Report on the Final Discussion at 4th EC GIS WorkshopPan-European Geographic Information InfrastructureBudapest, 24 - 26 June 1998 By Robert Peckham, JRC, Institute for Systems, Informatics and Safety (ISIS) robert.peckham@jrc.it Our thanks to Robert Peckham and his colleagues for these draft minutes - and permission to publish them at this time, as further background to the GI2000 and EGII discussions. - R A Longhorn DG XIII/E TechServe Support - 5 August 1998. Panel:Ian Masser (Chairman) (I.Masser@sheffield.ac.uk The Discussion:Ian Masser started the discussion by posing some questions for the panel regarding the Pan-European Geographic Information Infrastructure. This requires coordination at different levels and in different countries. There is a problem of how to deal with emerging demands for Trans-National information for use in many areas of human activity and in relation to European Policies. In some cases borders are well defined; in others they are not. For example "Regions" used for particular project or studies frequently include several countries (cited examples were the Rhine and the Baltic). The creation of the Information Infrastructure is required to assist with policy formation initiatives at European level.Ulrich Boes gave some reflections and further questions. He pointed out that in the workshop we had seen a very diverse range of projects, and that from this it maybe seemed we do not yet have an Information Infrastructure. Coordination of it requires a coordinator. The coordinator needs a vision. DG III (industry) needs to stimulate and help industry. We should have a democratic process in which everyone involved has a voice. In this multidisciplinary world the solution is not to provide a kind of "European Songbook", but we need to think globally and work to establish a common vision in the European Community. We should consider how GI relates to the overall Information Infrastructure, and ensure that the user's voice is heard. He had also found the presentation of Jason Cunliffe to be "visionary", for example in its approach to the 4th (time) dimension. Ian Masser pointed out that the Geographic Information Infrastructure of the US, the NSDI, was seen as an add-on to the Information Highway concept. Cliff Kottman (ckottman@opengis.org) felt that the Clinton executive order had a rather narrow scope. Interoperability between federal departments was improving, but only slowly. There is a need to focus on the "commercial infrastructure". Robin Waters agreed. GI is being used by industry for various purposes, and where there is a commercial need, it will happen.Christian Chenez suggested that there were two infrastructures to consider: the Institutional one and the Commercial one and these two need to develop in parallel. The institutional one is not (yet) geared up to the development of commercial data. John Glover (jdglover@ingr.com) asked whether the commercial/institutional difference was reflected in the difference between de facto and de jure standards. Christian Chenez felt that many institutional issues remained to be solved. Jason Cunliffe (jasonic@nomadicsltd.com) pointed out that the overlap between commerce and geography occurred in the spatio-temporal domain, and including temporal aspects lead to dynamic situations. He felt that timeliness of data is a key issue - commerce needs timely fresh data. Emmanuale Roccatagliata returned to the question of coordination and being coordinated. The GI community is very complex and we make progress when we listen to the point of view of its members. Progress should be driven by user needs so we need to first collect and understand them. We should start from commercial needs and trends, where users have real problems and real needs. Michael Jackson (mike@lsl.co.uk) referred to the Global Mapping Forum discussion on the Global Spatial Data Infrastructure. In his view we should extrapolate from present user needs, but extrapolating current technology does not lead to appropriate solutions. We also find a discontinuity between availability of data and user needs. This brings back the question of standards, and leads to some uncomfortable questions, in particular regarding previous investments. Alessandro Annoni (alessandro.annoni@jrc.it) referred to the Earth Observation infrastructure and in particular the Centre for Earth Observation. In the past, the only user was the meteorological services and this transcended many boundaries. Now we can only work if we create an infrastructure and we are obliged to solve the boundary problem. There is a need to identify and point the existence of Europe wide applications, which can benefit for such an infrastructure - flooding of major rivers, which cross country borders was quoted as an example. He suggested to identify such key applications in which GI was an essential component. Gabor Remetey-Fülöpp agreed, and pointed out the need for communication, cooperation and coordination, leading to harmonised actions. These should be coordinated at both political and working levels. He also felt that progress should be application driven, and this should be the direction for actions in the fifth framework programme. John Glover felt there was need for a project plan, with milestones and benefits, because we can only control such a more formalized approach, but who would put it together? Ian Masser then made a quote from an Ottawa conference "As technological barriers fall, bureaucratic barriers rise!" John Glover replied that technology is not so much an issue these days. Christian Chenez said that if we get the mandate, we would get the high level working party. This panel should design the goals and milestones, and in his view these should be more institutionally oriented than commercial. Ian Heywood felt that the key to coordination and cooperation was to have a clear vision. We need to look at the OGC. Does it have a clear vision? If so, what is it? and why should we be involved in it? He also felt that the European GIS community does not have a "common vision". He used educators as an example: if they have something, why should they share it? There was little vested interest in sharing. We need to focus on: what is our vision?, how do we share it? and what are the benefits? Christian Chenez pointed out that the aim of GI2000 is indeed to identify a common vision. Ian Masser said that the vision is already there. We have identified the obstacles, and what we need now is actions. Gabor Kakonyi (ERDAS) (kakonyi@bekes.datanet.hu) said that he believes in commercial processes, such as the one for the road network data, but pointed out that the satellite industry gives no educational discount! There is a need to help education and educators in this sense. Ian Heywood agreed. He pointed out that changes are happening so fast that there is little or no time to learn. Starting in North America companies are beginning to give training in universities in the use of their software. John Glover said that tax breaks in the US were also a help. Ian Masser then returned to the main questions, the formation of the EGII, the obstacles, and the lack of awareness at high levels. The main problems lay with the leading decision makers. Christian Chenez felt that this had been addressed by GI2000 and EUROGI last year and they were asking their members to lobby. Louis Hecht (lhecht@opengis.org) said that it was a "dollars and cents" issue. There is a need to show the savings and the profits. These are the criteria that turn political minds. In other words, there was still the need to consider the financial/commercial side, and to stress the savings that can be made (by creating a high interoperability infrastructure). Alison Munro felt there was a need to identify an individual to act as the lobbyist/visionary. This had been a key element of past successful projects. Jason Cunliffe then proposed that what was needed was a television programme - sound bites attact attention. This would be a more effective way of spreading the message re the benefits to be gained from the EGII. This is used in many fields, and of course needs the appropriate documentary and journalistic skills, to be effective. David Ovadia (d.ovadia@bgs.ac.uk) suggested that in this workshop we were maybe asking the wrong people in that important end users of georeferenced information, such as banks and supermarkets, were not represented. There was a risk of producing things such real end-users did not want. Ioannis Kanellopoulos questioned whether this was possible for all the different professions, and very diverse user communities, involved with GI. Maybe it would be more realistic to concentrate on a less ambitious sub-set. Ian Masser said that there were now initiatives in North America to set up regional GIS. Ulrich Boes pointed out that the emergence of the WWW had needed no lobbying. It had however created its own problems, such as the diffusion of possibly harmful information, and politicians had then felt there was a need to take action. Organisations had been set up such as the WWW Society, the OMG, various user organisations, and standards were being developed. Ian Masser returned to the public/private issue and pointed out that there were clear components of the EGII where the private sector can take a lead, while in other areas it is up to the public sector (e.g. military / national security / civil protection). The Japanese Spatial Data Infrastructure had been initiated within two months of the Kobe earthquake. He was concerned however that EUROGI, the European Umbrella Organisation, does not have a strong private sector voice. Christian Chenez said that he had tried daily to get strong visibility for EUROGI in the private sector. On the other hand he doesn't see much collaboration in the private sector. Robin Waters said that the private sector was here in our workshop and was well represented in Commission sponsored projects. While these may not be all directly or immediately lucrative they had certainly "spawned" new initiatives and developments. Martin Littlejohn (Martin.Littlejohn@lux.dg13.cec.be) agreed that the TV programme was a good idea. He was looking for a so called "killer application", and for an appropriate image to present to a non-expert. We need to explain what is special about "spatial". Issues such as copyright, liability and information access are not specific to GI. John Rowley pointed out that GI now sits uncomfortably where it is placed in the fifth framework programme. He felt that there was a priority need to create a vision of what GI is all about, then an identity for it, and then to set up the EGII framework. Gabor Kakonyi pointed out that a different range of people would see the TV programme from those who would see items on the WWW. G. Remetey-Fülöpp then displayed an image from Hungarian crop monitoring, which showed very well the impact of high (flood) water levels on the land. He pointed out that this had been produced in a very short time, and that it was a good example of what was needed for such a TV programme. Ian Heywood then mentioned a video programme, produced by Hewlett Packard, showing the uses and benefits of coordinated GI in an earthquake emergency situation. It included both interoperability of various systems and a spatial data infrastructure. This reinforced the idea of a video/TV programme Robin Waters then suggested the following vision statement for the EGII. " GI Infrastructure for Europe should enable public and private sector users to access appropriate levels of up to date topographic and thematic spatial information in an interoperable environment at a reasonable cost within a single, easily understood legal framework covering copyright and confidentiality. The data collected from synoptic systems (remote sensing) may be centralised but the data collected in individual countries should be co-ordinated under the subsidiarity principle". This statement received general approval from the workshop participants, and was considered suitable for submission for discussion in other arenas, such as the ongoing review of the DG III strategy document. Ulrich Boes (DG III) then brought the discussion to a close thanking the participants and the organisers, and stating that there would be a "5th EC-GIS Workshop" at the same time next year, and in a different location. Back to GI2000 Documents |