1.0. Introduction

2.0. Project Summary

3.0. Background and Purpose

4.0. Georgia's Contribution in building the NSDI

5.0. Project Implementation Details

6.0. Current Geospatial Data Initiatives in Georgia

7.0. Project Challenges / Implementation Lessons

8.0. Impacts and Continuing Efforts

9.0. Conclusions

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This document comprises the final report from the Georgia GIS Data Clearinghouse at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Center for Geographic Information Systems to the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) pertaining to the Competitive Cooperative Agreements Program (CCAP), project agreement 1434-HQ-96-AG-01586. The primary objectives of this project were to create an inventory of available geospatial data within the State of Georgia, compile geospatial metadata compliant with the "Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata", and to implement the National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse node in Georgia. This report describes the project implementation details and the valuable experiences gained during the project period. In addition, this report also outlines current geospatial data initiatives in the State.

The Georgia GIS Data Clearinghouse is very pleased to report that the State of Georgia now has a functional Clearinghouse Node on the Internet. Field searches on the Georgia Clearinghouse's node indexed metadata collection can be performed to retrieve relevant metadata documents through the FGDC National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse Gateways. The FGDC gateway entry point to the NGDC nodes can be accessed on the Internet from the web page URL: http://fgdclearhs.er.usgs.gov/.

2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY

The Federal Geographic Data Committee is leading a coordinated effort to build the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI). One of the principle goals of the NSDI is to improve the means for finding and sharing geospatial information through the establishment of distributed National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse nodes. To successfully build the NSDI, it is essential that organizations work together in a collaborative manner to document and make spatial data more readily available. The FGDC provides partial funding to regional consortia to forge partnership alliances among agencies to aid in building the NSDI. One such funding program is the Competitive Cooperative Agreements Program (CCAP). The Georgia Institute of Technology proposed and was awarded a CCAP grant in fiscal year 1996 with cooperative participation from three Georgia agencies; Department of Community Affairs, Department of Natural Resources, and Department of Transportation. The primary objectives of the project were as follows:

• Create an inventory of available geospatial data in Georgia.

• Compile geospatial metadata for Georgia data holdings in compliance with the Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata.

• Develop and establish a National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse node in the State of Georgia.

• Create a directory of Georgia geospatial data sources.

• The Georgia GIS Data Clearinghouse, a statewide repository for geospatial information was established by the Information Technology Policy Council (ITPC) of Georgia and became functional in November '96.

• The Georgia GIS Data Clearinghouse developed an Internet web site for disseminating geospatial information to government agencies and GIS users at large. The establishment of the GIS Clearinghouse provided a direct Georgia source for government agencies, academia, private agencies and the general public to obtain key geospatial data with necessary documentation over the Internet. The Clearinghouse web site has a very simple and functional web interface and from its Data Discovery section users can easily navigate through the Clearinghouse archive to find geospatial data and metadata for downloading.

• The data warehouse was populated with geospatial data from agencies participating in this cooperative project at the initial stages of the Clearinghouse development. Most databases were standardized to comply with the established state guidelines for projection and data formats.

• The Clearinghouse has compiled geospatial metadata records from a number of Georgia agencies that develop and maintain geospatial data. The inventoried metadata were standardized to comply with the FGDC Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata. In many instances metadata were simply reformatted while others had to be compiled from scratch. The Clearinghouse is committed to an ongoing effort to identify geospatial data sources and collect metadata records.

• The fundamental goal of providing fielded metadata search and retrieval capabilities to the Clearinghouse digital spatial data archive was accomplished by implementing an Isite Information System based on the Z39.50 search and retrieval protocol. The Georgia NSDI node can be queried on-line from the FGDC Clearinghouse Gateways.

• Presentations on FGDC's coordinated effort to build the NSDI by establishing multiple distributed electronic nodes were given at technical sessions during the SERUG (ESRI Southeast Regional User Group) conference and at the Georgia URISA conference held in Atlanta during Oct.-Nov.'97. Conference participants were introduced to NSDI concepts and FGDC Gateways. Search and retrieval of geospatial metadata and data was demonstrated on-line through the National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse gateways.

• The formal operation of collecting and inventorying Georgia's GIS data is initiated through the process of drafting and signing Data Sharing Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Georgia GIS Data Clearinghouse and State agencies. Currently several data sharing MOAs are in the review process and will be acted upon shortly.

• The Clearinghouse has initiated an effort to promote the importance of metadata collection and the potential benefits it can bring to a government agency's investment dollars. The Clearinghouse is proud to say that there has been an enthusiastic interest and participation from several agencies.

3.0 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Almost every piece of data that we use today has a direct or indirect geographic (spatial) component associated with it. Geographic information helps us to understand and resolve many important environmental and social issues. Federal, state, local, tribal governments and private parties invest millions of dollars every year to collect and manage geospatial data to help aid decision makers in making better more informed decisions and policies. Because of the complex nature, managing geospatial data often poses a significant challenge to the entities that develop data. Many agencies implement Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to efficiently collect, manage and analyze geospatial data.

Given the wide spectrum of geospatial data development and needs, often the effort gets duplicated. For a specific area, many agencies and individuals may be collecting the same digital information. Realizing the potential redundancy, several federal and state agencies are working together to build common geospatial data layers. Agencies are pooling together available funding resources to cooperatively develop data, and thus paving a way for sharing valuable information resources. To maximize the investment made, geospatial data needs to reach a wide range of potential users in an efficient manner.

Most often geographic data are collected for specific project with objectives. Many times the characteristics of geospatial data makes data sharing difficult. Quality and accuracy of geospatial information required varies depending upon the scope of work. Data developed by a planning agency may not be suitable for addressing an engineering problem. But at the same time a particular data set could be used by other agencies in a general context. For example, a planning agency could use the roads database from a transportation agency and so on. Another important issue is to knowing whether or not a particular geospatial data exists, and if so who has it and how to get it?

President Clinton's Executive Order 12906 dated April 1994, called for an establishment of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure. The FGDC was given the challenge of coordinating the federal government effort to build the NSDI. The NSDI was conceived to be an umbrella of policies, standards, and procedures under which organizations and technologies interact to foster more efficient use, management, and production of geospatial data. State, local, and tribal governments are persuaded to participate in building the NSDI. The primary goal of the NSDI is to create a distributed electronic network of data developers and users, known as the National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse. The National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse will be comprised of multiple electronic nodes located throughout the country.

4.0 GEORGIA'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE NSDI EVALUTION

Georgia's spatial information resources are growing rapidly, due in large part to the better cooperation and advancement in the use of Geographic Information Systems technology. The State of Georgia's Information Technology Policy Council established the Georgia GIS Data Clearinghouse in March 1996. The Clearinghouse was functional on the Internet by November 1996. The primary mission of the Clearinghouse is to reduce duplication in state GIS data development and to collect, document, format, and publish GIS information developed by multiple Georgia agencies. The Clearinghouse is an effort to bridge data sharing barriers among agencies.

Since the establishment in late 1996, the Georgia GIS Data Clearinghouse has continually expanded its geospatial data holdings. The Clearinghouse is currently fostering partnerships with many state agencies to obtain their spatial data and metadata. Several MOA's are presently in the review process. For agencies that are not willing to contribute their physical data, at the minimum, metadata associated with the agency data holdings are being collected to document its existence.

Georgia is in the process of formulating a statewide GIS business plan to coordinate GIS related activities. The Clearinghouse is actively involved in the coordinated acquisition of new base map data for Georgia.

The CCAP project supplemented Georgia's efforts in establishing a geospatial information base for the state. The project helped jump start metadata collection activities in the state. The Clearinghouse Internet web site has been updated to FGDC standards. Many FGDC compliant metadata records were added to the Clearinghouse archive and textual and spatial search capabilities were added to the Clearinghouse data discovery system. The Georgia GIS Data Clearinghouse is committed to actively play its role in the effort to build the NSDI.

5.0 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS

Establishing the Georgia node for the National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse involved three primary tasks. The following sections describe each of the three tasks in detail.

Metadata Compilation

Since its establishment, the Georgia GIS Data Clearinghouse has inventoried several geospatial data sources and their data holdings. Initially published data and metadata from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources and the USGS Water Resources Division (housed at Georgia Institute of Technology) were obtained and archive at the Clearinghouse. Metadata records obtained from DNR and USGS were compliant with FGDC standard, but the format was not in compliance with the Isite indexing software. Two tools namely, meta parser (mp) and preparser (CNS) were used to help "clean-up," validate, and reformat FGDC style metadata. In order to make the metadata index searchable, all the metadata records had to be both FGDC standard compliant as well as format compliant with Isite software.

The State of Georgia adopted FGDC's "Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata" as the state standard for metadata documentation. There are number of tools available for compiling FGDC compliant metadata. Many organizations use different tools, resulting in different metadata output formats, and thus posing problems in building indexed searches. Some tools are closely tied to specific GIS systems and others are standalone development tools. Tools which are tied to GIS systems (ex. document.aml with ESRI's Arc/Info) can extract several metadata elements directly from geodata sets, like bounding coordinates, projection information, attribute information, and so on. Standalone metadata tools can be used to build ground up metadata, like documenting a non-spatial data set (ex. county level census statistics). The FGDC web site http://www.fgdc.goc/Metadata/Metadata.html provides the latest collection of metadata tools. Of late there have been some vendor solutions to metadata compilation problems (ex. Blue Angel Technologies, Inc.).

The Georgia GIS Data Clearinghouse experimented with few metadata compilation tools to understand their capabilities. We did experiment with the following metadata editors:

• Xtme (Peter Schweitzer, http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/pub/tools/metadata/ ):

• Document.aml (ESRI's Arc/Info AML):

• Datadict.aml (Montana Natural Resources, http://nris.mt.gov/nsdi/datadict/ ):

• MetaLite (U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, barry_dearborn@fws.gov):

• NBII MetaMaker 2.10 (http://www.emtc.nbs.gov):

ISITE Software Implementation

Isite is an integrated Internet publishing software package developed by the "Clearinghouse for Networked Information Discovery and Retrieval" (CNIDR), through the National Science Foundation Cooperative Agreement NCR-9216963 and support from MCNC, formerly the Microelectronics Center of North Carolina. The Isite software includes a text indexer (Iindex), a search engine (Isearch) and Z39.50 communication tools to access databases. Z39.50 is a stateful network protocol, which is used by two computers to interact with one another. The protocol is based on a set of rules governing the formats and procedures. Z39.50 is a standard for network information search and retrieval and is based on the client/server model. It allows users to access remote database records by specifying criteria to identify appropriate records, and then requesting the transmission of some or all of the identified records. The protocol defines how the client and server applications "talk" with one another. Generally, the client application maintains the user interface, converts the end user's queries to the form required by the protocol, sends the converted queries to the server application, converts the server's reply to the local form and presents the results to the end user. The server application waits for the queries sent by the client applications, processes the queries when they arrive and sends the results to the client application.

Z39.50-1995 is a large standard, rich in functionality. In general an implementation does not support the complete standard, but rather a conforming subset corresponding to a specific application or function required by an application profile. An application profile specifies the use of a particular standard, or group of standards, to support the application. FGDC developed a Z39.50 application profile for metadata called "GEO Profile" (Z39.50 Application Profile for Geospatial Metadata" Version 2.1a - http://130.11.52.178/GEO21a.html ) to support fielded search on indexed FGDC standard metadata collection.

The Isite (GEO) software binaries for our server platform, Sun Solaris 2.5.1 (SunOS 5.4) were obtained from CNIDR's "ftp" archive site at ftp://ftp.cnidr.org. The archive contained the following five binary executables:

• Iindex (indexes FGDC metadata entries)

• Isearch (provides local search test)

• zclient (provides command-line query of remote or local Z39.50 service)

• izclient (interactive Z39.50 client using ANSI terminal mode)

• zserver (the Z39.50 server process)

First, the "mp" parsed metadata SGML files were indexed using the software "Iindex", using FGDC as the document type. This created a directory of indexed files. Next, initialization file for the server to connect to a specific search engine and the essential information needed for the server process to accept requests are configured. We checked the metadata index locally by querying the database using the "Isearch" utility. For example, a search for the word "economic" on the title field should result in a list of metadata records that contained the word "economic" in its title. We used example metadata records to create a temporary index database to test the search function, and to test the server process before indexing the Clearinghouse metadata records. Once the local search was successful, we then initiated a server process in the background for remote Z39.50 clients to query the Clearinghouse index database for metadata records. The initialization files discussed earlier contain necessary information, like the port number to listen to for incoming requests, the location of index database, and the search engine to use (in this case, Isearch). The zserver process runs in the background using server initialization files, and waits for a search request. The zserver process was checked to make sure it was functioning properly using the "zclient" utility locally. The final step in implementing the Clearinghouse node was to register the server with FGDC Geospatial Data Server registry.

The registration was done by completing a web form at the URL http://www.fgdc.gov/clearinghouse/SearchGeoData/register.html. The submitted information was reviewed and posted to the registry server for use by the HTML and Java interfaces as one of the servers to select for query.

We did not choose to implement our own Z39.50 gateway at this time, instead we provided a hyperlink from our web pages to the FGDC Clearinghouse Gateway. Access to the Georgia NSDI Clearinghouse node is available through the FGDC entry point to Geospatial Data Clearinghouse from the URL: http://130.11.52.178/FGDCgateway.html. Several search interfaces are provided to search the various Clearinghouse nodes for metadata from this gateway. As of this writing the National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse comprised close to 60 data servers.

Training and Outreach

The Georgia GIS Data Clearinghouse is actively promoting the National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse and the efforts to build the NSDI. We are inviting state and local government agencies, university and other interested parties to the Clearinghouse facilities to give formal presentation on metadata, and to demonstrate the NSDI node in action. We have been coordinating with Georgia agencies to explore the possibility of conducting metadata-training workshops. We presented Georgia NSDI node at the conferences held in Atlanta hosted by the Georgia URISA and the ESRI Southeast Regional User Group (SERUG) during Oct-Nov. '97. In both the conferences, a technical presentation was made, and FGDC, NGDC, and the NSDI were discussed. FGDC Gateway search interfaces were introduced to the participants. Online search and retrieval of metadata records using the FGDC gateway was demonstrated.

6.0 CURRENT GEOSPATIAL DATA INITIATIVES IN GEORGIA

The world of Geographic Information Systems is growing at a rapid pace. New and emerging GIS technologies provide sophisticated and powerful tools to solve complex problems. An increasing number of Georgia government agencies are expanding or implementing Geographic Information Systems to support decision making in planning, engineering, natural resource management, and other diverse areas. Since spatial data is often the most expensive component in any geographic information systems implementation, availability of accurate and quality geospatial information is critical to successfully implementing a GIS system.

Currently, most of Georgia's thematic (e.g. roads, hydrography, elevation, etc.) geospatial databases are at a nominal 1:100,000 to 1:500,000 scales. Spatial data at this scale is suitable only for statewide or regional purposes and could not be used effectively for local purposes. There is a need to develop a benchmark database with enough detail, which will serve the state as a standard base spatial database. Many states are in the process of updating important spatial databases to a nominal scale of about 1:24,000 scale. The State of Georgia has taken several steps forward in this direction to implement a successful GIS framework database.

The Information Technology Policy Council (ITPC) of Georgia has set forth a framework for the development of a coordinated acquisition of a statewide base map database. Base map database would contain data layers commonly used by multiple state agencies that mange or analyze spatial information. Through a coordinated effort by multiple state organizations, funding was secured in fiscal year 1998 to begin work on the development of a Georgia GIS Core Base Map. The following four themes were identified as the priority layers of the base map database:

• Transportation

• Hydrography

• Boundaries

• Wetlands

The Georgia GIS Data Clearinghouse will function as the custodian of the Statewide Core Base Map deliverables. The Clearinghouse will perform QA/QC on base map deliverables to check for compliance with state established standards. The Clearinghouse will archive and distribute base map products to state agencies and other authorized parties.

7.0 PROJECT CHALLENGES / IMPLEMENTATION LESSONS

7.1. PEOPLE

7.1.1. What were the advantages and disadvantages of forming project partnerships with other organizations?

Most significant advantage was that our project partners had valuable spatial data holdings and needed to be inventoried. Documenting these data holdings in a format that could be searched was not a top priority for many of these agencies. Forming project partnerships often paves a way to get the task accomplished and also reinforces the bond between organizations. In Georgia, we chose to sign Memorandum of Agreements (MOA) with project partners. The agencies that sign MOA commit to documenting agency data and sharing that data through the Clearinghouse. The MOA outlines maintenance schedule for the data and associated documentation. The process of signing MOAs with agency department heads took a significant amount of time to accomplish. We had to educate the administrators on the scope of the project and the importance of it. It helped to point out that by signing the MOA agencies in turn got access to other organizational data holdings inventoried by the Clearinghouse. A major disadvantage often was that the project partnership ended after sharing data. It was often left to the Clearinghouse to document the data. We tried several ways to assist organizations with documenting their data, but the bottom line was collecting FGDC compliant metadata for search and retrieval was not a top priority for many of the agencies.

7.1.2. Has there been an increased level of collaboration between partners as a result of this project?

Yes, definitely there is a stronger collaboration and better communication between partners.

7.1.3. What recommendations do you have for other groups regarding the formation and maintenance of strong, effective project relationships?

We believe binding partners by signing official MOAs is a good approach in building effective partnerships. The MOA spells out responsibilities of both organizations and commits project partners to a common goal. One important suggestion is to publicize MOA signing in the form of formal ceremonies and official press releases and thus project partners to a common cause are recognized.

7.2. TECHNOLOGY AND SOFTWARE TOOLS

7.2.1. What are the challenges you faced in selecting the best technology for your project? How did you finally come to a decision?

To implement this project we did not have to think too much in choosing the computer technology such as hardware, software and other tools. The Georgia GIS Data Clearinghouse already had the necessary computer hardware to support this project at the time of this project proposal. We simply chose to follow the implementation guidelines from FGDC and the recommended tools. The most challenging technological problem was selecting a metadata collection tool that would serve all our project needs. Many tools listed by FGDC produced an output that is format compliant with the Isite Information System. We also needed a database of metadata records in a form to produce catalogue pages, html for the web, and text documents to tie to the physical data. This tool had to be easy to use, reliable, and free to share with other organizations; based on the above we used the NBII MetaMaker 2.10 tool.

7.2.2. Is it always important that the technology be state-of-the-art?

We believe any implementation that depends on computer technologies stay current as much as possible. Many times a later version of a computer system or implementation tool could potentially eliminate problems encountered during the implementation thus making it easier for the continued maintenance.

7.2.3. In developing your project, what was your experience in getting the technology up and operational? Were the costs in line with expectations? Was the time line for the project completion realistic?

We followed mainly the online instructions and additional reference materials found on the FGDC web pages. The instructions were adequate enough to implement our ISITE information server. The time line to establish a Clearinghouse node was more than adequate. But the real challenge is to keep adding compliant metadata records into the metadata index collection beyond the time-line of this project contract.

7.3. STANDARDS

7.3.1. Understanding the Metadata Standard and creating metadata are often cited as the most challenging hurdles in many project efforts. Was this the case with your project? Can you describe (quantify) your results in documenting data, i.e. how long did it take to create the first few records vs. your results at the end of the project effort, or current activity?

Yes, educating our partners and creating the metadata were one of our most challenging hurdles. The solution of producing the documentation ourselves and having the data originator verify it is not the most ideal situation, but was necessary to accomplish our project goals. Many individuals did not understand why so much information is needed and felt that metadata collection process was very laborious. Most of the metadata records we worked with had existing documentation created by the participating agencies in this project. This expedited the metadata collection process dramatically. Any documentation no matter how minimal greatly speeds the process of creating FGDC compliant metadata. We did collect some metadata records from ground up by interviewing the agency personal. Often we gave a presentation highlighting the metadata standards before we started the metadata collection process.

We can provide a specific example of one of our latest experience on collecting metadata record from the ground up. The Georgia Department of Labor is one of the many state agencies that contributed data to the Georgia GIS Data Clearinghouse. The department of labor compiles and maintains several data sets relating to labor statistics for the State of Georgia. We did a pilot metadata collection for one of their data products, the annual county employment and unemployment rates for period of 1990-1996. This data could be used along with the county boundary we have in our archive in a GIS system. To start with the Clearinghouse staff gave a presentation about metadata to the concerned DOL staff, in which an overview of the FGDC metadata standard was explained in brief. The various mandatory and non-mandatory metadata elements were explained to them supplemented with examples. During this process we could observe that the DOL personnel looked overwhelmed by the complexity involved in metadata compilation. We then interviewed with them to obtain necessary information for relevant metadata elements and trained them on the metadata standard. The obtained information was then input into a metadata documentation tool to produce a compatible metadata output for ISITE information system. This whole process of educating and documenting one data set took approximately six hours.

7.4 OTHER

7.4.1. Did staff or end-user training require significantly more time than originally anticipated? Specifically, what areas?

The Clearinghouse staff spent a number of hours studying and understanding the FGDC metadata standard. The green workbook 1.0 on metadata from FGDC greatly helped us in training new staff and end-users. Several metadata compilation tools were experimented with during this process. Getting familiar with metadata compilation tools took a significant amount of our staff and graduate student time.

7.4.2. Where there any other significant obstacles that had to be overcome?

There were no significant obstacles to overcome in implementing this project.

8.0 IMPACTS AND CONTINUING EFFORTS

8.1. PROJECT IMPACTS

8.1.1. Do you believe you achieved your project goals?
 

(1) No, definitely not (1)	(2) Minimally	(3) Achieved some of the goals
(4) Achieved most of the goals	(5)Yes, definitely

8.1.2. Of what value has your particular project effort been to you?
 

(1) Of little or no importance	(2) Below average important	(3) Of mod. importance
(4) Above average importance	(5) Of very great importance

8.1.3. If you answered either 3, 4, or 5 please describe its importance:

The state of Georgia has established a Data Clearinghouse to reduce wasteful duplication and efficiently distribute geospatial data for the GIS agencies and other government, academic and the general public. This project facilitated an initiative to compile and document FGDC standard metadata from participating agencies.

8.1.4. Has this project made geospatial data more affordable or accessible than before?
 

(1) No, definitely not	(2)	(3) difficult to tell
(4)	(5) Yes, definitely

8.1.4.a. If possible, quantify (or describe) this change, ex. Increase in # of users or % increase in sales, etc.?

There is definitely a significant increase in the number of accesses to the Clearinghouse data archive. Part of the credit could be given to this project effort in terms of compliant metadata collection.

8.1.5. How has this project affected the targeted end users for which you developed your data service? (i.e., What difference did it make for them?)

Our targeted end users were state organizations and this project helped them greatly. It provided them a reason to undertake the long overdue task of documenting their valuable spatial data resources. Agencies are realizing the potential benefits of forming project partnerships and sharing geospatial data.

8.1.6. Will you continue to implement the NSDI?
 

Yes

No

8.1.6.a. If yes, please describe in general terms, the essence of these implementation activities.

The Clearinghouse will continue to operate the NSDI node and will add and expand the metadata index. This is contingent upon the continued funding from the State of Georgia.

8.1.6.b. Has the project effort and/or tenets of the NSDI been institutionalized within the other organizations involved in the project?
 

(1) Only very little	(2) Some	(3) Moderate
(4) Considerable	(5) Substantial

7. Have you had inquiries from other organizations about your project?
 

(1) Very seldom or never	(2) Seldom	(3) Occasionally
(4) Often	(5) Frequently

7.a. Are you aware of other organizations that have initiated similar efforts as a result of your project work?
 

Yes

No

8.0 What are the observable, measurable benefits of your project to date ( ex., improved data management, improved understanding /interest in metadata creation by state and university community, recognition as a central facility for data distribution)?

• Recognition as a central repository for geospatial data

• Better inventory of available geospatial data infrastructure

• Better documentation of existing data and new data development

• Better cooperation from state entities to participate in this effort.

8.1.9. Describe how you've disseminated information about your project. What have been the most effective ways of achieving public awareness of your project?

Technical presentations were made and a display booth about the Clearinghouse were used at the Georgia URISA conference, ESRI's South East Regional User Group (SERUG) conference held in Atlanta during Oct.-Nov. 1996 and other monthly forums and meetings. Demonstrations on accessing Clearinghouse metadata and data holdings through the NSDI gateway were presented to the conference attendees.

Technical presentations also explained the efforts of FGDC in establishing the NSDI through multiple National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse nodes.

The Georgia GIS Data Clearinghouse regularly gives technical presentations to local agencies that develop geospatial data to promote the awareness of data sharing and metadata. The Clearinghouse also provides pointers to FGDC, NSDI and other Clearinghouse nodes from its Internet web site. The Clearinghouse web site can be accessed from the following URL http://gis.state.ga.us.

Our Clearinghouse display booth created a lot of awareness with agency individuals. We could explain one-on-one to interested individuals about the Clearinghouse concepts, the value of data holdings, and the national effort in building a data infrastructure. Often these individuals went back to their respective organizations and educated others in their organization. We observed a noticeable increase in inquiries after each presentation and display.

8.1.10. Did the results and experience from other NSDI Competitive Cooperative Agreements Program projects help your effort?
 

(1) Did not contribute at all	(2) Contributed a little	(3) Contributed moderately
(4) Contributed considerably	(5) Contributed a great deal

 

8.2. SUSTAINING YOUR PROJECT

8.2.1. What are the sustainable results of your project ( ex., creation of an operational clearinghouse, development of agency metadata records)?

• Continued operation of the Georgia node of the National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse.

• Continued collection of compliant metadata from Georgia agencies.

• Conduct metadata training workshop to local agencies.

• Expand Clearinghouse node's addition to the metadata index.

• Outreach to a larger GIS community through newsletters and local conferences.

The GIS community in the State of Georgia has a reliable source to obtain geospatial data since the establishment of the Georgia GIS Data Clearinghouse. There is a growing demand for documenting existing data resources and also for new data development. As the Clearinghouse is making a significant progress towards bridging data sharing barriers between governments, there is a strong support for the continued operation of the Clearinghouse from the GIS user community. We are currently funded through the State of Georgia.

8.2.3. What recommendations regarding sustainability do you have for other groups? (This could be in the context of funding, program development, and/or program operations.)

To generate funding to sustain the project, the interests of local, state, and federal agencies should be addressed. Users at all levels should be able to harvest the benefits resulting from this project.

8.2.4. Will the partnerships you've established be continued after the project's completion?
 

(1) No, definitely not	(2) Probably not	(3) Yes, with some of the partners
(4) Yes, with most partners	(5) Yes, definitely

8.2.5. What do you predict will be the three long-range most important observable, measurable contributions of your contributions of your project?

• Expanded operation of the Georgia NSDI node.

• Continued compilation of local agency metadata.

• Metadata education to local agencies

FGDC extended all possible help in implementing this project. Particularly the online resources from FGDC web site to configure and setup the Georgia NSDI Clearinghouse node was very helpful in implementing the project.

We would like to extend our appreciation and special thanks to Mr. Bruce McKenzie and Mr. Doug Nebert for their valuable and timely help.

9.0 CONCLUSION

In these days of shrinking budgets, tax dollars spent on developing spatial databases should reach a wide range of users in order to justify the investment. Realizing the need to provide better access to new and existing geospatial data and the need for an organization who can bridge data sharing barriers among government agencies the State of Georgia established the GIS Data Clearinghouse. The successful implementation of the Clearinghouse and formation of a coordinated multi-agency consortium were significant milestones in building a statewide spatial data infrastructure. The Georgia GIS Data Clearinghouse will be an active contributor in the national effort to establish a National Spatial Data Infrastructure.

The establishment of the Georgia GIS Data Clearinghouse by the State of Georgia created a central geospatial data warehouse and metadata archive. The primary mission of the Clearinghouse is to reduce the wasteful duplication of data development efforts and to efficiently share geospatial information among various agencies. The grant from NSDI Competitive Cooperative Agreements Program (CCAP) and help from FGDC made this project implementation possible. The project gave an opportunity to expand the primary Clearinghouse mission, accommodate compilation of metadata, and to implement a Georgia NSDI node of the National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse. During the project period we learned a great deal about FGDC metadata standard and gained experience with various metadata compilation tools. The CCAP project grant greatly augmented the State of Georgia's efforts to build a data warehouse for geospatial information in Georgia. We would like to thank the partner agencies the Department of Community Affairs, the Department of Natural Resources, and the Department of Transportation for their valuable support.