Statewide Spatial Data Clearinghouses: an Oregon Case Study.

Authors

  • Andrea A. Wirth
  • Bonnie Avery
  • Kuuipo Walsh
  • Marc Rempel

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29173/istl1555

Abstract

Collaborative planning to streamline as well as to provide citizens with easier access to geospatial data has a long history in Oregon. A milestone in this process was the launch of the Oregon Spatial Data Library (OSDL) in November 2009. The OSDL provides a method for sharing public domain geospatial data at no cost to the user and is part of Oregon's participation in the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI ). This article reviews the nationwide setting for development of the NSDI and subsequent development of state geospatial clearinghouses. The paper first reviews these clearinghouses with a specific focus on five user-centric characteristics: keyword search options; availability of training or documentation; ease of access to metadata; presence of locally unique data; and calls for data or metadata contributions. These characteristics address the perspective of users who are neither GIS experts nor familiar with the clearinghouses. Information literacy concepts and the literature review informed the selection of the characteristics used in the review. The OSDL is reviewed in the same manner with the intention of commenting on steps which might be taken to make it more effective in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Crompvoets, J., Bregt, A., Rajabifard, A., and I. Williamson. 2004. Assessing the worldwide developments of national spatial data clearinghouses. International Journal of Geographical Information 18(7): 665-689. [Internet]. [Cited June 7, 2012]. Available from http://repository.unimelb.edu.au/10187/1345

Data.gov. 2012. State/Local/Tribal Data Sites [Internet]. [Cited 2011 September 30]. Available from {http://www.data.gov/statedatasites}

Data.Oregon.Gov. 2011. Oregon Spatial Data Library. [Internet]. [Cited 2011 September 15]. Available from: {http://www.oregon.gov/data.shtml}

Executive Order 12,906, 59 FR 17671. April 11, 1994. [Internet] [Cited 2011 September 30]. Available from http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12906.pdf

Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). 1997. Framework Introduction and Guide. Washington, D.C.: Federal Geographic Data Committee, 1997. [Internet]. [Cited June 7, 2012]. Available from: {https://www.fgdc.gov/initiatives/framework/handbook}

Harvey, F. and Tulloch, D. 2004. How Do Local Governments Share and Coordinate Geographic Information? Issues in the United States, 10th EC-GI & GIS Workshop -- ESDI: The State of the Art, Warsaw, Poland, June 23-25, 2004. [Internet]. [Cited 2012 April 18] Available from http://www.ec-gis.org/Workshops/10ec-gis/papers/25june_harvey.pdf

Harvey, F. & Tulloch, D.L. 2006. Local government data sharing: evaluating the foundations of spatial data infrastructures. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 20(7): 743-768. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13658810600661607

Herold, P., Gale, T.D., & Turner, T.P. 1999. Optimizing web access to geospatial data: The Cornell University Geospatial Information Repository (CUGIR) Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship 21. [Internet]. [Cited 2011 March 28]. Available from http://www.istl.org/99-winter/article2.html

Maryland GIS. n.d. Post locally…share globally. Maryland Mapping Resource Guide. [Internet]. [Cited 2012 January 3]. Available from: http://www.marylandgis.net/

McDougall K, Rajabifard A, & Williamson I. 2009. Local Government and SDI - Understanding their Capacity to Share Data. In: van Loenen B, Besemer JWJ, Zevenbergen JA, editors. SDI Convergence. Research, Emerging Trends, and Critical Assessment. Delft: Netherlands Geodetic Commission. p 205-218. Available from: {http://www.csdila.unimelb.edu.au/publication/conferences/GSDI-11/LocalGovernmentandSDI.pdf}

McSpaden, S. 2009. "Oregon GIS and Information Sharing Update" in Pacific Northwest Regional Pilot: Oregon State Demonstration, December 1, 2009, Salem, OR p17-67. [Internet]. [Cited 2011 March 8]. Available from {http://cms.oregon.egov.com/DAS/CIO/GEO/docs/pnw_pilot_presentation_part1.pdf}

National States Geographic Information Council (NSGIC). 2009. FGDC and NSGIC Begin Implementing the Fifty States Initiative. [Version 8.0] (Bel Air, MD: NSGIC, February 2, 2009). [Cited 2011 December 12]. Available from {http://www.nsgic.org/public_resources/fifty_States_Initiative_Handout.pdf}

National States Geographic Information Council (NSGIC). 2009. National State Summary: All States. [Internet]. [Cited 2011 December 12]. Available from {http://gisinventory.net/summaries/pdf/2009_national_summary.pdf}

Nedovic-Budic, Z., Knaap, G.J., Budhathoki, N.R., & Cavric, B. 2009. NSDI building blocks: regional GIS in the United States. URISA Journal 21(2), 5-23. [Internet] [Cited September 28, 2011]. Available from {http://www.urisa.org/clientuploads/directory/Documents/Journal/Vol21No2.pdf}

Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 2002. Appendix C: History and Background of Circular A-16. In Circular No. A-16 Revised [Internet]. [Cited 2012 March 1] Available from {https://web.archive.org/web/20160104150644/https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a016_rev}

Oregon Geographic Information Council (OGIC). 2010. Oregon Strategic Plan for Geographic Information Management September 15, 2010. [Internet]. [Cited 2011 September 15]. Available from http://cms.oregon.egov.com/DAS/CIO/GEO/ogic/docs/2010finalgisplan_091510.pdf

Salwasser, J., & Avery, B. 2010. Developing the Oregon ExplorerTM--a Natural Resources Digital Library. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 60. [Internet]. [Cited 2011 September 30]. Available from http://www.istl.org/10-winter/refereed4.html

Shuler, J. 2003. On and off the grid: geographic information science and technology and academic libraries. Journal of Academic Librarianship 29(5) 327-329. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0099-1333(03)00077-6

Tulloch, D.L. 2000. Exploratory studies of the NSGIC/FGDC Framework Survey Looking at the State of the Nation: Final report to the Universities Consortium for Geographic Information Sciences and the Federal Geographic Data Committee. New Brunswick, N.J. : Rutgers, December 28, 2000. [Internet]. [Cited 2011 September 1]. Available from http://deathstar.rutgers.edu/people/dtulloch/research/UCGISNSGICFGDC.pdf

Tulloch, D.L. & Fuld, J. 2001. Exploring county-level production of framework data: Analysis of the National Framework Data Survey. URISA Journal 13(2) 11-21. [Internet]. Cited 2011 September 1]. Available from {http://www.urisa.org/clientuploads/directory/Documents/Journal/Vol13No2.pdf}

Tulloch, D.L. & Harvey, F. 2007. When data sharing becomes institutionalized: Best practices in local government geographic information relationships. URISA Journal 19(2) 51-59. [Internet]. [Cited 2011 September 1]. Available from http://www.tc.umn.edu/~fharvey/UMN-FH-Site/Infrastructures_files/Tulloch-Havey-LocalGovDataSharingBestPractices2007.pdf

Tulloch, D.L. & Robinson, M. 2000. A progress report on a U.S. National Survey of Geospatial Framework Data. Journal of Government Information 27(3), 285-296. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1352-0237(00)00155-6

Wyoming Geographic Information Science Center (WyGISC). 2010. Wyoming GeoLibrary: User Help Document. [Internet]. [Cited 2012 January 3]. Available from http://wygl.wygisc.org/wygeolib/wygischelp/Wyoming_GeoLibrary_Help_Document.pdf

Downloads

Additional Files

Published

2012-08-01

How to Cite

Wirth, A. A., Avery, B., Walsh, K., & Rempel, M. (2012). Statewide Spatial Data Clearinghouses: an Oregon Case Study. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, (70). https://doi.org/10.29173/istl1555

Issue

Section

Refereed Articles
Share |