spatially enabling australia review of consultancy report › sites › default › files ›...
TRANSCRIPT
Intergovernmental Committee onSurveying and Mapping
Spatially Enabling
Australia
Review of ConsultancyReport
Version 1.0
17 June 2008
Copy: Uncontrolled
Review of Consultancy Report – Version 1.0 Page 2
Acknowledgements
The contribution of the following individuals in preparing this document is gratefully acknowledged:
Garry West, Paul Harcombe, Russell Priebbenow, Peter Kentish,
John Gallagher, Dave Mole, Bill Hirst, Peter Murphy
Review of Consultancy Report – Version 1.0 Page 3
DOCUMENT ACCEPTANCE and RELEASE NOTICE
This document is version 1.0 of the Review of Consultancy Report.
This is a managed document. For identification of amendments, each page contains a versionnumber and a page number. Changes will only be issued as a complete replacement document.Recipients should remove superseded versions from circulation. This document is authorised forrelease once all signatures have been obtained.
PREPARED: DATE: 17 / 06 / 2008(for acceptance) Peter Murphy, Chair ASDI Working Group
ACCEPTED:______________________________________________ DATE: ___/___/___(for release) Garry West, Chair, Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping
BUILD STATUS:
Version Date Author Reason Sections
0.A 6 May 2008 Peter Murphy Draft for review All
1.0 16 June 2008 Susie Salisbury Addition of comments Appendix B
DISTRIBUTION:
Copy No Version Issue Date Issued To
1 0.A 6 May 2008 Workshop participants
2 1.0 17 June 2008 ANZLIC
Electronic
Review of Consultancy Report – Version 1.0 Page 4
Table of Contents
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5
2 BACKGROUND 5
3 WORKSHOP PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES 6
4 WORKSHOP INTRODUCTION 6
5 LYNX2 - PSMA AUSTRALIA LTD 6
5.1 Discussion 8
6 WORKSHOP OUTPUTS 9
6.1 Comments on the Report 9
6.2 Recommendations to be Adopted 9
6.3 Actions to be Implemented 9
6.4 Organisations to Implement 9
6.5 Terms of Reference 9
6.6 Report to ICSM 10
APPENDIX A: PARTICIPANTS 11
APPENDIX B: DECISIONS ON RECOMMENDATION & ACTIONS 12
Review of Consultancy Report – Version 1.0 Page 5
1 Executive Summary
The meeting of the ASDI Working Group with other interested ICSM members was convened tocomplete a detailed review of the output from the consultancy by Geomatic Technologies.
The meeting was held 10:00 am to 5:00 pm on 17 March 2008 in the Legal Services ConferenceRoom at the Department of Lands Office, Queens Square, Sydney.
The participants heard verbal reports about ANZLIC’s consideration of the draft report1 during itsmeeting on 11 and 12 March 2008.
PSMA Australia Ltd also provided a briefing on its current initiative known as LYNX2 so that thiscould be taken into account as the group considered the recommendations and actions contained inthe report.
All of the recommendations and actions identified by Geomatic Technologies were discussed toconfirm those to be adopted by ICSM.
General agreement with the majority of the recommendations was confirmed however there werea significant number of the actions that are not within ICSM’s scope to carry out.
This report contains the details of the considerations during the meeting and a completecompilation of the final decisions. It forms the basis for recommending the future work program forthe ASDI Working Group and ICSM.
A list of participants is included at Appendix A.
2 Background
In November 2005, the Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping (ICSM) developeda new strategic plan for the period 2005 – 2010. This plan was based around ICSM’s role as astanding working group of ANZLIC – the Spatial Information Council.
ANZLIC’s strategic plan had indicated that responsibility for the Australian Spatial DataInfrastructure (ASDI) should pass to ICSM. ICSM agreed that this transfer of responsibilities wasappropriate and undertook to revitalise the ASDI. This undertaking was subsequently reflected inICSM’s 2005–2010 strategic plan. It was agreed that the current model for the ASDI should bereviewed and possibly refreshed.
ICSM established a working group that reviewed the current status of the ASDI and produced someinitial discussion papers. A stakeholder workshop was also held in Melbourne in August 2006 todevelop a direction for the ASDI and to identify any issues for implementing the vision. A workshopreport and some further elaboration of ideas in key areas have been produced. A proposal for theASDI vision for “Spatially Enabling Australia” was suggested to ANZLIC.
ANZLIC considered this early work and defined the direction for further work by ICSM in thedevelopment of new concepts for the ASDI based on collaboration and partnerships for:
• Building support for the national vision;
• Providing mechanisms for contribution of and access to information and services;
• Establishing and maintaining governance arrangements; and
• Reviewing the current data and systems.
1 Spatially Enabling Australia Recommendations, V2.1, Geomatic Technologies, 2008
Review of Consultancy Report – Version 1.0 Page 6
Geomatic Technologies was engaged by ICSM to further develop proposals within these parameters.The consultancy commenced on 1 October 2007. ICSM referred the draft report to ANZLIC forcomment in February 2008.
3 Workshop Purpose and Objectives
The purpose of the workshop was to review the report “Spatially Enabling AustraliaRecommendations”, Version 2.1 to:
• Provide ICSM with overall comments on the report;
• Identify the recommendations that are to be adopted;
• Identify the actions that are to be implemented; and
• Nominate the organisation best placed to carry out the actions.
This review is to result in a work program for ICSM and the ASDI Working Group to implement inthe future and provide the basis for additional advice to ANZLIC about the ownership of actions.
It was also planned:
• To develop the Terms of Reference for the ASDI Working Group including proposedobjectives, strategic Plan alignment and membership;
• Identify the actions that are to be implemented; and
• To draft a report to ICSM about the workshop.
4 Workshop Introduction
The objectives for the workshop were outlined and the verbal reports from ANZLIC’sconsideration of the report were discussed.
Reported comments included:
• The report could have gone further with its recommendations
• The move away from data towards services needed further emphasis
• The need for standards for services could have been explored
• An ASDI toolkit could have been considered
• The relationship with the position paper on framework data is not clear
ANZLIC has undertaken to prepare a paper on the objectives of the ASDI to position the ASDI forthe future.
The review started with discussion about the ASDI vision and associated recommendations. Thiswas suspended for the briefing on LYNX2.
5 LYNX2 - PSMA Australia Ltd
Dan Paul noted that this Working Group needs to be aware of the overlaps with PSMA’s initiatives.
LYNX was developed with the objective of improving the end-to-end efficiency and effectiveness ofdata maintenance, integration and supply. PSMA plans to automate data logistics.
• Thirteen suppliers � PSMA � Data Manager � PSMA � thirty resellers.
Review of Consultancy Report – Version 1.0 Page 7
LYNX delivers:
• Integrated data model at its core � other benefits
• Physical implementation for the Harmonised Data Framework
• Data logistics facility � up and down load and monitor
The whole process requires more work:
• Acquisitions from custodians to be automated � data pull
• Automated data integration
These are the key challenges � delivery to meet markets then relatively easy.
The role of standards is to be balanced with business drivers. PSMA needs to be sufficiently flexibleto deal with the difference through technology and data sufficiently well developed.
The PSMA mechanisms are to achieve consistency at a national level:
• To support jurisdiction supply for national level
• Requires sufficiently flexible systems to accept multiple combinations
LYNX2 is to close data supply and return loop:
• Dynamic, flexible, extensible
• Near real time
• Requires externally exposed web services � service oriented architecture
Geomatic Technologies have been working on a high-level implementation plan and an infrastructuredocument over the last three or four months.
• Fourteen business requirements defined
• May be developed in priority – Acquire � manage � deliver � value add � update
PSMA concept approval in late 2006
LYNX2 extends initial concept:
• Similar to SLIP2
• Central servers linked with local servers
• A current suggestion is to put hardware in the jurisdictions
• Conceptually could extend again � direct server update
• Hub and spoke model
• LYNX2 link with mini LYNX
• Commonality of services
− Western Australia and Victoria have offered services for this model
− Address validation, online notification and edit
− Remote monitoring of services
• Practical sharing of a common engine with multiple branding
− Powerful concept improving service availability and quality
The value is in closing the gap between jurisdiction systems and a PSMA-loaded server operating asa local LYNX2.
2 Shared Land Information Platform
Review of Consultancy Report – Version 1.0 Page 8
PSMA is to talk with jurisdictions about what they need over the next eight weeks. Alignment ofneeds with PSMA business case will produce greater additional benefit.
The potential for more options for data feed lifts the availability to become more robust. It includesredundancies with fail-safe switch over and disaster recovery.
PSMA’s international benchmarking showed that Ordinance Survey systems are similar though morelimited.
There is potential to extend the network to other agencies. For example, a Geoscience Australiagateway to LYNX2 local links.
PSMA has funded work up to the definition of the architecture. Future components will be fundedas separate initiatives.
5.1 Discussion
The practical considerations needed to deliver the PSMA initiative include:
• Lack of standards across jurisdictions
• Standardising access
• Pragmatic approach towards a standardised approach
• Commercial approach
− Creates markets
− Could be upset by government policy on pricing
• Recognition of returns to jurisdictions
It was noted:
• That LYNX2 would not be the ASDI
• This doesn’t threaten jurisdiction or ICSM work
• That role of standards needs more discussion
− Will PSMA create standards?
− Should ICSM work on custodians’ standards?
− There is tension between pragmatism and standards.
− Does ICSM need to identify standards needed by PSMA?
− What about standards of data from utilities?
• There may be value in a gap analysis between the ASDI and LYNX2
− Interoperability enhancements gap?
In summary:
• LYNX2 will move to a higher level of interoperability with jurisdictions; potentially othercontributors e.g. Australia Post, Telstra
• Over time there will be convergence of standards, systems and services
• There is synergy with the ASDI concept proposal; same language, similar concepts, physicalimplementation model at Government level.
Review of Consultancy Report – Version 1.0 Page 9
6 Workshop Outputs
6.1 Comments on the Report
The report draws together information and concepts for the ASDI in the areas selected by ANZLICfor ICSM’s further development.
It is based on consultation across government, industry and the academic sectors as well aspreliminary documentation for ICSM work on revitalising the ASDI. ICSM has noted that there aresome aspects of the report that will need further discussion and acknowledges that the report wasintended to provide a catalyst for that discussion.
In particular, the example used to demonstrate the principles for future governance associated withthe ASDI includes the Australian Spatial Consortium concept. It is understood that this may notnecessarily reflect the actual governance. Similarly, the concept of PSMA taking the leading role inthe supply of government data is a suggestion of a future possibility rather than an approach agreedwithin ICSM.
The report has been given in-principle acceptance within ICSM through a recent teleconference andthis report summarises a more detailed review of the recommendations and actions.
This will be the basis for defining the action to be taken by ICSM in those areas and for makingappropriate recommendations to ANZLIC.
6.2 Recommendations to be Adopted
It is noted that these are generally quite high-level recommendations that are consistent with bothindustry views and emerging trends. However those that are ‘accepted’ with comments are notseen as critical for moving forward and those that are ‘noted’ only are seen as difficult to achieve.
The level of ICSM support for each recommendation is detailed in Appendix B.
6.3 Actions to be Implemented
ICSM has determined that it is not the appropriate organisation to lead the actions identified in thereport. While ICSM can contribute to one third of the actions and take a limited or advisory role inanother third, there is no role for ICSM in the remainder of the actions.
For those actions where ICSM has some role, the ASDI Working Group will need to identify theICSM work for inclusion in its work program.
The comments for each action are included in Appendix B.
6.4 Organisations to Implement
There was insufficient time at the workshop to examine the actions in sufficient detail to be able tosuggest the appropriate organisations to involve in implementing these actions.
6.5 Terms of Reference
The ASDI Working Group agreed to consider draft terms of reference at its meeting in AliceSprings on Tuesday 20 May 2008.
Review of Consultancy Report – Version 1.0 Page 10
6.6 Report to ICSM
This document is the basis for the report to ICSM.
While the ASDI Working Group of ICSM commissioned the report by Geomatic Technologies andis broadly supportive of the directions suggested, it does not necessarily endorse allrecommendations or actions. In particular, the governance model suggested is recognised asrequiring further consultation and development.
The Group also recognises that ANZLIC intend to “Prepare a paper (two-pager) on the objectivesof the ASDI and positions ASDI for the future” and that this statement will provide a framework toguide discussion, debate and the future development of the ASDI.
The Working Group will consider the ANZLIC statement as part of its preparation of its futurework program.
Review of Consultancy Report – Version 1.0 Page 11
Appendix A: Participants
Subject: ASDI Working Group – Review of Consultancy Report
Date: Monday 17 March 2008
Time: 10 am – 5 pm
Venue: Legal Services Conference Room at the Department of Lands Office,
Queens Square, Sydney.
Jurisdiction Representative
Tasmania Peter Murphy
Queensland Russell Priebbenow
Northern Territory Garry West
New South Wales Paul Harcombe
Victoria John Gallagher
South Australia Peter Kentish
Australian Capital Territory Bill Hirst
New Zealand Dave Mole
PSMA Australia Ltd Dan Paul
Review of Consultancy Report – Version 1.0
Page 12
Appendix B: DECISIONS ON RECOMMENDATION & ACTIONS
R=Recommendation A=Action
VISION
#Description
Decision
Comments
R1
The ASDI should facilitate the spatial enablement of Australia
‘Spatially enab
ling Australia’ will invo
lve leve
raging an
d m
axim
ising the potential of the sp
atial
inform
ation that is cu
rren
tly lock
ed away in co
rporate and gove
rnmen
t datab
ases. The
spatial attribute/co
mponen
t that exists w
ithin a ran
ge of data sets can
and sho
uld be used to
help correlate inform
ation previously regard
ed as disparate, allo
wing grea
ter an
alysis and
impro
ved dec
ision m
aking. Additionally, sp
atial en
ablemen
t im
plie
s more than
just pro
viding
acce
ss to data; the ASD
I sh
ould accommodate an
d pro
vide acce
ss to service
s an
d business
pro
cesses.
Agree
dEmphasis on more than
just
inform
ation acce
ss i.e.
acce
ss to service
s an
dbusiness pro
cesses as well as
inform
ation.
R2
The ASDI should contribute to and help support the Virtual Australia concept
Virtual A
ustralia describes a vision of a kn
owledge
base that includes complete, co
rrec
t an
dcu
rren
t inform
ation ab
out the natural an
d built enviro
nmen
t, toge
ther w
ith sp
atial
inform
ation ap
plications in a usable and
rea
dily available m
anner.
Agree
dOf co
urse! Pro
vided
‘Virtual
Australia’ is the un
derstood
and agree
d conce
pt
nationally. V
irtual A
ustralia,
ASD
I lin
kage
s nee
d further
pro
motion – see
A2.
Review of Consultancy Report – Version 1.0
Page 13
#Description
Decision
Comments
R3
The ASDI should include a range of information
Traditionally SDI definitions have focu
sed on iden
tifying a set of fram
ework or fundam
ental
data sets for which the po
licy, standards an
d access ap
ply. Moving forw
ard, the ASD
I should
not be restricted
to only a set of fundam
ental d
ata sets but rather should be ab
le to suppo
rta dyn
amic set of data, inform
ation, service
s, publications or so
ftware.
The ASD
I sh
ould inh
eren
tly pro
mote the reuse of data (‘co
llect once
, use m
any times’),
lead
ing to
efficiencies related
to eco
nomics an
d tim
e.
Agree
dEmphasis on ‘dyn
amic’ in
time, them
e an
d conten
t.
R4
The ASDI should act as a foundation for the delivery of resources
Curren
tly the ASD
I can be regard
ed as a co
llection of tech
nologies and service
s that deliver
spatial inform
ation to tho
se that nee
d it, in the timeframes that they
req
uire, as a resu
lt of
stan
dards, pro
toco
ls and gove
rnan
ce framew
orks. The ASD
I sh
ould pro
vide a foundation
from w
hich data, solutions, business pro
cesses and applications can be built. It m
ust be
stab
le, reliable, scalab
le, intero
perable and distributed. Like other infrastructure, the ASD
Ish
ould be free
or of minim
al cost to use, but value ad
ded
service
s built upon it m
ay be
pro
vided
for a fee.
Agree
dSo
me ove
rlap
with other
reco
mmen
dations; defines
characteristics.
R5
The ASDI should provide efficient and timely delivery of resources to users
The ASD
I must supp
ort efficient acce
ss, retrieval an
d delivery of data, in
form
ation, services,
publications or so
ftware to
users. Efficient an
d tim
ely delivery en
compasses both the time
take
n to extract the ap
pro
priate reso
urce, as well as any pro
cessing required
in ord
er to
render the reso
urce on the requ
esting dev
ice (ran
ging from desktop computers thro
ugh
to
mobile
dev
ices).
Agree
d
Review of Consultancy Report – Version 1.0
Page 14
#Description
Decision
Comments
R6
The ASDI should provide resources for a ‘reasonable’ price
Without dev
aluing the data, inform
ation, services, publications an
d software that the ASD
Iwill offer, co
st should not be a barrier to its use. Options for so
urcing or ge
nerating the
nec
essary funding to
build
and m
aintain the infrastructure should be ex
amined
– e.g. can
funding be obtained
fro
m gen
eral tax
es or from a small pe
rcen
tage
of the fee ch
arge
d for
services built upon the infrastructure? In a practical sen
se the ad
ministration an
d contro
l of
funding may be lin
ked to the go
vern
ance
arran
gemen
ts for the ASD
I.
Agree
dCosts sh
ould not be a
barrier to use, h
owev
erjurisd
ictions nee
d some
flexibility for their particu
lar
business models.
R7
The ASDI should seamlessly serve society
Typ
ically a tho
rough
awaren
ess an
d understan
ding of spatial co
nce
pts and principles is not
prevalent thro
ugh
out society. Howev
er the popularity of sp
atially enab
led systems su
ch as
Micro
soft V
irtual Earth, G
oogle Map
s an
d G
oogle Earth indicate that an in dep
thunderstan
ding is not nec
essarily req
uired
in ord
er to perform
queries an
d und
ertake
dec
ision m
aking using sp
atial inform
ation. The ASD
I sh
ould be ab
le to pro
vide acce
ss to
spatial reso
urces in an ea
sy to use and sea
mless m
anner; users sho
uld not have to
understan
d or ev
en be aw
are that they
are relying on the ASD
I.
Agree
d
R8
The ASDI should have a national focus
Inco
rporating data, inform
ation, services, publications an
d software from various
jurisd
ictions, the ASD
I should be ab
le to supp
ort data from a variety of leve
ls – e.g. fro
mhighly localised
and spec
ialised
stree
t leve
l data thro
ugh
to gen
eralised
national data, the
services nec
essary to deliver the
data also
nee
d to be su
pported
by the ASD
I.
Agree
d
Review of Consultancy Report – Version 1.0
Page 15
#Description
Decision
Comments
R9
The ASDI should be implemented with interoperability in mind
Given
that spatial p
roblems rarely exist so
lely w
ithin state or national boun
daries, the
ASD
Ish
ould be im
plemen
ted so that it can
be inco
rporated as required
with other
national/reg
ional SDI initiative
s (e.g. thro
ugh
interfaces such
as Google Earth or W
orld
Wind).
Agree
d
R10
A review of the term ASDI should be undertaken
Deb
ate has commen
ced on w
hether the ASD
I term
appro
priately describes the pro
posed
role of the su
ppo
rting stru
cture that allo
ws sp
atially related
dec
ision mak
ing, or whe
ther an
updated
term is required
. W
hile
the SD
I term
has gained
accep
tance
internationally, it is
curren
tly unclea
r whether it can adeq
uately represent the vision of sp
atial e
nab
lemen
t that
the revised A
SDI is inten
ded
to ach
ieve
. H
owev
er, the ‘in
frastructure’ elem
ent of the ASD
Imay rem
ain as a build
ing block
, upon which the sp
atially enab
ling services are pro
vided
inwhich case the term
will not be hea
vily publicised
or pro
moted outside the sp
atial industry.
Accep
ted
Nee
d to rev
iew the scope
of
the definition ; SDI’s are w
ell
acce
pted internationally;
ICSM
considers this to be a
low priority.
#Description
ICSM Role in
Action Item
Comments
A1
Dev
elop a network of sp
atial r
esources (data, inform
ation, service
s, publications an
dso
ftware) fro
m gove
rnmen
t, private and academ
ic sec
tors
Contributor
ICSM
is ab
le to contribute to
establishing a go
vern
men
tbased
network of sp
atial d
ata
and service
s – but has a
limited
role in other asp
ects.
Review of Consultancy Report – Version 1.0
Page 16
#Description
ICSM Role in
Action Item
Comments
A2
Pro
mote the ASD
I co
nce
pt outside the sp
atial industry
Contributor
ICSM
has lim
ited
influ
ence
outside the sp
atial industry,
but has some to
ols w
hich
could be utilised, including:
•
ICSM
web
site
•
ICSM
NEW
S•
ICSM
subscription list.
A3
Publicise the co
nten
t of the ASD
I (to pro
mote reu
se)
Contributor
The primary to
ol available to
ICSM
is its web
site.
A4
Iden
tify standards an
d pro
toco
ls that w
ill be su
ppo
rted
by the ASD
IContributor
This role is dep
enden
t upo
nreso
urces being mad
eavailable to ICSM
.
The most significant ro
le for
ICSM
is in the dev
elopmen
tof data related national &
intern
ational standards an
dpro
motion of their
consisten
t use – particu
larly
to gove
rnmen
t.
(Includes A9, A15.)
A5
Dev
elop a pricing stru
cture policy for ASD
I infrastructure
No role
Review of Consultancy Report – Version 1.0
Page 17
#Description
ICSM Role in
Action Item
Comments
A6
Dev
elop m
etrics to assess effic
iency of the ASD
INo role
A7
Dev
elop a pricing stru
cture policy for ASD
I co
mpo
nen
ts (actual data/service price
s sh
ould
be ab
le to be set by individual service
pro
viders within the po
licy)
No role
A8
Dev
elop guidelines for services and interfaces that do not require sp
atial k
nowledge
or
expertise
No role
A9
Exam
ine stan
dards used by other SDI initiative
s, in ord
er to ensu
re interoperab
ility w
ith
stan
dards selected
for the ASD
IContributor
Part of A4.
A10
Exam
ine ap
pro
priaten
ess of the term
ASD
INo role
See R10 commen
ts.
Review of Consultancy Report – Version 1.0
Page 18
COMPONENTS
#Description
Decision
Comments
R11
The ASDI should avoid resource duplication where possible
Differen
t organ
isations have differen
t definitions for ‘fu
ndam
ental’ data sets. W
hile
the
ASD
I’s ability to referen
ce m
ultiple copies of data acro
ss the same sp
atial ex
tents
contrad
icts the co
llect once
, use m
any ap
pro
ach that it pro
motes, the scen
ario should not
be pro
hibited
. The data storage
enviro
nmen
t(s) of the ASD
I should be ab
le to act as a
reposito
ry for histo
rical data as w
ell a
s cu
rren
t data an
d thus the definition of ‘duplication’
nee
ds to
be clarified
.
Agree
d‘C
olle
ct once
, use m
any’ is
the man
tra; duplication of
authoritative
sources is to
be
avoided
; ch
allenge
is how
histo
rical data is m
anaged
.
R12
A mechanism to register resources with the ASDI will be required
New
resources should be ab
le to be ad
ded
to and m
ade available thro
ugh
the ASD
I at any
time. Additionally, ex
isting reso
urces m
ay nee
d to be revised/updated
as they
evo
lve.
Agree
dAn expan
ded
‘ASD
D typ
e’mec
han
ism to enco
mpass
services, to
ols, etc is nee
ded
.May not be
a cen
tralised
register. Strong ro
le for
definition of ‘standard’
seman
tics.
R13
Mechanisms to modify resources within the ASDI should be provided
In the future, with the ASD
I acting as the main and authoritative
source for reso
urces
registered
within it, m
echan
isms for reso
urce modification and update sh
ould be pro
vided
(e.g. allowing au
thorised users to direc
tly ed
it data within the ASD
I fram
ework).
Agree
dAn expan
ded
‘ASD
D typ
e’mec
han
ism to enco
mpass
services, to
ols, etc is nee
ded
.May not be
a cen
tralised
register. Strong ro
le for
definition of ‘standard’
seman
tics.
Review of Consultancy Report – Version 1.0
Page 19
#Description
Decision
Comments
R14
A standardised approach to licensing should be defined for spatial resources
Lice
nsing arrange
men
ts that enco
mpass user au
then
tication sh
ould be dev
eloped
and form
part of the ASD
I’s access policies. Given
that the vision is for reso
urces to be au
tomatically
chained
toge
ther, m
ethods for au
tomated
licen
sing crea
tion an
d assessm
ent sh
ould be
considered
.
Agree
dEminen
tly sensible
R15
The ASDI should consist of Policy, Standards, Data, Access Service, Integration
Service and User Interface components
The ASD
I co
mpone
nts sho
uld interact w
ith one an
other thro
ugh
standards. as shown in
Each compo
nen
t will be defined
and operate within a set of po
licies an
d standards, as will
the co
hesive stru
cture of the co
mbination of the co
mponen
ts.
Agree
d
R16
Policies should be developed for each ASDI component at a national level
In ord
er to ach
ieve
the nationally focu
sed vision for the ASD
I, policies will nee
d to be
dev
eloped
and m
andated
at a national lev
el.
Agree
dThe nee
d for po
licies at
national lev
el is agreed
,howev
er ‘man
dated
’ should
be replace
d by ‘enco
urage
d’.
R17
Australia should present a focused approach on a variety of standards
development boards
The ASD
I is and
will rem
ain to be highly dep
enden
t on stand
ards, thus an
awaren
ess of
existing an
d emerging stan
dards is imperative. A bro
ader discu
ssion and pro
motion of
stan
dards activities w
ill help to ensu
re that A
ustralia can
have a say in the dev
elopmen
t of
stan
dards that impact an
d are of relevance
in our sp
ecific co
ntex
t.
Agree
dAvailability of ex
pertise lim
its
capacity in this area; ’gap
analysis’ by IC
SM is ne
eded
to id
entify m
issing an
dessential standards - sh
ould
be nee
ds drive
n.
Review of Consultancy Report – Version 1.0
Page 20
#Description
Decision
Comments
R18
Services arising from the ASDI should be able to be chained together
In ord
er to deliver spatial b
usiness pro
cesses that can
be integrated
into standard w
orkflo
ws
or pro
cesses, ASD
I services should be ab
le to be ch
ained
toge
ther. Initially this is ex
pected
to be a man
ual pro
cess of iden
tifying the relevant services to exec
ute, but in future could be
a pro
cess undertake
n direc
tly machine-to-m
achine.
Agree
dLY
NX2 will help solve this
for data that is delivered
by
PSM
A.
Review of Consultancy Report – Version 1.0
Page 21
#Description
ICSM Role in
Action Item
Comments
A11
Dev
elop guidelines by which resources are defined
to help avoid duplication
Contributor
ICSM
’s role lies with
understan
ding an
d sharing
national infrastructure and a
register of reso
urces.
All IC
SM W
orking Gro
ups
have a primary purp
ose of
pro
moting the co
nsisten
t use
of national / international
stan
dards.
A12
Dev
elop guidelines to distingu
ish histo
rical ve
rsus cu
rren
t reso
urces
Contributor
ICSM
’s particu
lar
contribution to this is
related to estab
lishing data
stan
dards an
d in
fluen
cing
how jurisd
ictions arch
ive
their data.
A13
Dev
elop a tool to m
anage ASD
I reso
urces (including registration and
modification)
Contributor
May be ab
le to assist an
dpro
vide ad
vice
if required
.
A14
Dev
elop a standardised
appro
ach to resource licen
sing
No role
A15
Iden
tify the stan
dards thro
ugh
which A
SDI co
mponen
ts sho
uld interact
Contributor
See A4.
Review of Consultancy Report – Version 1.0
Page 22
#Description
ICSM Role in
Action Item
Comments
A16
Dev
elop a policy for ea
ch A
SDI co
mponen
tContributor
Participate in policy
dev
elopmen
t if required
.
ICSM
’s role gen
erally
invo
lves the im
plemen
tation
of po
licy (dev
eloped
by
‘policy’ organ
isations su
ch as
ANZLIC or COAG) as
opposed to having an
actual
role in policy dev
elopmen
t.
A17
Pro
mote awaren
ess of stan
dards groups an
d existing stan
dards
Contributor
Tools available to ICSM
include:
•
ICSM
web
site
•
ICSM
NEW
S•
ICSM
subscription list.
A18
Impro
ve industry invo
lvem
ent in stand
ards dev
elopmen
t an
d organ
isations
Contributor
ICSM
has a partial role only
bec
ause its sphere of
influ
ence
is go
vern
men
t.
Other organ
isations can have
a more significant im
pact (eg
Google).
Review of Consultancy Report – Version 1.0
Page 23
ACCESS
#Description
Decision
Comments
R19
Policies describing the access to services should be established
Policies sh
ould be dev
eloped
that cove
r the sp
ectrum of issu
es enco
mpassed w
ithin D
igital
Rights M
anagem
ent (D
RM) as it relates to
spatial data an
d service
s (e.g. ownersh
ip, acce
ss,
maintenan
ce, d
istribution and stewardsh
ip.
Guidelines for the pricing of data sh
ould be dev
eloped
, an
d a dec
ision mad
e as to the price
of go
vern
men
t sp
atial data. Fe
edback rece
ived
to date on this issue has suggested that
gove
rnmen
t data sh
ould be mad
e available for free
, howev
er tho
se adding value to
it (either
gove
rnmen
t or the private sec
tor) m
ay the
n charge
users.
These po
licies sh
ould be dev
elope
d by a national organ
isation.
Agree
dHowev
er a nationally agree
dpricing policy fram
ework for
data has bee
n pro
blematic to
date. This nee
ds further
definition of ‘data’ and
‘service
s’.
The Australian Spatial
Conso
rtium (ASC
) co
uld be
the logical ‘carrier’ for this.
R20
A policy should be established to recommend that all government agencies
provide access to their resources via the ASDI
The ASD
I sh
ould be regard
ed as the main fram
ework for acce
ss to gove
rnmen
t reso
urces.
While
also including a range
of non-gove
rnmen
t reso
urces, initially gove
rnmen
t reso
urces
will form
the bulk of the co
nten
t within the ASD
I an
d thus pro
motion w
ill be required
.Private organ
isations, academ
ia and the ge
neral public w
ill also nee
d to be en
courage
d to
contribute to the ASD
I.
Noted
Disco
very rather than
access
should at least be thro
ugh
ASD
I.
Review of Consultancy Report – Version 1.0
Page 24
#Description
Decision
Comments
R21
Interfaces for the discovery of ASDI resources should include all registered
resources
The ASD
I does not nee
d to be a single physical data storage
facility, b
ut rather a unified
interface sh
ould exist for the disco
very of all reso
urces reg
istered w
ithin the
ASD
I.
Agree
d
R22
Resource access should be provided as seamlessly as possible
In ord
er to facilitate spatial d
ata an
d inform
ation as a ubiquitous co
mmodity, access to
it
must be pro
vided
as seam
lessly as po
ssible. D
ata tran
sfer standards sh
ould be ad
opted and
employe
d and pricing an
d licen
sing should not be a barrier to the use of data/inform
ation;
Users should not have to
be aw
are that they
are relying on the ASD
I.
The ASD
D sho
uld be revised to ensu
re usability amongst a range
of users, not just spatial
pro
fessionals.
Agree
dASD
D should be replace
drather than
rev
ised
.
R23
A policy should be established to enforce the inclusion of metadata for all
resources available through the ASDI
Metad
ata will be the ke
y co
mponen
t in iden
tifying an
d assessing reso
urces for particu
lar
purp
oses. As su
ch, it should be man
datory to includ
e metad
ata as part of the reso
urce
registration pro
cess. T
he stru
cture and content of the required
metad
ata elem
ents m
ust be
defined
. The minim
um set of metad
ata elem
ents should allo
w an assessm
ent of data quality
of the reso
urce to
be mad
e.
The metad
ata po
licy sh
ould allo
w for the possibility of restricted
data sets, a
nd ind
eed
restrictions in m
etad
ata elem
ents them
selves.
Noted
Some form
of en
forcem
ent
(minim
al) will be required
.Potential for rating metad
ata
(e.g. three stars). Pro
per
disclosu
re lim
its liability.
Review of Consultancy Report – Version 1.0
Page 25
#Description
ICSM Role in
Action Item
Comments
A19
Dev
elop policies to
describe acce
ss to A
SDI mec
han
isms an
d service
sMinim
al
A20
Inve
stigate Digital R
ights Man
agem
ent as it applie
s to
ASD
I reso
urces
Minim
al
A21
Dev
elop guidelines for reso
urce pricing
Minim
al
A22
Dev
elop a policy en
couraging the co
ntribution of reso
urces to the ASD
I by go
vern
men
tagen
cies
Minim
alSe
e co
mmen
ts to A16.
A23
Dev
elop guidelines to enco
urage
the co
ntribution of reso
urces to the ASD
I by private
organ
isations, academ
ia and the ge
neral public
Minim
al
A24
Iden
tify standards for the seam
less access of reso
urces
Minim
alLimited
to data related
stan
dards.
A25
Rev
ise the Australian Spatial Data Direc
tory to enh
ance
its usability and functionality
Advice
A26
Dev
elop a policy to
man
date the inclusion of metad
ata for ASD
I reso
urces
Advice
Review of Consultancy Report – Version 1.0
Page 26
GOVERNANCE
#Description
Decision
Comments
R24
The governance model of the ASDI should incorporate:
• education/outreach
• collaboration/partnerships
o
acco
untabilities, repo
rting stru
ctures, resources and operational asp
ects
• standards, policy and legal issues
• custodianship
o
resp
onsibilities
o
inco
rporating po
ints of truth, single au
thority sources, distribution points
• resource delivery and maintenance
o
including data crea
tion an
d colle
ction
o
fram
ework data
• metadata
The go
vern
ance
model should pro
vide the institutional arran
gemen
ts for delivering sp
atial
inform
ation an
d service
s in a coord
inated
and integ
rated enviro
nmen
t, and
where possible
should lev
erage ex
isting fram
eworks/co
llaborative
arran
gemen
ts (e.g. PSM
A’s relationsh
ipwith jurisd
ictions, and ju
risd
ictions relationsh
ips with local go
vern
men
t)
Agree
dGove
rnan
ce should
‘consider’ rather than
‘inco
rporate’ item
s listed.
Review of Consultancy Report – Version 1.0
Page 27
#Description
Decision
Comments
R25
The governance of the ASDI should be a collaborative effort between
government, the private sector and academia
The go
vern
ance
model should accommodate all SD
I stak
eholders (e.g. m
anufacturers,
supplie
rs, users and resea
rchers).
Gove
rnmen
ts are see
n as having an
ove
rarching ro
le w
ith reg
ards to
the pro
vision of
fram
eworks an
d service
s to
the co
mmunity. Unlik
e other bodies, gove
rnmen
ts are in a
unique po
sition in terms of kn
owledge
of strategic direc
tion an
d planning an
d can
often
guaran
tee that pro
posed strateg
ies are indee
d implemen
ted.
The private sec
tor’s im
med
iate focu
s is on solving business pro
blems. W
ith a grea
tkn
owledge
of cu
rren
t an
d emerging tech
nology, pro
cesses and
practices, the private sec
tor
understan
ds the tech
nical and commercial practicalities of delivering services to customers.
Academ
ia can
help to
pro
vide new
idea
s an
d direc
tions as w
ell as valuab
le context an
dco
mparison on local, national and intern
ational lev
els. The foresigh
t an
d vision that results
from academ
ic resea
rch can
help to
ensu
re that strateg
ies an
d policies pro
posed today w
illstill be relevant in the future.
Additionally estab
lished
community group
s (e.g. those created
within the em
erge
ncy service
sector or natural reso
urce man
agem
ent area
) sh
ould be invo
lved
in the form
ation and
crea
tion of the go
vern
ance
model.
Agree
dGove
rnmen
t will initially
nee
d to have the major ro
le.
Review of Consultancy Report – Version 1.0
Page 28
#Description
Decision
Comments
R26
Government agencies should participate in the policy, coordination and
provision of data/products
Issu
es related
to policy dev
elopmen
t an
d coord
ination w
ill principally rem
ain the focu
s of
gove
rnmen
t agen
cies, howev
er should be undertake
n w
ithin the co
llaborative
framew
ork of
gove
rnmen
t, private sec
tor an
d academ
ia.
Agree
d
R27
An independent body should coordinate the governance of the ASDI
The ge
neration an
d distribution of funds for the crea
tion, mainten
ance
and operation of the
ASD
I sh
ould be ad
ministered by a national age
ncy responsible for the ASD
I. T
his
organ
isation m
ay nee
d to be established
or the priorities of an
existing organ
isation
adjusted
. To be effective, this organ
isation will req
uire au
thority to define policies an
den
courage
conform
ance
to standards an
d practices, an
d w
ill nee
d a strong co
nnec
tion
betwee
n ea
ch of the jurisd
iction’s gove
rning bodies.
Existing stru
ctures su
ch as the Council o
f Australian G
ove
rnmen
ts (COAG) an
d the
pro
posed A
ustralian Spatial Conso
rtium (ASC
) sh
ould be used as a model for operational
organ
isation and collaborative
initiative
s that should be em
ploye
d by the ASD
I go
vern
ing
body.
Noted
A new
body would be
dep
enden
t up
on new
funding
and bro
ad accep
tance
.
ANZLIC could coord
inate.
Review of Consultancy Report – Version 1.0
Page 29
#Description
ICSM Role in
Action Item
Comments
A27
Estab
lish a gove
rnan
ce m
odel for the delivery of sp
atial inform
ation an
d service
s from the
ASD
I that enco
mpasses go
vern
men
t, private industry and academ
ia
No role
A28
Define a policy to
enco
urage
the participation of go
vern
men
t agen
cies in the policy,
coord
ination and pro
vision of reso
urces for the ASD
I
No role
A29
Rev
iew and iden
tify an indep
enden
t organ
isation to coord
inate the go
vern
ance
of the ASD
INo role
Review of Consultancy Report – Version 1.0
Page 30
STANDARDS
#Description
Decision
Comments
R28
Reviewing and monitoring data standards and systems should be the
responsibility of all ASDI stakeholders
In support of a self go
vern
ing ap
pro
ach for the ASD
I, review
ing an
d m
onitoring pro
cesses
should be ab
le to be perform
ed by all ASD
I stak
eholders.
Agree
d
R29
The process of monitoring standards and systems should be automated where
possible
The ex
tent to w
hich the ASD
I will nee
d to ensu
re the quality of the reso
urces that it
pro
vides nee
ds to
be defined
, ho
wev
er idea
lly this should be perform
ed in an
auto
mated
man
ner w
ith no
or little human
interaction. Ben
efits asso
ciated
Agree
d
R30
Metadata standards should be defined and enforced
Accurate m
etad
ata facilitates data an
d service
disco
very. A
standard for the description of
metad
ata has bee
n dev
eloped
for Australia, but sh
ould be more strongly man
dated
and
enforced
.
Noted
Rec
ogn
ise that some minim
alleve
l of metad
ata co
mpliance
is essen
tial. Enco
urage
full
compliance
via m
etad
ata
tools and education.
Review of Consultancy Report – Version 1.0
Page 31
#Description
Decision
Comments
R31
Resources should be required to meet a base standard in order to be included
within the ASDI
The ‘base stan
dard’ m
ay sim
ply be a requirem
ent that m
etad
ata (o
f a particu
lar form
)acco
mpan
ies the reso
urce. Actual details for the ‘base stan
dard’ will nee
d to be research
edan
d iden
tifie
d.
Noted
Rec
ogn
ise that some minim
alleve
l of metad
ata co
mpliance
is essen
tial. Enco
urage
full
compliance
via m
etad
ata
tools and education.
#Description
ICSM Role in
Action Item
Comments
A30
Dev
elop guidelines for ASD
I stak
eholder responsibilities
Advice
A31
Dev
elop pro
cesses to auto
matically m
onitor stan
dards an
d systems use
Advice
A32
Dev
elop a policy for reso
urce metad
ata
Advice
A33
Iden
tify a ‘base stan
dard’ for ASD
I reso
urces
Advice
Review of Consultancy Report – Version 1.0
Page 32
ORGANISATION
#Description
ICSM Role in
Action Item
Comments
A34
Define an
d adopt an
organ
isational vision that enab
les industry w
ide co
llabo
ration an
dben
efit
No role
ICSM
would be co
nsu
lted
.
A35
Nominate lead
er organ
isations to
drive
ASD
I im
plemen
tation
No role
A36
Dev
elop a commercial framew
ork that ensu
res service quality an
d pro
vides inve
stmen
tsecu
rity
No role