Abu Dhabi's Geo-maturity and SDI Assessment · 2010-12-09 · Report Meta Information Title AD-SDI...

Abu Dhabi's Geo-maturity and SDI Assessment

Report on the v is i t o f SDI-exper ts Danny Vandenbroucke and Joep Crompvoets (23-29 September 2010)

SPATIAL APPLICATIONS DIVISION K.U.LEUVEN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT Celestijnenlaan 200 E, BE-3001 LEUVEN TEL.: 32 16 32 97 32 FAX: 32 16 32 97 24 URL: http://www.sadl.kuleuven.be

Report Meta Information Title AD-SDI – The Abu Dhabi’s Geo-maturity and SDI Assessment. Report on the visit of

K.U.Leuven assessment experts Danny Vandenbroucke and Joep Crompvoets (23-29 September 2010)

Creator Danny Vandenbroucke

Date issued October 2010

Subject Report on the visit of the K.U.Leuven SDI Assessment Experts to the AD-SDI (23-29 September 2010)

Publisher K.U.Leuven

Description The report describes the first findings of the application of three different approaches to assess the SDI of AD: the Readiness Index, the Clearinghouse Suitability Index and the INSPIRE State of Play approach. The report also addresses some general observations and preliminary recommendations regarding the SDI and broader geo-maturity assessment.

Contributor Joep Crompvoets, Danny Vandenbroucke

Format MS Word

Audience ADSIC

Identifier AD-SDI Assessment – Report on the visit to AD-SDI (September 2010)

Language EN

Coverage 2010-09-01 to 2011-03-31 This meta‐information contains the Dublin Core metadata standard elements for documents. For more details see http://www.dublincore.org/.

SADL/K.U.Leuven R&D Abu Dhabi’s Geo-maturity and SDI Assessment

Report Visit K.U.Leuven SDI Experts 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of contents...................................................................................................... 1

List of Tables ............................................................................................................. 2

List of Figures............................................................................................................ 2

1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 4

2 Overview of the activities carried out during the visitFout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.

3 Application of existing assessment methods to the AD‐SDI............................ 5

3.1 SDI‐Readiness Index ................................................................................ 5 3.2 Clearinghouse Suitability Index............................................................... 7 3.3 INSPIRE State of Play ............................................................................. 10

4 Observations and conclusions ....................................................................... 13

5 References ..................................................................................................... 15

6 Annexes.......................................................................................................... 16

6.1 Questionnaire SDI readiness index ....................................................... 16 6.2 INSPIRE State of Play score cards for AD‐SDI ........................................ 20



LIST OF TABLES Table 2: SDI-Readiness factors and index..................................................... 6 Table 3: Detailed results of the Clearinghouse Suitability Index .................. 8 Table 4: INSPIRE SoP - Legal issues and funding...................................... 11 Table 5: INSPIRE SoP - Data issues ........................................................... 12 Table 6: INSPIRE SoP: Metadata issues ..................................................... 12 Table 7; INSPIRE SoP: Access services ..................................................... 12 Table 8: INSPIRE SoP: Standards............................................................... 12 Table 9: INSPIRE SoP: Environmental data ............................................... 12

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Readiness Indices for a selected number of SDIs ....................................................6 Figure 2: Clearinghouse Suitability Index for a selected number of SDIs...............................9



Abbreviations and acronyms AD Abu Dhabi AD‐SDI Abu Dhabi Spatial Data Infrastructure ADSIC Abu Dhabi System and Information Centre CEN Comité Européen de Normalisation (European Committee

for Standardization) CSI Clearinghouse Suitability Index FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee (US) FOI Freedom of Information GI Geographic Information GITS Geographic Information, Technology and Services GSDI Global Spatial Data Infrastructure ICT Information, Communication and Technology INSPIRE Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe IPR Intellectual Property Rights ISO International Organization for Standardization K.U.Leuven Katholieke Universiteit Leuven LBS Location Based Service NDP National Data Producer NMA National Mapping Agency NSDI National Spatial Data Infrastructure OGC Open Geospatial Consortium PPP Public‐Private Partnership PSI Public Sector Information REST Representational State Transfer Protocol SDC Abu Dhabi Spatial Data Centre SDI Spatial Data Infrastructure SLA Service Level Agreement SOAP Simple Object Access Protocol SoP State of Play UAE United Arab Emirates WCS Web Coverage Service WFS Web Feature Service WMS Web Mapping Service



1 INTRODUCTION With the present document, the SDI assessment experts Joep Crompvoets and Danny Vandenbroucke from the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (K.U.Leuven) in Belgium aim at reporting to the Abu Dhabi Systems & Information Centre (ADSIC) the first results from their visit to the Abu Dhabi Spatial Data Infrastructure (AD‐SDI) which took place from 23 to 29 September 2010. This visit is part of a series of activities1 aiming at supporting ADSIC in developing an approach to assess the Geo‐Maturity of the AD‐SDI and the usage of GITS by the Abu Dhabi society in performing their daily activities (i.e., the GeoMaturity of Abu Dhabi). Danny Vandenbroucke and Joep Crompvoets had several meetings with the ADSIC/SDC team for collecting information on the status of the AD‐SDI, to assess the AD‐SDI using existing approaches used worldwide, to prepare and conduct a workshop on Abu Dhabi’s Geo‐maturity and to contribute to the development of a framework for the latter. The review and fine tuning of existing parts of the Geo‐Maturity Framework, and consult on the ongoing development of the other components of the Framework (Sector Geo‐Maturity, Individuals’ Geo‐Maturity, and the ICT, Regulatory and Market Performance) will be part of another report. Comments and suggestions on the Stakeholders’, and the AD‐SDI and Sector assessment approach were integrated in the respective worksheets. This report discusses in more detail the application of three existing SDI assessment approaches to analyze the current status of the AD‐SDI including the Abu Dhabi Geospatial Portal. These three assessment approaches are: 1) the SDI‐Readiness Index (Delgado Fernández), 2) the Clearinghouse Suitability Index (Crompvoets), and 3) the INSPIRE State of Play approach (Van Orshoven and Vandenbroucke). In order to apply these assessment approaches, it was necessary to work with staff members of ADSIC to collect the required information for scoring the indicators used in each of the approaches. This report is structured as follows. Section 2 describes the results of the AD‐SDI assessment. In section 2.1, the SDI‐Readiness Index is introduced and the results of the application of the approach to the AD‐SDI is presented and discussed. In order to compare the SDI‐Readiness of the AD‐SDI with other spatial data infrastructures (SDIs) around the world the readiness index values of a selected number of SDIs is shown and discussed as well. Section 2.2 focuses on the suitability of the Abu Dhabi Geospatial Portal using the Clearinghouse Suitability Index. This Geospatial Portal can be considered as one of the important components of the AD‐SDI. Section 2.3 introduces the INSPIRE State of Play assessment approach. The results of the application of this methodology to the AD‐SDI are presented and discussed as compared to existing national SDIs in Europe. Section 3 presents some observations and preliminary conclusions based on the application of the three assessment approaches, the discussion with staff of ADSIC and the stakeholder workshop of 27 September 2010.

1 These activities are covered by a contract between GPC – Global Information Solutions and the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (GPC-GIS/KUL/2010/001



2 APPLICATION OF EXISTING ASSESSMENT METHODS TO THE AD‐SDI The three assessments carried out were to determine readiness of the AD-SDI and not the usage, outcomes and impact of its implementation (i.e., performance). This will be measured using other methodologies.

2.1 SDI‐Readiness Index This assessment approach was developed by Tatiana Delgado Fernández, and introduced in the paper: “Assessing an SDI Readiness Index” written by Delgado Fernández, K. Lance, M. Buck and H.J. Onsrud (2005). This approach focuses strongly on the pre‐existing conditions to develop SDIs in the countries assessed. It makes use of a fuzzy‐based model supported by a multivalent logic system called Compensatory Logic (Espin et al., 2004). The resulting SDI Readiness Index is defined as a composite assessment of the capacity and willingness of countries to develop SDIs considering the following key SDI‐factors: organization, information, human resources, technology, and financial resources. The determination of the index value potentially ranging from 1 to 100 is based on a questionnaire that only authorized experts of a country are able to complete. The complete answers of the SDI‐readiness questionnaire referring to AD‐SDI are presented in Annex 1. These questions were answered by members of the AD‐SDI team (26 September 2010). The overall SDI‐Readiness for the Abu Dhabi is 64. The values of the key factors organization, information, human resources, technology, and financial resources are respectively: 68; 60; 71; 82; and 95 (Table 1). This means that the capacity and the willingness to establish AD‐SDI are reasonably high. In particular the Technology and Financial resources are very high. Meanwhile the organizational factor and the information factors are currently not very high. The main reason that the organizational factor does not score very high is that, although a program has been launched to address current deficiencies, a proper SDI legal framework is not yet in place. The main reason that the information factor does not score very high is that there is no maximum availability of core spatial data sets (e.g. geodesy, elevation, cadastral, administrative boundaries, hydrography, transport, ortho‐images, and place names) in digital format yet. It appears that some of the mentioned data sets do not fully cover the emirate. Maximum availability refers to the absence of limitations to access each of these datasets.



Table 1: SDI-Readiness factors and index

Factor Value

Organisation 68

Information 60

Human resources 71

Technology 82

Financial resources 95

SDI‐Readiness index 64

From figure 1 the SDI‐Readiness index of Abu Dhabi can be compared with other areas that were also indexed in 2010. From this figure, it appears that the SDI‐Readiness of Abu Dhabi has one of the highest values of the selected ones in the world. Only, the ones of Canada, Colombia, Demark, Norway and Spain score higher. This means that Abu Dhabi has a high degree to which this area is prepared to deliver its geographical information in a community.

Figure 1: Readiness Indices for a selected number of SDIs

55

37

64

70

37

48

66

59

32

58

39

58

41

42

65

53

66

59

69

56

53

64

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Uruguay

Turkey

Sweden

Spain

Serbia

Poland

Norway

Netherlands

Nepal

Mexico

Malaysia

Jamaica

Guyana

Ecuador

Denmark

Cuba

Colombia

Chile

Canada

Brazil

Argentina

Abu Dhabi



2.2 Clearinghouse Suitability Index A key component of a spatial data infrastructure is the spatial data clearinghouse (Crompvoets and Bregt, 2003), which can be defined as an electronic facility for searching, viewing, transferring, ordering, advertising, and/or disseminating spatial data from numerous sources via the Internet. Such facility usually consists of a number of servers which contain information (metadata) about available digital data (Crompvoets, 2006). It provides complementary services and improves the exchange and sharing of spatial data between suppliers and users. On the basis of this definition the Abu Dhabi Geospatial Portal can be classified as a spatial data clearinghouse. A Clearinghouse Suitability Index was developed in order to indicate a measure for the quality and performance of a national clearinghouse using the fifteen clearinghouse characteristics as described by Crompvoets et al. (2004). The selection of these characteristics was based on the following criteria: ease of measurement, objective character and clear presentation of the people (suppliers, end‐users), spatial data, technology, policy, and standards of national clearinghouses. The following characteristics were selected: Number of suppliers, Monthly number of visitors, Number of web references, Languages used, Frequency of web updates, Level of (meta)data accessibility, Number of datasets, Most recently produced dataset, Decentralized network architecture, Availability of view services, Number of mechanisms (alternatives) for searching, Use of maps for searching, Registration‐only access, Funding continuity, Metadata‐standard applied. It is assumed that these characteristics represent the key variables for determining the suitability of the national clearinghouse to facilitate the spatial data/service discovery, accessibility, use and dissemination. In order to collect the information necessary to measure the Clearinghouse Suitability Index of the Abu Dhabi Geospatial Portal (http://geoportal.abudhabi.ae/geoportal/), a meeting was arranged with staff members of ADSIC (26 September 2010). Based on their information given and measuring (objectively) the clearinghouse characteristics, it was possible to classify the Abu Dhabi Geospatial Portal into characteristic classes (see Table 2). Linked to each clearinghouse characteristic class is a class weight. The summation of the 15 class weights forms the Clearinghouse Suitability Index (CSI) ranging from 0.00 to 1.00; 0.00 meaning that the national clearinghouse is not suitable; 1.00 means very suitable. More background information about the Clearinghouse Suitability Index can be found in the following paper: Crompvoets, J., and Bregt, A., 2008. Chapter 7, Clearinghouse Suitability Index. In: J. Crompvoets, A. Rajabifard, B. van Loenen, and T. Delgado Fernández (Eds.), A Multi‐view Framework to Assess Spatial Data Infrastructures. The Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 135‐144.



Table 2: Detailed results of the Clearinghouse Suitability Index Clearinghouse Characteristic

Class 12 Class 1 weight*

Class 2 Class 2 weight

Class 3 Class 3

weight Number of suppliers

> 16 (30) 0.08 2 ‐ 16 0.04 1 0.00

Monthly number of visitors

> 4000 0.02 150 – 4000 (3000)

0.01 < 150 0.00

Number of web references

> 250 (308) 0.04 20 – 250 (55)

0.02 < 20 0.00

Languages used

Multilingual including the national language (Arab + English)

0.06 Monolingual using the national language

0.03 Monolingual using no national language

0.00

Frequency of web updates (in days)

< 4 (Daily) 0.10 4 ‐ 365 0.05 > 365 0.00

Level of (meta) data accessibility

Data + standardised metadata

0.10 Standardised metadata

0.05 Non‐standardised metadata

0.00

Number of datasets

> 1500 0.08 50 – 1500 (456)

0.04 < 50 0.00

Most recently produced dataset (in months)

< 2 (monthly) 0.02 2 ‐ 60 0.01 > 60 0.00

Decentralised network architect.

Yes 0.08 Hybrid 0.04 No 0.00

Availability of view services

Yes 0.10 Prototype 0.05 No 0.00

Number of mecha‐nisms (alternatives) for searching

≥ 5 (Keyword,

Content type, Data

category, modified data,

map)

0.18 2 ‐ 4 0.09 1 0.00

Use of maps for searching

Yes, by locating an area of interest

0.04 Yes, by clicking on an area with predefined boundaries

0.02 No 0.00

Registration‐only access

No 0.02 Partly 0.01 Yes 0.00

Funding continuity

Continuously funded

0.01 Piecemeal funded

0.01 Never funded

0.00

Metadata‐standard applied

ISO/FGDC/CEN

(ISO19115/39)

0.07 National 0.03 No standard 0.00

2 For more information about the meaning of the different classes, see Crompvoets, J., and A. Bregt., 2008. Chapter 7, Clearinghouse suitability index. In: J. Crompvoets, A. Rajabifard, B. van Loenen, and T. Delgado Fernández (Eds.), A Multi‐view Framework to Assess Spatial Data Infrastructures. The Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 135‐144.



Table 3 presents in bold the classification of each characteristic of the Abu Dhabi Geospatial Portal. The values presented in italics are the unclassified values. Summing the corresponding weight values gives a result of 88. This means in other words that the Clearinghouse Suitability Index of the Abu Dhabi Geospatial Portal is 883. From figure 2 the Suitability Clearinghouse Index of Abu Dhabi Geospatial Portal can be compared with other clearinghouses that were also indexed in 2010. From this figure, it appears that the clearinghouse suitability index of Abu Dhabi Geospatial Portal has one of the highest values of the selected ones in the world. Only the ones of Canada, Germany, The Netherlands and Spain score higher.

Figure 2: Clearinghouse Suitability Index for a selected number of SDIs4

52

0

50

96

0

36

77

90

49

75

76

46

0

94

47

0

60

76

50

100

0

49

88

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Uruguay

Turkey

Sweden

Spain

Serbia

Poland

Norway

Netherlands

Nepal

Mexico

Malaysia

Jamaica

Guyana

Germany

Ecuador

Denmark

Cuba

Colombia

Chile

Canada

Brazil

Argentina

Abu Dhabi

3 When applying the methodology for the first time during the interview, the original score was higher, i.e. 90. This was due to the fact that it was assumed that number of references to the AD Geospatial Portal would be very high (> 250). After a more thorough measurement, this seemed to be ‘only’ 55. 4 The values “0” for some countries refer to the fact that at the time of measuring there was no national clearinghouse/geoportal operational (or existing).



2.3 INSPIRE State of Play INSPIRE stands for INfrastructure for SPatial InfoRmation in Europe. The European Commission launched the INSPIRE initiative in 2001. With this initiative the European Union wants to contribute to the development of a European Spatial Data Infrastructure. The aim of this infrastructure is to allow the public sector users at the European, national, regional and local levels to share easily spatial data from a wide range of sources in an interoperable way for the execution of a variety of public tasks. In order to have a common legal basis throughout Europe, the European Commission prepared a European Directive “Establishing an infrastructure for spatial information in the Community (INSPIRE)”. This Directive was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council, on 25 April 2007 and entered into force on 15 May of the same year. From the very beginning, it was recognized that INSPIRE should build upon the existing components of the emerging SDIs at national and sub‐national level. In order to have a better view on the status and development of these SDIs, the Commission launched a study in 2002 which is known as INSPIRE State of Play (INSPIRE SoP). The study collected information on 32 NSDIs in Europe according to the components as described in the GSDI cookbook (Nebert, 2000). A list of 30 indicators (extended in 2006 to 32 indicators) was established to assess the SDIs at organizational, legal, funding and technological level. From this perspective, the State of Play follows a generic approach. Since the State of Play has started it has been repeated almost annually (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007) and is still ongoing at this moment5. The INSPIRE SoP methodology developed aims to assess the status of the NSDI, to compare them and monitor their development over time. The items assessed relate to a number of organizational issues and to the five generic components of an SDI; Legal issues and funding, Reference data & Core thematic data, Metadata, Access and other services, Standards (Nebert et al, 2000; 2004). A separate component relates to the environmental aspects of the infrastructure. The latter was added by the European Commission because INSPIRE is mainly dealing with environmental policy and policies which have a direct or indirect impact on the environment. The 5 mentioned components described by GSDI and the environmental component can be considered as the building blocks of INSPIRE. The separate items or building blocks are expressed as statements or indicators and the assessment of the studied SDI‐initiative is made in terms of whether it is (1) in full agreement with the statement (dark blue), (2) in partial agreement (light blue), (3) not in agreement (yellow) or (4) whether no sufficient information is available (hatched) for assessing the level of agreement.6 From the 32 indicators, 7 describe the organizational aspects (related to how the SDI works and use to

5 At the time of writing, a new release describing the status of spring 2010 is being prepared. 6 In the assessment of AD‐SDI, all the necessary information was available. Therefore, there was no need to use this fourth category.



characterize the SDI), 9 describe the legal framework and funding, 6 relate to reference and thematic data, 3 to metadata, 5 to access services and 1 to standards and environmental issues respectively. The European Commission used the results of the assessment in the period 2003‐2007 to help preparing the INSPIRE Directive and its Implementing Rules. The current focus is on monitoring the implementation of the Directive and its Implementing Rules and the development of NSDI components which go beyond INSPIRE obligations. Scoring for the AD‐SDI has been performed on the basis of an interview with staff from ADSIC (27/09/10) and on the demonstrations given by technical staff from ADSIC (27 & 28/09/10). The full results for the 32 indicators used and the scoring for each of them can be found in annex. As a general result it can be concluded:

• That the AD‐SDI has already strongly developed 4 out of the 6 building blocks.

• There have been strong development in the fields of data (agreement for 5/6 indicators), metadata (agreement for 3/3 indicators), standardization (agreement for the single indicator) and environment (agreement for the single indicator)

• There have been important developments in the field of legislation and funding (agreement for 3/9 indicators) and in the field of Service development (agreement for 2/5 indicators) for which the focus is mainly on discovery and viewing

From the organizational building block it becomes clear that ADSIC relies heavily on the different stakeholders (entities) and communities (sectors) including the users. The users help steering the AD‐SDI process. Legend:

In agreement Partially in agreement Not in agreement

Table 3: INSPIRE SoP - Legal issues and funding

Score Card II. Legal issues and funding

Legal framework

Public‐private partnerships (PPP)

Policy and legislation on access to public sector information (PSI)

Legal protection of GI by intellectual property rights

Restricted access to GI further to the legal protection of privacy

Data licensing: framework or policy for sharing

Data licensing: standardized licenses for personal use

Funding model for the SDI and pricing policy: long‐term financial security

Funding model for the SDI and pricing policy: pricing framework for trading



Table 4: INSPIRE SoP - Data issues

Score Card III. Data for the themes of the INSPIRE annexes

Scale and resolution

Geodetic reference systems and projections

Quality of reference data & core thematic data

Interoperability

Language and culture: national language

Language and culture: english

Table 5: INSPIRE SoP: Metadata issues

Score Card IV. Metadata for the data of the themes of the INSPIRE annexes

Availability of metadata

Metadata catalogue availability + standard

Metadata implementation

Table 6; INSPIRE SoP: Access services

Score Card V. Access and other services for data and their metadata

Discovery Services

View Services

Download Services

Transformation Services

Middleware (invoking) Service

Table 7: INSPIRE SoP: Standards

Score Card VI. Standards

Development and application of standards

Table 8: INSPIRE SoP: Environmental data

Score Card VII. Thematic environmental data

Thematic Environmental data

From the tables 4 to 9 it can be seen that the AD‐SDI has strongly developed certain building blocks, while others, are less developed. However, it should be noted that the legal and funding indicators are referring mostly to specific initiatives that are relevant to the European situation. The transformation and invoking services relate to the requirements of a cross‐border European context (where different semantic data in the same thematic fields exist and where transformation and invoking services should help to bridge the differences between countries).Measurements to improve data and service sharing



3 OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS The AD‐SDI is in a strong position based on what can be read from the SDI Readiness Index of 64%, its Clearinghouse Suitability Index of 88 and its score for the degree of operationality of 4 according to the State of Play. From these assessment results, the interviews and discussions, and from the feedback during the workshop it appears that the pre‐existing conditions to develop an SDI in Abu Dhabi and its current development status are very good. And as compared to several countries in Europe and elsewhere in the world, the SDI seems to be already quite well developed. This is remarkable since the SDI activities started only in 2007, while often more developed SDIs elsewhere have been initiated in the early 90’s. It should also be noticed that the applied methodologies have mostly been designed for specific purposes (e.g. the Clearinghouse Suitability Index) or have been elaborated in view of assessments taking into account the specific European situation (e.g. INSPIRE SoP). The AD‐SDI has well development building blocks on which it can further build: there are many high quality reference and thematic data sets, metadata for each of them, and specific activities are developed in the field of standardization and interoperability. The AD‐SDI geoportal has been developed and is performing well. This gives a good starting point for further development of the AD‐SDI and GITS environment. In addition to these preliminary conclusions, some observations can be made regarding the AD‐SDI and GITS status and development:

• The elaboration of the appropriate legislation, which might include specific legislation related to IPR, security, liability, etc., could further help streamlining SDI and GITS activities. On the one hand, this is important for giving the AD‐SDI and GITS a stronger position, on the other hand it would help to improve overall performance.

• The strong focus and interesting developments in the field of geo‐standardization are key to a successful development of the AD‐SDI and GITS environment. What INSPIRE is doing on a large scale in Europe, is done at the level of Abu Dhabi in a similar way as well. These activities are worthwhile to be reinforced in the coming years.

• The stakeholders’ involvement is a strong asset of the AD‐SDI and GITS. It will be helpful to intensify this work, especially since the stakeholders – as could be seen during the workshop – have a lot of expectations from the AD‐SDI and GITS.

• Service development could be enhanced in the sense that no download services are currently operational through the geo‐portal. In addition transformation services could become more important in the future in view of linking the AD‐SDI and GITS with similar initiatives in other Emirates and neighboring countries.



• The latter, is still to be achieved, i.e. the AD‐SDI to become an important node in the regional SDI developments and to play the role as a SDI‐hub in the region.

In subsequent reports, more observations will be elaborated and will be further discussed with ADSIC staff.



4 REFERENCES Crompvoets, J. and A. Bregt (2003). World status of National Spatial Data

Clearinghouses, URISA Journal, Special Issue on Public Participation GIS, 15, APA I: 43‐50.

Crompvoets, J., Bregt, A., Rajabifard, A. and I. Williamson (2004). Assessing the worldwide developments of national spatial data clearinghouses, International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 18(7): 665‐689.

Crompvoets, J., (2006). National Spatial Data Clearinghouses: Worldwide development and impact. PhD thesis, Wageningen University, The Netherlands.

Crompvoets, J., and A. Bregt., 2008. Chapter 7, Clearinghouse suitability index. In: J. Crompvoets, A.

Rajabifard, B. van Loenen, and T. Delgado Fernández (Eds.), A Multi‐view Framework to

Assess Spatial Data Infrastructures. The Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, Australia,

pp. 135‐144. Delgado Fernández, T., Lance, K., Buck, M. and H.J. Onsrud (2005). “Assessing SDI

readiness index”, Proceedings From the Pharaohs to Geoinformatics, FIG Working Week 2005 and 8th International Conference on Global Spatial Data Infrastructure, April 2005, Egypt, Cairo.

Espín, R., Fernández, E., Mazcorro, G., Marx‐Gomez, J. and M.I. Lecich (2004). “Compensatory logic: A fuzzy approach to decision making”. International Congress NAISO, June 2004, Portugal.

Nebert, D. D. (Ed.) (2000). Developing Spatial Data Infrastructures: The SDI Cookbook, version 1.0, at http://www.gsdi.org/pubs/cookbook/Default.htm, [accessed 3 March 2008].

Nebert, D. D. (Ed.) (2004). Developing Spatial Data Infrastructures: The SDI Cookbook, version 2.0, at http://www.gsdi.org/docs2004/Cookbook/cookbookV2.0.pdf, [accessed 3 March 2008].

Vandenbroucke, D., K. Janssen and J. Van Orshoven (2008). “INSPIRE State of Play: Development of the NSDI in 32 European countries between 2002 and 2007”, Proceedings 10th GSDI Conference, February 26‐29 2008, St Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago.

Vandenbroucke, D., Zambon, M.‐L., Crompvoets, J., and Dufourmont, H. (2008). Chapter 16, INSPIRE Directive: Specific requirements to monitor its implementation. In: J. Crompvoets, A. Rajabifard, B. van Loenen, and T. Delgado Fernández (Eds.), A Multi‐view Framework to Assess Spatial Data Infrastructures. The Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 327‐355.

Van Orshoven, J., Beusen, P., Hall, M. Bamps, C., Vandenbroucke, D. and K. Janssen (2003). Spatial Data Infrastructures in Europe: State of Play Spring 2003. Summary report by the Spatial Applications Division, K.U.Leuven R&D, at http://www.ec‐is.org/inspire/reports/stateofplay/ rpact3v4.pdf, [accessed 3 March 2008].



5 ANNEXES

5.1 Questionnaire SDI readiness index Answers given by Joe Abdo, 26 September 2010

I.1 organizational factors (Vision, institutional framework, legal framework). This view includes organizational factors that influence the readiness of the SDI-initiative. I.1.1 Vision A practical and organizational issue to take is the development of a vision, detailing a vision of the desired future and a clear sense of how SDI components could serve that future and help to realize it. This also involves setting clear priorities and defining a strategy or policy to accomplish this vision (check (X) one box only) X Extremely high vision regarding the importance and development of the national SDI

(maximum level of government participation in defining a strategy of the national SDI) Very High vision regarding the importance and development of the national SDI (important

ministries are strongly involved in setting strategies for the national SDI) High vision regarding the importance and development of the national SDI (vision formulated

forms a crucial starting point for launching the national SDI) Medium vision regarding the importance and development of the national SDI (a formulated

vision does exist, but has low impact on the development of the national SDI) Low vision regarding the importance and development of the national SDI (a vision is being

formulated) Very Low vision regarding the importance and development of the national SDI (a few sectors

show interest in having a vision) No vision exist as well as no intention exist to formulate a vision regarding the importance and

development of the national SDI I.1.2 Institutional leadership. This factor refers to the leadership within the institutional framework. (check (X) one box only) X Maximum leadership of one or more institutions that coordinate the activities relating the

national SDI Very High leadership of one or more institutions that coordinate the activities relating the

national SDI High leadership of one or more institutions that launch the crucial activities relating the

development of a national SDI Medium leadership of one or more institutions that coordinate partly the activities relating the

national SDI Low leadership of one or more institutions that start to set up the institutional framework Very Low leadership of one or more institutions that show interest to set up the institutional

framework No leadership of one or more institutions

I.1.3 Legal framework. This factor refers to the creation of a legal environment that leads to a national SDI being legally embedded. The legal framework of a SDI consists of legal instruments such as laws, policies, directives and commitments. (check (X) one box only)

Maximum level of legal support to the national SDI-initiative (existence of a legal framework that support legally the SDI at a maximum level)

Very High legal support to the national SDI-initiative (applying legal instruments that motivate strongly all the activities relating the national SDI)

High legal support to the national SDI-initiative (an established legal framework that support the national SDI is under construction)



Medium level of the legal framework (existence of a framework, but it is incapable to support the national SDI)

X Low legal support to the national SDI-initiative (creating legal instruments isolated that might support the national SDI)

Very Low legal support to the national SDI-initiative (not existing legal instruments at a national level, but at organizational or sector level, which have a very low impact on the national SDI)

No existence of any legal framework (including instruments) that might support the national SDI-initiative

I.2 Information factors (digital cartography availability, metadata availability) refers to the availability of core spatial datasets and metadata. This view includes SDI-content factors that influence the readiness of the SDI-initiative. I.2.1 Digital Cartography availability This factor refers to the availability of core spatial datasets in digital format crucial for the national SDI. (check (X) one box only)

Maximum availability of core spatial datasets in digital format (e.g. geodesy, elevation, cadastral, administrative boundaries, hydrography, transport, ortho-images, place names)

Very High level of core spatial datasets in digital format (availability of core spatial datasets with an appropriate scale level that cover the whole country (e.g. geodesy, elevation, cadastral, administrative boundaries, hydrography, transport, ortho-images, place names))

X High level of core spatial datasets in digital format (availability of core spatial datasets with an appropriate scale level that the main regions of the country (e.g. geodesy, elevation, cadastral, administrative boundaries, hydrography, transport, ortho-images, place names))

Medium level of core spatial datasets in digital format (partial availability of core spatial datasets at levels that are insufficient for being a decisive factor)

Low level of core spatial datasets in digital format (availability of some core spatial datasets for some regions in the country (e.g. geodesy, elevation, cadastral, administrative boundaries, hydrography, transport, ortho-images, place names))

Very Low level of core spatial datasets in digital format (availability of very few core spatial datasets (e.g. geodesy, elevation, cadastral, administrative boundaries, hydrography, transport, ortho-images, place names))

No availability of any core spatial datasets in digital format I.2.2 Metadata Availability. This factor refers to the content of the national SDI. (check (X) one box only)

Maximum availability of metadata describing spatial datasets X Very High level of metadata availability describing spatial datasets High level of metadata availability describing spatial datasets Medium level of metadata availability describing spatial datasets Low level of metadata availability describing spatial datasets Very Low level of metadata availability describing spatial datasets No availability of any metadata describing spatial datasets

I.3 Human resources (human capital, SDI education/culture, individual leadership). This view includes human factors that influence the readiness of the SDI-initiative. I.3.1 Human Capital This factor refers to the education, knowledge and skills of citizens of the country. This factor might have an influence on the national SDI-developments. Information will be taken from UN statistics report. I.3.2 Culture/Education on SDI. This factor refers to the capacity building and the awareness of the impact of spatial data on the well-functioning of society, including businesses, public entities and academic institutions may ease the efforts to participate in the SDI and to acquire funding for SDI development. Investment of significant resources to build capacity and to raise community awareness of spatial data and technologies such as courses, workshops and seminars are important in order to realize the full potential of SDIs. (check (X) one box only). Maximum level of SDI-culture and education (capacity building) among the stakeholders Very High level of SDI-culture and education (capacity building) among the stakeholders X High level of SDI-culture and education (capacity building) among the stakeholders Medium level of SDI-culture and education (capacity building) among the stakeholders Low level of SDI-culture and education (capacity building) among the stakeholders



Very Low level of SDI-culture and education (capacity building) among the stakeholders No existence of any SDI-culture and education (capacity building among the stakeholders I.3.3 Individual leadership (champion). A very critical issue of SDI development is leadership. SDIs need a champion, or an entity which promotes, and coordinates the development of a SDI. This leader has to initiate an agenda building process and start to bring the community together. A leader can be appointed by a formal mandate, often a political support. A leader can also emerge from existing coordination activities, or from the achievements and enthusiasm of respected individuals. This factor relates to the presence or no presence of such leadership in your SDI-initiative. (check (X) one box only) X Existence of absolute individual leadership Very High individual leadership High individual leadership Medium individual leadership Low individual leadership Very Low individual leadership No existence of any individual leadership

I.4 Access networks and technology (Communication infrastructure, web connectivity, availability of commercial or inhouse spatially-related software, Use of Open source services). The access networks and technologies are critical from a technical perspective to facilitate the use of data and services by people. They seek to facilitate access to relevant data sources and spatial information services by anyone, anywhere. This view includes technological factors that influence the readiness of the SDI-initiative. I.4.1 Availability of commercial or inhouse spatially-related software. This factor refers to the level of commercial or inhouse software availability that forms a key aspect of a SDI. (check (X) one box only)

Maximum availability of commercial or inhouse spatially-related software that fits the demands of the national SDI

X Very high level of availability of commercial or inhouse spatially-related software High level of availability of commercial or inhouse spatially-related software Medium level of availability of commercial or inhouse spatially-related software Low level of availability of commercial or inhouse spatially-related software Very Low level of availability of commercial or inhouse spatially-related software No availability of commercial or inhouse spatially-related software

I.4.2 Use of Open source services. This factor refers to the level of the use of Open source (free of cost) services. (check (X) one box only)

Only Open source services are used for all services needed within a SDI Very high level of the use of Open source services High level of the use of Open source services Medium level of the use of Open source services

X Low level of the use of Open source services Very Low level of the use of Open source services No use of Open source services

I.5 Financial resources (governmental funding, funding by means of cost recovery, private and enterprise funding). This view focuses on the sources of funding in order to develop a SDI. Funding is needed in order to finance for example SDI-management and coordination costs, institutional framework, legal environment, hardware, (commercial) software, capacity building, metadata preparation, and data collection. Funding is a complex issue with many stakeholders and different funding arrangements. This view includes the funding factors that influence the readiness of the SDI-initiative. I.5.1 Governmental funding. This factor refers to the government’s role (level) as source to finance the national SDI-initiative. (check (X) one box only) X The national SDI is only funded by the government and no other funds are needed.



Very High level of funding by the government to finance the national SDI-initiative High level of funding by the government to finance the national SDI-initiative Medium level of funding by the government to finance the national SDI-initiative Low level of funding by the government to finance the national SDI-initiative Very Low level of funding by the government to finance the national SDI-initiative No funding by the government to finance the national SDI-initiative

I.5.2 Funding by means of cost recovery. This factor refers to the level of funding the national SDI through the application of policies regarding cost recovery. (check (X) one box only).

The national SDI is only funded by means of the application of policies regarding cost recovery and no other funds are needed.

Very High level of funding by means of the application of policies regarding cost recovery High level funding by means of the application of policies regarding cost recovery Medium level funding by means of the application of policies regarding cost recovery

X Low level funding by means of the application of policies regarding cost recovery Very Low level funding by means of the application of policies regarding cost recovery No funding by means of the application of policies regarding cost recovery

I.5.3 Private and enterprise sector funding. This factor refers to the level of contribution by the private sector and enterprises to finance the national SDI. (check (X) one box only).

The national SDI is only funded by the private sector and/or enterprises Very High level of funding by the private sector and/or enterprises to finance the national SDI High level of funding by the private sector and/or enterprises to finance the national SDI Medium level of funding by the private sector and/or enterprises to finance the national SDI Low level of funding by the private sector and/or enterprises to finance the national SDI

X Very Low level of funding by the private sector and/or enterprises to finance the national SDI No funding by the private sector and/or enterprises to finance the national SDI



5.2 INSPIRE State of Play score cards for AD‐SDI

Score Card I. Organizational issues

Indicator # Indicator description and assessment

Scoring 2010

Level of SDI 1 The approach and territorial coverage of the SDI is truly national

This is an indicator that is not relevant in the current settings. AD-SDI is not at the national (federal) level. On the other hand, the AD-SDI is covering the whole territory of AD and, e.g., not only the municipality.

Degree of operationality

2 One or more components of the SDI have reached a significant level of operationality

4: The AD-SDI has already strongly developed 4 out of the 6 building blocks. There have been strong development in the fields of data (5/6), metadata (3/3), standardization (1/1), environment (1/1). There have been reasonable strong developments in the field of legislation and funding (4/9) and in the field of Service developments the focus is mainly on discovery and viewing.

3 The officially recognised or de facto coordinating body of the SDI is a NDP, i.e. a NMA or a comparable organisation (Cadastral or Land Survey Agency, i.e. a major producer of GI)

The coordinating organisation is certainly not a NMA or cadastre, rather the ICT/eGov sector (ADSIC).

4 The officially recognised or de facto coordinating body for the SDI is an organisation controlled by data users

ADSIC relies heavily on the different stakeholders (entities) and communities (sectors) including (almost) all the users. The users help steering the AD-SDI process. AD-SDI also makes use of the Special Interest Groups. While the users are clearly involved, there is clear and strong leadership from ADSIC.

Coordination

5 An organisation of the type ‘national GI-association’ is involved in the coordination of the SDI

There is no specific GI association in AD representing the GI Industry, Academia and others, and that is involved in the coordination.

Participants 6 Producers and users of spatial data are participating in the SDI

The data custodians are feeding the AD-SDI, while users are involved in different ways as



can be seen from indicators 3 & 4.

7 Only public sector actors are participating in the SDI

Although the major focus is on Public Sector, there is more and more a practice to involve private sector (stepwise).



Score Card II. Legal issues and funding


Scoring 2010

Legal framework

8 There is a legal instrument or framework determining the SDI-strategy or -development

There is no legislation7, but there is a clear framework and strategy in which all aspects of the AD-SDI are reflected including a roadmap, business plan, … There are e-laws in preparation which will fit in the federal initiatives.

Public-private partnerships (PPP)

9 There are true PPP’s or other co-financing mechanisms between public and private sector bodies with respect to the development and operation of the SDI-related projects

There are no true PPP in the sense of co-financing mechanisms. On the other hand, cooperation between public and private sector as such is happening (outsourcing, strategic partnerships). Cost sharing mechanisms are not excluded (e.g. rely on another champion to provide updates for a dataset through a survey – might work in two directions).

Policy and legislation on access to public sector information (PSI)

10 There is a freedom of information (FOI) act which contains specific FOI legislation for the GI-sector

There is no such specific legislation, but in the AD-SDI master plan (including the AD-SDI Program Design 2007 and Strategic Plan 2007).

Legal protection of GI by intellectual property rights

11 GI can specifically be protected by copyright

There is a general law on c-right referring also to information and databases. There are some concerns of private companies to loose c-right when providing data for the AD-SDI

Restricted access to GI further to the legal protection of privacy

12 Privacy laws are actively being taken into account by the holders of GI

There are no general procedures or guidelines regarding how privacy (laws) should be taken into account.

13

There is a framework or policy for sharing GI between public institutions

There is an existing framework/ policy via service level agreements and related procedures for data licensing. In addition, geo legal products including guidelines and white papers are being developed to support the data licensing process

Data licensing

14 There are simplified and This is not yet foreseen in the

7 Originally, the AD‐SDI charter was referenced in the ADSIC mandate and provided the legal framework.



standardised licences for personal use

platform used (e.g. simple click licenses). In the long term this will evolve more in the direction of offering services to the individual citizens (e.g. LBS)

15

The long-term financial security of the SDI-initiative is secured

The long-term financial security is secured in the sense that the activities described in the 5 year-plans are covered financially and that these can be updated annually.

Funding model for the SDI and pricing policy

16 There is a pricing framework for trading, using and/or commercialising GI

There is work done on the SLA, but this is not yet applicable. Pricing framework will become part of e-payment and e-procurement initiatives.



Score Card III. Data for the themes of the INSPIRE annexes


Scoring 2010

Scale and resolution

17 Geodatasets exist which provide a basis for contributing to the coverage of pan-Europe for the INSPIRE-selected data themes and components

The 34 themes of the 3 annexes of INSPIRE have been cross-checked. There are data sets for the majority of the themes, and for some they are under development. Also the majority of the themes of annex III are covered.

Geodetic reference systems and projections

18 The geodetic reference system and projection systems are standardized, documented and interconvertable

There is a geodetic reference system and projection systems are defined. There are GRS stations in the municipalities. However, not all the parameters for the geodetic network are known (Military only provide calculations on an ad hoc basis). So conversions can only be done in different steps.

Quality of reference data & core thematic data

19 There is a documented data quality control procedure applied at the level of the SDI

The procedures are established at the level of ADSIC for incoming spatial data sets. ADSIC is performing data review and validation.

Interoperability 20 Concern for interoperability goes beyond conversion between different data formats

A huge effort is made to standardize data content and data management, while standard interfaces and protocols are used for access (SOAP, REST, WMS, WCS, …)

21

The national language is the operational language of the SDI

Language and culture

22 English is used as secondary language



Score Card IV. Metadata for the data of the themes of the INSPIRE annexes


Scoring 2010

Availability of metadata

23 Metadata are produced for a significant fraction of geo-datasets of the themes of the INSPIRE annexes

For all the data sets available through the portal, ADSIC has made existing metadata available or has created the metadata themselves. ISO19115 is used.

Metadata catalogue availability + standard

24 One or more standardized metadata catalogues are available covering more than one data producing agency

Confirmed by screening the portal. Data sets are coming from different data custodians.

Metadata implementation

25 There is a coordinating authority for metadata implementation at the level of the SDI

ADSIC has created most of the metadata and is also managing the metadata and catalogue. They also coordinate related issues with the other stakeholders through a metadata working group.



Score Card V. Access and other services for data and their metadata


Scoring 2010

Discovery Services

26 There are one or more discovery services making it possible to search for data and services through metadata

OGC discovery service

View Services 27 There are one or more view services available for to visualise data from the themes of the INSPIRE annexes

30+ WMS services

Download Services

28 There are one ore more on-line download services enabling (parts of) copies of datasets

In the portal and service directory, there are no download services (WFS) although there is an application to download data (packed in zip) through the portal.

Transformation Services

29 There are one or more transformation services enabling spatial datasets to be transformed to achieve interoperability

NA (yet)

Middleware (invoking) Service

30 There are one or more middleware services allowing data services to be invoked

NA (yet)



Score Card VI. Standards


Scoring 2010

Standards 31 The SDI-initiative is devoting significant attention to standardization issues

There is a dedicated person coordinating this and semantic, as well as technical standards are being developed and applied.

Score Card VII. Thematic environmental data


Scoring 2010

Thematic Environmental data

32 Thematic environmental data are covered by the described SDI-initiative or there is an independent thematic environmental SDI

Large part of the themes of Annexes II and III from INSPIRE are covered.

Date post:	09-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Abu Dhabi's Geo-maturity and SDI Assessment · 2010-12-09 · Report Meta Information Title AD-SDI...

Documents