Governance and policy are issues that aren’t real sexy to the “cutting edge Geo-geek world”, but that’s also a component that has to be addressed. Paul R. is correct in that the biggest, baddest job of all is the data itself, not the data serving/access infrastructure. That’s where the State and Local Govs play the primary role. We’re the data production backbone, and frankly, that backbone is showing quite a few slipped discs and stress fractures these days. A lot of our datasets are severely out of date because program funding and staff continue to decrease while demands for data and everything else increases. We DO want to be able to keep all the data up to date, for our own programs as well as for the rest of the nation to benefit from, but without some additional resources, it just ain’t gonna be possible.

If the Federal Government truly wants a working NSDI 2.0, GIS for the Nation, or whatever it is called, then there is a need to start seriously focusing on sustainable funding for the actual data production at the local source, rather than on expensive top-down infrastructure building exercises. I don’t really think some of the numbers mentioned in several other recent concept papers are anywhere near what it will take, if we really intend to develop an accurate national public data resource.

This business case study from last year for our State has some pretty good numbers for GIS data development costs, although it probably does not completely capture 100% of the costs of the Local Gov datasets.

http://www.ncdot.org/programs/environment/development/interagency/NCILT/download/Goal1/GISBusiness_CaseReport.pdf

If one extrapolated these representative costs to all 50 states and added in additional funding cost-shares on a recurring basis to help provide a minimum number of dedicated data production FTEs to State and Local Agencies to maintain data once the first big push for a massive data refresh was over, then the total cost figure for data alone will be quite different than some of the other proposals we’ve seen. I will also point out that this business case is extremely relevant for the planned stimulus funding activities to renew the nation’s transportation and utility infrastructure. There are some significant cost savings for infrastructure projects when all of the necessary spatial data for planning, design and NEPA/SEPA type permitting processes is also “shovel ready”.

A key point that I, particularly, would like to bring some exposure to is that the nation already has, in the Exchange Network, a secure standards-based (not OGC, but there is work going on to integrate that) national data sharing network that is in place in all 50 states, as well as in some Tribes and Territories. A few States, such as CA, are already using the EN to share data efficiently with Local Gov agencies too. The thing that’s unique about the EN is that it was designed to solve the problem of 50 states, each with their own internal data systems and schema, being able to share data electronically with EPA and each other in a consensus-based, community data exchange schema – without having to radically change any of their back-end databases or business systems. The EN web services transform the data from internal native schema to the public community schema on the fly. This type of functionality is not yet easily or inexpensively available for OpenGIS type data services. A few commercial vendors provide that functionality, but it’s generally way out of the range of what State and Local Govs will ever be able to afford. So why not try to use something that already exists and doesn’t cost a bloody fortune?

Work is already underway to build both .Net and Java flavors of open source, 2nd generation Exchange Nodes for the community to use. The idea of harmonizing the functionality of the existing EN network infrastructure with NSDI 1.0 and OpenGIS Services, as well as with the newer, innovative “Where 2.0-ish” type data services (GeoRSS, KML, GeoJSON, etc), is a direction we think can provide a very flexible, do-able approach for an NSDI 2.0.

However it should also be recognized that there are many existing hooks and eyes that can provide yet-unrealized benefit in said innovation – and that we are well-served to collaborate and try to gain economies of scale, as opposed to everyone off building the same things, which may already exist elsewhere.

We, as a community, need to share ideas and innovation.

There are those that want to innovate within the existing system, NSDI etc. and that is admirable. There are also those of us who think there is a new approach that will better serve the public good.

Is is a natural difference of opinion – just as there have been distinct differences on the direction of the Geoweb. It will be interesting to see how it all pans out.

This is not some sudden realization, it’s not some new-fangled notion, the wheels have been in motion for decades – for example, OMB Circular A-16 in 1990 which set in motion the Federal Geographic Data Committee and so on – it was recognized that building an NSDI would be a lengthy and arduous task, and their mandate at the time was to put some of the FRAMEWORK in place. Now that the framework is in place, we need to complete populating it.

Given discussion with H.R. 1, the Stimulus bill, it is anticipated that spending programs may go toward transportation, broadband and a whole variety of other infrastructure. This again points up the need all the more for having the data available for planning and informed decision-making, so that we can best triage and target investments to provide maximum benefit.

The drivers are many, and on multiple levels – from Federal vision, to budget-hampered states, which have to deal with funded mandates with limited resources (as well as having to deal with unfunded mandates), to local government and a host of others.

I 100% agree the real value is the data, and if we can divorcevendor technology from the policy there is real opportunity for collective benefit.

Will blog more later today.

Best
Sean

I couldn’t agree more. Providing open data from local/state agencies offers a chance for job creation. It would be a new resource around which plenty of innovation could occur. Look at “Apps for Democracy”… sure, Google mash-ups dominate the geospatial offerings there though in my opinion there is much richer “geo” data available.

Furthermore, to the point of jobs take a look here: http://www.gisuser.com/content/view/16610/2/

“A recent study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated that at least $30 billion is generated by geospatial-related companies annually. Geospatial jobs are high paying, high tech, and high quality jobs – the type of jobs the U.S. economy must continue to create and maintain as our information society evolves. The geospatial sector has steadily increased by 35% a year, with the commercial side growing at an incredible rate of 100% annually. The U.S.Department of Labor predicted that the geospatial sector was one of the three technology areas that would create the most jobs in the coming decade.”

However, what the average person REALLY cares about is whether they have a job. And I think this is what the idea is behind a National GIS. Not as an end, but as a means. Think of what a National GIS could have done for Eisenhower’s interstates or for the CCC. It seems to me that the rationale behind a National GIS is that it can be used as a tool to drive other Federal programs (or at least make them more efficient).