SUMMARY When the current situation in the rural areas of the EU is considered, it is a fact that there are two separated spatial data bases; Land Administration Systems (LASs) and Integrated Administration and Control Systems/Land Parcel Identification Systems (IACS/LPISs). They may handle different aspects of the rural land and population, but their target objects–rural land and population–are the same. This situation may be caused by varying scopes of LASs throughout the European Union (EU). This study is aimed at analyzing a number of solutions to the problem of different, but related systems. For this purpose, the two extreme alternatives are discussed. As the first alternative a theoretical approach is introduced as an ideal system. In this case, in a LAS-land parcel, different land use types can be represented as sub-parcels. However, due to the fact that the current systems are far from this theoretical approach, a more practical approach is also introduced. In this approach, a case study (in two different case study areas) in the Netherlands is carried out with a focus on the extent to which the geometry between the two systems is shared (or at least strongly related). In addition to that, the extent to which the administrative information content of the two business processes is shared is also analyzed at an EU wide generic level. Considering the theoretical and the practical extreme, three main alternatives are introduced. The first one is full integration. In this case (1), the two systems operate as one integrated system using different objects and different attributes. This case is theoretically applicable for the systems designed from scratch. For the legacy systems, which are already in operation, separated systems with or without information share are respectively introduced as second and third choices: (2) separate systems, but sharing their content via the Spatial Information Infrastructure (SII), and (3) separate systems, not sharing information, but having similarities in system architecture and functionality based on a (shared) Model Driven Architecture (MDA) approach (with even shared model patterns at a generic level). In all cases, the problem of how to increase the level of collaboration is discussed. The discussion on the desired level of collaboration between the two systems are also extended considering ISO's standardization initiatives in the area of Land Administration Domain Model (LADM), work on data specifications as part of INSPIRE – a standardized SDI initiative for the EU, and the usage of the MDA approach for system design.
[1]
Jerónimo Mirón Pérez,et al.
CADASTRE AND THE REFORM OF EUROPEAN UNION’S COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SIGPAC (1)
,
2005
.
[2]
P.J.M. van Oosterom,et al.
Version 1.0 of the FIG core cadastral domain model
,
2006
.
[3]
P. van der Molen.
Property rights, land registration and cadastre in the European union
,
2002
.
[4]
Peter van Oosterom,et al.
The Model Driven Architecture Approach Applied to the Land Administration Domain Model Version 1.1 - with Focus on Constraints Specified in the Object Constraint Language
,
2008
.
[5]
Jantien E. Stoter,et al.
The core cadastral domain model
,
2006,
Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..