Attendees
 

 Strategic Planning

The committee continued the previous meeting’s discussion on setting priorities within a realistic strategic plan containing measurable goals. Cialek reminded the committee that the workplan should be ready to submit to the Governor’s Council in September. Cialek sketched a graphic that showed the arrangement of several committee goals discussed at the April 1 meeting. The graphic was revised during this meeting to produce a second draft (Handout: Graphic). Patton noted that the goals could be divided into two types: those that involved processes by which the committee works and those that are specific projects.

 A substantial part of the discussion addressed the committee’s role in prioritizing and promoting standards (Goals #6, 9 and 10 from the February retreat). The committee agreed that the process by which the user community can propose standards needs to be more thoroughly documented and communicated. This would enable the user community to assume much of the responsibility for prioritizing standards and expressing their needs. The committee’s role is to facilitate standards development when appropriate rather than to judge or prioritize standards. As possible models for documenting the process, Waite suggested an Internet engineering group’s approach and Kotz suggested a MetroGIS draft document about standards development.

 Cialek noted that the effort should be broader than GIS and include data standards in general with the involvement of IPO and IPC. Bentley said that this is a good time for input to the IPO since the office will likely move to the Office of Technology within the next few months and will assume a broader role than just state government. Bentley wondered whether the committee could act as an advisory group to IPC; Cialek responded that no single group can do this, although ad hoc groups of specialists could be assembled as needed. Kotz noted that many guidelines may not be appropriate for IPC review. Bentley said that IPO tries to focus on the question "what are we trying to accomplish?" rather than "what rules are we trying to develop?" When the goal is to promote data sharing, it is only necessary that users be able to translate their data to a commonly understood format.

 The committee also discussed Goal #1: Communication, reiterating that projects should be coordinated with the Governor’s Council Communications Committee. Patton felt that the workplan would guide communication by broadly defining the audience and the type of content to be communicated. The committee felt it would be worth investigating the feasibility of an Internet discussion group as part of the improved electronic communication action item discussed at the last meeting,

 Metadata

Kotz reported that the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) has proposed several revisions to the federal metadata standard. The revised standard would allow user-defined elements and would sanction metadata profiles for specific user communities (e.g., a profile tailored to biological data). Users would still not be permitted to change federal element names. A discussion list for comments is available until July 10. The committee’s metadata working group is coordinating an effort to set up an FGDC Clearinghouse Node using the federal ISITE software. Although the Minnesota Guidelines are not fully compliant with FGDC, they can be mapped to the FGDC standard element codes to produce compliant SGML files for use in the clearinghouse.

 Cialek noted that a substantial amount of metadata is being compiled by LMIC, DNR, and the Forest Resources Council. Also, Version 2 of the DataLogr metadata entry tool should be delivered soon. Cialek distributed copies of the slides accompanying the DataLogr programmer’s (Dave Frey’s) talk at the May 1 IMAGIN Conference in Michigan (Handout: Data Documentation and DataLogr). License terms have been agreed upon, and we await final receipt of the written terms from Michigan and their approval by the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office.

 Final Announcements (Cialek)

The National States Geographic Information Council (NSGIC) metadata satellite videoconference will be broadcast on October 15. It is sponsored by the University of Wisconsin - Madison’s Land Information & Computer Graphics Facility (LICGF) (Handout: 4/11/97 memo from David Hart, LICGF). Ten minutes of the conference will be "Practical Experience with Creating Metadata: A State Perspective." The committee’s metadata working group is developing the material for this section, most of which will be videotaped in the metro area in mid-July. Input from committee members is welcome, especially suggestions for potential broadcast locations within the state.

 The revised County Codes standard will be submitted to the Information Policy Office by May 16 (Handout: Numeric Codes for the Identification of Counties in Minnesota, Draft 5/12/97).

 Cialek’s presentation to the Information Policy Council on April 17 about the metadata guidelines was well-received.

 Approximately thirty people attended the May 8 workshop on the Federal Spatial Data Accuracy Standard given by Julie Maitra of USGS. Copies of the slides accompanying her talk are available from Cialek.

 Cialek presented a discussion of state concerns dealing with geographic data standards to the USGS National Mapping Division Standards Business Area Planning Meeting in Denver on April 23.

 The deadline for abstracts for this year’s GIS/LIS Conference is June 20. The conference will be held in St. Cloud on October 1-3.

 Action Items

• Committee members will continue to revise the draft workplan graphic.
• Committee members will develop potential topics for GIS/LIS papers or workshops.