paper - Global Spatial Data Infrastructure Association

3. accessibility and delivery mechanisms.
3.1 Historical background of SDI in British Columbia
SDI in BC evolved as a response to the challenges faced in the sustainable
stewardship of land and resources. Decision-makers, whether from government,
industry or the public at large, needed to access and apply the best available spatial
data to issues that crossed the boundaries of traditional spatial databases, often
described as stovepipes. However, those database systems were originally designed
and constructed to fulfill specific end-user requirements, such as administering land and
offshore tenures. The root of their existence is usually formalized in statutes, policies or
charters that define areas of business operations.
SDI initiatives in BC began in the early 1990’s, prior to the availability of current
mainstream technologies, and it is interesting to recognize that management and
implementation issues remain much the same.
This paper is about spatial data, that highly-prized commodity being moved through
the infrastructure. Decisions to build, upgrade and replace SDI technology are standard
business decisions based on performance or market metrics. On the other hand,
architectures and programs for developing and managing spatial data have to be much
more measured. For one thing spatial data are a reflection of the institutional reliability
of each spatial data custodian in the eyes of end-users. Secondly, spatial data costs
exceed that of SDIs by at least one or two orders of magnitude leading to a
commensurate re-scaling of business case tests. Finally, volatility in the architecture of
any of the spatial data contributors is magnified in the SDI. SDI initiators assume that
they are either dealing with mature, stable spatial data sources or that spatial datasets,
not yet fully populated, will comply with enterprise architecture standards specified by the
SDI. This is, more often than not, not the case as is experienced in peer-to-peer data
exchanges with partners.
In BC, the spatial data policy framework defined three logical domains –
corporate, participatory and non-participatory. In times past, corporate spatial data was
referred to as base mapping and can be characterized as:
• being managed primarily as a service to other departments, or
• providing a spatial reference or essential linkage with that of others beyond the
enterprise, or
• representing legal encumbrances on land.
Operating procedures for corporate spatial data were to be both transparent and
tightly controlled because they would be relied on by the other two domains, as well as
by end-using clients and partners outside of the enterprise. Designation as corporate
data implied the highest level of commitment to the SDI. Participatory spatial data would
be managed for specific business purposes of the enterprise, e.g. highway planning and
construction. Although it may have collateral use within the enterprise, participatory
spatial data custodians would not be accountable to end-users outside of their narrow
business area – hence the heretofore “stovepipe” metaphor. Participatory spatial data
was a status that implied a more basic level of commitment to the SDI. This meant
providing data in a consistent form, maintaining standard metadata, and adhering to the
SDI spatial policy framework. Corporate spatial data would be the SDI’s building blocks
for discovery, query, access, display and integration of participatory spatial data. Non-