skip to content
Primary navigation
Governor’s Council on Geographic Information
GIS STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Meeting Minutes
September 8, 1998

Attendees

Mike Barnes MN Department of Transportation
Chuck Bryant MN Department of Transportation
Christopher Cialek (chair) MN Planning – LMIC
Ken Johnson MN Department of Transportation
Mark Kotz (assistant to the chair) Metropolitan Council
Robert Maki MN DNR
Nancy Rader MN Planning – LMIC
Steve Ring MN Department of Health
Sally Wakefield MN Planning – LMIC
Ron Wencl US Geological Survey

(There were no handouts at this meeting. For information about the Committee,
call (651) 296-1208 or email: gc@mnplan.state.mn.us)
 

Action Items for Next Meeting
Barnes will begin forming a Transportation Working Group that will develop a statement of its scope and begin identifying manageable projects.
Cialek, Wencl, and Johnson will continue to prepare for the positional accuracy presentation at the GIS/LIS Conference. By mid-September, they will circulate a draft copy of the handbook to the Committee for comments.
Cialek, Kotz, Maki and Rader will continue to prepare for the metadata workshop at the GIS/LIS Conference and will investigate possible changes to the metadata guidelines.
Botzek will report back on efforts to link cadastral standard workshop with MN Association of County Officers' conference.

Introductions, Approval of Agenda and Last Meeting Minutes

Minutes from 8/25/98 and this meeting's agenda (with the addition of the Data Issues Group report) were approved.

Updates

Cadastral Standard Workshop: Cialek, Bryant, Dave Claypool, Jeff Grosso, and Lucy Botzek met on 9/1/98 to begin developing an agenda for the cadastral standards workshop to be conducted by Fairview Industries. One suggested possibility is to cover the cadastral standard at a high level during the first part of the workshop (direct this toward administrators) and then focus on specific details of the standard in the afternoon. Another possibility is to start with the larger picture of standards development, from the local level through the federal level, and then cover the specifics of this standard. The second approach would be intended to alleviate the concern that the federal government is imposing a mandate on local governments. Botzek is investigating the possibility of holding the workshop on 2/2/99, preceding the annual conference of the MN Association of County Officers; if that does not work, it will likely be held in early spring, 1999.

Wencl confirmed that the FGDC has accepted this standard, and that it affects federal land management agencies, primarily the Bureau of Land Management. Implementation is a problem, however, since the task is large and the technology for managing land records keeps changing. Cialek noted that it is important to know what the standard actually says and to assess whether its data model would be useful as a possible basis for state and local land records information.

Annual Report: Wakefield announced that the Governor's Council annual report, titled Cardinal Points, will be going to the printer next week and that it will be available at the GIS/LIS Conference.

Data Issues Group: Ring updated the Committee on recent activities of DIG-IT (Data Issues Group - Information Technology) which is now a subcommittee of the Information Policy Council. It is made up of staff from state agencies who are interested in sharing ideas about data administration and promoting data sharing among state agencies. DIG-IT's Model Integration Workgroup is investigating whether different models from different state agencies can be integrated into a high-level state model. This question can also be approached from more focused perspectives such as interest areas (e.g., natural resources) or functional areas (e.g., licensing). The group has drafted a very generic statewide entity and relationship data model and has been assessing how several agency models (e.g., DNR, Minnesota Historical Society, Health) might fit. They are also discussing how to identify common attributes, which leads to questions of standards for naming, definition, and formatting. The working group has concluded that it is overwhelming to build an entire state model all at once; therefore, the challenge is to define manageable pieces of such a project. The working group will meet with Richard Branton from Advanced Strategies on 10/2/98 to further discuss these ideas. The next DIG-IT meeting is 9/16/98. More information, including the draft generic model and meeting announcements, is at the DIG-IT website: http://www.data.state.mn.us

Maki asked whether street naming and address standards were an area for further work by a group such as DIG-IT. DNR is developing an agency-wide customer database and is grappling with how to standardize address information. Other agencies are facing similar challenges. The Committee agreed that this was an important issue to discuss, particularly in the context of a proposed transportation working group (see below).

GIS/LIS Conference Sessions

Positional Accuracy: Cialek reported that the working group has compiled a first draft of the positional accuracy handbook and will meet 9/9/98 to revise it. Before the GIS/LIS Conference, Cialek will circulate the draft to the Committee via email. After the conference, the handbook will be revised again based on feedback from conference participants and then submitted first to the Committee, then to the full Council before possibly being published.

Metadata: Rader confirmed that the draft agenda for the metadata workshop had not changed from the previous meeting's handout (8/25/98). Cialek raised several issues related to the Minnesota Geographic Metadata Guidelines (MGMG) that the metadata/clearinghouse working group will consider: 1. Should two elements, "language of the resource" and "type of resource" be added to the MGMG to better comply with the "Dublin Core" metadata system? These elements will likely be added to the FGDC metadata guidelines as they are assessed to comply with the proposed ISO (international) standards. 2. Can we develop a workable and useful Minnesota Unique ID? 3. What is the best way to add descriptive information for the "On-line Linkage" element used to connect to on-line data? Possible options include using the existing "Ordering Instructions" element, adding another existing federal element, or adding a new element. The working group will meet soon and will update the committee via email; also, Cialek will look for a crosswalk between the MGMG and the Dublin Core.

Proposed Transportation Working Group

Barnes outlined the possibility of forming a working group to investigate standards for transportation data. Mn/DOT is interested in cooperating with others in its long-term efforts to build a Unified Transportation System (UTS). The UTS would be a single relational database of all Minnesota road segments (approximately 400,000 of them); each segment and point would have a unique id that could support analysis in all Mn/DOT departments (and potentially other organizations). Pressure to create a UTS is coming from the need to support 911 emergency services and intelligent transportation systems, and to track changes in road systems over time. The current system of each of three departments updating their databases separately cannot support such applications.

Barnes is now managing the UTS project and would like to actively involve organizations outside Mn/DOT, including the private sector, that would benefit from common transportation standards. The Committee expressed strong support for this initiative. Barnes agreed to start establishing a group of interested people; the first steps will be to define the scope of such a group and to identify manageable pieces of this large topic. One possibility is to start with street address and naming standards, cataloging the methods that currently exist (building on work already done by MetroGIS and others). Anyone who is interested in this proposed working group should contact Barnes.

Goals for FY99

The Committee reached general consensus on topics to address for the upcoming year:

1. Transportation Working Group
a. define focus and manageable project(s)
b. consider investigating standards for street names and addresses

2. Metadata
a. consider modifications to the Minnesota Geographic Metadata Guidelines
b. distribute and implement DataLogr metadata entry tool
c. continue to track modifications to the federal metadata standard
d. consider developing a Minnesota Unique ID for metadata and/or datasets

3. Elevate Standards to the Information Policy Council (IPC)
a. Minnesota Geographic Metadata Guidelines
b. Coordinate exchange standard

4. Clearinghouse
Scope interagency data discovery and distribution issues such as:
a. use of a standard ID system and standard naming conventions
b. development of a common point of access

5. Keyword Thesauri
Scope currently existing thesauri for:
a. place keywords (e.g., FIPS 55)
b. theme keywords (e.g., Legislative Indexing Vocabulary)

6. Positional Accuracy Working Group
a. finalize handbook
b. develop strategy to educate users about the standard
c. decide whether handbook should be formally published

7. Communication Working Group
Does this group continue? If so, in what direction?

The next meeting of the GIS Standards Committee is Tuesday, November 24th, 1998,
9:30 - 11:30, Room 301, Centennial Office Building, St. Paul, MN.

Minutes submitted by N. Rader

back to top