1. Collection and Preservation of At- Risk Digital Geospatial Data: North Carolina Geospatial Data Archiving Project (NDIIPP Partnership) Steve Morris Head of Digital Library Initiatives NCSU Libraries Library of Congress Brown Bag DiscussionDec. 15, 2005

2. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 2 Project Context Partnership between university library (NCSU) and state agency (NCCGIA) Focus on state and local geospatial content in North Carolina (state demonstration) Tied to NC OneMap initiative, which provides for seamless access to data, metadata, and inventory information Objective: engage existing state/federal geospatial data infrastructures in preservation

3. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 3 Targeted Content Resource Types GIS “vector” (point/line/polygon) data Digital orthophotography Digital maps Tabular data (e.g. assessment data) Content Producers Mostly state, local, regional agencies Some university, not-for-profit, commercial Selected local federal projects

4. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 4 Geospatial data types: Vector data

5. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 5 Time series – vector data Parcel Boundary Changes 2001-2004, North Raleigh, NC

6. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 6 Geospatial data types: Aerial imagery

7. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 7 Geospatial data types: Aerial imagery

8. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 8 Geospatial data types: Aerial imagery

9. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 9 Time series – Ortho imagery Vicinity of Raleigh-Durham International Airport 1993-2002

10. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 10 Geospatial data types: Tabular data (w/vector)

11. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 11 Today’s geospatial data as tomorrow’s cultural heritage

12. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 12 Risks to Digital Geospatial Data.shp.mif.gml.e00.dwg.dgn.bsb.bil.sid

13. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 13 Risks to Digital Geospatial Data Producer focus on current data Time-versioned content generally not archives Future support of data formats in question Vast range of data formats in use--complex Shift to web services-based access Archives have been a by-product of providing access Preservation metadata requirements Descriptive, administrative, technical, DRM Geodatabases Complex functionality

14. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 14 Industry Shift to Web Services

15. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 15

16. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 16

17. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 17

18. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 18 Work plan in a Nutshell Work from existing data inventories NC OneMap Data Sharing Agreements as the “blanket”, individual agreements as the “quilt” Partnership: work with existing geospatial data infrastructures (state and federal) Technical approach METS with FGDC, PREMIS?, GeoDRM? Dspace now; re-ingest to different environment Web services consumption for archival development

19. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 19 Big Challenges Format migration paths Management of data versions over time Preservation metadata Harnessing geospatial web services Preserving cartographic representation Keeping content repository-agnostic Preserving geodatabases More …

20. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 20 Vector Data Format Options Option A: use an open format and have a really unfortunate transformation and limited vendor support for the output object Option B: use closed format but retain the original content and count on short- and medium-term vendor support. Option C: do both to buy time and look for an open, ASCII-based solution. (watch GML activity) No sweet spot, just an evolving and changing mix of flawed options that are used in combination.

21. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 21 Preservation Metadata Issues FGDC Metadata Many flavors, incoming metadata needs processing Cross-walk elements to PREMIS, MODS? Metadata wrapper/Content packaging METS (Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard) vs. other industry solutions Need a geospatial industry solution for the ‘METS- like problem’ GeoDRM a likely trigger—wrapper to enforce licensing (MPEG 21 references in OGIS Web Services 3)

22. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 22 Metadata Availability

23. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 23 Preserving Cartographic Representation

24. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 24 Interest in how geospatial content interacts with widely available digital repository software Focus on salient, domain-specific issues Challenge: remain repository agnostic Avoid “imprinting” on repository software environment Preservation package should not be the same as the ingest object of the first environment Tension between exploiting repository software features vs. becoming software dependent Repository Architecture Issues

25. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 25 Project Status Completing inventory analysis stage Storage system and backup deployed DSpace deployed to production Metadata workflow finalized Ingest workflow near finalization Content migration workflow near finalization Regional site visits planned for coming months Wide range of outreach/collaboration: FGDC, ESRI, EDINA (JISC), USGS, OGC, TRB, etc. Pilot project, georegistering digital archival geologic maps

26. Note: Percentages based on the actual number of respondents to each question 26 Questions? Contact: Steve Morris Head, Digital Library Initiatives NCSU Libraries Steven_Morris@ncsu.edu