European GI Vendor Meeting
29 May 1996

Meeting Report (Final)

Table of contents

Introduction

The latest version of the GI2000 Policy Document, dated 31 December 1995, was distributed at the meeting, as amended by M Littlejohn of DG XIII/E and R Longhorn, external expert in GI, specifically to take account of comments from a previous meeting with the Commercial GI Data Providers (held 28 November 1995).

The meeting was opened and chaired by Mr. Martin Littlejohn, DG XIII/E.3, who also used this opportunity to provide a progress report on the INFO2000 Programme , which was approved by Council on 20 May 1996. It is under INFO2000 that certain specific actions relating to further development of GI content in Europe will take place, following a Call for Proposals expected to be launched mid-June 1996.

Meeting Introduction

Input from Participants

This report contains a summary of all issues raised or main comments made on the principal themes. These are listed in no specific priority order.

Data Availability and Cost

• All sides of the GI community in Europe need to be part of the "base data" definition process, not just suppliers and/or knowledgeable GI users.
• Lack of data, at appropriate level and in appropriate formats, is a significant barrier to more rapid growth of the GI market place across Europe and to the benefits that can often be achieved by using GI for spatial analysis (e.g. in environmental monitoring, urban planning, analysing and modelling social costs/benefits of various government actions).
• Private GI data suppliers need to be encouraged to work together more effectively, and to find a model under which they can co-operate more fully with government data holders.
• Accuracy is important, but not important to everyone. "Completeness" and breadth of coverage for GI is mandatory for some applications, but not always essential for all GI clients.
• "Free" data (base data or metadata) means "freely accessible", not necessarily "cost free". However, some level of data needs to be available at relatively inexpensive price to help spur on the market place. Identification of just what this level of data may be is important. (Access to "desensitised" military data should not be overlooked.)
• Much (most?) of the truly "pan-European GI" that exists today is taken from satellite imagery and is useful/use for regional applications (transport, environmental monitoring and impact assessment, etc.). It is not (currently) of sufficiently high resolution to be used in "local" applications.
• Users often want and need data at 1:1000 and 1:10 000 scale, but simply cannot afford it. How to get over this problem is crucial to expanding use of GI in many application areas, and the solution may lie in better (cheaper) collection mechanisms, as well as more liberal data sales policies, so that unit cost might drop due to wider sales (i.e. to user groups other than those for which the data was originally collected).

Metadata is mandatory

• Lack of readily available and standardised metadata is holding back GI market development in Europe. The application base cannot be increased if data does not exist or if users cannot locate the necessary data.
• Lack of GI metadata is leading to duplicated effort in data collection today.
• The explosion of data availability that is occurring in other subject areas will occur in GI, in time, and methods of indexing, finding, acquiring and assessing the benefit of using specific GI are still in their infancy and need both R&D and practical demonstration platforms.

Market Growth Trends

• GI is expensive! Yet the trend already is for greater use, e.g. Dataquest reports that "90% of all utilities will be using field data capture systems in the next two years". This is going to have a tremendous positive impact on the growth in use of GI and on accuracy issues.
• Thousands of new GI/GIS users are from the business, finance and other economic sectors, not from the large traditional users, i.e. local government, utilities, network operators, etc. These new users must have a say (and will have a say, by "voting with their cheque books") in how the GI/GIS market place develops, including data accessibility issues, tools development trends, etc.
• New pricing policies and models need to be developed to take account of the much more rapid tools development times seen today. Pricing models for data versus tools already vary considerably and, in the realm of GIS tools, the effect of approaching mass volume sales for desktop implementations (even "bundling"?) has still not been fully analysed.

Technology Trends

• Rapid emergence of powerful and inexpensive desk-top PC systems has radically altered the marketplace for GI and spatial analysis possibilities. Hardware, operating systems, network capability, etc. are no longer concerns of most users or vendors.
• Defining an appropriate data model for GI is all important, i.e. how to store GI and how to use it to model reality. It is not necessary to develop a single, very complex data model that satisfies everyone/every niche, but rather to develop and test a range of simple(r) models applicable to a range of market niches. Practical GIS tools must be able to accommodate "local distortions" caused by "localised" lack of data or lack of accuracy.
• Is the technology really going towards object orientation and, if so, how long will this take? How do you describe and/or justify the benefits of OO to end-users, especially novices to IT? European IT developers are (still) leading the way in OO developments.
• Integration and dissemination of GI via the Internet (World Wide Web) is already in progress in several parts of the world (not just the USA!), including in Europe (Bavarian experiment). This adds yet another dimension of "new" technology for users to absorb in an already confused market place.

User Needs

• Vendors still ask "who are the users" and "what do they really want" and "what are they willing to pay to solve their spatial analysis problems 4". There is still not enough known about all the various classes of user and their widely varying needs. Much anecdotal information exists about "user needs" and many individual case studies are written up in the literature and presented at conferences - but still the questions are asked.
• Some vendors say that users fall into three categories: "experts", "desk-top users" (aware of how mainstream business or office oriented packages work) and "everyone else". Others said that the distinction is simply between "new" users and "traditional" users. Others used "desk top" versus "enterprise wide" users.
• Users still need greater awareness about all the issues surrounding acquisition and use of GI for spatial analysis purposes. Some have expectations that are far too high in relation to data availability and tools capabilities, and others have no idea of how difficult is the task they face in implementing large GI systems. Desk-top GI users are even more likely to be confused, since they often equate "a GIS package" on their PC with a spreadsheet or word processor programme, and expect to be able to use such packages with equally limited specific skills and training.
• Users want a "complete solution" to their spatial analysis needs, right "from the box" - and no one can actually deliver this today, because of disparities between systems, different standards in use, data is not provided by same company as software, etc.
• The industry is "letting down the users" when, for example, it is not even possible to easily match addresses to road/street networks without considerable, additional, costly human input.

GIS is a global market place

• GI/GIS is a global market for vendors, not just national or regional or European. US-developed GIS software and multimedia tools are invading Europe and purely European firms engaged in software development and sales are few in comparison. Yet, is there any way of reversing this trend for GI/GIS, when it has not been possible to do so in nearly all other areas of software development?
• It is almost impossible to finance new, leading edge tools developments from a single, local market, or even one the size of a single national market. It is simply too risky. Today, even the largest GIS vendors develop their products on a global basis, apply them to global solutions for global customers, and use their networks of global companies, distributors and vendors to accomplish this, including those based in Europe.
• Sponsorship of European-financed R&D (via EU-level and national programmes) could be key to European developers retaining at least some portion of market share based on their often better understanding of the needs and problems of European GI users.
• Also, there is still much technology to be added to current GIS software and toolsets if we are to achieve the full potential of "easy to use" desktop spatial analysis in the future, especially for naive or first-time users. For example:
• Most systems can today still only handle 2D (x-y) GI data, whereas a whole range of economic and planning problems requires 3D data to be handled with equal ease.
• Temporal aspects of GI (how the earth or its use changes over time, for example) needs to be easily modelled and embedded into GI tools.
• Eventually, a fully "multimedia aware" user population will demand similar presentation technology to that they can have from other software, i.e. animation, etc.
• We need "dynamic" reformatting capabilities, so that data can be used and re-used, from multiple sources, "on the fly", i.e. without specific data conversion steps (which now account for something like 50% of human resource costs in some organisations).

Legal issues and GI

• Legal issues concerning IPR, liability (for data and the manipulative software), product "fitness for purpose" warranties, etc. are important for GI and will become more problematic as more GI moves onto the Web. GI is very expensive to collect and maintain and poor quality data or misuse of good data can lead to catastrophic results, which is not often the case for other forms of "multimedia" products.
• There are special legal implications regarding the collection, provision and third-party use of cadastral information, where issues such as accessibility at a "reasonable price" and personal privacy protection are often mandated at national and even local government levels.
• While some business users demand highly accurate GI (e.g. for market analysis), data privacy protection restricts just how much accuracy can be offered from certain datasets, especially those collected for specific purposes.

Standards and Interoperability

• While "standards" is a very important issue, focusing users' interest on standards is extremely difficult - most users find the topic "boring" and not relevant to their immediate spatial analysis problems. Except in a small part of the GI-aware community, the work of CEN TC 287 has not received the attention and publicity it deserves, especially the items that have been adopted by ISO's new TC 211 on GI/GIS. More assistance is needed now to demonstrate the benefits of using the emerging standards.
• Achieving true interoperability, of both systems and data, could add spatial referencing capability to terabytes of existing company and organisation data, with incalculable potential future benefits.
• Will open GIS be achieved this year, in one more year or in the next five years - everyone seems to have an "informed" opinion and this thoroughly confuses new customers.
• Users are frightened about the speed with which technology advances today, and are demanding that the "industry do something about this" - i.e., "protect my investment in equipment, data and human resources".
• The Open GIS Consortium, based in the USA, has now established formal links with major European organisations, such as EUROGI. OGIS topics, although being tackled on global scale, have certain elements that must be considered in "European" perspective, because of the sometime unique nature of European GI content.

Role for the EU, Member States and Industry

• Leadership is needed, because users are worried and confused, new technology and standards are in constant flux, there is general confusion about where the market is going, when will interoperability be achieved and how, etc. and GIS.
• EU programmes should support development of tools for handling data in multiple formats, as these will be needed for years to come, in order to take full advantage of existing GI datasets, even long after full interoperability is achieved (if ever). (Such proposals are already accepted under the Information Engineering and Esprit programmes).
• Legal issues must be solved at the political level. The EC should give a lead here.
• The EU should (somehow) sponsor pan-European GI base data collection, but the actual task falls to the Member States and numerous public and private agencies who actually carry out such data collection. Who pays has yet to be determined.
• The EU should help spread awareness both about the existence of GI and about GI generally, i.e. benefits, issues to be resolved, etc.

Meeting Conclusion

• Data issues were of paramount importance, both securing adequate "base data" and providing good quality GI metadata. Both these issues were already focused on in the GI2000 document and both would receive attention under INFO2000.
• User needs are still not fully understood, even by the vendors. More models need to be developed and more awareness activities undertaken targeted at new users.
• GI standards and interoperability are important and cause concern among users, but the GI/GIS vendors have to sell product today. The EU should support GI standards development and ensure that Europe is properly represented in the interoperability discussions, and these will both require long(er) term commitments.
• Legal issues are of importance and, for GI such as cadastral data, there are special problems to be overcome. The EC is already investigating general legal issues for multimedia, via the Legal Advisory Board, issuing various Directives and Green Papers. However, GI may need a specific focus which has, so far, not been achieved.
• GI and use of GI occurs in a truly global marketplace. While much GI is used only at local, regional or national level, there are other major requirements, in commerce, in environment, etc. which require global emphasis.
• Technology was changing rapidly and new methodologies must be found which help "protect" users' investments, i.e. future proofing their GI installations. Technology such as object oriented tools development may be of assistance here and should continue to be supported by the EC.

• Further revisions to the GI2000 Policy Document will be made and will be available via the I'M EUROPE World Wide Web site.
• The GI2000 document would eventually (later this year) become a Communication to Council and the Parliament covering the main issues set forth in the current document, as revised following the final two meetings in the consultation process.
• The INFO2000  programme first Call for Proposals would be announced mid-June and participants were encouraged to make proposals, especially in regard to GI under Action Line 3.1.
• The GI Vendors were encouraged to help build stronger government support for the GI2000 document and its key recommendations and for INFO2000 via their vendor associations, Member State national GI programmes, and other venues. Political awareness must be raised at the level of individual Member State governments, a role in which they could certainly provide valuable support for Commission initiatives.