A Prototype Internet-Based Geologic Information System for the US

A Prototype Internet-Based Geologic Information System for the US National Park Service

A Prototype Internet-Based Geologic Information System for the US

National Park ServiceA. Keith Turner & Brian Kelk

Click here to start

Table of Contents


Why a Distributed System for NPS?

‘Think Big, Start Small’

Who Will Use the Information?

Assessment of User Requirements

Authors: A. Keith Turner & Brian Kelk

file:///D|/website%20Hack%20itc/esf/esf_1997/presenta/turner/index.html (1 of 2) [12-Nov-05 23:03:45]

mailto:[email protected]





‘Hub and Spoke’ Concept

Major Benefits of Concept

GeoHub/GeoSpokes

GeoSpoke Structure

Summary Specification of Prototype GeoHub/GeoSpoke

Now and Then?

PPT Slide

PPT Slide

PPT Slide

last update: 24-Jul-01 03:58 webmaster: [email protected]

file:///D|/website%20Hack%20itc/esf/esf_1997/presenta/turner/index.html (2 of 2) [12-Nov-05 23:03:45]



Slide 1 of 14

Notes:

file:///D|/website%20Hack%20itc/esf/esf_1997/presenta/turner/sld001.html (1 of 2) [12-Nov-05 23:03:46]


This describes work done in 1996/97 in the Department of Geology and Geological Engineering at the Colorado School of Mines, Golden, USA.

Dr Keith Turner is Professor of Geological Engineering there, and Dr Brian Kelk was a Visiting Professor for most of the time of the project.

Keith Turner is Chairman of the COGEOINFO Working Group on the Societal Uses of Geoscience Information. Brian Kelk is Secretary/Treasurer of COGEOINFO.

COGEOINFO is the IUGS Commission for the Management and Application of Geoscience Information



Slide 2 of 14

Notes:



The NPS is typified by the strong local management of its 300+ dispersed and disparate Parks.

Even though there are disciplinary Divisions, eg Geologic Resources Division and Air Resources Division, the coordination between Parks on a national scale is relatively small.

Each Park necessarily needs access to, and maintains, very different information from its neighbours.

Some Parks are so small that there is virtually no data management.

The quality of information management and resource is not necessarily related to Park size.

Some Parks have only a small, outdated, computer, yet others have GIS groups

Some Parks in 1997 did not have Internet connection.



Slide 3 of 14

Notes:



Early discussions with senior staff of the Geologic Resources Division of the National Park Service emphasized a number of key points:

1. Whatever system was proposed would have to be managed by that Division

2. No new staff could be obtained for data input or system management

3. The implementation would have to be structured in Phases for financial and management purposes.

4. Phase 1 must show a quick benefit in information availability and access

5. The success of each Phase should never be dependant on any later Phase.

Important politically to ‘Think Big’, but start with the achievable, and plan for successively more sophisticated applications. Hence, start with metadata but plan for later remote access to GIS.



Slide 4 of 14

Notes:



Use of the Information system was expected to be dominantly by NPS staff researchers and interpreters (those staff with the responsibility to interpret the science in a manner suitable for the general public)

As the system develops so the use by visitors and external researchers should increase.

With the importance placed in the US upon public access to information about Government organisations, it was necessary to plan for easy access by politicians and senior Government officials to overview information.



Slide 5 of 14

Notes:



Typically, the potential users amongst the NPS staff had little or no experience of modern digital information systems, and therefore found difficulty in describing their needs. This is common to many users of geoscience information, who may well answer such queries in terms of existing geoscience products. Eg, when needing information on aggregate resources, they ask for a digital general geologic map, because that is what THEY THINK will be available.

It was necessary therefore to build a ‘digital demonstrator’ of what the information system might be. This was then used in a USER REQUIREMENT ASSESSMENT to guide the potential users through the possibilities and help them define their needs.

One major point identified at an early stage was the need to link to, and make maximum use of the majority of existing geological databases and systems in those Parks, Divisions or Information Centers that had spent time developing them.



Slide 6 of 14

Notes:



From an understanding of the operation of the NPS, and the findings of the User Requirement study, it was clear that:

1. The individuality and autonomy of each Park must be respected within the Geologic Information System

2. Progress on the Information System would depend on each Park ‘buying into’ the project. It could not be enforced from the top.

3. Improved access to locally-held information would greatly benefit the operations of the NPS and enhance its external scientific reputation.

The existing, locally developed and maintained information systems at the individual park units may be likened to a series of dispersed resources that are loosely connected to each other, forming a disconnected ring or circle as at the rim of a wheel. To make these resources generally useful, rather than limited to the immediate clientele, it is necessary to develop ‘spokes’ for communication and a ‘hub’ for maintenance and querying of the general index, general communication outside, and overall coordination. In this way, all the excellent, though mostly uncoordinated work at the “rim” will be unchanged, but incorporated into a total NPS Geologic Information System



Slide 7 of 14

file:///D|/website%20Hack%20itc/esf/esf_1997/presenta/turner/sld007.html [12-Nov-05 23:03:48]

GeoHub/GeoSpokes

Slide 8 of 14


GeoSpoke Structure

Slide 9 of 14



Slide 10 of 14


Now and Then?

Slide 11 of 14

Notes:


Now and Then?

The prototype is limited in the number of local centers (‘Spokes’) it can accommodate by the use of Access. Currently that limit is about 12 Parks.

Dependant on the outcome of the prototype trials, an expansion upto 300+ parks is feasible with a change in architecture. By that time it is expected that the technology for remote interactive access to GIS systems will be sufficiently robust and generally available to be incorporated.

The next slides give some impression of that new, remotely interactive, Web-based GIS technology.


PPT Slide

Slide 12 of 14


PPT Slide

Slide 13 of 14


file:///D|/website%20Hack%20itc/esf/esf_1997/presenta/turner/sld014.html

Slide 14 of 14

Notes:


file:///D|/website%20Hack%20itc/esf/esf_1997/presenta/turner/sld014.html

This is the bedrock geology.

Such sites are limited at the moment but do indicate the exciting future possibilities.


PPT Slide

PPT Slide

Previous slide Back to first slide View graphic version

Notes:

This is the bedrock geology.

Such sites are limited at the moment but do indicate the exciting future possibilities.

file:///D|/website%20Hack%20itc/esf/esf_1997/presenta/turner/tsld014.html [12-Nov-05 23:03:55]

PPT Slide

PPT Slide

Previous slide Next slide Back to first slide View graphic version


PPT Slide

PPT Slide



Now and Then?

Now and Then?

● NOW at prototype testing phase

● LATER:

❍ change architecture from WAN to N-tier application ❍ expand number of ‘spokes’ ❍ access to REAL data through a Web browser ❍ provision to interact with local GIS systems through Web browser


Notes:

file:///D|/website%20Hack%20itc/esf/esf_1997/presenta/turner/tsld011.html (1 of 2) [12-Nov-05 23:03:56]

Now and Then?

The prototype is limited in the number of local centers (‘Spokes’) it can accommodate by the use of Access. Currently that limit is about 12 Parks.

Dependant on the outcome of the prototype trials, an expansion upto 300+ parks is feasible with a change in architecture. By that time it is expected that the technology for remote interactive access to GIS systems will be sufficiently robust and generally available to be incorporated.

The next slides give some impression of that new, remotely interactive, Web-based GIS technology.




● Client-server db application used over a WAN with automatic access to its data on the WWW

● Metadata only at this stage

● Identical information structures at Spoke and Hub

● Data input locally: screens form part of GeoSpoke

● Existing tables/text imported directly

● Transmission of data (over WWW) from Geospoke to GeoHub is responsibility - and decision - of local (‘spoke’) manager





GeoSpoke Structure

GeoSpoke Structure2D

3D

Thematic layers, eg

● co-ordinate system

● hydrography

● surface geology

● well/resource locations

Internet / Non-NPS Data Locations

NPS site data

● Printed material

● images

● specimen collections file:///D|/website%20Hack%20itc/esf/esf_1997/presenta/turner/tsld009.html (1 of 2) [12-Nov-05 23:03:56]

GeoSpoke Structure

● digital files

GEOSPOKE DATA INDEX

GIS views



file:///D|/website%20Hack%20itc/esf/esf_1997/presenta/turner/tsld008.html

GeoHub/GeoSpokesTIC

GRD

MEVE

REDW

?

?

ARD

I &M

GEOHUB

Individual Parks etc “GeoSpokes”







● Make the dispersed resources generally useful, not just available locally

● Do not change existing excellent local work

● Incorporate wide variety of operations into a total NPS Geologic Information System

● Local managers in charge of own data

● Development easily phased & rapid benefits

● No major additional staff requirement







● Necessary to maintain local individuality and services

● Develop a ‘Hub’ for maintenance and querying

● Develop ‘Spokes’ for communication from/to individual parks & information sources


Notes:

From an understanding of the operation of the NPS, and the findings of the User Requirement study, it was clear



that:

1. The individuality and autonomy of each Park must be respected within the Geologic Information System

2. Progress on the Information System would depend on each Park ‘buying into’the project. It could not be enforced from the top.

3. Improved access to locally-held information would greatly benefit the operations of the NPS and enhance its external scientific reputation.

The existing, locally developed and maintained information systems at the individual park units may be likened to a series of dispersed resources that are loosely connected to each other, forming a disconnected ring or circle as at the rim of a wheel. To make these resources generally useful, rather than limited to the immediate clientele, it is necessary to develop ‘spokes’for communication and a ‘hub’for maintenance and querying of the general index, general communication outside, and overall coordination. In this way, all the excellent, though mostly uncoordinated work at the “rim”will be unchanged, but incorporated into a total NPS Geologic Information System




● Most NPS staff had little experience of modern digital information systems

● ‘Digital Demonstrator’ built to aid potential users define their needs

● Any new system should link to, and make maximum use of, existing geologic databases and systems


Notes:



Typically, the potential users amongst the NPS staff had little or no experience of modern digital information systems, and therefore found difficulty in describing their needs. This is common to many users of geoscience information, who may well answer such queries in terms of existing geoscience products. Eg, when needing information on aggregate resources, they ask for a digital general geologic map, because that is what THEY THINK will be available.

It was necessary therefore to build a ‘digital demonstrator’of what the information system might be. This was then used in a USER REQUIREMENT ASSESSMENT to guide the potential users through the possibilities and help them define their needs.

One major point identified at an early stage was the need to link to, and make maximum use of the majority of existing geological databases and systems in those Parks, Divisions or Information Centers that had spent time developing them.




● Potential users:

❍ Park Superintendents ❍ Resource Managers ❍ Researchers (NPS staff, academics and others) ❍ Interpreters (interpret science for visitors) ❍ Visitors ❍ Politicians and Senior NPS staff


Notes:

Use of the Information system was expected to be dominantly by NPS staff researchers and interpreters (those staff



with the responsibility to interpret the science in a manner suitable for the general public)

As the system develops so the use by visitors and external researchers should increase.

With the importance placed in the US upon public access to information about Government organisations, it was necessary to plan for easy access by politicians and senior Government officials to overview information.




● No spare staff to man a big new system

● No easily identified source of new money

● Structure project in phases so even Phase 1 shows an improvement in information flow

● Each successive phase dependant only on predecessor

● Start with metadata: allow for later remote interactive access, even to GIS.




Notes:

Early discussions with senior staff of the Geologic Resources Division of the National Park Service emphasized a number of key points:

1. Whatever system was proposed would have to be managed by that Division

2. No new staff could be obtained for data input or system management

3. The implementation would have to be structured in Phases for financial and management purposes.

4. Phase 1 must show a quick benefit in information availability and access

5. The success of each Phase should never be dependant on any later Phase.

Important politically to ‘Think Big’, but start with the achievable, and plan for successively more sophisticated applications. Hence, start with metadata but plan for later remote access to GIS.




● Over 300 disparate and dispersed Parks

● National Park Service (NPS) typified by autonomy of individual Parks

● Little coordination between Parks

● Different information from Park to Park

● Wide range in quality of data organization, computers and communications

● Wide range in use of computer technology




Notes:

The NPS is typified by the strong local management of its 300+ dispersed and disparate Parks.

Even though there are disciplinary Divisions, eg Geologic Resources Division and Air Resources Division, the coordination between Parks on a national scale is relatively small.

Each Park necessarily needs access to, and maintains, very different information from its neighbours.

Some Parks are so small that there is virtually no data management.

The quality of information management and resource is not necessarily related to Park size.

Some Parks have only a small, outdated, computer, yet others have GIS groups

Some Parks in 1997 did not have Internet connection. file:///D|/website%20Hack%20itc/esf/esf_1997/presenta/turner/tsld002.html (2 of 2) [12-Nov-05 23:03:58]



A. Keith Turner & Brian Kelk

IUGS/COGEOINFO

Next slide Back to first slide View graphic version

Notes:

This describes work done in 1996/97 in the Department of Geology and Geological Engineering at the Colorado



School of Mines, Golden, USA.

Dr Keith Turner is Professor of Geological Engineering there, and Dr Brian Kelk was a Visiting Professor for most of the time of the project.

Keith Turner is Chairman of the COGEOINFO Working Group on the Societal Uses of Geoscience Information. Brian Kelk is Secretary/Treasurer of COGEOINFO.

COGEOINFO is the IUGS Commission for the Management and Application of Geoscience Information


Documents

A Prototype Internet-Based Geologic Information System for the US