Towards the Open Geospatial Web (eurogeographics edition)


Published on

A further iteration of the talk given in Trinidad and Finland. This one goes in to creation of geospatial information in addition to the sharing.

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Thank you all for having me out, I’m excited to speak on the theme of this conference, the Spatially Enabled Society I come from a background in open source software, and have been working sort of from the grass roots towards a spatially enabled society - having geospatial information just be a substrate on which everything else is built, a public infrastructure like the internet But I’ve always felt that there’s only so far the grass roots can go, and indeed the software I’ve built has all been about helping governments share their existing information. The goal I’ve been working towards is cooperation between all - government, ngo, commercial and citizen, so it’s great to have this opportunity to talk to you all about where I’m coming from, and I imagine to learn far more about your perspectives. The true spatially enabled society is only going to come from everyone cooperating. So I’m hoping to get across some of what I’ve learned in my years making OS software We buy our spaghetti from tratori not mcdonalds. But our children prefer coca cola
  • Towards the Open Geospatial Web (eurogeographics edition)

    1. 1. Towards the Open Geospatial Web – Chris Holmes
    2. 2. “ Architectures of Participation” – Coined by Tim O’Reilly
    3. 4. An “Architecture of Participation” is both social and technical , leveraging the skills and energy of users as much as possible to cooperate in building something bigger than any single person or organization could alone .
    4. 5. Architectures of Participation Software: The first domain to see benefits The process can be applied to other fields
    5. 6. Geospatial Data <ul><ul><li>Creation Sharing </li></ul></ul>
    6. 7. Primary Goal “…the sources, systems, network linkages, standards, and institutional issues involved in delivering spatially-related data from many different sources to the widest possible group of potential users at affordable costs.” <ul><ul><li>Geo Data Sharing… </li></ul></ul>– Groot & McLaughlin 2000
    7. 8. The Success of SDIs?
    8. 9. <ul><ul><li>Compelling Initiative </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>User at the Center </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>User Responsibility </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No Barriers or Difficulty </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Factors for Success </li></ul></ul>
    9. 10. Contribute to Compelling Initiative. <ul><li>Mandated law != useful </li></ul><ul><li>Few real users </li></ul><ul><li>No recognition </li></ul><ul><li>No reward for the effort </li></ul><ul><li>Try again in five years? </li></ul>vs.
    10. 11. <ul><li>Quickly add data to quality map </li></ul><ul><li>Ease of customization </li></ul><ul><li>Recognition: Shared, emailed, blogged about… </li></ul><ul><li>Indexed & Searchable </li></ul>Contribute to Compelling Initiative
    11. 12. <ul><li>Consumers ≠ Producers </li></ul><ul><li>Data from “official” sources </li></ul><ul><li>Metadata takes training </li></ul><ul><li>GIS Professionals Only </li></ul>Users as Contributors
    12. 13. Users as Contributors <ul><li>Consumers = Producers </li></ul><ul><li>Everyone encouraged to contribute </li></ul><ul><li>Community members grow in to experts </li></ul><ul><li>Even used for ‘real GIS’ …it’s easier than getting on an SDI </li></ul>Maps
    13. 14. SDI Contributing: Data
    14. 15. Hardware
    15. 16. Software
    16. 17. Metadata
    17. 18. Metadata Training
    18. 19. A Catalog to Register On
    19. 20. Contributing Data to Google…
    20. 22. Barriers to Entry… <ul><li>Browser </li></ul><ul><li>Metadata </li></ul><ul><li>Training </li></ul><ul><li>Server Hardware </li></ul><ul><li>WMS Software </li></ul><ul><li>Sharing Agreements </li></ul><ul><li>Catalog Registration </li></ul>
    21. 23. Does user contribution alone make an SDI?
    22. 24. Let commercial players run SDI? <ul><li>SDI’s are a public good </li></ul><ul><li>Commercial players have profit motive </li></ul><ul><li>Commercial players seek monopoly </li></ul><ul><li>DANGER: Governments are handing over data </li></ul><ul><li>without opening it to anyone else! </li></ul>
    23. 25. Towards the Open Geo Web <ul><li>Inclusive Infrastructure </li></ul><ul><li>Single “Geo Web” Project </li></ul><ul><li>Unlimited Potential </li></ul><ul><li>Build on existing Architectures </li></ul><ul><li>of Participation </li></ul>
    24. 26. Principles: Towards the Open Geo Web <ul><li>Not just policies, </li></ul><ul><li>requirements & mandates </li></ul><ul><li>Align incentives to create </li></ul><ul><li>a single Geospatial Web </li></ul>
    25. 27. Geospatial Data <ul><ul><li>Creation Sharing </li></ul></ul>
    26. 28. OpenStreetMap <ul><ul><li>Geo Data Creation: </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Is already here… </li></ul>MapShare™
    27. 29. OSM Maps
    28. 30. OSM Maps
    29. 31. … Though far from mature <ul><li>Licensing is a big problem </li></ul><ul><li>Tools are unsophisticated </li></ul><ul><li>Few different workflow options </li></ul><ul><li>But huge potential has been proven </li></ul>
    30. 32. Towards Maturity: Workflow vs
    31. 33. Towards Maturity: Scope vs
    32. 34. Towards Maturity: Tools <ul><li>Compatibility with GIS tools </li></ul><ul><li>Advanced workflow management </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sandboxes, approval before acceptance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Automatic validation (topology, required fields) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Branches and merging with Conflict Resolution </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Automatic change notification email / rss </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Automatic feature extraction: GPS tracks and Satellite images </li></ul>
    33. 35. Towards Maturity: Licensing For Geodata?
    34. 36. Towards Maturity: Cooperation <ul><li>Align efforts so that amateur, commercial, NGO and governmental creators all naturally collaborate </li></ul><ul><li>Figure out workflows, tools and licenses that work for everyone </li></ul><ul><li>Put NMCAs at the center, incentivizing updates to core layers (from citizens and companies) </li></ul><ul><li>Towards living data, constantly evolving - authoritative and always up to date </li></ul>
    35. 37. Towards Maturity: The role of the NMCA <ul><li>Natural leader, the most experience capturing and maintaining the highest quality data </li></ul><ul><li>Must build upon success of accurate and official maps with latest techniques to improve with participation </li></ul><ul><li>Look to derive revenue from services around the data </li></ul><ul><li>Use Open Source Business models as examples </li></ul>
    36. 38. Learning from Open Source Business <ul><li>Hosted Services </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Geocoding </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Route finding </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Custom Tiles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hosting additional layers, etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Guarantee of accuracy </li></ul><ul><li>Value add packaging - formats, documentation, software </li></ul><ul><li>Subscription to latest updates </li></ul>
    37. 39. <ul><ul><li>Build on other Architectures of Participation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Don’t go it alone </li></ul>MapShare™ Align their success with yours
    38. 40. Beyond Portals <ul><li>Web Portals went out of fashion in 2001 </li></ul><ul><li>‘ GeoWeb Node’ = GeoPortal 2.0 </li></ul><ul><li>GeoPortal goal: find existing data </li></ul><ul><li>GeoWeb Node goal: increase creation and sharing of data </li></ul><ul><li>End goal of both is easier to find and use data </li></ul>
    39. 41. No more Aquariums!
    40. 42. Join the Web!
    41. 43. A Geo Web Node
    42. 44. GeoWeb Node: Rooted in Data Access PostGIS Oracle Spatial DB2 ArcSDE MySQL
    43. 45. GeoWeb Node: Spreading to the Geo Web Google Earth Virtual Earth Google Maps NASA WorldWind Yahoo! Maps
    44. 46. GeoWeb Node: Integrated Viewer
    45. 47. GeoWeb Node: Online Styling
    46. 48. GeoWeb Node: Easy upload Choose File Geofile.shp Upload
    47. 49. GeoWeb Node: Searchable by Google
    48. 50. GeoWeb Node: Editing
    49. 51. GeoWeb Node: Versioning and advanced workflow
    50. 52. GeoWeb Node: User accounts <ul><li>User statistics </li></ul><ul><li>Comments, ratings, tags </li></ul><ul><li>Collaborative Filtering </li></ul><ul><li>Rankings of best ‘views’ and data sets contributed </li></ul><ul><li>Highest rated, most viewed, most shared </li></ul>
    51. 53. GeoWeb Node: Metadata <ul><li>Derive from user actions </li></ul><ul><li>Don’t require metadata to put out data </li></ul><ul><li>Wiki type editing of metadata </li></ul><ul><li>Automatically available with the Catalog standards </li></ul>
    52. 54. Where to put these nodes? <ul><li>Everywhere! </li></ul><ul><li>Anywhere you might put a portal </li></ul><ul><li>Anywhere you have an ‘Enterprise GIS System’ </li></ul><ul><li>Anywhere people share data with each other </li></ul><ul><li>Handling all these use cases will evolve GeoWeb nodes to be truly useful </li></ul>
    53. 55. Proprietary vs. Open Source Nodes <ul><li>Implementation of standards is the most important </li></ul><ul><li>Open Source has advantages </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Keep vendors honest with standards </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Technical innovation by all </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Increasing returns on investment </li></ul></ul>
    54. 56. Open vs Closed Geo Data <ul><li>Most important thing is that data is accessible in all standard formats </li></ul><ul><li>But the Geo Web will be built on Open Data </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Google has proven this </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>An open base will lead to more contributions on top </li></ul></ul>
    55. 57. Official vs. User-contributed Data <ul><li>One Infrastructure </li></ul><ul><li>Limited User Permissions </li></ul><ul><li>Optional Commenting & Rating </li></ul>
    56. 58. <ul><li>The future is users </li></ul><ul><li>Geo Participation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>GIS Professionals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Amateur Neo Geographers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Anyone with a locative device </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Technology & Community </li></ul>The Future: Beyond Portals
    57. 59. My GeoWeb Goal Let’s build a Geo Web that’s so compelling and easy-to-use that everyone: Citizens, Governments, NGO’s and Companies all naturally collaborate towards the same infrastructure for public good.
    58. 60. What you can do: <ul><li>Go beyond portals, build National Geo Web Nodes with free hosting for open contributors </li></ul><ul><li>Try opening data in open source / share alike and/or non-commercial ways, align incentives back </li></ul><ul><li>Look for new business further up the value chain, just selling data may not last </li></ul><ul><li>Partner with companies who are correcting data and moving up the value chain, don’t go it alone </li></ul><ul><li>Experiment with participation, both internally and externally </li></ul>
    59. 61. Learn more… <ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Share Alike Attribution License. Please attribute Chris Holmes, and keep the logo on all slides, unless alternate permission is given. Contact [email_address] for more information