03.03.2015 Views

2000115-Strengthening-Communities-with-Neighborhood-Data

2000115-Strengthening-Communities-with-Neighborhood-Data

2000115-Strengthening-Communities-with-Neighborhood-Data

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Institutional Context 59<br />

professional connections needed both to exchange ideas and to advance<br />

the overall data-sharing environment in the state, and developing innovative<br />

platforms for distributing data.<br />

Efforts to standardize data got under way <strong>with</strong> the Land Management<br />

Information Center, a state agency created in 1977 that was devoted to<br />

coordinating and providing GIS services <strong>with</strong>in Minnesota’s state government.<br />

The goal was to establish a central GIS “shop” for the entire<br />

state. The Land Management Information Center worked <strong>with</strong> multiple<br />

government agencies that generated a variety of data, which were often<br />

recorded and described <strong>with</strong>out much thought to inter-department uniformity.<br />

Recognizing the benefits of adapting a consistent annotation<br />

system, the center established state metadata guidelines for describing<br />

key aspects of these state-generated datasets, such as data quality information,<br />

distribution information, and so on. 3<br />

Further steps for standardization were undertaken by the Governor’s<br />

Council on Geographic Information, an advisory group created by executive<br />

order in 1991 to guide and work on statewide GIS policy (<strong>with</strong><br />

administrative and technical GIS services still being provided by the<br />

Land Management Information Center). A committee from the council<br />

adopted a process for establishing additional state standards, and even<br />

though the standards in question were not applicable to local governments,<br />

representatives from local municipalities served on this committee.<br />

The idea was that city and county departments, having helped form<br />

state-level standardization guidelines, might adopt these standards for<br />

their own departments (see Craig, Baker, and Yaeger 1996).<br />

The Council on Geographic Information also proved to be a useful<br />

forum to network and exchange ideas. Composed of 18 representatives<br />

from a cross section of sectors—including federal, state, and local<br />

governments, as well as higher education and the private sector—the<br />

council convened the state’s top GIS experts to shape GIS policy and<br />

direction (Craig 2005). One of the council’s guiding principles was to<br />

“promote geographic information as a public resource that should be<br />

widely shared <strong>with</strong> and available to interested parties.” 4 It should come as<br />

little surprise, then, that a product of the council’s work was the creation<br />

of the Minnesota Geographic <strong>Data</strong> Clearinghouse, an online, searchable<br />

repository of geographic data that provided (and continues to<br />

provide) access to hundreds of datasets developed and maintained by<br />

state and local governments. 5 Launched in 1997, the Geographic <strong>Data</strong><br />

Clearinghouse was the first Minnesota portal that the public could use

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!