26th International Cartographic Conference, Dresden, Germany, 25 ‐ 30 August 2013 Exploring the Impact of a Spatial Data Infrastructure on Value ‐ Added Resellers and Vice Versa Antony K. Cooper, Serena Coetzee, Petr Rapant, Dominique Laurent, David M. Danko, Adam Iwaniak, Ammatzia Peled, Harold Moellering and Ulrich Düren Commission on Geoinformation Infrastructures and Standards of ther International Cartographic Association
A quick advert for our Commission’s open meeting! 26th International Cartographic Conference, Dresden, Germany, 25 ‐ 30 August 2013 Standards for addressing Venue C4, Conference Level Tuesday 27 August 2013, 14:45 ‐ 16:00 14:45 Opening and welcome by the Commission Chair Mr Antony Cooper (Commission Chair), CSIR, South Africa 14:50 Overview of ISO 19160 ‐ 1, Addressing – Part 1: Conceptual model Dr Serena Coetzee , Centre for Geoinformation Science, University of Pretoria, South Africa 15:10 INSPIRE profile of ISO 19160 ‐ 1 and Danish business case for improved international address management Mr Morten Lind , Special Advisor, Danish Ministry of Housing, Urban and Rural Affairs 15:30 New Zealand profile of ISO 19160 ‐ 1 Mr Graeme Blick , Chief Geodesist and Manager Topography at Land Information New Zealand 15:50 Discussion
Exploring the Impact of a Spatial Data Infrastructure on Value ‐ Added Resellers and Vice Versa • Spatial data infrastructure (SDI) • Commission’s SDI models • Stakeholders • Value ‐ added reseller (VAR) • Results • Conclusions
Spatial data infrastructure (SDI) • Evolving concept – Facilitating, coordinating and monitoring the exchange and sharing • Of geospatial data and services • Metadata about both – Stakeholders from different levels and disciplines – More than just the technology of a GIS • Collection of technologies, policies and institutional arrangements • Basis for the discovery, evaluation and application of geospatial data and services – One SDI can be part of another SDI • Functionally (eg: water SDI within a general SDI) • Hierarchically (eg: INSPIRE and national SDIs in Europe)
Commission’s models of an SDI • Described an SDI using the Reference Model for Open Distributed Processing (RM ‐ ODP) – Enterprise Viewpoint [Hjelmager et al 2008] • Describes the purpose, scope and policies for an SDI • Describes the relationship of an SDI to its environment, its role and the policies associated • Within the Enterprise Viewpoint, we identified: – Six general roles of stakeholders within and around an SDI – Information Viewpoint [Hjelmager et al 2008] – Computational Viewpoint [Cooper et al 2013] – Engineering and Technology Viewpoints are implementation ‐ specific
Stakeholders in and around an SDI • General roles of stakeholders within and around an SDI – Concerning the products of the SDI (data and services) – Not only roles already performed, but also that should be performed – Six general roles • Policy Maker • Producer • Provider • Broker • Value ‐ added Reseller (VAR) • End User • 37 special cases of these general roles (then termed ‘sub ‐ types’) • Any one individual or organisation can perform or fulfill several general or special roles
Value ‐ added reseller (VAR) • A stakeholder who adds some new feature to an existing product or group of products, and then makes it available as a new product. – Eg: searching for, evaluating and integrating data sets, to create a new data set or product – A VAR does not necessarily sell its products, but could generate its income from other sources • Eg: support services, products being by ‐ products of funded consulting
Subtypes of the VAR
The VARs • Exploratory, qualitative research – Aimed at questions that did not influence the other answers • Sent the questionnaire to the respondents in advance • So they could prepare, as appropriate – Did not try to obtain a representative sample – Did not try to eliminate ‘duplicates’ from different countries – Variety of legislative, business and cultural contexts • Interviewees – Two large, multinational private ‐ sector VARs • One VAR in two different countries – Seven medium or small private sector VARs – One public sector VAR – USA, South Africa, Czech Republic, Poland, France, Israel • Questionnaire asked about – VAR activities and offerings – Understanding of SDIs – If laws, licences, costs, metadata, etc, encourage or inhibit VARs
Results Main VAR activities are • – Linking, adapting, updating, geocoding, consolidating, integrating data • Base and specialist data, from public and private sources – Developing new products • Sometimes incorporating their own data, analysis and forecasts – Advising clients Generally deliver products through web services and geoportals • Often provide SLAs for data access and response times • – As one VAR put it: they are a throat to grab! – Willing and able to deal with queries and other support issues that might overwhelm the original Producers or Providers • Especially under ‐ resourced municipalities • Encourages the Producer or Provider to publish data Some VARs familiar with national SDI activities • – Whether or not it is delivering any products now – Even helping build them – Do not assume SDI, activities and benefits are well understood or a priority yet • Particularly by SMEs SDIs provide services, metadata and base data • – Sometimes using standards such as WMS and WFS – Also develop standards SDIs can encourage crowd ‐ sourced or user ‐ generated applications • – Eg: vehicle navigation
Results Some laws encourage VARs • – Especially promotion of access to public information – Providing framework for cooperation between data custodians • Stimulates VAR activities – Good laws on liability and privacy can create trust Some laws inhibit VARs • – Particularly licencing conditions preventing selling the value ‐ add – Even where new laws encourage PSGI reuse, they might not be well known and the old habits of hoarding data can prevail – Varies across countries and cultures – Can be contradictions in legislation – Delays in implementing legislation inhibit investments Registration of professionals will improve consumer confidence • – Not only those employed by VARs Standards are essential for integrating data sets • – Particularly across jurisdiction boundaries – Reduce costs – Provide competition for products – But better training on standards is required – Important aspects that are not yet standardized Capturing data at the finest spatial level makes the data less vulnerable to • changing administrative boundaries
Results INSPIRE, other SDIs and global trends have promoted free data • – Particularly to public bodies – Might take some markets from VARs, but enables many more GIS projects – Some PSGI is still too expensive • Encourages user ‐ generated alternatives • Pricing should be for high volume and low margin, not low volume and high margin Stimulates the market – – Tools needed for assessing the costs of different options – If VARs have to pay for data, this is a barrier • Particularly for SMEs providing niche products • However, if PSGI is free, End Users might not realise how expensive it is to produce! – Some private ‐ sector VARs distribute PSGI for free, but charge for customizing data Some VARs spend much time negotiating license agreements with PSGI providers • – Licences can be unattractive and complex – Providers can change established license agreements arbitrarily • Threatens investments by VAR – Need clear guiding principles in legislation – Short ‐ term rental agreements should be considered – SDIs improve the situation Some SDIs made licencing of PSGI easier, cheaper and with fewer restrictions • – Helps VARs sell other products and services SDIs improve data and access • – Even before SDI is fully functional, because they encourage sharing
Results Poor quality PGSI creates a market for VARs • – But also creates problems and extra work for VARs – Even preventing value ‐ add – Different applications require different levels of quality • Particularly positional accuracy, currency and completeness – Quality value ‐ add products can provide justification for the SDI General market maturity improves data • – SDIs need to harmonize data SDIs, Producers and Providers can flounder when lose key staff • Some VARs think the metadata standards require too much detail • – Others want more metadata and at a finer resolution! Standards facilitate interoperability and help prevent technology lock ‐ in • – Some users reluctant to adopt local standards because of perceived difficulties – Adopting standards is beneficial in the long term but painful in the short term – Adherence to standards can encourage users because of the perceived quality, and thus Producers. VARs are using cloud computing and some resell cloud computing services • VARs are experimenting with services using linked data • People change slowly • – Still need reminding of benefits of geospatial data and sharing Interdependent relationship between VARs and SDIs • – VAR business increases if there is an SDI and SDIs depend on the success of VARs – VARs want to help SDIs and get more public bodies participating, as they are markets for them
Recommend
More recommend
