Interoperating Giss Report of a Specialist Meeting Held under the Auspices of the Varenius Project Panel on Computational Implementations of Geographic Concepts

The rapid development of communication and computing technology is changing the way scientific information is created, disseminated, managed, and used. A new scientific information infrastructure is emerging, one that enables unprecedented access to distributed information resources along with electronic peer to peer communication. Geographic information scientists are likely to be at the forefront of this new infrastructure with the development of globally integrated geospatial digital libraries. These geolibraries promise to boost scientific innovation, productivity, and returns on investment. They also pose technical and organizational interoperability challenges that must be resolved. A research agenda examining the integrated technical and organizational dimensions of interoperability for geographic information is needed. Such research would advance the development of digital libraries, federated databases, and geospatial data infrastructures. Technical and organizational interoperability challenges in geoprocessing The interoperability issues of the geographic information community are both technical and organizational in nature. As defined by Litwin (1990), and paraphrased by the UCGIS: "interoperability generally refers to a bottom-up integration of pre-existing systems and applications that were not intended to be integrated but are systematically combined to address problems that require multiple DBMS and application programs" (UCGIS 1996, p. 1). As the importance of sharing information across organizational computing environments is recognized, data interoperability becomes paramount. Effective communication and transfer of geographic information requires that organizations resolve interoperability of data models and components across organizational boundaries and applications. Organizations have evolved their own systems, legacy databases, and applications to serve internal needs. This has resulted in data models and applications uniquely tailored to meet specific internal requirements. The interoperability of geographic information across systems and platforms is also an organizational issue. Traditionally, government geospatial data suppliers have operated under centralized and hierarchical organizational structures to serve bounded communities of users with unique semantic and conceptual requirements (e.g. military, resource agencies, transportation agencies). This hierarchical framework has resulted in closed, proprietary, and centralized geoprocessing services. Increasingly, however, there is an urgent need to access distributed information from many organizations to address boundary-spanning problems such as: disaster relief, environmental monitoring, interagency coordination, joint force deployment, and provision of integrated geospatial mapping services over the Internet. The need to enable information exchange across between hierarchical tiers and across organizational boundaries calls for a better understanding of intertwined technical and organizational processes.

[1]  P. Burrough,et al.  Variations in vegetation and soil pattern across the Hawkesbury Sandstone plateau from Barren Grounds to Fitzroy Falls, New South Wales , 1977 .

[2]  Michel Callon,et al.  The state and technical innovation: a case study of the electrical vehicle in France☆ , 1980 .

[3]  E. Shils The Constitution Of Society , 1982 .

[4]  S. Barley Technology as an occasion for structuring: evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. , 1986, Administrative science quarterly.

[5]  Nicholas Chrisman,et al.  The accuracy of map overlays: A reassessment , 1987 .

[6]  B. Latour Science in Action , 1987 .

[7]  Lucy Suchman Plans and situated actions: the problem of human-machine communication , 1987 .

[8]  Bertrand Meyer,et al.  Reusability: The Case for Object-Oriented Design , 1987, IEEE Software.

[9]  M. Markus,et al.  Information technology and organizational change: causal structure in theory and research , 1988 .

[10]  Howard Veregin,et al.  Error modeling for the map overlay operation , 1989 .

[11]  B. Latour We Have Never Been Modern , 1991 .

[12]  A. Pickering Science as practice and culture , 1992 .

[13]  Terence R. Smith,et al.  Object-Based Data Model and Deductive Language for Spatio-Temporal Database Applications , 1992 .

[14]  P. Burrough,et al.  FUZZY CLASSIFICATION METHODS FOR DETERMINING LAND SUITABILITY FROM SOIL PROFILE OBSERVATIONS AND TOPOGRAPHY , 1992 .

[15]  Karen K. Kemp Environmental modeling with GIS: A strategy for dealing with spatial continuity (93-3) , 1993 .

[16]  M. Goodchild,et al.  Environmental Modeling with GIS , 1994 .

[17]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory , 1994 .

[18]  John Daniels,et al.  Designing Object Systems , 1994 .

[19]  Jonathan Raper,et al.  Development of a Geomorphological Spatial Model Using Object-Oriented Design , 1995, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[20]  Michael F. Goodchild,et al.  Gis and Environmental Modeling: Progress and Research Issues , 1996 .

[21]  M. Gahegan,et al.  A model to support the integration of image understanding techniques within a GIS , 1996 .

[22]  Karen K. Kemp Fields as a framework for integrating GIS and environmental process models. Part 1: Representing spatial continuity , 1996, Trans. GIS.

[23]  Mark Gahegan,et al.  Specifying the transformations within and between geographic data models , 1996, Trans. GIS.

[24]  Karen K. Kemp Fields as a framework for integrating GIS and environmental process models. Part 2: Specifying field variables , 1996, Trans. GIS.

[25]  Francis Harvey,et al.  From Geographic Holism to Geographic Information System , 1997 .

[26]  John D. Evans Infrastructures for sharing geographic information among environmental agencies , 1997 .

[27]  Francis Harvey Improving Multi-Purpose GIS Design: Participative Design , 1997, COSIT.