mn parcel data standard state standards process and useful insights dcdc 12/04/2009mark kotz
TRANSCRIPT
MN Parcel Data Standard
State Standards Process
and Useful Insights
DCDC 12/04/2009 Mark Kotz
Overview
State Standards Process Purpose Semantics Required vs. Optional Scope Metadata Attributes Implementation Considerations
State Standards Process
Existing Standards1. Codes for state2. Codes for counties3. Codes for cities, townships, unorgs4. Codes for lakes and wetlands5. Codes for reaches and watercourses6. Codes for watersheds7. Coordinate system interchange (State)8. Positional accuracy reporting9. Metadata10. USNG
State Standards Process
Typical Parts of Standard Applicability: When does/doesn’t it apply? Purpose Requirements (specifics) Compliance: What is it, How measured? References & Resources
State Standards Process
Driven by SMEs & stakeholders (e.g. your committee)
Start: Clear purpose for standard and defined stakeholders
Propose a draft (take the time needed) Well thought out Input from stakeholders
Preliminary approval by DCDC & Standards
State Standards Process
Public review of draft Must demonstrate:
Active review by stakeholders Opportunity for review by all affected stakeholder
groups (within reason) Standards Committee
Post draft Spearhead review in MN geospatial community
DCDC Facilitate review outside geospatial community Producers and users
State Standards Process
Both: Document and respond to comments Modifications may be needed Propose final draft, addressing comments Approval by Standards Committee Approval by ? – Probably both MnGeo
advisory groups? Post on Standards and OET web sites
Purpose
What is the purpose of your standard? What do you hope to accomplish? Who does it help? How does it help them? Who might it affected?
Semantics Are Important
“Standard” can be viewed as unfunded mandate
“Guidelines” can be viewed as too weak “Data Transfer Standard”: more palatable,
often true purpose No mandate for collection/storage Just ability to convert to standard Often has implications for collection/storage
“State Wide Parcel Dataset Specifications” …and transfer standard?
Required vs. Optional Aspects
Tie to purpose. Required for what purpose? Examples:
All fields must be present and specified format Fields X, Y and Z must be populated Field X must comply with defined domain
Format affects this. E.g. XML more flexible than shape file
Scope of Standard
Geography… attributes… Projection or datum? May be good idea
MetroGIS had “issues” So many transformation may be tricky
Precision requirements? No “low” positional accuracy can be highly useful
for many purposes Very mandatish Require description of positional accuracy?
Metadata Requirements
Opinion: require some metadata Is data suitable for a particular purpose? Getting updates is challenging Reserve right to use “none provided”? Nancy Rader = excellent resource Originator, contact info, time period, access &
use constraints, positional accuracy description
Attributes – What Balance?
A few attributes everyone has vs. lots of optional attributes many won’t include… now
MetroGIS 5, then 29, now 65 Many not populated Completeness assessmentwww.datafinder.org/metadata/MetroGIS_Regional_Parcels_Attributes.pdf
Fixed domain vs. free text? Potential use vs. realistic
Implementation
Is “who” part of standard? Business needs of data developers!!!!!!!!!!
Why should they spend any resources? MetroGIS paid $4k to each county Some may really want and use it voluntarily Many will not have resources/political will What resources are available to aid them?
Guidance Money Technical support
Implementation
Just defining standard is very valuable if… Well thought out Input and buy-in from stakeholders Clear purpose Clear compliance rules No perception of unfunded mandate
…even if it is not widely used right away.
Resources
Existing State Geospatial Standards
www.gis.state.mn.us/committee/stand/standards_adopted_devel.htm MetroGIS 29 attributes
www.datafinder.org/metadata/metrogis_regional_parcels_2002.htm MetroGIS 65 attributes
www.datafinder.org/metadata/metrogis_regional_parcels.htm Attribute Completeness assessment (starts p.2)
www.datafinder.org/metadata/MetroGIS_Regional_Parcels_Attributes.pdf Minnesota Geographic Metadata Guidelines
www.gis.state.mn.us/stds/metadata.htm
