SDI development why aren’t we there yet ?

Drew Clarke Department of Industry, Science & Resources AusIndustry, Analytical and Mapping Division Commonwealth Spatial Data Committee Australia New Zealand Land Information Council (UN) Asia-Pacific GIS Infrastructure Committee SCAR Geodesy & Geographic Information

Australian governments



three levels of government



legal separation



some functional overlap



environmental data (yes)



cadastral data (no)



scale and scope of applications

Australian SDI coordination



Australia New Zealand Land Information Council (ANZLIC)



Commonwealth Spatial Data Committee (CSDC)



Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping (ICSM)



Public Sector Mapping Agencies (PSMA)

Australian SDI programs



institutional framework



policies, principles, compliance



fundamental data



specify, create, maintain



technical standards



metadata, data quality, dictionary



clearinghouse



metadata, directory, access

So why don’t we have a fully functional SDI (anywhere) ?



www site



define area of interest



view all metadata



download selected data



integrate own data



apply web mapping tools

Key elements



data



technology



business case

Data



drowning in it !



raster (image) and vector (map)



accessibility ?



quality ?



accuracy



currency



consistency



completeness

Technology



It’s brilliant !



internet



communications



storage



data standards



applications

Business case



government policy imperative



patch protection - governments, agencies, individuals



revenue implications



killer application



commercial imperative



role of the private sector



return on investment

Conclusion



many governments are investing heavily in SDI development



Australian approach matches our political structure



SDI development is constrained by the lack of an overpowering business case