SDI Convergence - Global Spatial Data Infrastructure Association
SDI Convergence - Global Spatial Data Infrastructure Association
SDI Convergence - Global Spatial Data Infrastructure Association
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
This distinction is also reflected in the generation analogy that has been used to highlight<br />
the main structural changes that have taken place in the notion of spatial data infrastructures<br />
over the last fifteen years. Some features of the first generation of eleven<br />
<strong>SDI</strong>s that had emerged during the first half of the 1990s were described by Masser<br />
(1999). What distinguished these from other GI policy initiatives was that they were all<br />
explicitly national in scope and their titles all referred to geographic information, geospatial<br />
data or land information and included the term 'infrastructure', 'system' or<br />
'framework'.<br />
The development of a second generation of <strong>SDI</strong>s began around 2000 (Rajabifard et al.,<br />
2003). The most distinctive feature of the second generation of <strong>SDI</strong>s was the shift that<br />
was taking place from the product model that characterised most of the first generation<br />
to a process model of a <strong>SDI</strong> (Table 2). <strong>Data</strong>base creation was to a large extent the key<br />
driver of the first generation and, as a result, most of these initiatives tended to be data<br />
producer, and often national mapping agency, led. The shift from the product to the<br />
process model is essentially a shift in emphasis from the concerns of data producers to<br />
those of data users.<br />
This shift had profound implications for this involved in <strong>SDI</strong> development in that it has<br />
resulted in data users becoming actively involved in <strong>SDI</strong> development and implementation.<br />
The main driving forces behind the data process model are data sharing and reusing<br />
data collected by a wide range of agencies for a great diversity of purposes at various<br />
times. Also associated with this change in emphasis is a shift from the centralised<br />
structures that characterised most of the first generation of national <strong>SDI</strong>s to the decentralised<br />
and distributed networks that are a basic feature of the WWW.<br />
222<br />
Table 2: Current trends in <strong>SDI</strong> development (Masser, 2005, p. 257).<br />
From a product to a process model From formulation to implementation<br />
From data producers to data users<br />
From database creation to data sharing<br />
From centralised to decentralised structures<br />
From coordination to governance<br />
From single to multilevel participation<br />
From existing to new organisational structures<br />
There has also been a shift in emphasis from <strong>SDI</strong> formulation to implementation as<br />
those involved gained experience of <strong>SDI</strong> implementation and a shift from single level to<br />
multi level participation, often within the context of an administrative hierarchy of <strong>SDI</strong>s.<br />
As a result of these developments the coordination models that had emerged for single<br />
level <strong>SDI</strong>s have been substantially modified and more complex and inclusive models of<br />
governance have emerged. They may also require the creation of new kinds of organisational<br />
structure to facilitate effective <strong>SDI</strong> implementation.<br />
In the last few years there are also signs that a third generation of <strong>SDI</strong>s is emerging.<br />
The most important difference between the second and third generation is that the balance<br />
of power in the latter has shifted from the national to the sub national level (Rajabifard<br />
et al., 2006). Most large-scale land related data is collected at this level where<br />
it is used for collecting land taxes, land use planning, road and infrastructure development,<br />
and day-to-day decision making. Alongside these developments there has been<br />
a shift from government led approaches to whole of industry models where the private<br />
sector operates on the same terms as its government partners. One consequence is<br />
that national <strong>SDI</strong> activities are likely to be increasingly restricted to the strategic level<br />
while most of the operational level decisions are handled at the sub national levels by<br />
local government agencies in conjunction with the private sector.