursuit of this training objective, two related approaches were pursued.
The first approach was to develop a small core of state and federal staff
members who were familiar with the Metadata Standards and who could then
serve as a resource for future metadata producers. In forming this initial
core, representatives were solicited from most of the major agencies producing
geospatial data in the Lincoln area. This group, which formed our Clearinghouse
Working Group, committed itself to working through the Geospatial Metadata
Content Standards together. The idea was that each member would systematically
review the Metadata Standards and through a series of meetings, individuals
in the group would help each other over points of misunderstanding. The
reality was that some members (and/or their agencies) were more committed
to rapidly gaining an understanding of the Metadata Standards and consequently
worked through them much faster than others. These individuals then tended
to be a resource for others in the group as they worked through the Standards.
In hindsight, it probably would have been better to have made a more determined
effort to get this initial group to agree to a specific schedule for going
through, reviewing and discussing the Standards. However, while this was
not the best choreographed process, we did develop a core group of folks,
from a variety of agencies, that are currently fairly well informed on
the Metadata Standards. This core group of metadata "specialists"
was further strengthen when this Working Group was ultimately relied upon
for developing and conducting a metadata training session for the larger
GIS community.
The second approach was to organize a Metadata Workshop for the potentially
larger GIS-user community in Nebraska. The initial plan was to hold this
workshop as part of the 1996 Nebraska GIS Symposium, held in February 1996.
However, this first effort to organize a metadata workshop got off to somewhat
of a false start due to an apparent communication problem. Project co-coordinator
Larry Zink wrote the FGDC in August inquiring about the possibility of
FGDC staff leading such a workshop. When no response was received back
from this inquiry, the matter was discussed with the planning group for
the Symposium and the Clearinghouse Working Group. Both groups expressed
skepticism about the amount of interest there would be in such a workshop
at the Symposium and consequently the matter of the Symposium workshop
was not pursued from Nebraska. In late January, 1996, it was discovered
that folks at the FGDC had a Nebraska Symposium Metadata Workshop on their
schedule. Apparently an affirmative response was sent by FGDC to Larry
Zink's earlier inquiry about leading such a workshop, but it was not received
in Nebraska. By the time the miscommunication was discovered, it was too
late to publicize such a workshop as part of the Symposium.
However, an alternative half-day Metadata Training Workshop was organized
and held in Lincoln in June of 1996. The Clearinghouse / Metadata Working
Group discussed the merits of once again inviting in a FGDC staff member
to conduct the workshop, versus utilizing in-state resources. It was decided
that, over the long-term, we would gain more by putting forth the effort
to conduct the workshop ourselves. Members of the Working Group each prepared
themselves to present one or two sections of the metadata standards. Outreach
for the workshop was conducted through the GIS newsletter, attendance list
from the Nebraska GIS Symposium, and personal contacts with public agencies
and private entities known to be involved with GIS. The workshop was attended
by 40 individuals, representing a good cross-section of state, federal
and local governments across Nebraska. Each participant was provided with
a copy of the Metadata Workbook, a diskette with metadata template files
and the metadata parser, copies of a variety of metadata files on Nebraska
geospatial data, and a list of additional resources, including the names
and address of the Clearinghouse / Metadata Working Group members who presented
the workshop.
Return to Table of
Contents
8. Arrange for at least one demonstration of the online NSDI Data Clearinghouse capabilities at a state and/or regional meeting of GIS users in Nebraska.
a. Secure approval of a Clearinghouse demonstration at the 1996 state GIS Symposium.
b. Contact other Nebraska associations of local government officials to explore the possibility of Clearinghouse demonstrations at their state or regional meetings.
c. Conduct a demonstration of Clearinghouse at the February 1996 Nebraska
GIS Symposium.
A demonstration of the Nebraska Geospatial Metadata Clearinghouse was
conducted as part of the 1996 Nebraska GIS Symposium, which was held in
Lincoln, NE in February 1996. Approximately 400 people attended the 1996
Nebraska GIS Symposium. The Clearinghouse demonstration was a part of a
Symposium breakout session entitled, "GIS, Networks and the Internet".
The Nebraska Geospatial Data Clearinghouse has also been publicized in
the Nebraska GIS Update Newsletter, which is mailed to approximately 1,500
individuals and agencies in the Nebraska GIS community. Additional opportunities
will be pursued to demonstrate and/or educate people about the existence
of the Nebraska Geospatial Data Clearinghouse at state and regional meetings
where the participants might have an interest in geospatial data.
Return to Table of
Contents
9. Conduct outreach to state, federal, and local government agencies to solicit listings of available and planned geospatial databases.
a. Develop printed promotional materials explaining the purpose and methodology related to the NGISSC/NLC Data Clearinghouse node.
b. Work with associations of government officials to publicize the Clearinghouse and Metadata Standards.
c. Review existing studies, reports and queries for the existing online geospatial database to identify Nebraska-related government agencies who are likely producers of geospatial data.
d. Contact likely data producing agencies by mail and/or phone to inquire about the availability of geospatial data and to encourage its listing on the Data Clearinghouse.
e. Send appropriate agencies printed materials and metadata input diskettes.
f. Follow up with those agencies who indicate an interest but who do
not respond.
A one-page flyer on the Nebraska Geospatial Data Clearinghouse was developed
and distributed at the 1996 Nebraska GIS Symposium in February 1996. This
same flyer, plus additional information on the Clearinghouse and metadata
was mailed to targeted geospatial data producing agencies as part of the
outreach effort for the metadata training workshop in June 1996. Personal
contact has been made with the three primary local governments who are
currently actively involved in geospatial data development. All three local
governments had representatives attending the metadata training workshop.
However, as of yet, none of them have completed metadata documentation
of their geospatial data. The Clearinghouse has also been publicized in
the Nebraska GIS Update Newsletter, with a circulation of approximately
1,500, it reaches the majority of the GIS community in Nebraska. The Clearinghouse
will also be publicized at the upcoming Annual Convention of the Nebraska
Association of County Officials to be held in Omaha in December of 1996.
Specific outreach/coordination efforts to certain federal agencies that
have a significant number of geospatial data sets has been deferred until
decisions have been made by the Nebraska GIS Steering Committee about the
transition of the Clearinghouse to another hosting arrangement (see
Changes and Challenges section of this report). At that time, the needed
technical assistance resources will be more readily available to work with
those agencies to either directly incorporate their metadata into the central
node of the Nebraska Geospatial Data Clearinghouse, or to arrange to link
their existing online clearinghouse with the central Nebraska node.
Return to Table of Contents