Presentation on theme: "MN Parcel Data Standard State Standards Process and Useful Insights DCDC 12/04/2009Mark Kotz."— Presentation transcript:
MN Parcel Data Standard State Standards Process and Useful Insights DCDC 12/04/2009Mark Kotz
Overview State Standards Process Purpose Semantics Required vs. Optional Scope Metadata Attributes Implementation Considerations
State Standards Process Existing Standards 1. Codes for state 2. Codes for counties 3. Codes for cities, townships, unorgs 4. Codes for lakes and wetlands 5. Codes for reaches and watercourses 6. Codes for watersheds 7. Coordinate system interchange (State) 8. Positional accuracy reporting 9. Metadata 10. USNG
State Standards Process Typical Parts of Standard Applicability: When does/doesnt 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 wont include… now MetroGIS 5, then 29, now 65 Many not populated Completeness assessment www.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.