The Address Data Content Standard: A Presentation to the FGDC Coordination Group, April 1, 2003 By: Anne O’Connor, Matthew McCready And April Avnayim.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Internal Audit Documentation and Working Papers
Advertisements

Analyzing Systems Using Data Dictionaries Systems Analysis and Design, 7e Kendall & Kendall 8 © 2008 Pearson Prentice Hall.
3/5/2009Computer systems1 Analyzing System Using Data Dictionaries Computer System: 1. Data Dictionary 2. Data Dictionary Categories 3. Creating Data Dictionary.
Centrum voor Geo-informatie Metadata & clearinghouses Madrid, 22 December 2004 Joep Crompvoets Spatial Data Infrastructures.
Analyzing Systems Using Data Dictionaries
FGDC, Meet the DDI Adding Geospatial Metadata to a Numeric Data Catalog Julie Linden Yale University.
ISO 9001 Interpretation : Exclusions
National Geodetic Survey Discussion - FGDC Geographic Information Framework Data Content Standard Part 4: Geodetic Control Rick Foote Rick
Configuration Management
PM Summit Overview Daniel Vitek MBA, PMP – Consultant to CDC.
Prepared by Long Island Quality Associates, Inc. ISO 9001:2000 Documentation Requirements Based on ISO/TC 176/SC 2 March 2001.
Software Documentation Written By: Ian Sommerville Presentation By: Stephen Lopez-Couto.
11 Data Interface Standard for Accounting Software Project Progress Report China National Audit Office June, 2015.
1 Overview of Fulton County GIS Address Model Carl Anderson Fulton County GIS.
Introduction to Geospatial Metadata – ISO 191** Metadata National Coastal Data Development Center A division of the National Oceanographic Data Center.
Shipping 101 Shipping Best Practices Southern Tier Postal Customer Council.
Procedures to Develop and Register Data Elements in Support of Data Standardization September 2000.
Building Quality Address Data: A Census Bureau Perspective Rocket City Geospatial Conference Huntsville, AL November 16, 2011.
U.S. Census Bureau Geography Division Programs Presentation to the Indiana Government Geospatial Coordinator Forum September 20, 2012.
© 2012 IBM Corporation Rational Insight | Back to Basis Series Documents and Record Control Liu Xue Ning.
AIXM 5.1 Seminar 12 – 13 December 2011
1 Lecture 3.9: RFP, SOW and CDRL (SEF Ch 19) Dr. John MacCarthy UMBC CMSC 615 Fall, 2006.
GJXDM User’s Conference September 7, 2006 Component Reuse: Identifying and Building Components for Use in Exchange Analysis.
Larry Fitzwater, U.S. EPA Judith Newton, NIST Lois Fritts, SAIC January 17, 2000 Open Forum on Metadata Registries Santa Fe, NM SDC JE-2026.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010 Dennis Wisnosky DoD Business Mission Area Chief Technical Officer & Chief Architect in the Office of the Deputy Chief Management.
FGDC Address Standard Update: What's Next? Address Standard Working Group Martha Wells, GISP Carl Anderson, GISP Sara Yurman, GISP Ed Wells, GISP Hilary.
Designing a Corporate Records Management Portal for NARA Kristin Burneston Greg P. Johnson Eric Stoykovich Charlotte Sturm.
Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education Analyzing Systems Using Data Dictionaries Systems Analysis and Design, 8e Kendall & Kendall Global Edition 8.
(Spring 2015) Instructor: Craig Duckett Lecture 10: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 Mere Mortals Chap. 7 Summary, Team Work Time 1.
Special Railways Phase III Proposed approach to regulatory changes Jakarta 16 May 2011.
Rupa Tiwari, CSci5980 Fall  Course Material Classification  GIS Encyclopedia Articles  Classification Diagram  Course – Encyclopedia Mapping.
Transitioning from FGDC CSDGM Metadata to ISO 191** Metadata
School of Health Sciences Week 8! AHIMA Practice Briefs Healthcare Delivery & Information Management HI 125 Instructor: Alisa Hayes, MSA, RHIA, CCRC.
Analyzing Systems Using Data Dictionaries Systems Analysis and Design, 8e Kendall & Kendall 8.
Comparison of CEN, FGDC and ISO standards for metadata Ing. Jan Ruzicka Institute of Economics and Control Systems VŠB – Technical university Ostrava 17.
Why Standardize Metadata?. Why Have a Standard? Think for a moment how hard it would be to… … bake a cake without standard units of measurement. … put.
Introduction to Geospatial Metadata – FGDC CSDGM National Coastal Data Development Center A division of the National Oceanographic Data Center Please .
Lesson 13 Databases Unit 2—Using the Computer. Computer Concepts BASICS - 22 Objectives Define the purpose and function of database software. Identify.
1 Subcommittee on Cultural and Demographic Data’s Address Data Content Standard Leslie Godwin presented to the Coordination Group for the Standards Working.
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
STATISTICS IN THE LIGHT OF PREPERATION OF A PROPOSAL FOR A NEW POSTAL DIRECTIVE Radenci; 7 – 9 November 2005.
Component 6 - Health Management Information Systems Unit 9-2 Administrative, Billing, and Financial Systems This material was developed by Duke University,
COMMON COMMUNICATION FORMAT (CCF). Dr.S. Surdarshan Rao Professor Dept. of Library & Information Science Osmania University Hyderbad
OMB Circular A-16 Supplemental Guidance (Endorsed) Ivan DeLoatch, Staff Director Lew Sanford Jr. & Wendy Blake-Coleman NGAC Meeting, February 4, 2009.
Software Requirements Specification Document (SRS)
A look to the past for the future- The North American Profile Sharon Shin Metadata Coordinator Federal Geographic Data Committee.
Middle Fork Project Relicensing Process Plan April 25, 2006.
Doc.: IEEE /0041r1 AP Location Capability January 2007 Donghee Shim et alSlide 1 AP Location Capability Notice: This document has been prepared.
Colorado Springs Producer-Archive Interface Specification Status of standardisation project Main characteristics, major changes, items pending.
Standardized Metadata Standardized Metadata The FGDC Content Standard For Digital Geospatial Metadata The FGDC Content Standard For Digital Geospatial.
Workshop on Accreditation of Bodies Certifying Medical Devices Kiev, November 2014.
Overview: Spatial Data Standards for Facilities, Infrastructure and Environment (SDSFIE) Services Support FGDC Coordination Group Meeting 6 February 2007.
Understanding the Value and Importance of Proper Data Documentation 5-1 At the conclusion of this module the participant will be able to List the seven.
FGDC Address Data Standard Scope, Status, and Structure  United States Street, Landmark, and Postal Address Data Standard"  Scope: Street, landmark,
Geospatial metadata Prof. Wenwen Li School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning 5644 Coor Hall
Quality Management: Mutually beneficial supplier relationships.
Overview of Draft U.S. Address Data Standard Martha McCart Wells, GISPSpatial Focus, Inc. Ed Wells, GISPWMATA Carl Anderson, GISPFulton County, GA Sara.
Developing a Comprehensive Address Data Standard for the United States U.S. Address Standard Working Group: Martha McCart Wells, GISP, Spatial Focus Inc.
CPMGT 300 Week 3 Learning Team Planning Process Groups and Developing the Scope Check this A+ tutorial guideline at
GEA CoP DRM Briefing for July 13 Meeting with Andy Hoskinson
Software Documentation
UFNPT Planning and Development Work Plan, Milestones and Timelines
How To Write s, Memos & Letters
Role of Metadata in Census Data Dissemination
AP Location Capability
Update on the Developments in Government Auditing Standards
11-1 Simplifying Rational Expressions
Clarification on CID3778 and Mesh TIM element
Non-AP STA Location Capability
… Two-step approach Conceptual Framework Annex I Annex II Annex III
Presentation transcript:

The Address Data Content Standard: A Presentation to the FGDC Coordination Group, April 1, 2003 By: Anne O’Connor, Matthew McCready And April Avnayim

PURPOSE The purpose of the Standard is to facilitate the exchange of address information.

OBJECTIVE Original Proposal: To provide consistency in the maintenance and exchange of address data and enhance its useability. Currently: The objective of the Standard is to provide a method for documenting the content of address information for the purpose of exchanging data.

SCOPE The Standard establishes the requirements for documenting the content of addresses. It is applicable to addresses of objects having a spatial component. The Standard specifically excludes electronic addresses.

NARROWING OF SCOPE The scope of the Standard has been narrowed from the original proposal which included components for the “creation, maintenance, sharing, useability, and exchange of addresses”. The current draft applies only to data which is exchanged between governmental entities which is in line with the original justification for the standard as discussed in the standard proposal.

What the ADCS Does Not Do The ADCS does not regulate the content of a database. It does not regulate the format of a database. It does not depict what data elements should be in an address database, or it’s structure.

What the ADCS Does Not Do The ADCS does not regulate the content of a database. It does not regulate the format of a database. It does not depict what data elements should be in an address database, or it’s structure.  The ADCS simply standardizes the information describing the data being exchanged.

Changes to Draft Since 2001 Public Review  Adjudicated comments from the 2001 public review  Conformed the Standard to Directive #6: Formatting FGDC Standards Documents  Reworked, reorganized, condensed, simplified, clarified  Adjudicated comments from the FGDC Standards Working Group

A Review: What is an Address? The means of referencing an object for the purposes of unique identification and location.

How the Standard Treats Addresses  The Standard defines an address specification.  The Standard identifies and organizes addresses by type.  A UML model has been developed to facilitate the documentation process

ADDRESS SPECIFICATON  Documents the data content of an address group.  Specification includes: 1. Address purpose 2. The address type 3. Descriptive elements 4. Descriptive element matching

Specification Component 1: Address Purpose Identifies the data producer’s rational for creating an address group, such as a customer base or newsletter mailing list. A minimum of one address purpose shall be recorded for each address group, but more than one address purpose may be recorded.

Specification Component 2: Address Type  Address Type: The means of referencing an address  Three types: Geographic Postal Physical

Address Type: Geographic  Also know as positional address type  Set of precise and complete geographic descriptors that use a reference system to provide the unique location of an object  Ex 1: Latitude and Longitude Coordinates  Ex 2: USNG Coordinates

Address Type: Postal  Also known as the mailing address type  Set of precise and complete information on the basis of which an item can be delivered to an addressee  Ex: street addresses

Postal Address Type: Mailing Structures  USPS arrangement that contains all the elements necessary for mailing a letter  Four address structures Puerto Rico Business Residential Military

Address Type: Physical  Also known as the situs and delivery address types  Set of precise and complete information that indicates by relationship or by description the permanent and unique location of an object.  Ex: Overnight delivery location

Specification Component 3: Descriptive Elements There are four parts to the descriptive element information: 1. Name: The generally acknowledged name. 2. Alias: A name differing from Name. 3. Definition: A statement expressing the essential nature of the address information. 4. Reference: The document containing the definition of the descriptive element used by the data producer.

Specification Component 4: Matching Descriptive Elements  Matches all the descriptive elements to each ADCS recognized data elements necessary for creating a complete address  Used for all address types

UML Model

Conclusion It is the opinion of this standard development team that the Address Data Content Standard is ready for the next stage of development: Public Review.

Contacts Comments are welcomed. The Standard will be available for review, with a comments form, at this website: Please direct other comments or questions to: Anne O’Connor (301)