PDF

Al-Shahrani, Abdullah M.R.
(2002) Towards the

development of a strategy for a national spatial data
infrastructure. PhD thesis, University of Nottingham.
Access from the University of Nottingham repository:

http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/11010/1/246903.pdf
Copyright and reuse:
The Nottingham ePrints service makes this work by researchers of the University of
Nottingham available open access under the following conditions.
This article is made available under the University of Nottingham End User licence and may
be reused according to the conditions of the licence. For more details see:
http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/end_user_agreement.pdf
For more information, please contact [email protected]

Towards the Development of a
Strategy for a National Spatial
Data Infrastructure
ý/ýý
A"
"'S
By
ABDULLAH M. R. AL-SHAHRANI
A thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham
for the degreeof
Doctor of Philosophy
May, 2002
tÜ1VERSITY
Towards the Development of a
Strategy for a National Spatial
Data Infrastructure
''.
ý
_.. ,ý ,_
ýr'lýa=: '. f
ltv
By
ABDULLAH M. R. AL-SHAHRANI
A thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham
for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
May, 2002
LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY
NOTTINGHAM
Dedication Towards the Development of a Strategy for an NSDI
DEDICATION
DEDICATED WITH GREAT LOVE, THOUGHTS AND
PRAYERS TO MY FATHER, WHO PASSED AWAY ON
SUNDAY 12TH SEPTEMBER 1999 (2/6/1420H),
DURING THE FIRST YEAR OF THIS STUDY AND TO
MY MOTHER, WHO PASSED AWAY ON THURSDAY
18T" FEBRUARY 1993 (27/8/1413H). MAY ALLAH
BLESS THEM BOTH.
ALSO DEDICATED WITH LOVE AND GRATITUDE TO
MY WIFE AND CHILDREN.
11
Acknowledgements Towards the Development of a Strategy for an NSDI
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, I would like to express my deep and sincere gratitude, appreciation and thanks to
HRH Prince Sultan Bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, Second deputy premiere and Minister of
Defence and Aviation, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, for approving my scholarship and
giving me the honour and opportunity to study for my PhD.
I also would like to express my deep appreciation and thanks to the organisations and
individuals who gave their time to help, advice and support this research project, resulting
in this thesis.
I am deeply indebted and grateful to Dr Michael J. McCullagh, who supervised this
research project. His professionalism, dedication, and enthusiasm were a major factor in
the successful completion of this work. As the research progressed, he was always
available to review my work and offer valuable guidance, insight, critical comments, and
advice. His scientific and technical contribution was unlimited.
I am also deeply indebted, grateful and appreciative to General Saleh A. Al-Mohayya, the
chief of staff, Saudi Armed Forces and Lt. General// Dr All M. Al-Khalifah, general
manager of HRH Prince Sultan Bin Abduaziz's office, for their effort, help and support
during the process of my scholarship and my study.
I extend my deep and warm thanks and appreciation to Lt. General Morayyea H.
Al-Shahrani, President of the General Commission for Survey and Mapping (GCSM) in
Riyadh, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Major General Engineer Khalaf A. Al-Haidi,
Deputy President of GCSM for their follow up, help and support throughout the whole
period of my study. Also, I would like to thank all my colleagues at the General
Commission for Survey and Mapping (GCSM) for their questions, help, and support.
My thanks and gratitude go to his Excellency Dr Ghazi Al-Gosaibi, Ambassador of the

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the United Kingdom, for maintaining the social and cultural
activities of Saudi life for the four years I have been living in the UK, and also particularly
for extending an invitation to both Saudi students and their British supervisors to the
Ui
Acknowledgements Towards the Development of a Strategy for an NSDI
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's National Day celebrations at the Embassy. Moreover, I would
like to thank all the embassy staff for their support and helpful enquiries about the progress
of my study.
I also extend my thanks and appreciation to Major General Abdulaziz Al-Abaykan, the
Saudi Military attache in the United Kingdom and all his staff, for their follow up, help and
support during my study.
My special thanks to Lt. Col. Engineer Mohammed Dalbouh, Capt. Engineer Eid Al-
Mutairi and Mr Mubarak Al-Mossen from the GCSM, Riyadh who had the burden of
administering the survey questionnaire and following up the responses.

I am very grateful and appreciative to all ministries and organisations that participated by
answering my questionnaire. Deep thanks go to those individuals who completed the
questionnaire for their expressions of encouragement and valuable comments and
suggestions.
My thanks go to Dr Cliff Kottman, Vice president of OGC, USA, Dr Mohammed Mustafa

Radwan, the International Institute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Sciences (ITC),
Enschede, the Netherlands, Mr Douglas Nebert, United States FGDC, NSDI Clearinghouse
co-coordinator, USGS, for sharing with me their experiences in various fields and aspects
of spatial data infrastructure and providing me with the appropriate documents.
Last but not least, I

would like to thank my wife, sons and daughters for their love,
understanding and support at all times and for helping me with some of the typing of this
thesis.
To those whose contributions I have forgotten to mention here due to failure of memory,
please accept my apologies and my thanks and appreciation.
iv
Tableof Contents Towardsthe Developmentof a Strategyfor an NSDI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgement iii
Table of Contents v
List of Figures ziii
List of tables zvi
List of abbreviations avii
Abstract ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ xxvii
CHAPTER 1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1
1.2 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK 2
1.2.1 Definitions 2
1.2.1.1 What is a Map? 2
1.2.1.2 What is Spatial Data? 3
1.2.1.3 What is a Geographic Information System (GIS)? 4
1.2.1.4 What is a Spatial Data Infrastructure? 6
1.2.2 Brief Historical Background 7
of SDI
1.2.2.1 Spatial Date Infrastructure Components 7
1.2.3 Problems Researching a New field 8
1.2.4 Research Structure 9
1.2.4.1PhaseOne 10
1.2.4.2PhaseTwo 11
1.2.4.3PhaseThree--- 11
1.3 CONCLUDING REMARKS 12
CHAPTER 2 SPATIAL DATA SHARING

2.1 INTRODUCTION 13
2.1.1 Definition 14
2.2 SPATIAL DATA SHARING PERSPECTIVES 14
2.2.1 Objectives 15
2.2.2 Benefits of Spatial Data sharing 16
2.2.3 Barriers to Spatial Data Sharing 17
2.2.3.1 Organisational Perspective 17
2.2.3.2 System Perspective 18
2.2.3.3 Spatial Data Modelling Perspectives 18
2.2.4 Spatial Database Heterogeneity 20
2.2.4.1 Semantic Heterogeneity 22
2.2.4.1.1 Situations Leading to Semantic Conflicts 24
2.2.4.2 Syntactic Heterogeneity 25
2.2.4.3 Schematic Heterogeneity 27
2.3 METHODS OF RESOLVING HETEROGENEITY PROBLEMS 29
2.3.1 Shared Schema and No Context Mediation 30

2.3.2 No Shared Schema and With Context Mediation 30
2.3.3 No Shared Schema and No Context Mediation 31
2.3.4 The OGC Solutions 32
CHAPTER 3 SPATIAL DATA STANDARDS

3.1 INTRODUCTION 34
3.1.1 Definition 34
3.2 EVOLUTION OF STANDARDS

35
3.2.1 Historical Background 35
------------- ------ --------------- _------------------
3.2.2 Categories of Spatial data Standards 37
------------------ ------
3.2.2.1SpatialData TransferStandards 38
-------------------------------------
3.2.2.1.1 Direct Data Conversion Among Systems 38
-------------- -----------
3.2.2.1.2 Common Spatial Data Exchange Standards 40
3.2.2.1.3 Classification of Transfer Standards 42
3.2.2.2 Reference System 43
3.2.2.3Data Model 43
3.2.2.4Data Dictionary -- --------- 44
3.2.2.5Data Quality 44
3.2.2.5.1 Spatial Data Quality Characteristics 45
3.2.2.5.1.1Lineage 45
3.2.2.5.1.2 Positional Accuracy --------- 45
3.2.2.5.1.3Attribute Accuracy 46
3.2.2.5.1.4TemporalAccuracy 46
3.2.2.5.1.5 Logical Consistency 46
-----
3.2.2.5.1.6Completeness---- 47
Table of Contents Towards the Development ofa Strategyfor an NSDI
3.2.2.6 Metadata - 47
--------- ----------------
3.2.2.6.1 Metadata Standards 47
-
3.3 STANDARDISATION INITIATIVES 48
3.3.1 National Standards Initiatives 49

3.3.1.1The U. S. SpatialData TransferStandard 49
3.3.1.1.1 The organisation and structuring of digital spatial data 50
3.3.1.1.2 Implementing SDTS thought profiles 50
3.3.2 International Standards Initiatives 51
3.3.2.1 International Organisation for Standardisation 51
3.3.2.1.1ISO/TC 211 GeographicInformation/Geomatics 52
3.3.2.1.1.1 The Aim of ISO/TC 211 52
3.3.2.1.1.2 The ISO/TC 211 Working Groups 53
3.3.2.2CEN/TC 287 54
3.3.2.3 DGIWG 55
3.3.2.4IHO - 56
3.3.3 Summary of Standardisation Initiatives 57
3.3.4 Comparison of Standards 59
CHAPTER 4 CURRENT STATUS OF

MAPPING ACTIVITIES IN THE
KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA
4.1 INTRODUCTION 64
4.1.1 The Goal of the Survey Questionnaire 65

4.1.2 Clarification 65
4.1.3 The Invited Ministries and Organisations 65
4.1.4 The Participants 66
4.1.5 How fully was the questionnaire answered? 68
4.2 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS 69
4.2.1 Section 1: Filtering Introduction 69

4.2.2 Section 2: Digital Products 70
4.2.3 Section 3: Geographic Information Systems 74
4.2.4 Section 4: Conventional Maps 76
4.2.5 Section 5: Users' Needs and Requirements 78
4.2.6 Section 6: Geographic Information Exchange 79
4.2.7 Section 7: The Development of a Strategy for a National Spatial
Data Infrastructure in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia -- 82
vii
Table of Contents Towards the Development of a Strategyfor an NSDI
CHAPTER 5 COMPUTER NETWORK AND

WEB MAPPING SERVICES
5.1 INTRODUCTION 86
--
5.1.1 Definition 87
5.2 NETWORK COMPONENTS AND ARCHITECTURE - 88
5.2.1 Types of Networks ---- ---- ---- -- 88

5.2.1.1 Local Area Networks (LAN) - ----- 89
5.2.1.2Wide Area Networks (WAN) 89
5.2.1.3 The Internet Network 89
5.2.2 Protocols --- 91
---
5.2.2.1The Open-SystemInterconnectSeven-LayerModel 91
5.2.2.2 The Transmission Control Protocol and Internet
Protocol (TCP/IP) 94
5.2.2.2.1Network Accesslayer 95
5.2.2.2.2Internetlayer 96
5.2.2.2.3Host-to-Hostlayer 96
5.2.2.2.4 Process/Application layer 96
5.3 SERVERS 97
5.3.1 Types of server 97

-
5.3.1.1 Internet Server 97
5.3.1.2 Map Server 98
5.3.1.3 Web Feature Server 98
5.3.1.4 Other Specialised Servers Emerging From OGC 99
5.3.2 Client-Server ------ 99
5.3.2.1 Client-Server Architecture 100
5.3.2.1.1 One-Tier Architecture ------- 100
5.3.2.1.2 Two-Tier Architecture 100
5.3.2.1.3Three-TierArchitecture 101
5.4 THE INTERNET 102
5.4.1 What is the Internet and who owns it? 103

5.4.2 Internet services 104
5.4.2.1The World Wide Web 104
5.4.2.2Electronic Mail (E-Mail) 105
5.4.2.3 File Transfer Protocol ---- 106
5.4.2.4 The Telnet Protocol 106
5.4.2.5 Information Searching 107
vii'
Tableof Contents Towardsthe Developmentof a Strategyfor an NSD!
5.5 INTERNET-BASED GIS 109
5.5.1 Internet Services for GIS --------- 109

5.5.1.1Raw Data Download 110
5.5.1.2MetadataSearch 110
5.5.1.3 Map and Image display 110
5.5.1.3.1Static map display 111
5.5.1.3.2 Dynamic map browser 111
5.5.1.3.3ImageDisplay 111
5.5.1.4Web-BasedSpatialQueryandAnalysis 112
5.5.1.5 Building GIS on the Internet 112
5.5.2 Technologies Supporting Internet-Based GIS- - 113
5.5.2.1 Common Gateway Interface (CGI ) ---------- ----- 114
5.5.2.2 Application Programming Interface (API) 114
5.5.2.3GIS plug-ins - 115
5.5.2.4GIS Helper programs 115
5.5.2.5 Microsoft Active X 116
5.5.2.6 Java - 116
5.5.2.7The OpenGISConsortium(OGC) 117
5.5.2.8 Other Commercial Tools For Internet-Based GIS --- 119
5.5.2.8.1Intergraph 120
5.5.2.8.2 ESRI 121
5.5.2.8.3Maplnfo - 123
-- 123
5.5.2.8.4 AutoDesk
5.6 INTERNET SECURITY 124
5.6.1 What is Internet Security? 125

5.6.2 Security Measures 126
5.6.3 Firewalls 126
5.6.4 Encryption 129
5.6.5 Authentication 130
5.6.6 Virtual Private Networks 130
--------- --
5.6.7 Computer Anti Virus 131
CHAPTER 6 THE SEARCH FOR A SPATIAL

DATA CLEARINGHOUSE
MODEL
6.1 INTRODUCTION 134
6.2 THE CLEARINGHOUSE 135
136
6.3 INITIATIVES
ix
6.3.1 Africa 137

6.3.1.1 Kenya ------- 137
6.3.1.2Ghana 137
6.3.1.3 The Southern African Development Community --------- 137
6.3.1.4SouthAfrica 138
6.3.2 The Asia-Pacific Region 139
6.3.2.1SouthKorea 139
6.3.2.2 Japan 140
----
6.3.2.3Malaysia 141
6.3.2.4The PCGIAP 142
6.3.2.4.1 The PCGIAP Structure 142
6.3.2.4.2 The Asia and Pacific Spatial Data Infrastructure 144
6.3.2.5 Australia and New Zealand 144
6.3.2.5.1The ANZLIC 145
6.3.2.5.2 The Australian Spatial Data Infrastructure 146
6.3.2.5.3 The Australian Spatial Data Directory 147
6.3.3 Europe - 149
6.3.3.1 EUROGI 149
6.3.3.2 The European Spatial Metadata Infrastructure 150
6.3.3.3Portugal 150
---------------- 151
6.3.3.4The Netherlands
6.3.3.4.1 Rave's Main Activities 152
6.3.3.4.2 The Main Digital Spatial Data For The NGII -- 153
6.3.3.4.3 The National Clearinghouse for Geographic Information 153
6.3.3.4.4The main componentsof the NCGI -- - 154
6.3.3.5The United Kingdom 155
6.3.3.5.1 Initiatives 155
6.3.3.5.2 The National Geospatial Data Framework 157
--
6.3.3.5.2.1 What is NGDF? 158
6.3.3.5.2.2 NGDF Structure 158
6.3.3.5.2.3 Progress of NGDF 159
6.3.3.5.2.4 NGDF Activities 160
1. Metadata Service 160
2. The United Kingdom Standard Geographic Base 161
6.3.3.5.3 The Charter of the UK Strategic Alliance 161
-
6.3.4 South and North America 162
6.3.4.1Colombia 162
6.3.4.2Uruguay- 163
6.3.4.3Canada 164
6.3.4.3.1 The Canadian Initiatives 165
--- -----ý---
6.3.4.3.1.1The Delta-X System 165
6.3.4.3.1.2The MercatorAlliance 167
1. Mercator I ---- -- 167
2. Mercator II Project 169
3. Mercator III Project --- 169
6.3.4.3.2The CanadianGeospatialData Infrastructure 170
6.3.4.4The United Statesof America 172
6.3.4.4.1 Initiatives and Background 173
6.3.4.4.2 The Federal Geographic Data Committee 175
6.3.4.4.3 National Spatial Data Infrastructure Components 176
6.3.4.4.4 The Clearinghouse Concept and Architecture 178
6.3.4.4.5 Summary 181
X
Table of Contents Towardsthe Developmentof a Strategyfor an NSDI
6.3.5 The Global Spatial Data Infrastructure 182

6.3.5.1 What is GSDI? -- 182
6.3.5.2 The Aim of GSDI 183
6.3.5.3The GSDI ManagementArchitecture 184
6.3.5.4 The potential GSDI spatial data providers and users 184
CHAPTER 7 PROPOSAL FOR A SAUDI

NATIONAL SPATIAL DATA
INFRASTRUCTURE (SNSDI)
7.1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUN 189
7.1.1 Justification for Saudi NSDI 192
7.2 SNSDI COMPONENTS 193
7.2.1 Institutional Framework 194

7.2.1.1 Royal Decree 194
7.2.1.2 National Committee for Geographic Information 195
7.2.1.2.1 Implementation of RCGI- 196
7.2.1.2.2Membershipof the RCGI 196
7.2.1.3 Organisational Framework 198
7.2.1.3.1 Background - 198
7.2.1.3.2 General Commission for Survey and Mapping 199
7.2.1.3.3 Human Resource Development 202
7.2.1.3.3.1 Central Survey and Mapping Training Institute 202
7.2.1.3.3.2 Role of Universities and Other Training Institutions 204
7.2.1.3.3.3 Role of Research and Development 204
7.2.1.3.4 Financial Resources 205
7.2.1.3.5 Contracting and Procurements 205
7.2.1.4 National Spatial Data Policy Document 206
7.2.1.5 SNSDI Development Office and SNSDI Management Board 207
7.2.1.6 Spatial Data User/Producer Community 209
7.2.1.6.1 User/Producer Interfaces to GCSM 211
7.2.2 Fundamental Spatial Data Sets -- 213
7.2.3 Spatial Data Standards 215
7.2.4 Technical Framework 216
7.2.4.1 Saudi National Spatial Data Clearinghouse Architecture 216
7.2.5 An Alternative Model for the SNSDI Institutional Framework 222
xi
Table of Contents Towards the Development of a Strategy for an NSDI
7.3 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND INPLEMEMTATION PHASES ----- 225
7.3.1 SNSDI System Development 225

7.3.1.1ConceptPhase 225
7.3.1.2 Design Phase 226
7.3.1.3 Implementation Phase 227
7.3.1.4 Operation Phase 229
7.3.2 SNSDI Security Policy 230
CHAPTER 8 FINAL SUMMARY AND

CONCLUDING REMARKS
8.1 INTRODUCTION 233
8.2 MAJOR FINDINGS AND SUMMARIES 234
8.2.1 Worldwide efforts 235

8.2.2 Saudi NSDI 237
8.2.3 Final Note 241
8.3 FUTURE WORK 241
REFERENCES 243
ANNEXES 257
Annex I- 258
Annex 11 281
xii
List of Figures Towards the Development of a Strategy for an NSDI
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures Page
Figure 1-1 Geographic Information System (GIS) conceptual framework. 5
Figure 1-2 The structure of a national spatial data infrastructure. 8
Figure 1-3 The research structure. 10
Figure 2-1 U. S. national spatial data infrastructure components-system

14
perspective.
Figure 2-2 Differences in geometric representation due to differences in context. 19
Figure 2-3 Two basic structures for spatial data. 20
Figure 2-4 Exampleof a heterogeneous

databasesystem. 21
Figure 2-5 Raster map and raster topology source. 26
Figure 2-6 Data structure for vector map. 26
Figure 2-7 Possible situations for conflict in data representation. 27
Figure 2-8 Conceptual schemas of two applications. 28
Figure 2-9 Maintaining semantics at two

contexts by mapping between their
29
schemes.
Figure 2-10 Architecture of shared schema and no context mediation. 30
Figure 2-11 Architecture of no shared schema and with context mediation. 31
Figure 2-12 Architecture of no shared schema and no context mediation. 31
Figure 3-1 Categories of spatial data standards. 37
Figure 3-2 Transfer of spatial data using direct data conversion. 39
Figure 3-3 A common transfer format. 40
Figure 3-4 The role of data transfer standards. 41
Figure 3-5 The range of databasetransfer process. 42
Xlii
Figure 5-1 General concept of the main components of the Internet network
90
infrastructure.
Figure 5-2 Reference model for OSI-ISO. 92
Figure 5-3 The TCP/IP architectural model. 95
Figure 5-4 Client-server concept model. 99
Figure 5-5 General concept of the three types of tiers architecture. 101
Figure 5-6 Telnet architecture. 107
Figure 5-7 Typical system architecture for Internet-based GIS. 113
Figure 5-8 OpenGIS Consortium vision for spatial data connectivity. 118
Figure 5-9 GeoMedia web map architecture. 121
Figure 5-10 ArcIMS web map architecture. 122
Figure 5-11 AutoDesk three-tier client server architecture. 124
Figure 5-12 Firewall usedin three-tierarchitecture. 127
Figure 6-1 An approximate conceptual model for the ASDD system architecture. 148
Figure 6-2 ANZLIC page concept. 149
Figure 6-3 Conceptual model for the NCGI system architecture. 154
Figure 6-4 The Architecture of Delta-X system. 166
Figure 6-5 The Delta-X server. 166
Figure 6-6 CGDI as supporting decision-making for 170
sustainable development.
Figure 6-7 The complete CGDI. 172
Figure 6-8 Relationship diagrams of the essential activities of the NSDI in

177
the USA.
Figure 6-9 The U. S. national spatial data clearinghouse architecture. 181
Figure 6-10 GSDI relationships. 183
Figure 7-1 King Abdulaziz's long and hard trip from Kuwait to Riyadh. 190
Figure 7-2 The strategic location of Saudi Arabia. 191
Figure 7-3 NCGI structure. 197
xiv
Figure 7-4 The General Commission for Survey and Mapping (GCSM) main
200
components.
Figure 7-5 Saudi national spatial data collection and production framework. 201
Figure 7-6 Structure of the Saudi NSDI development office. 208
Figure 7-7 The user/producer perspective. 210
Figure 7-8 The user/producer interface with GCSM. 211
Figure 7-9 A model for Saudi national interoperable spatial data environment. 214
Figure 7-10 General concept of the Saudi National Spatial Data Network
217
(SNSDN).
Figure 7-11 General concept of three-tier architecture for the SNSDI. 218
Figure 7-12 A conceptual model for the Saudi national spatial data clearinghouse. 220
Figure7-13 Spatial data co-ordination and integration. 224
Figure 7-14 Summaryof the SaudiNSDI components. 224

Figure 7-15 The Saudi NSDI system development and management phases. 229
Figure 8-1 The structure and interrelations of the eight chapters and two annexes. 234
xv
List of Tables Towardsthe Developmentof a Strategyfor an NSDI
LIST OF TABLES
Tables Page
Table 2-1 Semantic conflicts occur due to context definition, example 1. 23
Table 2-2 Semantic conflicts occur due to context definition, example 2. 25
Table 3-1 Comparison between translators and transfer standards. 41
Table 3-2 ISO/TC 211 family of standards. 54
Table 3-3 Spatial data transfer standards. 58
Table 3-4 Basic characteristic features of some national and international 61

standards.
Table 4-1 Ministries and Organisations that received a copy of the questionnaire. 66
Table 4-2 Participants 67
Table 4-3 The total number of questions in each section and how many 68
respondents.
Table 4-4 The respondents in each section and language used to answer the 68
questionnaire.
Table 5-1 Identification of Protocol Layers Defined by CCITT Standards X. 21

as
94
andX. 25 for the OSI-ISO.
Table 6-1 Member nations of the Permanent Committee. 143
Table 7-1 Recommended members of the NCGI. 197
xvi
Abbreviations Towardsthe Developmentof a Strategyfor an NSDI
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Meaning
ACM Association for Computing Machinery
ACOA Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
ADRG Arc Digitised Raster Graphics
ADA Ar Riyadh Development Authority (KSA)
ACSM American Congress on Surveying and Mapping
AES Advanced Encryption Standards
AGI Association of Geographic Information (UK)
ALIC Australian Land Information Council

ANSI AmericanNational StandardsInstitute
ANZLIC Australia New Zealand Land Information Council
API Application Programming Interface
APSDI Asia and Pacific Spatial Data Infrastructure
ArcIMS Arc Internet Mapping System
ARPANet Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (US)
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASCII American Standard Code for Information Interchange
ASDI Australian Spatial Data Infrastructure
A/NZ Australia and New Zealand
ASP Application Service Provider
ASPRS American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing
BGS British Geological Survey (UK)
BIIF Basis Image Interchange Format
BSI British Standards Institute
BSC Binary Synchronous Communications
CAD Computer Aided Design
CADRG Common Arc Digitised Raster Graphics
xvii
Abbreviations Towards the Development of a Strategy for an NSDI
CAnadian Network for the Advancement of Research, Industry and

CANARIE
Education Inc
CCITT Consultative Committee on International Telegraphy and Telephony
CCMC Canadian Centre for Marine Communications
CCSM Canadian Council on Surveying and Mapping
CD-ROM Compact Disk Read Only Memory
CEN Comite Europeen de Normalisation
CIB Controlled Image Base
CIRI Centre International de Recherche en Infographie (Canada)
CGDI Canadian Geospatial Data Infrastructure
CGI Common Gateway Interface
CGM Computer Graphics Metafile
CHS CanadianHydrographicService
CNDG Clearinghouse Nacional de Datos Geograficos (Uruguay)
CNIG Centro Nacional de Informacäo Geogrdfica (Portugal)
CPU Central Processing Unit
CSD Civilian Survey Department (KSA)

CSDC Commonwealth Spatial Data Committee (A/NZ)
CSDGM Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata (US/ISO)
CSMA/CD Carrier SenseMultiple Access/Collision Detection
CSMTI Central survey and Mapping Training Institute (KSA)
DARPA Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (US)
DBMS Database Management Systems
DEM Digital Elevation Models
DEMTS Digital and Electronic Maps Transfer Standards
DES Data Encryption Standards
DETR Department of Environment, Transportation, and Regions (UK)
DFAD Digital Feature Analysis Data
DGIWG Digital Geographic Information Working Group (NATO)
DGN DesiGN (Intergraph Microstation or GeoMedia design file format)
xvii'
Abbreviations Towards the Development of a Strategyfor an NSDI
DIGEST Digital Geographic information Exchange STandards (NATO)
DIS Draft International Standards (ISO)
DLA Department of Land Affairs (SA)
DLG Digital Line Graph
DNC Digital Nautical Chart

DND Department of National Defence (Canada)
DNS Domain Name Service
DTED Digital Terrain Elevation Data
DTM Digital Terrain Model
DWG DraWinG (AutoDesk drawing File Format)
DXF Digital eXchange Format
EGII EuropeanGeographicInformation Infrastructure

ENC ElectronicNavigational Chart/ElectronicNautical Chart
ESMI European Spatial Metadata Infrastructure
ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute
ETF European Transfer Format
EUROGI European UmbRella Organisation for Geographic Information

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation
FDDI Fibre Distributed Data Interface
FDIS Final Draft International Standards (ISO)
FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee (US)
FIPS Federal Information Processing Standard (US)
FNC Federal Networking Council (US)
FTP File Transfer Protocol
Gulf Coorporation Council (KSA, Oman, United Arab Emerates, Qatar,

GCC
The Kingdom of Bahrain and Kuwait)
GCSM General Commission for Survey and Mapping (KSA)
GCSM-ID General Commission for Survey and Mapping Internal Documents (KSA)
GDCS General Directorate of Civilian Survey (KSA)
GDF Geographic Data File
xix
Abbreviations Towards the Development of a Strategy for an NSD!
GDMS General Directorate of Military Survey (KSA)
GEMET GEneral Multilingual Environmental Thesaurus
GEPA Ghanaian Environmental Protection Agency
GGDI Global Geospatial Data Infrastructure
GIF Graphics Interchange Format
GI Geographic Information
GII Geographic Information Infrastructure
GIS Geographic Information System/Science
GML Geography Markup Language/General Modeling Language
GPS Global Positioning System
GSDI Global Spatial Data Infrastructure
GUI GraphicUser Interface

HDLC High Level Data Link Control
HMLR Her Majesty's Land Registry (UK)
HTML Hypertext Markup Language
HTTP HyperText Transfer Protocol
IACG Inter-Agency Committee on Geomatics (Canada)
IBM International Business Machine

ICA International Cartographic Association
ICDE Colombian Spatial Data Infrastructure
ICEC Ice Centre of Environment Canada
ICMA International City/County Managers Association (US)
ICMP Internet Control Message Protocol
ICSM IntergovernmentalCommitteeon Surveyingand Mapping (A/NZ)

ID Identification
IDeA Improvement and Development Agency (UK)
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
IESG Internet Engineering Steering Group
IETF Internet Engineering Task Force
IGC Inter-tribal GIS Council (US)
xx
IGMP Internet Group Management Protocol
IHO International Hydrographic Organisation
IMAP Internet Mail Access Protocol
IMO International Maritime Organisation
IMP Interface Message Processor
IRC InternetRelay Chat

ISCGM International Steering Committee for Global Mapping
ISOC Internet SOCiety
ISO International Organisation for Standardisation
ISO/TC International Organisation for Standardisation/Technical Committee
ISP Internet Service Provider
IT Information Technologies
International Institute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Sciences (the
ITC
Netherlands)
ITRD Information Technology Research and Development
JDBC Java Database Connectivity
JPEG Joint Picture Experts Group

JTC Joint Technical Committee
JVM Java Virtual Machine
KACST King Abdulaziz City for Scienceand Technology(KSA)

KSA The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
LAN Local Area Network
LAS Logiciels et Applications Scientifiques, Inc. (Canada)
LBS Location Base Service
LINZ Land Information New Zealand
LIS Land Information System
MACDIF Map and Chart Data InterchangeFormat

MAFF Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (UK)
MDIF Map Data Interchange Format
MILNet MlLitary Network (US)
xxi
Abbreviations Towardsthe Developmentof a Strategyfor an NSDI
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
MODA Ministry of Defence and Aviation (KSA)
MOC Ministry Of Communications (KSA)
MOMRA Ministry Of Municipal and Rural Affairs (KSA)

MOP&MR Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources (KSA)
MSD Military SurveyDepartment(KSA)

MSGSI Military Survey and Geographic Study Institute (KSA)
MSL Mercator Systems Ltd (Canada)
MTOP Ministerio de Transportes y Obras Publicas (Uruguay)
NaLIS National Infrastructure for Land Information System (Malaysia)
NAC National Associationof Counties(US)

NACOM National Action Committeeon OceanMapping (Canada)
NAP National Action Plan (the Netherlands)
NASA National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration (US)
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
NCGI National Committee for Geographic Information (the Netherlands)
NCWCD National Commission for Wildlife Conservation and Development (KSA)
NDI Nautical Data International (Canada)

NFGIM National Framework for Geographic Information Management (Ghana)
NGD National Geospatial Database (UK)
NGDF National Geographic Data Framework (UK)
NGII National Geographic Information Infrastructure (the Netherlands)
NGIS National GIS (South Korea)

NIMSA National Interest Mapping Service level Agreement (UK)
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology (US)
NJUG National Joint Utilities Group (UK)
NLIC National Land Information Centre(South Korea)

NLIS National Land Information Service (UK)
NLC National League of Cities (US)
NLPG National Land and Property Gazetteer (UK)
xxii
NMO National Mapping Organisation
NMSDC National Mapping and Spatial Data Committee (Malaysia)
NNTP Network News Transport Protocol
NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (US)
NRCan Natural Resources Canada
NRCS National ResourceConservationServices(US)

NSDIPA National Spatial Data Infrastructure Promoting Association (Japan)
NSDI National Spatial Data Infrastructure
NSDP National Spatial Data Policy (KSA)
NSGIC National States Geographic Information Council (US)
NSIF National Spatial Information Framework (South Africa)
NTDB National TopographicDatabase

NTF National TransferFormat (UK)
NVT Network Virtual Terminal
ODBC Open Database Connectivity
OGC OpenGIS Consortium
OGDI Open Geospatial Datastore Interface
OLE Object Linking and Embedding

OMB Office of Management and Budget (US)
OOPL Object Oriented Programming Language
OS Ordnance Survey (UK)
OSGB Ordnance Survey, Great Britain
OSI Open-System Interconnect
PCGIAP Permanent Committee on GIS Infrastructure For Asia and the Pacific
PNG Portable Natural Graphic
POP Post Office Protocol

PP Point Profile
PPP Point to Point Protocol
PSMA Public Sector Mapping Agencies (A/NZ)
QA Quality Assurance
xxiii
QC Quality Control
RAD Rapid Application Development (US)
R&D Research and Development
RFP Request For Proposal
RGF Raster Graphic Formats
RIP Routing Information Protocol
RMSE Root Mean Square Error
RP Raster Profile
RRSU Regional Remote Sensing Unit (Zimbabwe)
SADC Southern African Development Community
SAIF Spatial Archive and Interchange Format (Canada)
SANG Saudi Arabian National Guard
SASO Saudi Arabian Standards Organisation
SAVD Saudi Aramco Vertical Datum
SCECO Saudi Consolidated Electric COmpany
SDI Spatial Data Infrastructure
SDLC Synchronous Data Link Control
SDO SNSDI Development Office (KSA)
SDTS Spatial Data Transfer Standards (US)
SDUPC Spatial Data Users/ Producers Community (KSA)
SGML Standard Generalised Markup Language
SIC Survey Information Centre (KSA)
SINES Spatial Information Network Enquirer Service (UK)
SMB SNSDI ManagementBoard (KSA)

S/MIME Secure Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions
SMTP Simple Mail Transfer Protocol
SNCC State NaLIS Co-ordinating Committee (Malaysia)
SNCGI Saudi National Centre for Geographic Information
SNGIS Saudi National Geographic Information Standards
SNIG Sistema Nacional de Informacäo Geogräfica (Portugal)
xxiv
SNSDD Saudi National Spatial Data Directory
SNSDC Saudi National Spatial Data Clearinghouse
SNSDN Saudi National Spatial Data Network
SNMP Simple Network Management Protocol
Saudi National Spatial Data Infrastructure/ Strategy for a National Spatial

SNSDI
Data Infrastructure (KSA)
SOAP Simple Object Access Protocol
SPDFDM Standard Procedure and Data Format for Digital Mapping (Japan)
SQL Structured Query Language
SSL Secure Socket Layer
STC Saudi Telecommunication Company
SVF Simplified Vector Format

SVG ScalableVector Graphics
TCP/IP Transmission Control Protocol and Internet Protocol
TIFF Tag Image File Format
Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing

TIGER
System (US)
TVP Topological Vector Profile

UCGIS University Consortium for Geographic Information Science (US)
UCSB University of California Santa Barbara
UDP User Datagram Protocol
UKSGB United Kingdom Standards, Great Britain
UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
United Nations Regional Cartographic Conference for Asia and

UNRCC-AP
the Pacific
UoD Universeof Discourse

URISA Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (US)
URL Universal Resource Locator
USC University of Southern California (US)
xxv
USGS United States Geological Survey
USL Universal Systems Ltd. (Canada)
UTM Universal Transverse Mercator
VPF Vector Product Format
VPN Virtual Private Networks
VRML Virtual Reality Modelling Language
WAN Wide Area Networks
WAP Wireless Application Protocol
WGS World Geodetic System
WMI Web Mapping Interface
WML Wireless Markup Language
WWW World Wide Web

W3C World Wide Web Consortium
XML eXtensible Mark-up Language
xxvi
Abstract Towards the Development of a Strategy for an NSDI
UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM
Abstract
Towards the Development of a Strategy for a National

Spatial Data Infrastructure
By Abdullah M. Al-Shahrani
In today's world of ever advancing technology the time is precisely right for investment in
the development and implementation of a national spatial data infrastructure. This implies
that all spatial data presently scattered in different departments and organisations are co-
ordinated and shared. In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia there are a number of different
mapping and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) activities being implemented within
various government organisations, each with its own merits. Certain research and pilot
projects have also been carried out aiming to provide help and recommendations with
regard to spatial data sharing and to promote awarenessof the importance of spatial data to
the Kingdom's development. However, there is an urgent need for a consolidation of effort
to avoid the costly mistake of duplication of work; hence the need for a unified national
spatial data infrastructure.
This research aims to develop a conceptual framework for a strategy for a national spatial
data infrastructure (SNSDI) including its main components. A proposal is presented for a
Saudi national spatial data infrastructure (which happens to have the same abbreviation -
SNSDI) to consolidate isolated mapping and spatial data efforts in the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia in place of the current practice of each agency acting independently.
This research project will hopefully provide a leadership role in developing a Kingdom-
wide spatialdatainfrastructure.
xxvii
Chapter ! General Introduction
CHAPTER 1
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Maps are, without doubt, amongst the most ancient tools used by man as a means
of communication. Since the beginning of his early activities on the face of the earth, man
has tried to know more about his immediate surroundings. Eventually, he became more
familiar with directions and bearings and drew lines on sand to show his travel routes and
movements within his limited world. Later he used simple sketches to represent objects
and features that were crucial to his life (Raisz, 1956). He carved stones, bones, wood and
cave walls to show sketches and shapes representing the locations of natural resources,
shelters, foods, water sources, hunting grounds and dangerous areas (enemies). These
sketches, which were known before the discovery of alphabetic writing, represent a record
of geographic information. This places maps amongst the oldest forms of communication
(others are language and music) which mankind has invented (Rhind, 1997). Those lines
and simple sketches soon began to be more complicated and took different shapes with
regard to directions, angles, line lengths and weights. They were also taken a step forward
from lines drawn on the ground, stones, bones, wood, etc to become lines drawn on clay
plates containing figures and directional information of critical importance to navigation

and transportation. In due time symbols were used instead of the sketches to identify
natural and man-made features on papers, plates and other media (Brown, 1949).
Scientific and technological developments eventually enabled the use of aerial
photography to portray such features more easily and accurately. The use of computers by
the late 1960s led to the introduction of digital maps where all data and information shown
on a conventional map (paper map) or aerial photography were converted to digital

information stored on computer media. However, different organisations used different
systems, methods and standards for the collection, processing and production of spatial
data. This resulted in variations in internal contents, formats and structures,
as well as other
differences, which tended to be very complex and proprietary in
nature, depending on the
hardware and software applications used (Al-Shahrani, 2001
a).
Chapter 1 General Introduction
Significant initiatives and developments have taken placed in recent years to
overcome these problems and ensure efficient spatial data collection, processing,
manipulation and integration, as well as offering the possibility of making spatial data
available to to
a rapidly growing number of users, and other producers. This approach has
attracted a great deal of interest in many spatial data communities and resulted in the
introduction of many national, regional and international spatial data infrastructure
initiatives throughout the world.
This chapter presents a general introduction and background to spatial data
infrastructuresand highlights the framework for this piece of research.Section 1.2 forms
the main and most important part of this chapter. It defines maps, spatial data, geographic
information systems and the term spatial data infrastructure, then briefly discusses the
development of spatial data infrastructure work. It also identifies the research objectives
and outlines the research structure. The chapter ends with concluding remarks in section
1.3.
1.2 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
1.2.1 Definitions
1.2.1.1 What is a Map?
A map is most simply defined as a reduced drawing of the earth's surface or a
portion of the earth's surface showing various representations, as seen from above,
depicted at a given scale and in a given projection, printed on a flat surface (paper or any
other similar material) showing natural and man-made features using special symbols and
legends (Al-Shahrani, 1989).
This means that:
"A map is a miniature representationof our real world.

"A map shows the relationship between features (natural & man-made).
Chapter 1 GeneralIntroduction
Conventional hard copy maps traditionally contain spatial data and non-spatial
data (descriptive data, such as text or tabulated data that describe features or sets of data,
such as geographic names, accuracy, co-ordinates, heights, etc). However, the latest
advances in computer science and technology, space technologies and networks facilities
introducing digital methods of data collection (mainly from digitising, scanning,
photogrammetry,remote sensing and field survey) have become important sources for
digital spatial data (Chou, 1997).
1.2.1.2 What is Spatial Data?
Many authors, writers, organisations,officials, etc have defined spatial data. The
following are three examples that defined spatial data as:
1. Data tied to certain set of locations on the surface of the earth (Longley et al., 1999).
2. Data concerning objects or phenomena implicitly or explicitly associated with
location relative to the earth (ISO/TC 211,2002a).
3. Data that identifies the geographiclocation and characteristicsof features(natural

and
and man-made) boundarieson the surfaceof the earth (Clinton, 1994).
We should not get too confused by the terms geographical or geographic

information, geospatial information, geospatial data and spatial data, which have much the
same meaning, although some authors prefer to use the term geospatial as, in principle,
spatial might be taken to include information that is related to frames other than the surface
of the earth, such as medical imaging of the human body (Longley et al., 1999). In this
research the term spatial data will be used. Note, however, the difference between data and
information as given by Masser (1997) where information = data + metadata, or = data +
context, or = data + meaning (Masser, 1997).

Spatial data has found applications in many areas.It has the ability to relate the
information on different activities and resourcesto a specific location on the surfaceof the
earth, which can allow geographical monitoring or prediction of any changes. Spatial data
is a complex, rapidly growing and important part of the information society and critical to
solving today's complex environmental, economic and social problems.
3
Chapter 1 GeneralIntroduction
If we take the economy as an example, Dr Geoff Robinson, former director general of the
Ordnance Survey (OS) in Great Britain, quoted in his speaking notes in the Cambridge
Conference July 1999, commented," If I can refer to OS in Great Britain
- consultants
have recently advised us that £100 billion worth of Britain's GDP is underpinned by OS
spatial data. So we are a fundamental contributor to Britain's economy" (Robinson,

1999).
Spatial data is the main source of data for digital mapping, geographic information
systems (GIS), Digital Terrain Model (DTM), Digital Terrain Elevation Data (DTED),
Digital Feature Analysis Data (DFAD), Arc Digitised Raster Graphics (ADRG) and others.
Use within a geographic information system (GIS) provides a good example to illustrate
the importance of spatial data, so the next section defines and discusses geographic
information systems in brief.
1.2.1.3 What is a Geographic Information System (GIS)?
The science associated with the use of geographic information system is termed "
Geographic Information Science (GIS)" (Ratcliffe, 1999). However the abbreviation GIS is
mainly used for Geographic Information System (GIS). In this research GIS refers to
Geographic Information System (GIS), which can be defined by its system functionality, as
follows:
"A computer-based information system that enables capture, modelling, manipulation,
retrieval, analysis and presentation of geographically referenced data" (Worboys, 1995).
"An organised collection of computer hardware, software, geographic data and personnel
designedto efficiently capture,store, update,manipulate,analyseand display all forms of
geographicallyreferencedinformation" (Chou, 1997).
"A computer system for capturing, managing, integrating, manipulating, analysing and
displaying data, which is spatially referenced to the Earth" (McDonnell and Kemp, 1995).
A1-Shahrani defined GIS as "a mix of hardware, software, human resources, procedures,
policies and standards through which spatial data is captured, input, processed,
4
manipulated, analysed, stored, retrieved and displayed in various methods and. forms
depending on the user's applications and requirements" (Al-Shahrani, 2001 a) in an
attempt to include the trained people required to operate such a system. An alternative
definition of geographic information systems is to say they are smart databases
manipulated by a set of hardware, software and personnel.

A GIS has also been defined by its objective, e.g. "a spatial decision-support
system" (Longley et al., 1999).

Figure l-1 illustrates a conceptual framework of a geographic information system
(GIS) based on the previous definitions.
Figure 1-1 Geographic Information System (GIS) conceptua/framework /Adapted from Chou, 1997/.
Figure 1-1 shows that the spatial data are the central and main input component of any
geographic information system (GIS). If we consider the large number of organisations in

any nation who deal with digital mapping and GIS, we find that most of them have the
hardware, software, human resources, procedure and other facilities. However they are
missing the most important component, which is the spatial data. But if each organisation
undertakes separate data acquisition ventures for its own needs without recourse to what
exists already in other organisations, the result will be huge duplications of data, time,
effort and money.
5
The original spatial data collection is the most expensive part of developing a GIS.
As a result of researches, surveys and experience gained from practice, it has been
concluded that around 75% to 85% of the total cost needed for the development of a
commercially used GIS is spent on spatial data collection. The cost is mainly related to the
capture of the geometric characteristics of the spatial features and may include the use of
any of the traditional methods and sources such as field survey, aerial photography,
satellite imagery, triangulation, data capture, cartography and digitisation or scanning of
existing maps (Thapa and Bossier, 1992).
It is easily seen,therefore,that if accurateand up to date sourcesare available and
accessible,developingthe requiredGIS will only cost 15% to 25% as much, as if the data
haveto be compiled from scratch.Thereforea cheapermethodof acquiring spatialdata for
digital mapping and GIS applications is to make use of and share what exists already
throughthe developmentof a national spatialdatainfrastructure.
1.2.1.4 What is a Spatial Data Infrastructure?
Various writers, researcher, officials and others have defined the term spatial data
infrastructure rather differently. For example:
The former U. S. president Bill Clinton (1994) defined it as "technology, policies,
standards and human resources necessary to acquire, process, store, distribute and
improve utilisation ofgeospatial data" (Clinton, 1994).
Radwan and Paresi (1995) defined an NSDI as a "set of institutional, technical and
economicarrangementsto enhancethe availability, reliability and accessibilityof correct,

up-to-date,to-the-point and integratedgeo-information, timely and at an affordableprice
to support decision making processesrelated to a country's sustainable development"
(Radwanand Paresi,1995).
On the other hand the U. S. Federal Geographic Committee (1995) defines it as a "set of
individuals, organisations, technologies and spatial data integrated to facilitate
development and dissemination of spatial data and use of geographic information
technologies" (FGDC, 1995).
6
The study of spatial data infrastructure is a new subject that has emerged in many
industrial and technologically advanced countries as a tool to help spatial data producers in
both government and private sectors to standardise, organise and structure spatial data. An
SDI should help users find what spatial data exists, in what condition, of what accuracy
and quality and under what rules and regulations spatial data can be accessedand shared.
1.2.2 Brief Historical Background of SDI

The term Geo Information Infrastructure (GII) was used for the first time in Canada
in the early 1980's, in connection with the creation of standards and exchange protocols for
spatial data transfer between federal and provincial mapping agencies (Radwan, 1997).
In 1992, global environmental issues, such as the depletion of the ozone layer, were
discussed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)
held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, where it was agreed that reducing global environmental
problems could be achieved through co-ordination among all the nations of the world. As a
result of that meeting an action programme to address global environmental concerns

(Agenda 21) was adapted. The Agenda 21 document highlighted the need for improved
spatial data as a crucial tool for improving our understanding of the current status and
temporal dynamics of the environment (Nebert, 2001).
In 1994, the former U. S. president Bill Clinton issued an Executive Order to co-
ordinate geographic data acquisition and access in the USA, to form what was named the
National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) (Clinton, 1994). This was the real start of
national spatial data infrastructure activities.

Today many national, regional and international activities around the world are
trying to consolidateand improve spatial data collection, production and distribution by
developingand implementinga spatialdatainfrastructure.
1.2.2.1 Spatial Data Infrastructure Components
At the start, spatial data infrastructure was seen as entirely a technical issue,
comprising standards for data definition, coding and exchange. But it became clear that
standardisation would not be feasible without resolving institutional, fundamental data set
and other technical and administrational issues concerning the right to access and share
7
Chapter / General Introduction
spatial data in a distributed environment (Clarke, 1996). Therefore a number of

components for spatial data infrastructure were defined, as shown in figure 1-2.
NATIONAL SPATIAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE
Mapping SpatialDatain of spatialdata

-National -Core -Croup -Clearinghouse
Agency. different scalesand Standards,suchas -Directories
-C nimttees and type, suchasaerial referenceSystem,data -Con uter
Wontinggroups photography, model,datadictionary, Nety
satelliteimagery, dataquality, data -Internet
-Funding
Custodianship c dastre,census, transfer,terminology, -Spatialdata
-Data
Distribution landuse,landcover, conceptualschema, Users
-Data
-Educationand placenames,road n tadata,language, -Data
Training network,utilities, Spatialschema,ternporal Distributors
-Application elevation,soils, schema,quality, -Services
-Policies vegetations, portrayal,encoding, -Etc.
geology,climate, imageryandgridded
-Procedures
Partnership,etc. hazardoussites, data,%ebmapserver
environments,etc. interface,profile, feature
-Spatial data cataloguing
Integration methodology,simple
Figure 1-2 The structure of a national spatial data infrastructure.
1.2.3 Problems Researching a New Field

There were no major problems encountered in this research, but the following points
are important:
1. The spatial data infrastructure concept is new and most of the initiatives are still
under development.
8
Chapter I General Introduction
2. The field was first recognised in 1994 and therefore most documents and references
are relatively new.

3. Spatial data infrastructure is a broad subject covering many areas of endeavour.
4. Rapid changes in technology and SDI developments made it difficult to maintain
currency in some parts of this research.

5. The practical implementation of this research in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Saudi
needed great deal of work and commitment and may encounter some problems in its
initial stages.
1.2.4 Research Structure

At the start of this research, the following key questions were compiled in order to
plan and structure this research:
" What arethe benefitsof spatialdata sharing?
" What is the current statusof spatialdatastandards,worldwide?

" What is the current status of spatial data infrastructures initiatives, worldwide and
what lessons can be learned from those initiatives?

" What is the current status of national spatial data clearinghouses activities?
" What are the appropriatecomputernetwork systemsfor spatialdatasharing?
" What is the generalstructureand requirementfor Internet-basedGIS services?

" What is the current status of mapping activities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?
" Who are the major producers and users of spatial data in Saudi Arabia?
" What are the existing accessmechanisms of spatial data in Saudi Arabia?
" What are the main problems of data sharing and the consequencesin Saudi Arabia?
" What is the impact of Saudi NSDI development on mapping organisations?
" What is the currentstatusof information technologiesand networksin the Kingdom
of SaudiArabia?
" What are the institutional,technical and other requirements needed for the
development and implementation of an NSDI in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?
In order to find the answers to these key questions, the research was
carried out in three
different phases (subject areas), as shown in figure 1-3.
9
Chapter l
1. Chapter 1: General Introduction

2. Chapter 2: Spatial Data Sharing
1. Chapter3: Spatial Data Standards

2. Chapter5: ComputerNetwork and
WORLDWIDE ACTIVITIES Web Mapping Services
3. Chapter 6: The Search For a Spatial
Data Clearinghouse Model
1. Chapter 4: Current Status of

Mapping Activities in the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia
SAUDI NATIONAL SPATIAL 2. Chapter 7: ProposalFor a Saudi
DATA INFRASTRUCTURE National Spatial Data Infrastructure
3. Chapter8: Final Summaryand
Concluding Remarks
4. Annex I: Survey Questionnaire
on Digital and non Digital Spatial
Products in the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia
5. Annex II: QuestionnaireReturns
Summaryand Tabulation
Figure 1-3 The research structure.
These three phasesresulted in the eight chapters (including this chapter) of this research
and its two annexes.
1.2.4.1 Phase One
Chapter 1 gives a brief history of the background of map-making from ancient maps to
the latest digital maps and geographic information systems. Chapter one also sets out the
framework for the research, as discussed above.
Chapter 2 discusses a number of spatial data sharing perspectives including objectives,

benefits and problems of spatial data sharing. It examines some
of the issues that make
spatial data sharing difficult and highlights various methods that could be undertaken to
facilitate spatial data sharing.
10
1.2.4.2 Phase Two
Chapter 3 addresses spatial data standards within the broader perspective of spatial data
infrastructure and what has been done in that respect. It discusses the evolution of spatial
data standards, including a brief background history and a classification of spatial data
standards,with an overview of national and international standardisation initiatives.
Chapter 5 examines various basic approaches to computer network systems needed to

build a standardised architecture for interactive spatial data sharing and Internet-based
geographic information systems (GIS). It reviews the Internet technologies, protocols,
security and services needed for the implementation of a national spatial data
infrastructure.
Chapter 6 investigates and evaluates some of the worldwide initiatives in the field of
spatial data infrastructure, including the concept of a spatial data in

clearinghouse, order to
propose an appropriate foundation for the development and implementation of a national
spatial data infrastructure for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
1.2.4.3 Phase Three
Chapter 4, annex I and annex II. Preparing a new groundwork for a national spatial data
infrastructure and introducing it to the mapping organisations in the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia will bring a lot of changes, concerns and worries to these organisations. Therefore a
requirements questionnaire (Annex I) was prepared and distributed to most of the Saudi
mapping organisations. The questionnaire introduced the research and its objectives and
contained sufficient questions to collect as much information as possible about the current
status of mapping activities in Saudi Arabia and the producers and users needs and
requirements. It also aimed to promote this proposed national spatial data infrastructure
initiative. The questionnaire was distributed by the General Directorate of Military Survey
(GDMS) to nineteen (19) ministries and organisations. The participants were given about
six months to complete and return the questionnaire. A total of seventeen (17)
questionnaires (89.5%) were returned. Annex II discusses, summarises and tabulates
it
various replies. Chapter 4 presents an analysis of the results from the returned
questionnaires, together with the general conclusions drawn from them.
Chapter 7 proposes an approach to the formulation and implementation of a Saudi
national spatial data infrastructure (SNSDI) based on the information collected, discussed
and compared in various chapters of this research. A discussion is also presented of the
main components and building blocks for a Saudi national spatial data infrastructure
(SNSDI), including the institutional framework, fundamental data sets, spatial data
standards and technical framework. The chapter lays out conceptual, design,
implementation and operation phases for the Saudi NSDI.
Chapter 8 briefly reviews the research with respect to the aim of developing a Saudi
national data infrastructure, summarises the major findings and ends with brief concluding
remarks.
1.3 CONCLUDING REMARKS

Spatial data are considered one of the oldest forms of human communication, pre-
dating written language. Today, spatial data plays an important role in social, economic
and environmental activities, as well as in security and in the defence of the nation-state.
Spatial data is knowledge and knowledge is power.
The requirement to share spatial data among large numbers of users and producers
raises the need to develop spatial data infrastructures. Applications of spatial data vary
greatly from country to country; therefore, application of the spatial data infrastructure
concept should vary as well. However, the main components of most of the worldwide
national, regional and international spatial data initiatives are, in practice, identical and
evolved around institutional issues, fundamental data sets, spatial data standards and
technical frameworks.
This research explores the activities in, and the roles of, the main components of
spatial data infrastructure work worldwide, then focuses on the development of a Saudi
national spatial data infrastructure to integrate and share the large amount of spatial data
scattered throughout geographically widespread archives.
12
Chapter 2 Spatial Data Sharing
CHAPTER 2
SPATIAL DATA SHARING
2.1 INTRODUCTION
One area that has attracted a lot of concern within the spatial data community is
spatial data sharing. This chapter discuses a number of spatial data sharing perspectives
and examines some of the issues that make spatial data sharing difficult and highlights
various methods that could be undertaken to facilitate spatial data sharing. A significant
proportion of a nation's infrastructure, economic development, social, environmental and
other activities are heavily dependent on spatial data related applications. In spite of the
importance of spatial data and its applications and the advances in the information
technology, spatial data sharing still encounters major problems and does not advance as
fast as computer software and hardware technology, owing to a lack of standards and
mechanisms as well as the absence of an appropriate spatial data infrastructure. Sharing
spatial data means a great many things to It

many people. could imply the mutual exchange
of information between two different application domains, but it could also imply
exchange between various levels of government administrations and private sectors.
Spatial data sharing, in general, could be done through non-commercial vertical
relationships (example local, regional and national) and horizontal relationships by linking
autonomous organisations or databases located in different geographic locations. To all
intents and purposes spatial data sharing is partly vertical because of links between
different levels of government administrations and the need to communicate with each
other and partly horizontal due to participating organisations being independent cutting
across disciplines (Passole, 1996).
To address these issues, section 2.2 forms the main and important part of this
chapter. It highlights some of the spatial data sharing objectives, benefits and barriers.
Then it discusses semantic, syntactic and schematic spatial data heterogeneities. Section
2.3 briefly discusses some of the strategies for resolving the problems identified in section
2.2, especially those arising from semantic heterogeneity. Global initiatives to overcome
heterogeneity problems undertaken by the OpenGIS Consortium (OGC)
are also briefly
highlighted. Finally the chapter ends with concluding
remarks in section 2.4.
13
2.1.1 Definition
Calkins (1992) defined spatial data sharing as the digital/electronic transfer of spatial data
or information between two or more organisational units where there is independence

between the spatial data producer and the prospective user. The transfer may be in the form
of periodic bulk transfers, routine (daily, weekly, monthly, etc) transfers, or on-line access
driven by individual transactions (Calkins et al, 1992).
However, nowadays, spatial data sharing means the creation and distribution of a
well structured spatial data linked by a proper network to permit data from one source to be
made available to others through a clearinghouse used by both the users and producers
(Radwan et al, 1997).
2.2 SPATIAL DATA SHARING PERSPECTIVES

Successful evolution of spatial data sharing depends on high-level support,
communication, co-operation and development of partnerships among spatial data users

and producers, as well as agreements on the use of common standards. Success also
depends on a proper plan and layout of an integrated system that enables access and
sharing of spatial data (Coleman and McLaughlin, 1998). Figure 2-1 shows the spatial data
sharing perspective in the United States of America as an example. The U. S. initiative will
be covered in more detail in chapter 6.
Figure 2-I U.S. NSDI spatial data sharing perspective /Adapted from Coleman
and McLaughlin, 19981.
14
sk
Chapter2 Spatial Data Sharing
2.2.1 Objectives
The overall objective for spatialdata sharingis to createconnectionsbetweenwidely
dispersed spatial databasesand users. Onsrud and Pinto (1995) indicated that three distinct
situations require spatial data sharing between organisations:
1. Two or more organisations work together in the solution of a common problem. Data
from one or more organisations, as well as expertise, are made available in a joint
effort of problem solving. This is a non-routine situation and is solved on a case-by-
casebasis.
2. Inter-organisationalsystems,where organisationshave a need for similar data so
they develop procedures by which they can regularly share and exchange
information.
3. Spatial data is structured and readily available to all interested users and producers
through centralised or decentralised clearinghouse facilities. Sharing in this method is

the most suitable and important method (Onsrud and Pinto, 1995).
Similarly, Frank (1992) gives two major different forms by which spatial data could
be shared across organisational units.
1. Spatial data can be used as a backdrop on top of which the recipient presents his/her
own data. There is no logical connection between the two data sets as they exist in
different realms and are only graphically overlaid and visually integrated by the
human operator. Foundational data sets produced by national mapping organisations,
such as topographic maps, aerial photography and satellite images often fall into this
category
2. Spatial data sharing could also involve a centralised or decentralised authority
distributing spatial data to a set of regular users. In this instance, there is an authority
that sets the terms and conditions of data exchange. Framework data sets produced
for specific purposes, such as soil information, geological information, national
census data and cadastral data, fall under this category (Frank, 1992).
Groot (1997) categorises these data sets as foundational or framework data and
maintains that data sharing opportunities are very much greater for the former than for the
later, which usually provides thematic information in a national context (Groot, 1997).
15
2.2.2 Benefits of Spatial Data Sharing

The availability of digital data capturing equipment, such as analytical plotters, soft
copy photogrammetry, cartographic workstation, satellite image processing units,

digitisers, scanners and GPS has increased the rate of digital spatial data collection and
production and resulted in a large and growing volume of vector and raster data. Not only
has the rate of spatial data collection and production increased, but also easy access to
spatial data using new network technology, such as the Internet, has created a favourable
atmosphere that allows spatial data to be shared and exchanged between organisations and
users. This implies that users as well as producers can accessa much wider range of spatial
data from different organisations and sources in a better sharing environment than would
be possible in a single user environment. Spatial data sharing provides accessto additional
data at a marginal or no cost. It is estimated that geographic information system operations
that are able to share data between different organisations receive benefits at least four
times greater than their costs (Radwan, 1997).
There are strong incentives for sharing spatial data. Different authors, in their
analysis of the benefits of spatial data sharing from different sources, categorised the
following benefits:
1. Improvements in efficiency: Spatial data sharing among organisations results in
greater internal efficiency of operations due to less likelihood of duplicating works in

creating and maintaining databases. Relatively cheaper access to existing accurate
spatial data allows considerable reduction in time, effort and cost of data collection,
production and maintenance. It permits organisational operations to be carried out
more efficiently.
2. Organisational effectiveness: This is enhanced by the provision of new products and
services. This may take place when an organisation makes use of available
information through new sources. These changes help the organisation to improve
and expand its services to clients and better monitor and enforce mandated
programmes.
3. Enhanced decision-making: Enterprises stand to benefit by integrating data from
various sources for improving decision-making. Some application areas, such as

environmental managementneed information from different levels of government
16
and from different disciplines as well. The availability of such data enhances the
chances of making good decisions (Onsrud and Pinto, 1995, and Radwan, 1997).
2.2.3 Barriers to Spatial Data Sharing

Many mapping organisations around the world usually undertake data acquisition
ventures for specific purposes and within a certain application, using different software,
hardware, standards, methods and different operators and supervisors with different
experience. Spatial data is therefore collected and produced in different shapes, formats,
structures, qualities, accuracies, completeness and managed by different database
management systems, in different data models and under different rules and regulations.
However, there is an urgent need for spatial data sharing across organisational boundaries,
in spite of the above barriers. In general, the difficulties imposed on spatial data sharing
may be viewed from three different perspectives: organisational, system and data
modelling.
2.2.3.1 Organisational Perspective
Often, restrictions imposed by the internal regulations, directives and

administrative policies in both government and private mapping organisations limit the
release of spatial data for many reasons. The competition between organisations for
leadership in the field of spatial data
collection and production adds a serious obstacle to
spatial data sharing (Moellering, 1996).
The data collected by some organisations are often seen as their property to be used
solely by those organisations, who consider themselves to be the authority for such data.
Besides, potential outside users may not have any idea as to the existence of such data.
Furthermore, cost, legal issues, copyright and other obstacles may prevent the free flow of
spatial data (Radwan, 1997).

Sharing of spatial data between organisations, in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for
example, is minimal. Dr. Khalid Ankary, former Minister of Municipal and Rural Affairs
(recently Minister of Higher Education in Saudi Arabia), indicated that the
co-ordination
between different ministries and organisations is minimal because information
concerning
existing networks is centralised at each ministry, for example proposed programmes and
17
projects for expansion of the built up area. Traditionally most government offices have
developed their own methods of data collection and storage as required for their own
particular use. As these data are rarely accessible to other agencies, the data collected are
mostly inconsistent and collected redundantly (Ankary, 1991).
2.2.3.2 System Perspective
Any two organisations using different hardware platforms, software systems and
spatial data standards will tend to produce digital spatial data in different formats. Thus,
sharing data requires conversion from one format to the other, sometimes with data loss,
since there is no perfect union between the way two systems represent their data. Spatial
data structures tend to be complex, more complex than for other kinds of digital data,
becauseof the variety, shape and range of information they represent (Buehler and McKee,
1998). When data is stored in spatially distributed locations, a number of problems could
arise that inhibit data sharing, because:
1. Each system is autonomous and under a separate and independent control.

2. Spatial data may be installed on different hardware platforms and may be run by
different Database Management Systems (DBMS).
3. The database management systems may have different functionality and interfaces
for access.
These situations lead to heterogeneity, which inhibits communication between systems and
therefore makes spatial data sharing difficult.
2.2.3.3 Spatial Data Modelling Perspectives
Spatial data is abstracted from real world phenomena (e.g. roads, streets, farms,
valleys,.. ) according to some application discipline, such as soil, relief, topography,

hydrography, metrology, etc. The world of digital spatial data corresponds to a specific
subset of reality viewed from different angles and different perspectives. Different
applications have different views of reality and many different methods of abstraction.
This is due to the fact that not all objects in the real world are relevant for
all applications.
18
Similarly, not all attributes that specify the relevant properties of each object, such as road
width or number of lanes, are relevant.

On the other hand, representation of data elements in an information system must
take into account the role the objects play in the system and not their physical appearance
in the terrain. Therefore geometric representation in different contexts could be different
on account of the role the objects play. For example, a road may be regarded as a line
object in a transportation database, as shown in figure 2-2 (a), while the same road may be
handled as an area object in the cadastral database as in figure 2-2 (b). Therefore for a
particular application, the set of objects that is relevant forms the application's context or
view (Radwan, 1997).
ýI
a. Transportation Database I b. Cadastral Database2
Figure 2-2 Differences in geometric representation due to differences in context

/Adapted from Radwan, 1997/.
Due to differences in context, spatial data sharing becomes difficult unless a

mechanism is put in place for translating the data from one context to another. Within the
same application domain, there could be different contexts depending on the views of the
databasedesigners. Consequently, both conceptual and logical models of any two systems
may differ. Object definition and assignment of objects to classes as well as the
representation of the objects in the database, depends on the particulars view of reality
adopted.
It can therefore be stated that differences in the context worldview can be described as:
1. Differences in the geometric representation of the spatial objects.
2. Differences in the rules that assign objects to classes.

3. Differences in the class hierarchies and the attribute structure (Bishr et at., 1997a).
19
2.2.4 Spatial Database Heterogeneity

Molenaar (1997) indicates that thematic and geometric aspects of spatial data
stored in an information system may be linked by two basic structures: the field based
approach and the object oriented approach for representing the thematic and geometric
properties of terrain objects. Figure 2-3 illustrates these two basic approaches.
In the field approach, the attribute values are linked directly to the position as
occurs in levelling. In the object-based approach,
however, both the geometric data (e. g. bounding

Pos ian ValLus
rectangle of a house) and thematic data (e.g.
number of rooms and owner) are linked together

a. Fieldapproach
through the object that belongs to a class and has
an identifier for a unique identification in the

C'00
database. For example, a house can be defined by a
Class Dia
unique identifier in the database (e.g. a house
number and address). A basic difference between

T
Etta the two approaches is that in the field approach the
bject
terrain is treated as a collection of features
Idwtifiei
described in a predefined continuous co-ordinate
space, whereas the object based approach sees the

b.Object(kicntedApproach
terrain as discrete.
Figure 2-3 Two basic structures for spatial data /Source Molenaar, 1997J.
In the object-oriented approach to data modelling, all conceptual entities are
modelled as objects (Worboys, 1995). In this approach, the definition of objects to be
represented in the information system is made primarily from a thematic perspective.

Where the geometric aspects are considered necessary, a choice has to be made whether
the objects should be represented as points, lines or area objects. The choice for the
representation has to reflect the role the objects play in the information system, rather than
their physical appearance in the terrain. The role, however, depends on the application and
the level of aggregation of terrain description. A terrain feature with area dimension may
be represented as a point in one application, while it is represented as an area object in
another application, the two playing different roles in their respective applications. Object
definition therefore differs from one application to the other. The abstraction and
20
Chapter 2
representation of features in an information system generally reflects reality only as seen in

the context of the application.
Heterogeneity in databasesbasically results from those differences in context views
of reality and the fact that autonomous organisations manage their data independently. One
of the major effects of the emergence of a multiplicity of techniques for building
proprietary databases is the existence of database heterogeneity. The availability of a
variety of application software implies that users have a wider field to choose from to meet
their needs, mostly without recourse to what choice other users would make. The result is
that spatial data is available in many geographically distributed databases using different
DBMS as illustrated in figure 2-4.
Fierarchicaa
Model
System2
Rdatimal Da
Model
SystemI} Sa y {iai DB2
l. acatian 2
Dß1
l. ocatian 1
lkers
I leers
NetNmic Nindel
DIW.
Sýstem3
D63
Location 3
kers
Figure 2-4 Example of a heterogeneous database systems /Source t/siao and Kamel, 1993/.
Different authors give different classifications for heterogeneity: Castellanos (1996)
classifies heterogeneity among component databases into two types: system and semantic
heterogeneities. System heterogeneity includes differences in hardware, operating systems,
database management systems and communication protocols. Semantic heterogeneity, as

will be discussed later, includes differences in the way real world is modelled in the
databases, particularly in the schemas of the component databases (Castellanos
et al., 1996).
21
Lee and McLaughlin categorised heterogeneity into lower and higher levels. Lower
level heterogeneity covers hardware and operating systems while higher-level
heterogeneity deals with data models (Lee and McLaughlin, 1991).
Bishr classified heterogeneity into three types: Semantic, syntactic and schematic
(Bishr et al., 1997a). The following sections focus on the three aspects of heterogeneity,
identified by Bishr, and highlight some major problems that could occur in a
heterogeneousenvironment.
2.2,4,1Semantic Heterogeneity
The process of spatial database design starts in the real world and leads to the data
representation in the computer world. The real world is perceived by the database designer,
his perceptions are abstracted in concepts and thoughts and he develops a conceptual view
of the outside world. The view of the designer, representing that of the application, is
modelled as the conceptual model with particular semantics associated with it. Any two
designers would have different models and therefore different semantics becausethey have
different views of the context world.
The context world view include three types of abstraction or context information,
which are categories definition, class intension definition and geometric description. On
the other hand, the computer representation includes geometric primitive, object and class
hierarchies. Bishr (1997) defined the above three types of abstraction and the data
representations in the computer as follows:

1. Abstraction
a. Categoriesare collectionsof real world features with similar characteristics.

b. Class intention definition is the process of defining rules by which real world
features are identified and associated with categories.
c. Geometric description is the process of outlining specifications to assign

geometric type to features as well as specifications to represent them in the
computer.
2. Computer representation
a. Geometric primitives are basic geometric elements which describe the geometry
of spatial objects.
b. Object are real world features.
22
c. Classes are computer representations of the categories which were defined in

the context world view (Bishr, 1997).
Semantic heterogeneity occurs mainly due to differences in context information.

Semantic problems can be traced to differences about meanings, interpretations and
intended use of the same or related data (Sheth and Larson, 1990). They arise when
different terminology, names and values are given to similar data items in different
databases. Semantic heterogeneity may also occur when a real world entity is given
different meanings in related databases.
An example of conflict arising from differences in assigning objects to classes is illustrated
in table 2-1. This table represents two databasesthat keep information on wells and ponds
(applications A and B). Both the assumptions and criteria for assigning the object to
classesdiffer and hence their contexts also differ.
Well Pond Well Pond
Area <_25m2 25m2SArea :5 50m2 Area < 50m2 Area > 50m2
a. Application A b. Application B
Table2-1 Semantic conflicts occur due to context definition [Source Radwan, 19971.
In Application A, a distinguishing factor between a Well and a Pond is that the former has
a surface area of up to 25m2, while the latter has a surface area ranging between 25m2 and
50m2. In Application B, however, a Well has an area of less than 50m2 while the Pond has
an area greater than 50m2. Data sharing between these two applications needs to take into
account the contexts and hence, the semantics of the data items. There is a need to indicate
the conditions and assumptionsunder which classification (i. e. assignmentof instancesto

classes)was made. This is because
necessary what constitutesa pond in application A is
not necessarily a pond in application B.
23
2.2.4.1.1 Situations Leading to Semantic Conflicts
Available literature gives a number of situations that can lead to semantic

heterogeneity problems. Choi (1998) summarised the major types of conflicts, among
which are the following:
1. Domain incompatibility: Arises when attributes of two objects have different

domaindefinitions. For example:
a. Naming conflicts: Semanticallysimilar data items may be given different names
(synonyms); and/or semantically different data items may be assignedthe same
name(homonyms).
b. Data representationconflicts: Semanticallysimilar attributesmight have different
data types or representation:for example,a value being an integer in one database
and a string in another.

c. Data scaling conflicts: Semantically similar attributes might be represented using
different units of measure. For instance, the area of a parcel may be represented in
`sq. metres' in one databasewhile another represents it as `sq. feet'.
2. Entity definition incompatibility. This occurs when entity descriptors used by the
objects are quite incompatible, even though the same type of entity is being modelled.
Included in this category are:
a. Databaseidentifier conflicts: Semantically similar objects might have different

identifiers, for example:
Roadl (RI ID, Name, type)
Road2 (R2 No, Name,type)

b. Union compatibility conflicts: Semantically similar objects might be assigned
semantically unrelated sets of attributes. For example, two schemes SI and S2

both describing the same road could have two sets of unrelated attributes, for
example:
S 1: (Road Name, width, max speed, max weight, type, transportation allowed).
S2: (Road Name, type, last repaired, repaired type, maintaining
office).
24
3. Data value incompatibility: Occurs when inconsistent data values are used to
represent the same attribute in different databases(Choi, 1998).
Table 2-2 represents two separate databaseswith the same attribute, a farm named
Al-Deerah. In database 1 the farm area is 120Km2. In database2, it is 110Km2.
ID Farm Name Area ID Farm Name Area
12345 Al-Deerah 120Km 12345 Al-Deerah 110Km
a. Database1 b. Database2
Table 2-2 Semantic conflicts occur due to context definition, Example 2 [Adapted from Radwan, 19971.
The detectionof semanticheterogeneitycan be a tough problem and it is even considered

by somethe most critical problem in data sharing(Castellanosetal., 1996).
2.2.4.2 Syntactic Heterogeneity
Syntactic heterogeneity is the difference in the thematic and the geometric
representation as well as the topologic relationships of spatial objects (Bishr, 1997).

Syntactic heterogeneity involves a coding of information such that it can be moved within
a spatial databasetransfer system. It is also involves the representation of the geometry of

terrain features as a point, line or area object, as well as the raster format of the
representation. Systems have different particular ways of representing features. For

instance one system may recognise an arc as made up of a number of connected edges
whereas others may not; this constitutes a syntactic problem. The choice for the
representation is based on the thematic aspect of the data. This can be done in either a
raster or vector format. Figure 2-5 shows a representation of a raster map and its associated
raster topology (Molenaar, 1991).
The representation of objects in a raster can best be done in a cell raster, as shown
in figure 2-5. Each cell represents an area segment and hence this type maps is most
suitable for the representation of area objects.
25
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
BET
A A A A A B B B
B B B B B C C C
B B B B B B B C iEEH=o 0-
0
B B B B B B B B
a. Raster map b. Raster topology
Figure 2-5 Raster map and raster topology / source Molenaar, 1991/.
A vector structure represents linear characteristics of terrain features. A syntactical
structure for vector maps of 2-D spatial

Line Area Point
Class Class objects, developed by Molenaar, is shown
Class
in figure 2-6. A 2-D vector map consists
of six types of entities: three geometric

Line Point
Area
Feature Feature Feature
types: nodes, edges and faces; and three
Left Right geometric object types: point, line and

Pa of
Begin
area (Molenaar et al, 1997). All points
Arc Node
Ind used to describe the geometry of terrain
Represent features are treated as nodes.
Shape Coordinate
Figure 2-6 Data structure for vector map /Adapted from Molenaar, 19971.
Similarly, linear objects are represented as edges and their geometry by location,
shape and length. An arc is therefore part of a line object. In the same way, the geometry of
an area object is given by its boundaries.

Differences in object representation in different spatial databases constitute a
syntactic problem, whereby is, the same real world object is represented by different
geometric object types in related information systems.
26
Given the three basic elements of

geometric data representation, namely,
point, line and area, there are five
possible situations of heterogeneity
arising from context differences and

therefore directly related to syntactic
conflicts. Figure 2-7 indicates the
possible areas of conflict in relation to
vector geometry.
Figure 2-7 Possible situations of conflict in data representation /Adapted from, Radwan, 19971.
In addition to the above, besides, syntactic heterogeneity arises owing to the fact
that different spatial databasesare managed by different databasemanagement systems. A
proper solution to the syntactic heterogeneity problem would be to provide a common

syntax for spatial object representation for all databases(Bishr et al., 1997a).
2.2.4.3 Schematic Heterogeneity
Schematic heterogeneity is the difference in the class hierarchies and attribute
structure of two independent databaseschemas. Objects in one databasemay be considered

as properties in another, or object classes may have different aggregation or generalisation
hierarchies, although they describe the same real world entities. Schematic heterogeneity
can also be caused by relationships between objects being different from one database to
another (Radwan, 1997).
Figure 2-8 represents two separate models of the feature class parcel. In (a) the
industrial parcel has two subclasses: light industrial and heavy industrial. In (b) however,
the light industrial parcel is considered as an attribute of the industrial parcel.
27
Chapler 2 Spatial Data Sharing
a. : tpplication :l h. Application ß
Figure 2 Conceptual schema of two applications /Adapted from Radwan, 19971.

-8
The class light industrial in (a) is an attribute for the class industrial parcel in (b).
This situation leads to a schematic problem whenever the two applications are to exchange
data. Schematic heterogeneity arises mainly because of differences in the data models used
by different applications with different context views. A major consequence of this is
incompatibility in abstraction level. This arises when two semantically similar entities are
represented at different levels of abstraction. Two main results for this case are:
1. Generalisation conflicts: Two entities are represented at different levels of
generalisation in two different databases,for example.

Highway (ID, Name, type).
Motorway (ID, Name, type).
The first databaseuses the term "Highway" and the second databaseuses
"Motorway".
2. Aggregation conflicts: An aggregation is used in one databaseto identify a set of
entities in another database. For example:

Block of Houses (ID, Average Area, Location)
House (ID, Area, Location, Owner).
A "Block of Houses" is a set of houses and an "Average Area in the Block" is the
average (an aggregated function) area of a house.

The examples given above seek to highlight the fact that a difference in the view of
reality is reflected in the way data is structured and also affects the meanings assigned to
data items. It is obvious that for seamless data sharing, clients
need to understand the
concept and meaning of the terminology, the entities and their relationships in much the
same way as the provider intends them to be in his application.
28
2.3 METHODS OF RESOLVING

HETEROGENEITY PROBLEMS
Spatial data users and producers build their databases for specific applications.
Each of these databaseshas its own schema, syntax and semantic differences, as discussed
in the previous section. Exchange of data between systems, necessitate that those
differences between the data are known, to enable other users to make effective and
reliable use of them. Users must have a clear idea of the details of the context view of the
data providers; but these are often known only to the designers of the respective systems.
An important step towards resolving heterogeneity problems in data sharing would

be to resolve differences in schemas between user and producer systems, a schema being
the description of the sharable spatial data. This may be achieved by mapping the
respective schemas, as shown in figure 2-9.
Figure 2-9 Maintaining semantics at two contexts by mapping between their schemes
ISource Bishr, 19971.
29
Chapter 2 Spouul Data S'harurg
Bishr identifies three basic approaches to resolving heterogeneity problems based
on mapping of the schemas. These are:
1. Shared schema and no context mediation.

2. No shared schema and with context mediation.
3. No shared schema and no context mediation.
2.3.1 Shared Schema and No Context Mediation
This approach allows database designers to
make available the export Schemas of the
component databases in order to describe
the data. Each site is prepared to share with
the others and the national schema so
formed is made up of the views of all the
members of the spatial data user/producer
community. The system allows users to
send their queries based on the national
schema, as in figure 2-10.

Context I Context 2
Figure 2-10 Architecture of shared schema and no context mediation /Adapted from Bishr, 1997/.
The characteristic feature of this approach is that the national schema hides from
the users the source of the information requested and presents the retrieved information as
if it was from a central database(Bishr, 1997).
2.3.2 No Shared Schema and With Context

Mediation
In this situation, spatial data users have the flexibility to formulate their own
schemas, using their own definitions, without the need to identify conflicts explicitly.
30
Chupler 2 Spunul I )ata Sharing
.
The context mediator, as shown in figure
2-11, handles context difference in the
users' and the producers' resources. It
compares the context of the user query
with the context of the spatial data
producer and processes the query in such
a way that it is understood by the spatial
data producer's context. The difference in
naming conventions, units coordinate
system, etc. is solved but the schematic
problem remains unsolved. Intergraph
Context I Context 2 GeoMedia products, which will be
Figure 2-11 Architecture of no shared schema and discussed in chapter 5, are an

with context mediation /Adapted from implementation this approach (Bishr,
of
Bishr, 1997/.
1997).
2.3.3 No Shared Schema and No Context

Mediation
In this approach, spatial data users map
their export schemas onto the spatial data
Schemas, as shown in figure 2-

producers'
12. This demands that the user know the
schema and the context of the producers in
order to detect and resolve any conflicts. In
this approach it is assumed the user has the

knowledge of who the spatial data
producer(s) are. This method could only be
applied in a closed system. In a distributed
system with a large number of potential
spatial data producers, this is impractical
and difficult (Radwan, 1997)
Figure 2-12 Architecture of no shared chema and
no context mediation /Adapted from Bishr, 1997/.
31
2.3.4 The QCC Solutions

A significant step towards overcoming the heterogeneitybarrier in spatial data
sharing with a view to achieving interoperability is being carried out by the OpenGIS
Consortium (OGC). OGC is a non-profit trade organisation founded in 1994 to promote
technical and commercial approaches to interoperable geoprocessing in response to
widespread recognition of the problem of non-interoperability and its negative impact on

spatial data sharing. OGC has the vision of a national and global spatial data infrastructure.
OGC's software specification is the OpenGIS Specification, which will give
software developers around the world a detailed common interface for writing software
that will be interoperable with OpenGIS software written by other software developers.
The interfaces so created enable a user to query a remote server on the Internet for some
data, even though the data may have been acquired and processed in an incompatible
system and managed by a different DBMS.

The chief difference between the OGC and other geospatial data exchange
approaches is that the others treat exchange as a separateprocess, usually done "off line" or
as a "batch" process. In OGC, accessto data is performed in a process-to-process manner,
in real time, within a single session, without the user being aware of it. To achieve this
goal, OGC has gathered the consensus of the major software vendors and spatial providers
on the interfaces that need to be supported in order to enable interoperability at this level.
The resulting consensus interfaces are called "Simple Feature Access" interfaces, and these
are the first of many related interfaces that require consensus, but deliver process-to-
process interoperability for a broad range of spatial data services (OGC, 2000).

There is a worldwide increasing need for spatial data sharing on national, regional
and international levels. However a number of obstacles make spatial data sharing per
minimal. Part of the data-sharing problem was attributed to heterogeneity arising from the
fact that different applications have different views of reality. The differences in views are
basically the result of different contexts of applications. Spatial data abstractions from the
real world and subsequent structuring are therefore made with respect to the context view.
Therefore, data representation in any two information systems, within the
same application
32
domain,could be different. This is becausethe representationhasto be madein accordance

with the designers' perception of reality, the role the objects play in the information system
and each system's syntax, schema and semantics, rather than how objects appear in the real
terrain. This has been so far the main technical problem of data sharing and has given rise
to a need for the development and implementation of reliable and compatible spatial data
standards.
Spatial data sharingrequiresstandardsto ensurethat the sharersmaintain the same
view and understanding of their data. This has not been the case in the past in Saudi
Arabia, and that the imposition of required sharing standards will ensure a commonality of
view of all data in the Saudi national spatial data infrastructure model. Also as spatial data
sources broaden from just maps to more general forms of spatial data applications, strict
control will have to maintained to ensure such disparate data types are correctly portrayed.
Chapter 3 Spatial Data Standards
CHAPTER 3
SPATIAL DATA STANDARDS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter takes a closer look at spatial data standardswithin the broader
perspective of spatial data infrastructure and what work has been done in that respect. In
the spatial data community, the development and implementation of standards is a major
step forward for the collection, processing, modelling, production and integration of digital
spatial data. Spatial data standards are certainly the key element to success in data
integration, bringing together disparate data sets and promoting the use of information
technology by reducing the initial effort and cost of solving the exchange of spatial data
and facilitating the integration of data from different sources and system platforms
(Guptill, 1999). Initially, the impelling force for the development and implementation of
spatial data standards came from individual organisations in technologically and militarily
advanced countries in effort to provide a mechanism for spatial data sharing between
different non-communicating systems, which use dissimilar platforms, while preserving
the meaning and quality of the original spatial data (Hogan and Sondheim, 1996).
However, this growingly important area became the foundation for the new emerging
national and international spatial data infrastructures and has been taken up by the national
and international standardisation bodies.
Section 3.2 discusses the historical and classification evolution of spatial data standards.
Section 3.3 provides a general overview of national and international standardisation
initiatives, including a brief comparison of selected standards. The chapter ends with
concluding remarks in section 3.4.
3.1.1 Definition ,
The glossary of the mapping sciences defines standards as a procedure agreed upon
within a particular industry or profession as one to be followed in producing a particular

product or result (Glossary of the Mapping Sciences, 1994). Similarly, the European
standardisation technical committee defines a standard as a document, established by
34
Chapter3 Spatial Data Standards
consensusand approved by a recognised body that provides, for common and repeated use,
rules, guidelines or characteristics for activities or their results, aimed at the achievement
of the optimum degree of order in a given context (EUROGI, 1994). The International
Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) defines standards as documented agreements
containing technical specifications or other precise criteria to be used consistently as rules,

guidelines, or definitions of characteristics, to ensure that materials, products, processes
and services are fit for their purpose (ISO, 2001).
Spatial data standards,in general,involve mutual understanding,co-operationand
agreement on common terms, names, procedures, policies, terminology, conditions,
definitions and others that would enable data receivers to understand what they receive in
much the sameway as the spatial data producersintended the data to be viewed and to
producea product that satisfiesboth the producerandthe user.
3.2 EVOLUTION OF STANDARDS
3.2.1 Historical Background

The field of conventional mapping is both one of the oldest scientific areas, as
indicated in chapter 1, and an area where the need for standardisation has been recognised
for hundreds of years (Ostensen, 1996a). However for the last several decades, digital
maps and geographic information have come to replace conventional maps and other data
sources. The numbers of digital mapping and GIS installations have been increased,
especially in government mapping organisations and a great deal of spatial data have been
collected and produced. In the meantime databases have been designed and created to
organise and manage spatial data. However, due to lack of proper standards, most digital
spatial data in
were collected produced and stored ways that suit the purpose for acquiring
the data but which create data sharing obstacles and interoperability problems.
The growing recognition of spatial data as a national asset for sustainable
development and infrastructure has resulted in considerable effort across the globe to
facilitate spatial data sharing and the development of interoperable products. These
attempts range from the development of software tools, defining standardised formats for
the transfer and exchange of specific spatial data, to the development of comprehensive
35
spatial data for

Standards
standards. digital spatial data beganmore than 30 yearsago and
focusedon datatransfermechanisms.
Due to the fact that geographic information systems were created by governments,
the first level of standards was developed and implemented under government mapping
organisation authorities for their own products and for their suppliers and users. The type
of standards adopted by this large part of the user community were generally referred to as
defacto standards (McKellar, Beaulieu and O'Brien, 1995). Over the years there have been
several generations of de facto standards. Some of them exist to this day. For example:
1. The U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) Digital Line Graph (DLG), which was used as
their agency based standard.

2. The U. S. Census Bureau, Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and
Referencing (TIGER) system line format standard, is used as their agency based
standard to the present day.

3. The Map Data Interchange Format (MDIF) originally developed in Ontario by the
Canadian Council on Surveying and Mapping (CCSM). It later became the Map and
Chart Data Interchange Format (MACDIF).
4. The NATO DIgital Geographic information Exchange STandards (DIGEST).
5. The International Hydrographic Organisation (IHO) DX-90 transfer standards, which
later became S-57 (Hogan and Sondheim, 1996).
However, the requirements and demands for interoperable spatial data forced the
official standardisation bodies, whether national, such as the U. S. Bureau of Standards

(later renamed the U. S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the British
Standards Institute (BSI), the Saudi Arabian Standards Organisation (SASO); or
international, such as the ISO, to develop and endorse more or less general spatial data
standards (Salge, 1999). Also, as indicated in the introduction, the worldwide concept of a
national and international spatial data infrastructure has created a need for general spatial
data standards, which cover any, or at least a broad field of applications. The effort of
developing general standards, referred to as de jure standards, is based on access to a
reliable information technology foundation that facilitates the use of spatial data in a
continually expanding context (Hogan and Sondheim, 1996). It should be noted that most
of the defacto standards have been upgraded to dejure over a period of years.
36
7iapter 3
3.2.2 Categories of Spatial data Standards

The categorisation of spatial data standards has been a diverse and protracted
activity amongst spatial data communities in terms of the information technology used. It
has also been the subject of discussion by many organisations, individuals, writers and
researchers for some time and covers a wide range of research from data standards to
programming languages. The spectrum of spatial data standards includes many spatial data
activities, such as data acquisition, data modelling, data transfer, metadata, data
classification and data quality. Newton (1992) categorised standards into four broad areas,
as shown in figure 3-1 (Newton et al., 1992).
DATA SPECIFICATION
AND FORMATS
Spatial Data Models
Database Architecture
Data Quality and Reliability
Feature Classification
Data Schema and Map Design
HARDWARE AND Exchange Formats
C'OMMUNICA I IONS
SM I WARE.
Physical Connection Operating System

Electrical Interfaces Database Query Languages
Storage Media Programming Languages
Data Communications Display and Plotting Devices
Network Management Graphic User Interfaces
International Data Sets

7 Digital Topographic Map Series
Digital Census Mapping DATA SETS
Packaged Data Sets
Figure 3-1 Categories of spatial data standards /Adapted from Newton et at, 19921.
Today there are many de facto and de jure standards at national and international or
multinational levels. For example, the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO),
the Technical Committee 211 on Geographic Information/Geomatics (ISO/TC 211) is
providing the framework for both national and international spatial data standards, whether
de facto or de jure standards and will produce a broad band of
spatial data standards, also
37
the OpenGIS Consortium (OGC) is playing a big role in this field, meanwhile, Clarke
(1996), in general, outlined the critical operational standards for an effective spatial data
infrastructure as follows:
1. Data Transfer.
2. Reference System.
3. Data Model.
4. Data Dictionary.
5. Data Quality.
6. Metadata.
3.2.2.1 Spatial Data Transfer Standards
There has been a battle betweensystemmanufacturersand mapping organisations.

System manufactures want to be able to handle a wide range of different data types and
they do not want to limit their range of possible clients. However, they do want to maintain
incompatibility with their competitors' systems, as such incompatibility can be used to
lock their users into their systems, by imposing an artificial conversion cost to migrate to a
competitor's equipment or to use a mix of vendor equipment.

Mapping organisations, on the other hand have the opposite requirement from
systemmanufacturers.They want to be able to read all sourcesof datafrom different types

of systems and they want their users using different geographic information systems to be
able to read their data. As a result, a number of activities took place in many parts of the
world.
3.2.2.1.1 Direct Data Conversion Among Systems
The initial attempts at spatial data sharing involved direct data conversion between
small number of different GIS systems produced by different vendors, such as the
Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI)'s Arc-Info and Intergraph's MGE,
which necessitated file conversion from one system to another. The approach to data
sharing was therefore to write ad-hoc interface programs or translators for each pair of
communicating systems in a network (Radwan, 1997). To achieve data transfer between a
large number of systems, as illustrated in figure 3-2, each system needs to develop
38
Ia 'ier 3
software for the conversion of its data to each of the other systems with which it intends to
share data. However, the development and maintenance of these programs is expensive in
terms of time, effort and money. Besides, each time a new system emerges, all existing
system authors must write new programs to accommodate it. The number of conversion
programs, therefore, is of the magnitude of (n2-n). where n is the number of systems.
Figure 3-2 Transfer of spatial data using direct dalli con version [. I dapted froh t "entura, 1991/.
As a result, the development of direct translators between systems that want to
share data is of limited value, especially when a large number of systems are involved.
Nevertheless, interestingly, the survival of these limited pair-wise import/export functions
has continued, owing to the failure of general conversion systems to convert adequately all
aspects of competing data structures.

Further attempts at finding a solution to data sharing viewed data models and their
associated semantics as the core problem. If all data providers and users could use the same
data model and reach a common understanding of the meanings of entities, terms and
relationships used in the general model, the problem could be solved. This is, of course
impossible, because there exist many diverse applications to which spatial data can be
applied. However, a number of common content models have been developed to enable
distinct spatial data systems to communicate and remove a substantial amount of their
differences.
39
3.2.2.1.2 Common Spatial Data Exchange Standards
Common spatial data transfer standards rely upon an agreed set of syntactic and
semantic rules. The adoption of a spatial data transfer standard allows heterogeneous
systems to share their data with other systems by making use of a common and agreed
facility that represents and reflects the common model of the data used in participating
systems.
The development of transfer standard involves the following components (Radwan,
1997):
1. Design of the data model (or content model), which supports the data transfer. This
includes the definition of contents and its structure.
2. Design of a classification scheme and coding system and data dictionary for any type
of features oriented data.

3. Design of transfer model (format) for the transfer of features oriented data.
4. Design of interfaces between the standard and the various GIS systems. This includes
procedures and computer packages for the conversion of the data files in these
systems to the standard format, and vice versa.
For an efficient utilisation of the data available, transfer standards should address
characteristics of data quality, which will be discussed later in this section, and the way
they are encoded. Common spatial data exchange standards imply an agreement on
standard formats and definitions of a general content model for a particular application that
caters for all participating systems, as shown in figure 3-3.
Figure 3-3 A common transfer format /Adapted from Ventura, 1991/.
40
Adoption of a standard requires each participant to develop software that converts their
data to the standard when exporting and another to retrieve needed data from it when
importing, as shown in figure 3-4.
Figure 3-4 The role of data transfer standards /Source Cassettari, 1993/.
Table 3-1 shows a comparison of the number of conversions between direct data
conversion and common data transfer standards. It is clear that using transfer standards, the
is
number of conversion routines greatly reduced to 2n (by comparison with the situation in
figure 3-2).
No. of conversions
Number of systems Translators Data transfer Standards
(n2-n) (2n)
2 2 2
3 6 6
4 12 8
5 20 10
6 30 12
7 42 14
8 56 16
Table 3-1 Comparison between translators and transfer standards.
41
hapter 3 Spatial Data Standards
3.2.2.1.3 Classification of Transfer Standards
The design of spatial data transfer standards can vary widely, as shown in figure 3-
5. According to Moellering (1996), spatial data transfer standards can be classified into
system specific and general transfer standards. The standards, written at directly
implementable levels for specific applications, are referred to as specific or defined
standards, while those that are written at a more abstract (generic) level are referred to as
general standards (Moellering, 1996).
Format Transfer
mechanism
Flexible transfer
System General
Specific Lower higher

4 transfer
Flexible
10
Fixed Data model Minimal data model
Data model
Figure 3-5. The range of database transfer process /Source Moellering, 1996/.
A defined transfer standard is simply a transfer format with a fixed data model
(system specific format), which in general is derived from production data formats. In
contrast to general standards, defined standards are narrow in scope and cover a smaller
range of application specific areas, such as environment, road traffic information, urban
planning, utilities, nautical and navigational charts, hydro charts, etc. Spatial data
producers have to restructure their data into the fixed data model, however, if a user's
system does not share the same capabilities as the producer's system; otherwise, some
parts of the spatial data will be lost during the transfer process. Both S-57 and DIGEST are
primarily defined standards; near the left hand side of Mollering's chart (O'Brien, 2001).
On the other hand, general transfer standards use a flexible data model, work with a
variety of applications and provide access to multiple data structures that may allow any
kind of spatial data to be transferred, but do not guarantee interoperability. Table 3-3 and
42
3-4 illustrate some of the general transfer standards, such as those available in Canada,
Netherlands, United Kingdom and United States of America. It should be mentioned that
in between defined and general standards there are a range of transfer standards with a
varying degrees of flexible data model, but as the flexibility increases the complexity of
the standardsincreases as well (Moellering, 1996).
3.2.2.2 Reference System
The advance in space science and technology has greatly improved geodetic
knowledge at the national and international levels, by the introduction of the global
positioning system (GPS) that provides fundamental data for precise geocentric datum, as
well as navigational purposes. The conceptual schema describes models of data structure
and integrates spatial data with information technology. The geodetic reference standard
will provide spatial data with a consistently defined reference system, stored on a single
accurate national reference framework (Cross, 1999). This will increase the possibility of
establishing a national spatial data-sharing infrastructure between different applications.
3.2.2.3 Data Model
A datamodel is a representationof real world phenomenaand their relationshipsas

spatialobjects.Thereare three levels to a datamodel standard:
1. The conceptual data model, which provides a schema for the representation of the
real world in the form of spatial data objects.

2. The logical data model (or data structure), which specifies how the relationships
between various data sets are defined.
3. The physical data model (or file structure), which is implemented in the data transfer
standard.
The data model also specifies the data generalisation process for a particular system.
The scale might change the type of object that represents a given feature. A vector spatial
data model, for instance, may represent roads as lines, forests as polygons and buildings as
points. It is imperative that both data producers and users have a common understanding of
the data model (McCullagh, 1999). However, as Lee and McLaughlin (1991) observe,
researchersand developershave not yet beenable to agreeon a limited set of data models
for spatialdatathat would satisfy all producersand users(Lee and McLaughlin, 1991).
3.2.2.4 Data Dictionary
A data dictionary standard is created based on the conceptual data model to provide
definitions for spatial data and its components. For example, spatial features, e.g. roads,
drainage, farms, sand dunes, etc are used for the creation of any spatial database.A feature
may have associated with it one or more spatial attributes. The attribute specifies relevant
properties of the real world feature, such as road class, number of lanes, surface and width.
The attribute class may have a range of values that give the specific qualitative or
quantitative measurements pertaining to a particular attribute. The value of a spatial

attribute, as defined by ISO, is a spatial object - either a geometric object or a topological
object - that describes one or more characteristics such as location, size, shape and spatial
relationships to other spatial objects in the same 'real world'.
A spatial object can consist of a single geometric or topological primitive of 0,1,2
or 3 dimensions, or of a set of these. The data dictionary standard permits the level of
topology within a 'real world' to be defined and specified by an application schema. It is
essential that each database participating in the standard define its features in order to
avoid confusion on the use of the spatial data (ISO/TC 211,2002a).
3.2.2.5 Data Quality
The meaning of quality depends on the context in which it is used. The term quality
is sometimes used to define the goal of producing error-free systems and products that
meet user requirements (McCullagh, 1996). Consequently, quality assurance mechanisms

are introduced into the development process to ensure that there are no deviations from
requirements as development proceeds. Each stage of the development process is checked
to ensure that errors are minimised (Hawryszkiewycz, 2000).
Spatial data quality standards can be descriptive, prescriptive or both. A descriptive
data quality standard provides information and produces subschema for the quality
characteristics of the spatial data. On the other hand a prescriptive data quality standard
would define quality parameters for each characteristic, for a particular application (Clarke,
1996).
3.2.2.5.1 Spatial Data Quality Characteristics
Spatial data collection is an expensive business, as indicated in chapter 1. It is not
only the most expensive part of spatial data activities, but also all the decisions made as a
result of using the spatial data are based on the original (or primary) data collection. Many
agenciesand users resort to taking their base maps, complete with existing errors, and
turning them into digital spatial data by either digitising or scanning (secondary data
collection). The qualities of the new digital data are clearly determined by the quality of
the original data. Hence, documentation of the original source of the data will enable
prospective users to evaluate the data and determine its fitness for their use. Without
thorough documentation for all data, the quality would remain unknown.
Thapa and Bossier (1992) as well as Veregin (1999) discuss the data quality
characteristics or components that must be understood and documented, including lineage,
positional accuracy, attribute accuracy, temporal accuracy, logical consistency and
completeness.
3.2.2.5.1.1 Lineage
It is essential that the original source and reliability of the data, and all
transformations and changes that have been applied, are known and documented, so that
the overall quality of any resulting data set can be evaluated. Lineage refers to a
description of the source materials from which the data were derived and the methods of
derivation, including all transformations in producing the final digital data. The lineage
must provide the transformation algorithm along with the computational steps taken to
avoid round off errors. Lineage must also include the specific control points used,
described with sufficient detail to allow recovery (Thapa and Bossier et al, 1992).
3.2.2.5.1.2 Positional accuracy
Positional accuracy or spatial accuracy (horizontal and vertical) describes the

accuracyof the position of featuresin accordancewith a dataset'sproduct specification.It
depends on the geometric data representation chosen (point, line or area). Error in a point
is usually defined as the discrepancy between the actual measurement of the point and the
value as defined by the specification. Error in a line or area position is far more complex to
assess as Veregin (1999) states: "metrics measurements are widely accepted for points
45
entities, however widely accepted metrics measurementsfor line and area have yet to be
developed'. There are a number of metrics that have been developed to summarise
statistical error in spatial data sets. The most common accuracy measure is the Root Mean
Square Error (RMSE). RMSE is computed as the square root of the mean of the squared
error and used mostly to document vertical accuracy for Digital Elevation Models (DEM).
There are no simple statistical positional accuracy measures for line and area as yet. The
assessmentmethods for positional accuracy, in general, are made by comparison to an

independent source of higher accuracy data or deductive estimates or internal evidence
(Veregin, 1999).
3.2.2.5.13 Attribute Accuracy
Attribute accuracy or thematic accuracy refers to the accuracy of the thematic
component. Attribute accuracy varies as a function of map scale and may be made either
by deductive estimates, or map overlay, or based on a comparison between land cover
classes assigned to certain selected points and the same classes observe on the ground, at
these points (Thapa and Bossier et al., 1992).
3.2.2.5.1.4 Temporal Accuracy
Temporal accuracy of data is important and refers to the update or currency of
spatial data. For example built up areas and roads in developing countries change very
quickly. Therefore temporal accuracy is needed to keep spatial datasets both current and
reliable (Veregin, 1999).
3.2.2.5.1.5 Logical Consistency
Logical consistency describes the degree to which data is stored in accordancewith

the structure of a dataset or the degree to which the correct encoding of feature attributes
into a dataset are in accordance with a dataset's production specification. This includes the
evaluation of attribute values and topological inconsistencies based on graphical or

topological tests.
46
Chapter
3 Datastandards
Spatial
3.2.2.5.1.6 Completeness
Completeness indicates the relationship between abstracted features and the same
features on the real world. It describes the degree to which all intended features attributes
and relationships have been encoded into the maps or databases in accordance with the
product specification (Thapa and Bossier et at., 1992).
3.2.2.6Metadata
One of the key reasons that have been adduced for duplication of effort in spatial
data collection and production, invariably leading to a higher cost for data, is a lack of
information on existing or available data. The concept of metadata is not new and is
familiar to most people who deal with maps. The map or chart legend information, such as
publisher, date, scale, type, spatial reference and accuracy are pure metadata (Danko,
1999). Metadata systems are concerned with the documentation of data quality
characteristics, but from the operational component view rather than being concerned with
conceptual issues (Veregin 1999).

A collection of metadata records combined with data managementand search tools
forms a data catalogue. The use of metadata and a data catalogue helps to create an
environment to accommodate user requests for spatial data. In order to make metadata
easily read and understood by different disciplines, there should be a standard that provides
a common set of terminology and definitions for the documentation of spatial data (Guptill,
1999).
3.2.2.6.1 Metadata Standards
Metadata standards are simply common sets of terminology and definitions that
describe the origins of data, track the changes, and document spatial data, quality. For
example, area covered, theme, format, content, data producer, context in which information
was collected, condition of access, currency, accuracy, logical, consistency, restrictions,
completeness, grid system, attribute values, lineage, media, coordinate system, projection,
distributor, datum, all the transformation the data has undergone, as well as other relevant
information. Metadata standards are complex and sometimes difficult to define. The level
of detail depends on the purpose of the metadata. It can be used by the data producers
47
internally to monitor the status of data sets, as well as externally to provide their data to
potential users through a national clearinghouse.

Key developments in metadata standards are the ISO/TC 211 metadata standard
(19115), the OGC metadata standards, the U. S. Federal Geographic Data Committee
(FGDC) Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata (CSDGM), CEN European
standard for metadata and others. However, most of these developments, especially the
CSDGM, have merged with the ISO/TC 211 metadata standards.
Metadata provide the users with the necessary information they need to perform
spatial data appreciation and evaluation and decide whether to use the data and save money
and time or carry out new data collection work. The Federal Geographic Data Committee
list the major uses of metadata and metadata standardsas follows:
1. To help organise and maintain an organisation's internal investment in spatial data.

2. To provide information about an organisation's data holdings to data catalogues,
clearinghouses, and brokerages.

3. To provide information to process and interpret data received through a transfer
from an external source (FGDC, 1998).
Also Metadata may cover the following purposes:
1. Data cataloguing: - provides a summary of the content of data sets. Within an
organisation, data cataloguing provides an inventory of all spatial data available. In
the context of use of computer technology, it allows one to browse through the data
to determine quickly whether it is potentially useful and worth further enquiry.
2. Data sharing: - metadata provides the necessaryinformation about form, content and
quality that enables users in different geographical locations to know of the existence
or availability of data. This enhancesdata sharing and reduces duplication.
3. Internal documentation: - keeping track of what a dataset or database contains and
how it is organised, maintained and updated (Yousefi, 1994).
3.3 STANDARDISATION INITIATIVES

Data sharing issues are of great importance to the spatial data community, as
indicated in chapter 2. This is quite clear from the number of initiatives
many countries and
48
independent organisations, such as ISO/TC 211, have undertaken over the last two decades
to establishstandardsfor spatialdata.
3.3.1 National Standards Initiatives

As shown in table 3-3, there are about seventeen national standards initiatives. In
this section the United States' spatial data transfer standards (SDTS) is selected in view of
the fact that availableliteraturesuggeststhat it hasthe potentialto becomea defacto world
standard, customised where necessary to accommodate conditions peculiar to certain
countries (Clarke, 1996).
3.3.1.1 The U. S. Spatial Data Transfer Standard
The U. S. Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) was tasked, among others,
to establish and implement standards for quality, content, metadata and transferability as
well as the co-ordination of the collection of spatial data to minimise duplication. The
metadata standard was briefly discussed in section 3.2.2.6.1 and in this section the U. S.
Spatial Data Transfer Standards (SDTS) will be discussed.
The SDTS is approved as a Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS 173)
and is designed to support all types of spatial data exchange. It is a general modelling
standard that has both a flexible data model and provides options for encoding data. SDTS
provides the specification for the organisation and structuring of digital spatial data
transfer, and the definition of spatial features and attributes. The purpose is to promote and
facilitate the transfer of digital spatial data between dissimilar systems (McKellar, 1996).
The objectives of SDTS are to:
1. Provide a common mechanism for transferring digital spatial data between dissimilar
systems while preserving information meaning, minimising the need for information
external to this standard.
2. Provide, for the purpose of transfer, a set of clearly specified spatial objects and
relationships to representworld spatial entities.

3. Provide a transfer model that will facilitate the conversion of user-defined data to
a
standardisedset of objects, relationship and information.
49
The standard is composed of six parts, Parts 1-3 are for the organisation and
structuring of digital spatial data while Part 4-6 are added as profiles to allow for the
exchange of particular types of data. The standard describes the underlying conceptual
model and the detailed specification for the content, structure and format for exchange of
spatial data (Moellering and Hogan, 1996).
3.3.1.1.1 The organisation and structuring of digital spatial data
SDTS allows the use of a wide range of Cartesian co-ordinates and geographic co-
ordinates(4, X), UTM and U.S. planeco-ordinatesystems.
PART 1: Logical Specification consists of three main sections, which explain the SDTS
-
conceptual model and SDTS spatial object types, the components of a data quality report
and the layout of SDTS modules that contain all needed information for a spatial data
transfer compliant with SDTS.
PART 2: Spatial Feature - contains a catalogue of spatial features and associatedattributes.

This part addresses the need for definition of common spatial feature terms to ensure
greater compatibility in data transfer.
PART 3: ISO 8211 Encoding the file exchange

- explains use of a general-purpose
standard, ISO 8211, to create SDTS file sets.
3.3.1.1.2 Implementing SDTS through Profiles
Since the SDTS is designed to support all types of spatial data, implementing all
the standards options at one time would be a monumental task and inefficient, so the
standard is implemented through the use of profiles. The specification of a profile in SDTS
reduces it to a defined interchange. Profiles balance two objectives of SDTS: to allow both
encoding and decoding to be feasible and to ensure that all meaningful information is
transferred.
The specific SDTS profiles are: Topological Vector Profile (TVP) (Part 4), Raster Profile
(RP) (Part 5) and Point Profile (PP) (Part 6):
50
1. The topological vector profile is the first of a potential series of SDTS profiles, each
of which defines how the SDTS base specification (parts 1,2, and 3) must be
implemented for a particular type of data. TVP is the most mature profile with
approval as an FGDC standard and as a Federal Information Processing Standard

(FIPS) (Hackman, 1997). TVP limits options and identifies specific requirements for
SDTS transfer of data consisting of topologically structured area and linear features.
2. The raster profile is for 2-D images and gridded rasters.
3. The raster profile is a modification of TVP and follows many of the conventions of
that profile.
The main purpose of the profiles is to ensure a clearly defined subset of SDTS, related to
just one data model and thus limit the available options so that translation software is much
less complicated.
3.3.2 International Standards Initiatives

As shown in table 3-3, there are about six international standards initiatives. The
discussion on standardisation initiatives commences with global issues involving the ISO
through efforts at continental level, in the United States of America and Europe, and then
examines individual countries initiatives. In this section, four important organisations or

committees who have been involved in the development of various components of spatial
data standardsare selected.
3.3.2.1 International Organisation for Standardisation
The International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) is a non-governmental
organisation that was established in 1946 to develop worldwide standards to improve

international communication and to promote smooth and equitable growth of international
trade. It has national bodies in more than 100 countries all over the world. ISO is neither
abbreviation nor acronym, but is taken from the Greek word iso, which means equal
(Ostensen, 1996a). ISO work results in international technical requirements that are
published as international standards. All standards developed by the organisation are

voluntary; no legal requirements force countries to adopt them. However, most countries
51
and industries usually adopt and attach further significance to the organisation's standards,
thereby making them mandatory.
The work of preparing international standards is normally carried out through ISO
technical committees. ISO created a small number of standards that relate to geographic
information before the advent of TC 211. In particular these are the standard for the
representation of position in coordinates (ISO 6709), the standard for data base query of
spatial data (ISO 13249-3 SQL/MM-Part 3) and the Basis Image Interchange Format
(BIIF) from JTC1 SC24 (O'Brien, 2001). However the technical committee, ISO/TC 211
on geographic information/geomatics, was formed to build broad spatial data standards that
will hopefully consolidate most of the national and international isolated standards
presently in use around the world.
3.3.2.1.1 ISO/TC 211 Geographic Information/Geomatics
The ISO/TC 211 was established in April 1994 to define standards for geographic
information/geomatics that were needed to support spatial data infrastructure and user
requirements. The initiative for this committee came in 1993, from a Canadian proposal,
which was circulated to the ISO member countries, for the formation of new technical
committee in the field of geomatics. This proposal was based upon, among other things,
the Canadian work within Digital Geographic Information Working Group (DGIWG).
ISO/TC 211 is composed of the national standardisation bodies from most
countries all over the world. The current focus of the ISO/TC 211 is to enable
interoperability between heterogeneous geographic information systems. It is arguably the
most important body in the movement towards compatible spatial data standards.
3.3.2.1.1.1The Aim of ISO/TC 211
The aim of ISO/TC 211, which was defined in the inaugural TC 211 meeting in
Oslo in November 1994, is to establish a structured set of digital -spatial data standards.
These standards may specify, for geographic information, methods, tools and services for
data management (including definition and description), acquiring, processing, analysing,
accessing, presenting and for transferring such data in digital form between different users,
systemsand locations. The intention was announcedto link to appropriatestandardsfor

information technology and data where possible and to provide a framework for the
development of sector-specific applications using spatial data (ISO/TC 211,1994).
3.3.2.1.1.2 The ISO/TC 211 Working Groups
The ISO/TC 211 started with five main working groups as follows:
1. Working group 1- Frameworkand referencemodel.

2. Working group 2- Geospatial data model and operators.
3. Working group 3- Geospatial data administration.
4. Working group 4- Geospatial services.
5. Working group 5- Profile and functional standards.
However during the 13"' plenary meeting of ISO/TC 211, held in Adelaide, Australia,
22-26 October 2001 a number of resolutions were issued. The most important of these
resolutions were:
The disbanding, as their work was complete, of.
Working group 1- Framework and reference model.

Working group 2- Geospatial data model and operators.
Working group 3- Geospatial data administration.
Working group 5- Profile and functional standards.
and the establishment of four new Working Groups.
Working Group 6: Imagery.

Working Group 7: Information communities.
Working Group 8: Location based services.
Working Group 9: Information management (ISO/TC 211,2002b).
The ISO/TC 211 former and new working groups focused on the following thirty-five
projects for standardisation, as shown in table 3-2

19101 Reference Model 19120 Functional standards
19102 Overview (Deleted) 19121 Imageryand gridded data

19103 ConceptualSchemaLanguage 19122 Qualificationsand certification of personnel
19104 Terminology 19123 Schema for coverage geometry and functions
19105 Conformance and Testing 19124 Imagery and gridded data components
19106 Profiles 19125-1 Simple feature access-Part 1:Common

Architecture
19107 Spatial schema 19125-2 Simple feature access-Part 2: SQL Option
19108 Temporal schema 19125-3 Simple feature access-Part 3: COM/OLE Option
19109 Rulesfor Application Schema 19126 Profile-FACC datadictionary

19110 Feature cataloguing methodology 19127 Geodetic codes and parameters
19111 Spatial referencing by co-ordinates 19128 Web Map server interface
19112 Spatial referencing by geographic 19129 Imagery, gridded and coverage data framework
identifiers
19113 Quality principles 19130 Sensor and data model for imagery and gridded
data
19114 Quality Evaluation Procedures 19131 Data product specifications

19115 Metadata 19132 Location based services possible standards
19116 Positioning Services 19133 Location based services tracking and navigation
19117 Portrayal 19134 Multimodel location based services for routing
and navigation
19118 Encoding 19135 Procedures for registration of geographical
information items
19119 Services
Table3-2 ISOITC 211 Families of standards[Source: ISOITC 211,2002a].
At the time of updating this chapter (January 2002) about fourteen (14) of the above
projects have been approved as a draft international standards (DIS).
3.3.2.2 CEN/TC 287
The European Joint work goes back to the late 1980s, when the European national
mapping organisations declared a need for a European Transfer Format (ETF). After years
of co-operation and co-ordination among the European countries and due to the need for
European spatial data standards, France proposed officially to the European Organisation
for Standardisation (Comite Europeen de Normalisation, CEN) that it start working in the
54
field of spatial data standards. In 1991 CEN agreed to take up this new work and formed a
technical committee, TC 287 for this purpose. The first meeting of CEN/TC 287 was held
in Brussels in February, 1992 and all the European Commission (made up of 22 members)
are members (Ostensen, 1996a).

The original goal of the CEN/TC 287 was to producea family of standardsaiming
to bring a greater understanding of spatial data, harmonisation of concepts concerning
sharing of spatial data, integration of spatial data and simplify the transfer between
different systems in the 22 countries. Four CEN working groups handled standardisation
within the committeeand dealwith issuespertainingto:
1. Framework for standardisation.

2. Models and applications.
3. Geographic information transfer.
4. Location reference systems.
CEN/TC 287 does not lay any restrictions on the use of particular referencing
systems, as it recognises such basic concepts related to positional information as geodetic

reference system, geodetic ellipsoid (Spheroid) and local co-ordinates (Salge, 1996). It
should be noted that CEN began before ISO/TC 211, but ISO/TC 211 later absorbed most
of its work plan when, CEN/TC 287, due to financial difficulties, had to discontinue its
work. The researcher discussed this issue, via E-Mail, with Francois Salge, Director of
European and International Activities IGN and chairman of the CEN/TC 287. He replied
"the CEN/TC 287 has finished its work programme and is now dormant until ISO/TC 211
has delivered its results (2001-2003)".
3.3.2.3 DGIWG
Spatial data standardisation within the Northern Atlantic Treaty Organisation

(NATO), for defence co-operation, started in 1983 using an informal group, which named
itself the Digital Geographic Information Working Group (DGIWG). DGIWG's work has
resulted in a series of military spatial data standards or NATO standards, which are now
known as the DIGEST. Even though DIGEST was originally developed for military
application to assist NATO in its operations, the intent of these standards has been to
develop general public domain scientific standards rather than
ones for purely military
55
purposes. It grew from a simple data exchange standard to the establishment of a suite of
direct use data products and the release of public domain software and tools for accessing
spatial data. DIGEST is a `defined' standard as it specifies one (or at most a few) ways to
exchange sets of data through the components of DIGEST-A, DIGEST-B and DIGEST-C,
which are different encoding of the same general model, that mostly handle vector data.
DIGEST-D handles raster and matrix (image and gridded) data in alignment with the ISO
basis image interchange format (BIIF) standard for imagery. Thus, a profile of a general
standard could be created to correspond to a well-defined standard (Kottman, 1991).

DIGEST allows a range of co-ordinates for spatial referencing including geographic and
Cartesian co-ordinates and does not restrict the exchange of data between databases and
systems.
3.3.2.4 IHO
The International Hydrographic Organisation (IHO) is an intergovernmental
consultative and technical organisation established in 1921. IHO works together with the
International Maritime Organisation (IMO) to support safety and efficiency in the sea
navigation and protection of the marine environment. For over 75 years, the IHO has
consistently worked towards the development of standards for hydrographic charts and
related activities, so that mariners worldwide can share charts compiled by any member of
the IHO. The standardisation of charts was achieved by adoption of the 'Chart
Specifications of the IHO' at the 12th International Hydrographic Conference held in April
1982. However the key development of the IHO in the field of hydrographic digital spatial
data standards was S-57 for the electronic navigational chart (ENC) as well as the transfer
standards format, DX-90. IHO defines its ENC using the S-57 standard (IHO, 2001). S-57
standards work among other things as the object catalogue for spatial objects related to
hydrography(Ostensen,1996b).
DGIWG has a similar requirement and has established a digital nautical chart
(DNC) product based on the DIGEST standard. But DNC products use a different
geometric and topological data structure (planar graph topology) and a different layering.
However, both the IHO and the DGIWG have been working together for over ten years,
trying to harmonise the differences between their standards. As a result, a significant move
in the area of overcoming data sharing barriers has been achieved by the alignment of
DIGEST to S-57 standards (Hume et al., 1998). The two standards are not identical;
56
however, the underlying models have been aligned, permitting conversion of data without
loss of structure or information. The spatial schemas for both DIGEST and S-57 have been
aligned, as have aligned metadata and feature catalogue object and attribute definitions.
This work was completed in June 2000 and it is now possible to correctly produce
DIGEST digital nautical chart (DNC) data from S-57 electronic nautical chart (ENC) data.
In effect DGIWG and IHO have aligned their content models, but have not changed the
implicit exchange format.
Both the DGIWG and IHO are altering their DGIWG and S-57 standardsto make
use of the ISO/TC 211 rules and schema to bring their standards closer together and
minimise differences (O'Brien, 2001).
3.3.3 Summary of Standardisation Initiatives

The following table (table 3-3)summarises most of the worldwide standards
initiatives (national and international) that have been developed.
57
a
p
2 y y q ý
a Ü.'r
. _"ö
W
`ý `0 4
ä 00 ä
ä
ebv
oä
° äig ä ä
W w rýd"
° ° O ý E
s E3 _ 41
a a y y y h
ego ü 'ý a3i °ý' 'y
.a .ýv ä C°
w°
_y v `ý U 8ö `ý 'oö co eo
° w Ü w x zw wa wr w w °
w w w w w
w w "4 v,
s
ö 'd ak z u
-. 4 CD a, t
a
ö 8 N .. 00 q V1 w t4
.a h O
Ü ý
ao ^ ý
«ýää > $ ý d
"" N >Ei
ý zäa ^ Ea. ý "' výýi µýNj
ý z° ü zý a wa z ßä N y ý w < ý ý?
a¢ o Uý z äö z !ý 'z ýZ ° ýý ýZ Z ýa U Z UQ V
t5 -0 -a
1 = ö ö
F ö '
F d
ä ! ä
° ý` .
S ° vý ¬a ° C v
"ýEE ý
EO ä'
v i' ý Cö y b 6
"t 9
m 2 zz
= EO
S
F -9
C
Ö
O N 0. ry+r u
ý,, ý4 a eSi
Ö C . ÖL xGý"
F V z Öi Ö mitl ii 7 O
r ° Q
"ä ý zo ßw d" g a3Q w° w w c7 °ýS v

a ý o Fo uü" y Ne w'Ü ý ý
5 a ö >
w bp ýF ,
?ý ý F
pp
g
ö0
ä ý v Ü Ü Ä" ý
yg z c q pý q ÜE" Ä Ü^ _
$ý
G V Z V ý1 ' i f Q 4"' ý
` O I
A hpý Vpfý ýp+1. NQý t+1 N 00 Mpý N dpý' N
; '
ep+fý Opý pý ... ý
pý ä ä qý/1 pý ä T
Qý Oý Oý T Oý °ý °` °, O`
Oý
00
b
h
t
N ° vJ
N ! -y .n 00
a , V1 N
.lG o0
I H
RN
ý ý
C4 'a
d Ö Ö a e Ö Q w 8
E U . 5
v) z
F
o öö 5
u Q
w u F
,g
,2
ý
C7 ý
N L
Ö ýý
C7 ! (S W 9 Ä
'q 'o cý a-ýl ýq Jp3,
d E ý w u i
G w F
a r9 Opp d
CO) 1 1
w mg ' Äp
w i0 5 !ý °
N uö ý
x
y. W C5
v @ S ü ö
ö w7 _
Q
3
ýF Ä u° `y !ý°
4 0 Er -
`ý E
T
1 1 q I .2 w ýQ wvý
_ '
-a 8
F u "'
. '-!
w
F,m 5.
6 g
ýj
Q
.2
ýb
ý
v'ýý
ü ý °ý U
v "A W ýd>
_ý y° J "`ý
_W
" 7ü Ö
F ýi
ýqu3 $
ýe Q g ýa
41, z a ¢ G7 4ä F]
,
W.
l .. v ¢R z z W h
9
W
7
w C7 Ci F
ö o o o
'a 'a
^ SP F "`ý b ti. ] "a
. r7
5
C = .
o
f° Q
Ü Sp
ýi °ý 6i 5a s J H a
¢ a V w w c7 .. -, z ww ý, v, v, ] w w w z u tý1
14
e
H
m1 = 1 N N
^ -
a I, Gal
a,
3.3.4 Comparison of Standards

In this section, a comparison is presented between seven of the best-known standards.
They are:
1. SAIF (Canada).
2. NEN 1878(The Netherlands).
3. NTF (United Kingdom).
4. SDTS (United States of America).
5. CEN TC 287 (European union).
6. DIGEST (NATO).
7. S-57 (IHO).
The comparison between the seven standards is carried out using the basic
characteristics in table 3-3 and table 3-4 and based in part on Moellering and Hogan
(1996):
a. All seven standards were independently developed and at different times(table 3-3).
b. They were documented in English Language (Table 3-3).
c. They have all been tested, with the exceptions of NEN 1878 and CEN/TC 287
d. They are all officially recognised, with the exception of CEN/TC 287.
e. Softwarefor implementationis availablefor all exceptCEN/TC 287.

f. With the exceptions of DIGEST and S-57, all the standards are general standards,
which allow different data types to be transferred.
g. All data
standardssupportspatialreferencing,a conceptual model, a data
conceptual
schemaand a quality data model, except NEN 1878, which does not support a
quality datamodel.
h. Data type:
- In geometric/topological data type aspect, all standards support vector topology

and spaghetti vector data types.
The raster data type (transfer in raster format) is supported by all, except NEN
-
1878.
i. Definitions of technical terms as well as that for entities, attributes and relationships
are supported by all standards.
59
j. Implementation of general standards is done using profiles, except for SAIF,

CEN/TC 287 and DIGEST. All standards contain descriptive information,
except SAIF and CEN/TC 287.
k. SAIF, CEN/TC 287 and DIGEST support topological, object-oriented,
hierarchical, relational and image data structure. NEN 1878 does not support an
image data structure.. SDTS does not support object oriented and hierarchical
data structure. S-57 does not support object-oriented and relational data
structure. S-57 does not support a relational data structure.

1. All the standardshave specificationsfor spatialreferencesystemsas well as type
of map projection used.

m. All data quality elements are supported in SAIF, SDTS, CEN/TC 287 and
DIGEST. NEN 1878 supports lineage and positional accuracy. NTF supports
lineage, positional accuracy and temporal accuracy. S-57 supports lineage,
positional accuracy, completeness and temporal accuracy.

n. Metadata are defined in all standards.
o. The official documentation (papers) are available (with varied charges, except
DIGEST which is free). On the other hand the Canadian (SAIF) and the U. S.
(SDTS) standards can be accessedfree through the Internet.
p. The technical description documentation (supplementary documents) are
available for SAIF, NEN 1878, NTF, and SDTS. Also, user manuals/guides are
available for SAIF, NEN 1878 and SDTS. Other supplementary documentation
is availablefor all exceptIHO (Moellering, and Hogan 1996).
q. It should be noted that SAIF has been dropped as a national standard of Canada.
It did not pass its reaffirmation vote, since it is used only by its developers in the
Canadian province of British Columbia (O'Brien, 2001).
Table 3-4 summarisesthe sevenselectedstandardsand their characteristics.
60
ý z ýz
z zz z
° üdäý ° äßü° ö ä, ßi c _ ýt
zz aaa zz >az zz as z z ýzý» z
i` Vi
g
N
Vi Y1 h
Ü1
J.
N
az y y
K e
Z : zz > c5 ý+Yi' >' ie z> i z> z p"p > ZZ zz ? i" z >xle
z ýz ýä W 1
C
äc d
ý" ý üü Ö
L'I ü üw ü Yi üüü ý oý äi ö äi ü o
z a> - z 0
N
C] z ý Y ZZ ý ýýw ý e? z zzo Y> - e
it ti
Z ti
.o
a N
o "s
Ü`ý w zö ö ce
www üü üäýäýo 0 üü ti
>.>.>. Z zz z a.ao;" as a. a. Z
z ý+
mää
w v, w on w ac o, a am o a; äm .
Ü äz ä zz z c ä ää äi°'i°'ýý a zz >->Z z iY ? i' H aa"ä ä ö
zi
b
ON
U oN,
Ja 4
> ä y° it
zä
ü üN Yi üd üü ~ cö c
N
a >+
OO d : O O-
Z Yý
- O
Z Z
O
ö
?ý >+Yý zz Yý z > >- m- ?"z
ý' ü d üü d 5 r ü dd öw d üäýü 0 öo ýäý w äiüv d
zo a a aa a cý aaa a aa
aiýiäiäid
aaaaa zý z
aýiü
aa ý aa a ý zz >. >. a aaa ý-
ý. "e du
ö 9 Q
zA ý°' r äz
iA ö Ti UV äi A ü ai
z i' ° xi zpn ý.°
m W %" %O. iý"
ü ü Yi
C N ü Nd ü dÜd Q 0 wü 0O
p öN Nüöüd
e Nzö O
o
Ci
m# zO iü^iüýaU Z
q
E A
'" z äz äz °
C
,G
ýi
ý ei e äi ü. d °z üö üN ü°°
2
e eie ö O
z zz a>. ». oz aze -z >ü zü aýzz

üöö
z
V. ýi
ý i a°1i
a a ý» aý a c aý a z zz z aaaa za z >a a aaa z aý aýaý aýaýzz aý
II
p
I
6a ü L
ee üüü O
OO di
a.. aua zz ý»aaa aa zz aý as z aaa z
A rk H q
"ý
NV CU .p
'sý >y L
ý, u
9
Gn
'.1I M A
ks
ý ý.
ýi
ý
ö °ý mý I3g ý_ ý ý }: y 1 Ä g 9 -. ý a.
ö d" SZ
i .9
'
d
ýi ý IT
$gýý$jýA äý 'rbý Faý ý
GGG
.G
ýý ü4ý.
E+
en
in id d O äO Ö C
O.. O K Cl O eV "q- 9§2
ýo
9
w E ° ý
,p
j "- .o ,
ki
,ýU
ö' p ffi Ez
Q <Fý Q
ý
MÜ g Fu .
r äö Ä
Ü ý Ä ° Ng
t Cý U C7 A C5 fSF O ý f e°i ° AÜ
F (np a
Chapter3 SpatialData Standards

In the search for a suitable set of spatial data standards, the researcher found
various worldwide initiatives and well established standards in this field. These initiatives
and developments were undertaken primarily as a way of improving spatial data
collection, production and distribution to a wider range of users. The initial development
and implementation of spatial data standards started in countries with advanced
information technology, such as the U. S. and Europe, to enable sharing of available
fundamental spatial data sets and to facilitate the use of technology. The U. S. dominated
these activities and its work has been recognised as pre-eminent in the world.
Standards for digital spatial data have addressedin the past the simpler problem of
transfer format. Most of the spatial data standards initiatives were transfer standards.
However, there has been a shift in the use of spatial data from simple transfer of data to
more complex issues. The challenge now is not in data transfer, but in the structure of the
spatial data. There is a need for Interoperable and compatible spatial data sets, as well to
address institutional, administrational and technical issues in the establishment and
maintenance of national and international spatial data infrastructures.
The major effort now is to create general and more universal standards in an
environment that links the spatial data standards to good information technology
standards. The emerging universal spatial data standards are defined and carried out by
the ISO/TC 211. ISO/TC211 is developing versatile and flexible standards in most of the
spatial data application domains and defining the standards that are required at national,
regional and international levels.
The ISO/TC211 broad band standardsshould be used for the Saudi NSDI. If no
national standards are introduced to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia the drawbacks will be
great. Spatial data users and producers will not be able to successfully share data, make a
clearinghouse of any type, or know what is available in the Kingdom owing to disparate
querying approaches and metadata provision. In the meantime the OGC standards are
industry driven and may not be useful in a Saudi context by themselves. For Saudi Arabia
to enter the world stage it must use the ISO/TC211 standards so that it can join the world
in terms of data sharing and exchange in the future.
62
Chapter3 SpatialData Standards
However, standards alone will not be enough to solve all the data sharing
It
problems. cannot ensure the free flow of spatial data from one organisation to another
as well as to the users unless institutional, technical, administrational, policies, funding,
co-operation, confidentiality, copyright and many other important issues are also
addressed.
63
Chapter 4 Current Statusof Mapping Activities in the KSA
CHAPTER 4
CURRENT STATUS OB MAPPING
ACTIVITIES IN THE KINGDOM OF
SAUDI ARABIA
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Spatial data in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia constitutes a valuable national
resource that contributes to the development of the national infrastructure and to the
country's economic growth. It has and will continue to have, a steady influence on the
Kingdom's series of 5-year development plans (current and future) and the advancements
made in the country's cultural, industrial and agricultural developments, the development
of education, health care services, communications, telecommunications, transportation,

road networks, environmental and tourism as well as other activities.
A large number of ministries and other government organisations, as well as ones
in the private sector have, become involved with activities related to both spatial data and
geographic information systems, but to consolidate their efforts and direct them to the
optimum utilisation of existing (and future) spatial data, the development of a strategy for a
national spatial data infrastructure in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a pressing need, as
indicated in chapter 1.
To guide the proposal of such a framework, the researcher formulated a
requirement questionnaire. In August 2000 the questionnaire was distributed by the

General Directorate of Military Survey (GDMS) to nineteen (19) ministries and
organisations that produce and use spatial data. The participants were given until Monday,
25th December 2000 (about four months) to complete and return the questionnaire but, due
to requests from some of the participants, the deadline for the completion of the survey was
extended to the end of February 2001.
64
The main purpose of this chapter is to discuss, briefly summarise and analyse the
various replies and draw general conclusions. Annex I contains the survey questionnaire
text and annex II provides more detail and contains the tabulation of all the replies.
4.1.1 The goal of the survey questionnaire

The goal of the survey questionnaire was to gather as much information as possible
about the availability, reliability and accessibility of digital maps, geographicinformation
systems(GIS), conventional maps (paper maps), users' needsand requirementsand the

spatialdata exchangeactivities presentlyunderwayin the Kingdom of SaudiArabia.
The survey questionnaire also aimed to make the spatial data producers and users
aware of this national spatial data infrastructure initiative and to get their feelings and
feedbackaboutthe proposedstrategy.
A subsidiary aim was to find a suitable mechanismfor establishingco-operation
and effective exchangeof spatialdataand expertisebetweendataproducersand users.
4.1.2 Clarification
When the term organisation is used in this chapter, it means the Section, Division,
Department, Directorate, Establishment, Organisations, Ministry or any other name, of the
representativewho completedthe surveyquestionnairedocument.
4.1.3 The Invited Ministries and Organisations

Nineteen copies of the survey questionnaire were distributed to the following
ministries and organisations (table 4-1).
65
Chapter 4 Current Statusof Mopping Activities in the KSA
No Name of Ministry/Organisation Name of Department, to whom the

Questionnaire was Addressed
1 Ministry of Defence and Aviation and General Director of Military
Inspectorate General (MODA) Survey (GDMS)
2 Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral General Directorate of Surveying.
Resources (MOP&MR)
3 Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral General Manager of Saudi Aramco.
Resources (MOP&MR) Saudi Aramco
4 Riyadh City Municipality The Municipal of Riyadh
5 Ministry of Municipal and Rural General Director of Surveying
Affairs MOMRA
6 King Abdulaziz City for Science Head of the Saudi Centre for Remote
and Technology (KACST) Sensing
7 Ministry of Interior Deputy Minister of Provincial affairs
8 Ministry of Communications Deputy Minister of Highway
9 Ar Riyadh Development Authority The Municipal of Riyadh, Head of ADA
(ADA)
10 The Ports Authority General Director of the Port Authority
11 Ministry of Agriculture and Water Manager of the Documentation and
Information Centre
12 Ministry of Finance and National Department of Census and Vital Statistics
Economy.
13 Ministry of Education General Directorate of Studies and
Design
14 Saudi Telecommunication Company Manager of Riyadh District
15 The Saudi Consolidated Electric General Director of the Saudi
Comp an (SCECO). Consolidated Electric Company
General Presidency of Girls Education President of Girls Education
17 National Commission for Wildlife Chairman of the NCWCD
Conservation and Development
18 Presidency of Civil Aviation General Director Saudi Arabian Airlines
19 The Meteorology and Environmental President of the Meteorology
Protection and Environmental Protection
Table 4-1 Ministries and organisations that received a copy of the questionnaire.
4.1.4 The Participants

As a result of this survey, seventeen replies (89.5%) were returned. Two copies
were received from KACST, one from the Space Research Institute and one from the Saudi
Centre for Remote Sensing (GIS Centre), but these were amalgamated as they were very
similar. The two agencies that did not complete the survey, were the Presidency of Civil
Aviation-Saudi Arabian Airlines and the Department of Meteorology and Environmental
Protection. No reason was given.
66
In order to make this chapter a reasonable length each participant is given an ID number to
indicate the name of the ministry/organization, as shown in table 4-2.
Participant Name of Ministry/Organisation Name of Department that

ID number Completed the questionnaire
1 Ministry of Defence and Aviation General Directorate of Military
and Inspectorate General (MODA) Survey (GDMS), Research and
Development.
Resources (MOP&MR)
3 Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Projects Support & Control
Resources(MOP&MR) - Saudi Department- SurveyingServices
Aramco Division (SSD)
4 Riyadh City Municipality Department of Names,
Numbering and Aerial Surveying
5 Ministry of Municipal and Rural General Directorate of Surveying
Affairs MOMRA
6 King Abdulaziz City for Science and SpaceResearch Institute, the
Technology (KACST) Saudi Centre for Remote
Sensing-GIS Centre
7 Ministry of Interior Not Given
8 Ministry of Communications Service Coordination and
Geographic Information System.
9 Ar Riyadh Development Authority Urban Information System
Department.
10 The Ports Authority Department of Lighthouses and
Marine Communications
11 Ministry of Agriculture and Water Documentation and Information
Centre
12 Ministry of Planning The Department of Public
Statistics, Mapping Unit
13 Ministry of Education General Directorate of Studies
and Design, Deputyship of
buildings and schoolsupplies.
14 Saudi Telecommunication Company Riyadh Province
15 The SaudiConsolidatedElectric GeographicInformation System
Company (SCECO) and network design-Central
Province
16 General Presidency of Girls Not Given
Education
17 National Commission for Wildlife Information and documentation
Conservation and Development Centre and Geographic
Information System
Table 4-2: Participants.
67
Chapter 4 Current Status of Mapping Activities in the KSA
4.1.5 How fully was the questionnaire answered?

Table 4-3 and table 4-4 summarise how the sections were answered.
Sections Total Number of %

Questions Participants Answered
Section 1: Filtering Introduction. 8 15 88%
Section 2: Digital Maps. 27 11 65%
Section 3: Geo ra hic Information System. 25 12 71%
Section 4: Conventional Maps (paper maps). 15 12 71%
Section 5: Users' Needs and Requirements. 14 14 82%
Section 6: Digital Geographic Information 16 16 94%
Exchange.
Section 7: The Development of a Strategy for 8 15 88%
a National Spatial Data Infrastructure in the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Table 4-3: The total number of questionsin each section and how many respondents.
ID Section Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. % Language

One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Used
1 Y Y Y Y y y y 100 A T/E *
2 Y y y y 50 A
3 Y Y Y Y Y Y 83 E
4 Y Y Y Y Y Y 83 A
5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100 A T/E
6 Y Y Y Y Y 67 A T/E
7 y y y 50 A
8 y Y Y y y y Y 100 A
9 Y y y y Y Y Y 100 A T/E
10 Y y y y y Y 83 A (typed)
11 Y Y y y y y y 100 A
12 Y y y 50 A
13 Y y y Y 67 A
14 Y Y Y y y Y 83 A
15 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100 A
16 Y Y Y Y 50 A
17 Y Y Y Y Y Y 100 A
Total 15 11 12 12 14 16 15
% 88 65 71 71 82 94 88
Table 4-4 The respondents in each section and language used to answer the questionnaire (*A= Arabic,
(TIE)=Technical Words answered in English).
68
4.2 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
Each section of the survey questionnaire was analysed separately by calculating the
percentage response to each item. The calculations of the percentages in all answers were
performed as follows:
Total participants in each part of the question (whether Yes or No or any other) was
divided by the total survey response (17). Missing value, termed Blanks (No Replies) was
calculated by dividing the number of blanks by the total survey response (as illustrated in
the first summary below). In the summaries given below, the percentages often sum to
more than 100% as many organisations use or produce more than one type of product or
service. For more details see Annex II.
4.2.1 Section 1: Filtering Introduction

A total of 15 ministries and organisations (88%) used the filtering introduction. The results
of the analysisare:
1. The returns (as detailed below) indicated that 2 organisations out of the 17 participants
(12%) are only users, 13 organisations (76%) are both producers and users and 2
organisations (12%)did not participate.

Total Survey Respondents: 17, Total participants in this Section: 15, Total Part. In this
question: 15
Users Both (Producers and users) Blank (No Reply)
12% 76% 12%
2. The typesof digital productsproducedin the Kingdom of SaudiArabia are as follows:

Two organisations produce digital maps, 4 organisations produce conventional maps, 8
organisations produce both digital and conventional maps and 3 organisations did not
participate.
Total Survey Respondents: 17, Total participants in this Section: 15, Total Participants in
this question: 1
Digital Ma s Conventional Maps Both Blank (No Reply)
12% 24% 47% 18%
69
3. Regarding geographic information capabilities, the responsesshowed that 10
organisations have GIS capabilities, 3 do not and 4 organisations did not participate.
this question: 1
Yes No Blank (No Reply)
59% 18% 24%
4.2.2 Section 2: Digital Products

A total of 11 ministries and organisations (65'%) participated in answering the digital
products section. The results of the analysis are:
1. The returnsindicatedthat 10 organisationsproducerasterdataproducts,9

organisations produce vector data, 1 organisation produces matrix, 1 organisation
indicated other types of data and 7 organisations did not respond to this question.
this question: 1
Raster Vector Matrix Other Blank (no reply)
59% 53% 6% 6% 41%
2. In answer to what spatial data format is used, 6 organisations use DGN format, 4 use
Arc Info, 4 use TIFF, 2 use Arc View, 2 use DXF, 2 use JPEG and 1 organisation uses
eachof the other formats.

this question:
DGN Arc Info Arc View, DXF and JPEG Others Blank (no reply)
and TIFF
35% 24% 12% 6% 47%
3. A variety of digital products are produced in the Kingdom. The scales ranged from
1:1,000 to 1:2,000,000 and the areas covered varied from Riyadh City to the whole
Kingdom. Also, the datesof the productsrangedfrom 1990to the presentday.
4. The main identifiers of types and scales of digital products are as follows: 1
organisation indicated that their department (as listed in the question) identifies the
type and scale of their products, 4 organisations indicated that the user does so, 6
organisationsticked both departmentand user and 6 organisationsdid not respond.
70
this question: 11
Department User Both Blank (No Reply)
6% 24% 35% 35% ,
5. The main identifier of requirements and contents was as follows: 3 organisations

indicated that their department (as listed in the question) identifies the requirements
and contents of their products, 2 indicated the user, 4 ticked both department and user
and 8 organisations did not respond.
this question:
18% 12% 24% 47%
6. The useof Quality assurance(QA) and Quality control (QC) in the digital production
lines varied, 9 organisationssaid Yes, 6 organisationssaidNo and3 organisationsdid
not respond.A very useful descriptionof how quality assuranceandquality control

by
were performedwas given someof the participants.SeeAnnex II (question2.7,
section two).
this question: 1
QA QC Blank
Yes No Yes No (No reply)
53% 35% 53% 35% 18%
7. In reply the questionabout in-houseproductionsversuscontracted,11 organisations

indicatedthat they producetheir productsin house,6 indicatedthat they contracall or
someof their productsand 6 organisationsdid not respond.

Total Survey Respondents: 17, Total participants in this Section: 11, Total Part. In this
question: 11
In-House Productions Contracted Blank (No Reply)
65% 35% 35%
8. The returns indicated that 6 organisationsare using standardsfor their land and
geodetic survey, photogrammetry, data transfer and printing, while 8 organisations are
using standards for cartography, 5 organisations are using standards for quality
assurance and quality control and 2 are using standards for Satellite images and for
checking land use against maps on the production line. The results are good in general.
They indicate that the main digital product activities were carried out based on
71
Chapter4 Current Statusof Mapping Activities in the KSA
standards. The types of standards used range from homemade standards, to DIGEST,
USGS, IHO and others. The following table summarises the results.
this question: 1
Activity Yes No Blank (No Reply)
Land and GeodeticSurvey 35% 30% 35%
Photo rammet 35% 30% 35%
Cartography 47% 18% 35%
A and QA 30% 35% 35%
Data transfer and Exchange 35% 30% 35%
Printing 35% 30% 35%
Others 12% 53% 35%
9. Regarding future plans for developing and using standards, 6 organisations had plan to
developstandards,4 indicatedthat they did not and 7 did not respond.
this question: 1
Yes No Blank (No Replay)
35% 24% 41%
10. In responseto a questionon their views and intentions with regardto the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia being a member of the International Organisation for Standards/Technical
Committee for Geographic Information/Geomatics 211 (ISO/TC 211), 11 organisations
indicated that they will adopt ISO/TC 211 standardsand 6 organisationsdid not
respond.
this question: 11
Propose to use ISO/TC 211 Standards Pro ose to use Other Standards Blank
65% 0% 35%
11. GeodeticReferenceSystemusedfor digital products;5 organisationsuseInternational

Spheroid, 1 uses WGS 72,7 use WGS84,2 use others and 9 organisations did not
respond to this question.
this question:
Int. Spheroid WGS 72 WGS 84 Other Blank (No reply)
29% 6% 41% 12% 53%
12. The Horizontal datum used for digital products were as follows: 1 organisation uses
WGS 84,7 use Ain Al Abd. Regarding the vertical datum, 5 organisations use Jeddah
72
Chapter 4 Current Status of Mapping Activities In the KSA
72,1 uses another (Saudi Aramco Vertical Datum, SAVD 78) and 10 organisations
did not respond.
this question:
Horizontal Vertical
WGS 84 Ain Al Abd Others Jeddah 72 Others Blank (No reply)
6% 41% 0% 29% 6% 53%
13. The availability of reproduction materials was as follows: 8 organisations indicated
that they havereproductionmaterials,2 saidthey did not and 7 organisationsdid

not respond.
this question: 1
47% 12% 41%
14. The potential usersof the digital productsin the Kingdom were mostly confined to
the departmentconcerned.
15. Various hardwareand Softwareis usedto producethe digital products.
16. Product updates varied between daily to five years or more.
17. The majority of maps required an update period of one year.
18. The returns indicated that, 9 organisations have a digital geographic database, 2
did not and 6 did not respond. Types of digital geographic database used vary but
mostly involve an Oraclebasedsystem.

this question: 11
53% 12% 35%
19. The maintenanceof geographicdatatook various forms as follows: 6 organisations
maintain hardcopy(papermaps),7 maintain digital (CD-ROMs, diskettes..etc), 6

maintain databases;5 have databasemanagementsystems(DBMS) and 7
organisationsdid not respond.
this question: 1
Hardcopy (Maps, Digital (CD-R, Disks, Database DBMS Blank (No
Charts, Co-ordinates, High Density disks, reply)
Reports, etc.) Ma Ta e, etc.)
35% 41% 35% 29% 41%
73
Chapter 4 Current Statusof Mapping Activities in the KS4
4.2.3 Section 3: Geographic Information Systems

A total of 12 Ministries and organisations (71%) participated in answering the geographic
information system (GIS) section. The results of the analysis are:
1. Regardingthe numberof GIS systemsused,responseswere evenly split; 6 of the

organisations(35%) had one geographicinformation systemand 6 (35%) had two
geographic information systems. The geographic information systems used are mostly
either Intergraph or ESRI or both.
2. The main uses of the geographic information systems varied.
3. The data formats used were mainly DGN or Shapefile
4. Geographic information systems were purchased between 1990 and 2000.
5. The returns indicated that, 10 of the organisation systems worked as part of a network
(mainly LAN), 2 were standalone and 5 organisations did not answer.
this question: 1
59% 12% 29%
6. On the co-ordination of the purchase of systems with other organisations; 6
organisations co-ordinated the purchase of their systems with other organisations, 6 did not
co-ordinate and 5 did not answer.
this question: 1
35% 35% 29%
7. The returnsindicatedthat 10 organisationsbelievedthe systemmet their

Departments'expectations,2 did not believe so and 5 did not reply.
this question: 1
59% 12% 29%
6. On the similarity of the GIS, 7 of the organisationswere awareof similar GISs in other
organisations, 4 were not and 6 did not answer.
74
this question: 11
41% 24% 35%
7. The vast majority of the participants used the GIS for data collection, processing,
management,analysis,display and output as detailedin the following summary.

this question depends on the activity as shown below.
Activity Yes % No % Blank %
Data Collection 10 59 2 12 5 29
Data Processing 10 59 2 12 5 29
Data Management 12 71 0 0 5 29
Data Analysis 11 65 1 6 5 29
Data Display 12 71 0 0 5 29
Data Output 12 71 0 0 5 29
Others 3 18 9 53 5 29
8. Datesfrom which Digital Products(usedfor GIS) had beenproducedrangedfrom

1986to 2000.
9. The main identifiers of the requirementsand contentsof the geographicinformation
systemproducts(departmentor users)were as follows: 2 organisationssaidtheir
department, 4 said user, 6 ticked both and 5 did not answer.
this question: 1
12% 24% 35% 29%
12. The main identifiers of types and scalesof geographicinformation systemproducts
were as follows: in 3 it
organisations was the in
department, 2 the user,4 ticked both
and 8 did not answer.

this question: 1
18% 12% 24% 47%
13. A variety of quality control and quality assuranceprocedures were carried out.
14. The returns indicated that 5 organisations experienced difficulties of one sort or
anotherduring the collection, processing,management,display or output of spatial

data,5 did not encounterany problemsand 7 did not reply.
75
this question: 1
Yes No Blank (No Re 1
29% 29% 41%
15.In answerto the question, `do you have enoughwell trained Saudi personnelworking
in your department?' 5 organisations answer that they have well trained Saudi
personnel, 7 indicated No and 5 did not participate. Most of the respondents indicated
that they planned to recruit and train more Saudi personnel until all the vacancies were
filled.
this question: 1
29% 41% 29%
16.The returns indicated that 4 organisations were aware of similar geographic

information products produced and maintained by other organisations,6 were not
awareof any and 7 organisationsdid not respond.
this question:
24% 35% 41%
4.2.4 Section 4: Conventional Maps

A total of 11 Ministries and organisations (65%) participated in answering the
Conventional Maps section. The results of the analysis are:
1. The future plans to produce digital maps and geographic information systems for
organisationswho did not have digital maps and GIS at present were as follows: 6
organisationssaid they have future plans for digital maps and GIS, 1 said No and 10
did not answer(they alreadyhavedigital mappingand GIS capabilities).
this question:
35% 6% 59%
2. Types of conventional products produced in the Kingdom included topographic maps,

joint operation graphics, general maps, traffic and road maps, aerial photography and
76
Chapter 4 Current Statusof Mapping Activities in the KS4
cadastral maps. However, topographic maps dominated the products. The scale varies
from 1:1,000 to 1:30,750,000 and the main area covered varies from an individual city
to the whole Kingdom. The dates also ranged from 1970s to 2001
3. Two organisationsproduce their conventionalproducts in-house, 1 organisationout-
sourcesits products,6 organisationshaveboth in-houseproduction and contractorsand
8 organisations did not reply.
this question:
12% 6% 35% 47%
4. Contractors used included firms from Saudi Arabia, Korea, Germany, Holland, French,
Ireland and others.

5. The returnsindicatethat 10 organisationsusesomesort of standards,1 organisationdid
not use any standardsand 6 did not answer.The in

resultsare good general, indicating
that the main conventional maps are produced based on some standards.The types of
standardsusedrangefrom homemadestandardsto DIGEST, USGS,IHO and others.

this question: 11
59% 6% 35%
6. Regarding the Geodetic Reference System used for the conventional maps, 5
organisations use International Spheroid, 1 uses WGS 72,5 use WGS 84,3 use others;
however, 10 organisations did not answer. Some organisations use more than one
reference system.
this question:
International Spheroid WGS 72 WQS 84 Others Blank (No reply)
29% 6% 29% 18% 59%
7. The datums used for conventionalmaps were as follows: for the horizontal datum, 1
uses WGS 84,6 use Ain Al Abd. For the vertical datum, 4 use Jeddah 72 and 11
organisationsdid not answerin relation to either horizontal or vertical data.

this question: 11
Horizontal Vertical
WGS 84 Ain Al Abd Others Jeddah 72 Others Blank (No reply)
6% 35% 0% 24% 0% 65%
77
8. The availability of reproduction materials was as follows: 7 organisations said they are
available in good quality and stored under perfect condition, 3 have no reproduction
materials and 7 did not answer.
this question: 1
41% 18% 41%
9. Potential users of the conventional products were mostly confined to the respective
departments.
10. The equipment used for conventional products varied, but was mostly Wild and Ziess.
4.2.5 Section 5: Users" needsand requirements

A total of 14 Ministries and organisations (82%) participated in answering the users' needs
and requirements section. The results of the analysis are:

1. The main producers of maps and digital products currently used by other organisations
are: 53% the Ministry of Defence and Aviation (MODA), the General Directorate of
Military Survey (GDMS), 47% the Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources
(MOP&MR), 47% the Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs (MOMRA), 29% Ar
Riyadh Development Authority (ADA), 12% the Ministry of Communication, 12%
Riyadh City Municipality and 12% Al Farsi maps, 7% Ports Authority, 7% King
Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST) 18% of the respondents did not
answerthis question.
2. Regarding the type of product being used, 9 organisations use paper maps, 8 use
digital maps, 2 use other geographic information and 6 did not respond.
this question: 11
Paper Maps Digital Maps Other GIS Blank (No Reply)
53% 47% 12% 35%
3. The returns indicated that 6 organisations plan to use GIS in the future, 1 had no plan
and 10 did not answer.

this question:
35% 1% 59%
78
4. In response to the question, is requested geographic data received on time? 6 said Yes, 3
No and 8 did not reply.
this question:
35% 18% 47%
5. The type of productsin usevaried in scalefrom 1:500 to 1:3,000,000.

6. The primary use of geographic information was confined to the departments concerned.
7. Map scales preferred varied but were mainly very large scale.
8. The desired horizontal and vertical accuracy varied and appearedto be subjective. The
contour and supplementary contours intervals also varied and appeared to be subjective.
9. The majority requiredmost cultural featuresto be includedfor all the different scales.
10. Preferredimagemap resolution and type included land satTM 30 metresresolution,
Spot panchromatic l Om res., spot colour 20m res., the Russian sat. 5m res. and the
Ikonos 1m resolutions.
11. Typesof productsused(by users)in the Kingdom varied andthe datesrangedfrom
1976to 2000.
12. Updating and preferredupdatingperiod varied from asneededto five or more years.
4.2.6 Section 6: Geographic Information Exchange

A total of 16 Ministries and organisations (94%) participated in answering the Geographic
Information Exchange section. The results of the analysis are:
1. Sixteenof the participantsexchangedgeographicinformation with other organisations.

2. Thirteen organisationsrequestedgeographicdataby official letter, 2 by agreement,2
by phone,2 by filling a form, 1 by email, 1 by other meansand 1 did not respond.
this question: 1
By Official letter Agreement, Phone Mail or Blank (No Reply)
and Form Other
Means
72% 12% Each 6% Each 6%
3. Requested data was identified as follows: in 12 organisations by co-ordinates, 11 by
area of coverage, in 6 by main features, 4 by contents, 1 by cost and 2 did not answer.
79
this question: 1
By Co-ordinates Coverage Feature Contents Cost Blank (No reply)
71% 35% 24% 6% 1% 2%
4. How are digital geographicdatatransferredto the users?

3 organisationsuseordinary mail, 2 useDHL, 2 usenetworks, 1 usesemail, 10 use
2
courier and useother means(userpick up and formal delivery to user).
this question: 1
By Ordinary mail DHL and Email Courier Other Blank (No reply)
Networks Means
18% 12% 6% 59% 12% 18%
S. The media usedfor the receipt of datawere as follows: 11 organisationsusehard copy,

10 use CD-ROMs, 3 use Diskettesand 5 did not answer.
this question: 1
Hard Copy CD-R Diskettes Blank (No Reply)
65% 59% 18% 29%
6. The majority indicatedthat therewas no specific time frame for the exchangeof digital
products with other organisations; it occurs as needed.
7. Formats for the maintenance and exchange of data were said to vary, but the one were
mainly MicroStation DGN, TIFF, Arc Info Shapefile AutoCAD, Arc Info Coverage,
ASCII and JPEG as indicated in the following table.
Format Maintain Exchange
MicroStation DGN file 65% 53%
TIFF 53% 53%
Arc Info Shapefile 41% 29%
AutoCAD DWG/DXF 35% 47%
Arc Info Coverage 35% 18%
ASCII 29% 29%
JPEG 24% 24%
GIF (Graphic Interchange Format) 12% 12%
SDTS, SIF, DTED, CCITT, ADRG 6% 6%
DIGEST, Vmap, Others 6%
HTML 6%
8. In response to the question, `can organisations deliver geographic information on
time? '; 14 indicated yes and 3 did not answer.
80
this question: 1
82% 0% 18%
9. The majority indicatedthat the datamet the users' requirementsunderthe following

headings.
this question depends on the term.
Headings (Terms) Question 6.9 of section 3
Yes % No % Blank %
Completeness 11 65 2 12 4 24
Accuracy 11 65 2 12 4 24
Clarity 12 71 1 6 4 24
Currency 8 47 4 24 4 24
Data Format 11 65 2 12 4 24
Response Time 12 71 1 6 4 24
Quantity 11 65 2 12 4 24
Quality 11 65 2 12 4 24
Other-Specified 2 12 11 71 4 24
10. On the question, `Do you find the current circumstances of exchanging information
between organisations in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia appropriate and efficient? '
1 organisation said yes, 13 organisations indicated that the current circumstances of
exchanging information are not appropriate and not efficient and they suggestedthe
introduction of someformal exchangemechanism,and 3 did not naswer.
this question: 1
6% 76% 18%
11. The majority of respondents anticipated expected that introducing a formal mechanism
for geographic data exchange between organisations in the Kingdom will have positive
effects by improving the quality of geographic data and knowledge, reducing

duplication and saving time, effort and money. Thoughts on the main obstacles to the
exchange of geographic data were fairly evenly spread across the response options, as
shown in the following table.
81
Chapter 4 Current Statusof Mapping Activities to the KSA
Total Survey Respondents: 17, Total participants in this Section: 16, Total Participants
in this question depends on each main obstacle.
Main Obstacles Yes % No % Blank %
Data format 10 59 3 18 4 24
Data type 3 18 10 59 4 24
Currency of products 7 41 6 35 4 24
Media 4 24 9 53 4 24
Inconsistency and discrepancy 7 41 6 35 4 24
Unwillingness to exchange data 9 53 4 24 4 24
Cost 5 29 8 47 4 24
Hardware & Software Problems 6 35 7 41 4 24
Human resources 7 41 6 35 4 24
Others - Specified 1 6 12 71 4 24
4.2.7 Section 7: The Development of a Strategy for

a National Spatial Data Infrastructure
(SNSDI) in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
A total of 16 Ministries and organisations (94%) participated in answering the section
ondevelopment of a strategy for the a National Spatial Data Infrastructure (SNSDI) in the
Kingdom of SaudiArabia. The resultsof the analysisare:

1. All thought that the development of a strategy for a National Spatial Data Infrastructure
in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia initiative is an important idea and should be
implemented(Seefinal concludingremarksfor more details).
2. The majority of the participants were willing to participate and be part of the SNSDI.
this question: 1
88% 0% 12%
3. Most of the participants were willing to make their geographic data available.
this question: 1
76% 6% 18%
4. Numerous suggestions and comments were made with regard to the questionnaire and
the idea of the SNSDI ranging from wishing the researcher every success,through
criticism of the format and layout of the questionnaire, to many very valuable
comments.
82
43 CONCLUDING REMARKS
The results of this survey were very encouraging and valuable. Certainly the goals of the
questionnaire were achieved and awareness of the needs and benefits of a nationwide
spatial data-sharing programme for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was accomplished. The
analysis of the survey shows that there are:
1. Large amounts of geographic information (digital and non digital) already available in
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,

2. A variety of advanced hardware and software used,
3. Well developedGIS activities and capabilities,
4. Some geographic databasemanagement systems.
In general:
1. The participants were using a number of standard systems, and were maintaining
required standards and accuracies.

2. The systems met most of the participants' expectations,
3. Most reproduction materials are available and stored under suitable conditions.
4. There are future plans for digital maps and GIS.
5. Quality controls and quality assurancesare performed.

6. Commongeographicdataformats are used.
7. The users are involved in the identifications of product types, requirements and scales.
8. Most of the products were produced by the organisation (in-house).
All the participants want to use the ISO/TC 211 standards (through GDMS and this
research project initiative) when it becomes available and fully support the development of
a strategy for a national spatial data infrastructure in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
The following are representative responses to illustrate what respondents thought
about the proposed SNSDI initiative: "It is a must", "a great idea", "a national goal",
"valuable to the Kingdom", "fruitful, innovative and worthy
of much support and
attention", "it should receive the highest and immediate attention to enable successful and
speedy implementation", "it must be carried out as soon as possible", "it would support
83
sound decision making based on geographic information and prevent duality", "we believe
that the proposed SNSDI would give the country a main pillar in its development", "we
look forward to seeing the idea executed for the common good", "the goals and objectives
of the SNSDI should be drawn up and clearly stated", "all relevant parties must be allowed
to effectively contribute to the building of the proposed database, looking forward to the
realisation of this goal".

However, there are some geographic information using and producing
organisations that are still in the development stage. It is clear from some of the answers
that duplications in spatial data collections, the co-ordination and sharing of geographic
data and insufficient availability of well-trained Saudi personnel are the most common
problems. Also, some technical data integration and continuous updating difficulties were
encountered. In the meantime a very small number of participants were confused by or did
not understand certain questions, or the concepts were not fully understood (as can be seen
from readingthe summaryof the replies).
Two organisationcriticised the format and layout of the questionnaire,as follows:
1. "This questionnaire is too big". It is true that the questionnaire was quite lengthy, but
this was necessary in order to collect as much information as possible about spatial data
and its use within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
2. "Before writing the purpose of the questionnaire,page 2, there should have been 4-5
concentrated lines on the purpose of the study". This is
comment not wholly valid,
becausethe introduction of the questionnaireArabic document,which was distributed
to the participantsstatedclearly the main goal of the study,but perhapsthe respondents
missedit, hidden amongstwhat is undoubtedlya very long document.
3. "The GIS strategy in this questionnaire concentrates more on maps than other elements
of importance to the strategy". This comment may be correct, but the respondents did
not state what they mean by other elements. Also, there is a similar comment that the
questionnaire concentrates on maps and geographic information and gives no attention
to satellite imagery. Satellite imagery is an important map source and will not be
forgotten.
4. "The questionnaire is too bulky with a lot of repetition". Yes it is bulky, but as
the
mentionedabove, purposeof the is
survey to collect a lot of information. However,
there are no repetitions! The filtering introduction introduces the concept of the
questionnaire. We need to collect information about digital products, GIS, conventional

products, user needs, etc. So if the organisation produces only digital products, then it is
not necessary to repeat the same answer in relation to conventional maps and vice
versa. If they produce both digital maps and conventional maps and they use the same
equipment then they should simply state "the same" as many organisations did.
However, I welcome all these comments and would like to thank all those individuals
and organisations, which participated in completing this, survey and helped in the
process of this project.

Finally, it should be mentioned that the initial Saudi NSDI will be largely based on
the developed infrastructure of mapping organisations - producers and users - but as the
SNSDI progresses the needs of end users of maps and spatial data should be considered,
particularly as the Location Based Service (LBS) market grows. This survey questionnaire
will be the first of many, and certainly its content will swing in favour of addressing a
more user based non-specialist community as time passes.The present set of questions are
producer orientated, with users amongst the producer community and is therefore limited,
but is based on the core users and producers in the Kingdom - those who will first make
use of both clearinghouse and data sharing arrangements; those who will need to approve
the primary stages of the SNSDI initiative if it is to succeed. Lessons learnt from this first
set of survey questionnaire will have an impact on the types of future questions asked and
the number of organisations and individuals polled.
85
Chapter5 ComputerNetworkAnd WebMapping Services
CHAPTER 5
COMPUTER NETWORK AND WEB
MAPPING SERVICES
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Computer network technology started to emerge in the early 1970s following the
development of high-speed Local Area Networks (LAN). By the mid 1980s, the LANs and
WANs were used widely to connect higher-performance workstations in host-base and
standalone configurations (Coleman, 1999). Since then computer network technology has
expanded and advanced so fast it has become an important part of the Information
Technologies (IT) developed and has had a dramatic impact on our lives and work. At
present, the Internet is revolutionising the globe and has become the main communicating
tool at local, national and international levels. National and international contact, for
example, can be made at the touch of a button using the Internet. During the past several
years, hundreds of millions of users such as companies, government agencies,

organisations and private people have joined and used the Internet; every day more and
more people are joining. This in turn has affected the use and exchange of digital spatial
data. Most early digital mapping and geographic information activities were isolated
technologies; however, the advance in network technology gave spatial data producers and
usersthe to
opportunity communicate,exchangespatial data and interact with eachother
using the Internet. The Internet now forms a main component of any national spatial data
infrastructure. Longley clearly stated the importance of network technology when he said,
"the computer is the network, and the network is the computer " (Longley et al., 1999).
This chapter will examine various basic approaches to computer network
environments and technologies needed to build a standardised architecture suitable for a

national data infrastructure for interactive web mapping services and Internet-based
geographic information systems.
Section 5.2 reviews network components and architectures including LAN, WAN, Internet
network, protocols, the Open-System Interconnect (OSI) seven-layers model and the
Transmission Control Protocol and the Internet Protocol (TCP/IP). Section 5.3 discusses
86
servers including the Internet server, the map server, the web feature server, other special
servers and the client-server model. Section 5.4 defines and presents a general view of the
Internet and its services, including the WWW, email, FTP, Telnet, information browsing
and searching, and GIS services. Section 5.5 reviews the evolution and services on the
Internet in the field of geographic information systems, including raw data download,
metadata, map display, Web-based spatial query and analysis, building GIS on the Internet,
the technologies that support Internet services for GIS, including the Common Gateway
linterface (CGI), the Application Programming Interface (API), GIS plug-ins, GIS helper
program, active X, Java, the OpenGIS Consortium (OGC) and other GIS vendors' tools,
such as Intergraph GeoMedia Web Map, ESRI Arc Internet Mapping System (ArcIMS),
Maplnfo MapXtreme and AutoDesk MapGuide. Section 5.6 gives an overview of Internet
security, including firewalls, encryption, authentication, Virtual Private Networks (VPN)

and computer anti viruses. Concluding remarks are presented in section 5.7.
5.1.1 Definition
A computer network, in general, is "a collection of interconnected multiple types of
computer systems, nodes, channels and protocols, which form a highway to exchange
information and to enable online communications between local and remote computer
systems and humans using certain physical media, such as telephone lines, co axial
cables, twisted pair, fibre optics, microwaves, mobile phones, communication satellite, and
so on" (Tanenbaum, 1988). A computer network can be alternatively described as "the
software and hardware components used to implement a set of functions, well-defined
interfaces and protocols that establish links between different types of computers and other
devices on-line" (Coleman, 1999).
Besides communication and exchanging data, a computer network is used for

sharinghardwareand softwareresourcessuch as printers, scanners,digitisers, file servers,
CD readand write disks, as well as softwareprograms.Using a network to shareresources
reduces the cost of hardware and software, as well as increasing the integrity of specific
datasetsand the availability of high-quality facilities.
87
5.2 NETWORK COMPONENTS AND

ARCHiTECT RE
ld
Most network nodes consist of packet switching elements, which are specialised
computers that connect one host computer with another. These are called the Interface
Message Processors (IMP). IMP was developed by the U. S. Defence Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA), based on transmission design (point-to-point or store-and-
forward). Different types of IMPs have been developed (e.g. bridges, routers). All modem
computer networks are based on packet-switching networks. The Consultative Committee
on International Telegraphy and Telephony (CCITT) of the United Nations defines packet
switching as transmission of data by means of addressed packets whereby a transmission
channel is occupied only for the duration of transmission of the packet (Pretty, 1992). The
packets are made of a series of bits, which contain the information. The maximum packet
size is recommended to be 128 bytes, which is large enough that a high proportion of
messages for interactive systems fit into one packet. If the data size exceeds the optimal
size of packet, the message is broken into smaller packets. The broken packets contain
linking and destination information that enables the receiving node to rejoin multiple
packets in the right sequence to form the original message. Therefore, when a packet is
transmitted from one computer to another computer or to a group of computers, it does not
have to follow the same route, but can be forwarded through any available route and can
wait in a node until transmission space is available. Sets of conventions have been
established to control and maintain communication between different nodes (Man-Ho,
1998). These conventions contain a wide range of functions that are grouped into
protocols, as discussed in section 5.2.2.
5.2.1 Types of Networks
This section will discuss three types of networks; Local Area Network (LAN),
Wide Area Network (WAN) and, most importantly, the Internet Network.
88
5.2.1.1 Local Area Networks (LAN)
A Local Area Network is a computer network that physically or logically connects
multi workstations, PCs, terminals, and other peripheral devices using a single cable or
shared medium. The LAN usually covers a smaller area, which could be one building or
group of buildings within a range of 1,000 metres, in general. It serves as the foundation of
distributed computing technology. Most LANs are owned by a single organisation. The
is
communication speed relatively high (typically 10-100 Mbit/sec or maybe higher), using
transmission media such as coaxial cables and fibre optics. The LAN uses standardised
types of technology, including IEEE 802.3 (CSMA/CD or Ethernet), IEEE 802.4 (Token
bus), IEEE 805.5 (Token Ring), and the American National Standards Institute Fibre
Distributed Data Interface (ANSI- FDDI). Today, two technologies are typically used,
Ethernet and Token ring (Coleman, 1999).
5.2.1.2 Wide Area Networks (WAN)
A wide area network is a computer network that spreads over large area, which
could be a city, province, country, continent or the globe. WANs connect a collection of
computer systems and a large number of LANs. Until the early 1990s, the communication
speed of WANs was relatively slow, they did not offer real-time access between users, and
could not move large amount of graphics data, such as digital maps, large files of spatial
data and satellite images over long distances. Today, a typical WAN uses advanced
technologies, transmission media, satellite-based networks and different protocols to offer

high speed (10-45 Mbit or maybe higher), and is comparable to the speed of a LAN, but
covers a much greater area (Man-Ho, 1998).
5.2.1.3 The Internet Network
The Internet network is a combinationof worldwide networks of data serversand

telecommunications links. It is a collection of many heterogeneous networks, that are
physically separated, but linked together through special purpose computers (gateways) at
specific points. Any network, such as a LAN or WAN, can be part of the Internet network,
provided it adheres to a set of communication protocols, known as the Internet protocols
(IP) (Amor, 2000), which will be discussed later in this chapter. Figure 5-1 shows a
89
Chapler 5 Computer Network And Web Mapping Services
framework for the basic components of the Internet network infrastructure, consisting of
nodes and channels that provide the basic communication tools.
Nodes can be classified into end-nodes and intermediate nodes. End nodes include servers
and clients, such as the web server, map server and mail server. Clients, in most
applications, are computers that are used to communicate with other nodes. Intermediate
nodes are scaled down specialised computers used as a routers and bridges to forward
traffic between network segments, and sometimes offer the possibility of filtering out
certain requests and of restricting accessto certain devices and sites within a network.
Channels are media for communication between nodes, which can be implemented by
various kind of physical connections, such as co-axial cable, twisted pair, fibre-optic or
telephone line, or by wireless connections, such as infrared transmission, microwave link,
mobile phone and satellite (Amor, 2000).
Media for communication
(Routers & bridges)

End-Nodes
Forward traffic between
Clients
Centralised service Computers
providers for the Client

Usually used to communicate
with other nodes
Figure 5-1 General concept of the main components of the internet network infrastructure.
90
Chapter S Computer Network And Web Mapping Services
5.2.2 Protocols
A protocol is a set of rules and conventionsfor handling the flow and exchangeof
information between different computing elements (nodes) across a network. Protocols
define both how the information must be formatted for transmission and the series of
commands and responsesto be used in the exchange of data. Protocols are simply pieces of
software that run on any node and state how each node of a network initiates, transmits,
receives, addresses and splits the data into small packets to maximise the throughput,
reduce the possibility of errors, loss or damage to data, reduce transmission failure and to
maintain and terminate communications (Al-Shahrani, 1983).
For many years, protocols used in computer networks were not standardised,
leading to the implementation of networks using many different protocols, which created
many problems. In 1974 the International Business Machine corporation (IBM) introduced
a standardised protocol, named Synchronous Data Link Control (SDLC), which was an
improvement on IBM's early definitions of Binary Synchronous Communications (BSC).
Subsequently, the International Organisation for Standards (ISO) stepped in and defined
what became the most widely accepted communications protocol, High Level Data Link
Control (HDLG). This was a bit-oriented protocol designed for two-way simultaneous
transmission. HDLC was heavily influenced by IBM's SDLC (Booth, 1983). ISO
continued its effort by defining major standards for Open Systems Interconnection (OSI),
which will be discussed in section 5.2.2.1. This was followed by number of efforts from
different organisations, including the Transmission Control Protocol and Internet Protocol
(TCP/IP), which will be discussed in section 5.2.2.2.
5.2.2.1 The Open-System Interconnect Seven-Layer Model
The early protocols were application specific and were usually structured as single-
layer, monolithic processes. However, all recent protocols work has been moving in the
direction of an hierarchical structure, with the implementation details of each layer
transparent to all other layers in the hierarchy. Protocol layering is a common framework
for system communication and allows simplification of networking design, by dividing
tasks into functional layers and then assigning protocols to perform each layer's task. A
number of protocols exist to define different aspects of network communication and to
91
Chapter 5 Computer Network And Web Mapping Services
ensure that communications and data handling are conducted effectively. The International
Organisation for Standards (ISO) has defined the seven-layer protocol, as shown in figure
5-2, called the reference model for Open-System Interconnection (OSI-ISO). The open-
system interconnection was originally developed by the Consultative Committee on

International Telegraphy and Telephony (CCITT) of the United Nations. Each protocol is
completely independent of the others as long as the inter-level interfaces are not changed.
As the use of computer networks expands, particularly with the development of the
Internet, a standardised architecture at all seven layers is necessary to achieve satisfactory
operation and application flexibility. A protocol should define the type of connection. Data
can be transmitted along a pre-planned path throughout the whole connection period, by
point-to-point connection using a telephone line, or through any available path, depending
on the condition of traffic.
i
Host A Host-Imp IMP IMP Host-Imp Host B
Protocols Protocols Protocols
Figure 5-2 Reference model for OSI-ISO /Source A! -Shahrani, 19831.
92
Chapter 5 ComputerNetworkAnd WebMapping Services
At each layer of the OSI-ISO reference model, a given node in a network
communicates with the same node in another network. All communication is supposed to
remain at a particular layer at all times. However, since all layers are involved in every
message, the communication at a particular layer is virtual. Physical communication via
the communication medium occurs only at the first layer, and is managed by link-layer
protocols of the second layer, which serves the higher layers. Layers are joined by
interfaces,eachof which defineshow the lower layer servesthe upper layer. Dividing the
network into layers enables modification and replacement of certain layers without
affecting the others, as long as the interfaces between the layers stay the same.
The seven layers formalise the functions required at each layer. By adhering to such
a network design plan, a network designer can ensure that all required functions are
performed. At the same time, the designercan simplify any future changesthat may be
needed and help assure compatibility (open system) at the higher levels with other
networks both local and wide (Al-Shahrani, 1983).
The seven layers are further describedin the following chart (table 5.1), starting at the
bottom or first layer and working up to the seventhlayer.
Layers Services Functions
functions implying
-Identification of node availability -Any
Application -Sequence of applications Communication between two
(Layer 7) -Fault tolerance systems not previously
-User-oriented communication considered
-Data transformation -Establish session request

-Formatting -Image negotiation
Presentation
-Syntax selection -Special purpose transformation
(Layer 6)
-Presentationconnections -Termination
-Mapping of sessionconnection
-Establish/release connection
onto transport connection
Session -Data exchange
-Flow control
(Layer 5) -Interaction/exceptional mgmt
-Interplant network protocol
93
-Endpoint Identifiers -End-to end communication

Transport -Class of service selection -Supervisory functions
(Layer 4) -Data transport -Establishes a connection for
data transmission
-Network address -Routing/switching

-Connection -Segmenting
Network
(Layer 3) -Error notification -Blocking
-Sequencing -Procedural means to exchange
data betweenstations
-Serviceavailability -Error detectionrecovery

Data Link -Transmit delay -Identification and parameter
(Layer 2) to continue after exchange
-Capability
componentfailure datato network layer
-Conveying
-Physical connections -Connection activation-electrical,
Physical identification repeaters, timing, raw bit
-Circuit
(Layer 1) -Fault notification stream
-Medium interconnection
Table 5-1 Identification of protocol layers as defined by CCITT standards x21 and X 25 for
OSI-ISO [Source Al-Shahranl, 19831.
5.2.2.2 The Transmission Control Protocol and Internet

Protocol (TCP/IP)
The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANet) originally designed
the Transmission Control Protocol and Internet Protocol (TCP/IP). The TCP/IP is a set of
protocols that enable communication between different types of nodes, which are
connected to the Internet, sometimes called Internet Protocol Suite, IPS (Amor, 2000).
TCP/IP consists of four layers the Network Access Layer, the Internet Layer, the Host-
-
to-Host Layer and the Process/Application Layer, as shown in figure 5-3.
94
Chapter 5 Computer Nehvork. Ind U 'h II ij
, ui,' Serv, ces
a5i Model TCP/IP Arvhitechie Model
Appli A ion
Tehý StvP HI'IP
Preý
/1 ]1Cä[ 1017 Inner
Session
".1mKNOW tba
ý
MP
TramniSSKJCI `m
(Corp] Pmocoi IQN/p
TTMS ftaocokTCP)
Ik 4-k -l-k t layer
NUvcrk P
Intranet laver
-----------------
Eta th* Link !V otiv

I~ý
Eheniet Td hs Tokairing °°
Physied Ili802.3 IEEE802.4 IEEE802.5
I': Iile I rj LTI'n tex Qirein Nare SeniceHW-IP

:l 4LTI'eq fräskT P 1oä PPP: PoirttoPoirt Pfu1
:
SMW. SingleNetw k l'nagert at Pttooi Patoaol
ICtvi : h1ene.Carinl Ivitasage
I(M :Irtemet(lip Maiapna1 Pnioml FI)1]I:Fhe Lislrihted Drtah1e6ce
RIP: Rating M6nn; iai Prtoai SMIP: Sinplc Mil Tra & Protoall
Figure 5-3 The TCP/IP Architectural model /Adapted from Man-Ho, 1998 and Amor, 20001.
5.2.2.2.1 Network Access Layer
The network access layer is responsible for delivering data over a particular
hardware medium. Typical functions are to encapsulate an Internet Protocol (IP) datagram
into packets transmitted by the network, and to map the IP address to physical addresses
used by the network. Each packet contains not only data but also control information. The
control information falls into general categories, addressing, error-detecting code and
protocol control. The IEEE 802.3 (Ethernet), IEEE 802.4 (Token bus), IEEE 805.5 (Token
Ring), the American National Standards Institute Fibre Distributed Data Interface (ANSI-
FDDI, X39.5) technologies and the point-to-point protocol are used in this layer.
95
5.2.2.2.2 Internet Layer
The Internet layer is responsible for delivering data across a series of different
physical networks that interconnect a source and destination machine. It defines:
9 How bits and bytes of dataare organisedinto larger groups(packets);

9 The addressing scheme by which different machines find each other;
" The assemblyand disassemblymechanism.
The Internet layer is based on packet switching. The Internet Protocol (IP) is the most
popular protocol for this layer. There is also the Internet Group ManagementProtocol
(IGMP) at this level.
5.2.2.2.3 Host-to-Host Layer
The Host-to-Host layer is responsiblefor ensuringthat packetsare receivedin the

order they were sent and no data is lost. If a packet is lost, the Host-to-Hostlayer can ask
the senderto retransmitthe packet.
There are two protocols for this layer, TransmissionControl Protocol (TCP) and
User DatagramProtocol (UDP). There are also a Routine Information Protocol (RIP) and
an Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP).
5.2.2.2.4 Process /Application Layer
The Process/Application layer delivers data to the user. It decides what to do with
data when it is transferred. The most common services for this layer are Telnet, File
Transfer Protocol (FTP), Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP), Domain Name Service
(DNS), Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP), Hypertext Transfer Protocol
(HTTP), and so on. Most Internet applications reside on this layer and specific protocols
are required to enable the interaction between client and server such as the user's request,
the server's processing and the server's reply. The HTTP is the primary communication
protocol for the World Wide Web (WWW). It enables the transfer and display of text,
graphics, animation, movie and sound (Man-Ho, 1998).
96
5.3 SERVERS
A server is a centralised service provider that offers services for many clients and
users. It is a tool composed of several modules for accessing, bringing, merging, managing
and sharing datasets from different resources, regardless of the format, type and location.
Instead of storing datasets in a user's own computer, a server enables transparent multi-
user access to share different datasets stored in a centralised location or probably several
scattered locations residing on a network. The physical location of a server is generally not
apparent to the user. The user can send a query to a remote server that has search engines
and a database.The server then invokes the search engine, and the result is sent back to the
user (Roman, 1999).
5.3.1 Types of Server
Servers, in general, can be categorised into three types: file server, data server, and
application server. File servers enable remote multi-user access to files stored on
designated hardware. Data servers make database functions available on a server. Some
servers process and analyse the data before sending the results back to the client. Such
servers are often referred to as application servers. The Open GIS Consortium (OGC) has
developed a number of industry standards for GIS and spatial data servers. Lately the OGC
and ISO/TC 211 signed an agreement to cooperate and ensure consistency between their
standards. According to the OGC (OGC, 2001b), the most common servers used in GIS
and spatial data today are:
5.3.1.1 Internet Server
An Internet server receives and routes messagesto and from subscribers,and

serves as an Internet gateway. Typical Internet servers are those serving as Internet
service providers (ISPs) for private access to Internet services. Examples are email,
HTTP, and accessto browser applications.
97
5.3.1.2 Map Server
Map servers can produce a map (as a picture, a series of graphical elements, or as a
packaged set of geographic feature data), answer basic queries about the content of the
map, and tell other programs what maps can be produced and which of those can be
queried further. The map server is implemented using a standard Web Mapping Interface
(WMI) specification that allows it to understand a web mapping client's requests for
capabilities and/or requests for service. A request for capability is issued by a client that
asks the map server to reveal its abilities to select certain map layers, and to generate or
resample map images to fit the client's needs. The Map Server can parse the client's request
for particular layers and custom use the coordinate system, including size (number of
pixels) and projection details, and can deliver a layer of information to the client that
exactly fits other layers from different map servers on the client's screen (ISO/TC, 2002a).
5.3.1.3 Web Feature Server
The web feature server delivers General Modelling Language (GML) and
eXtensible Mark-up Language (XML) encoded features from its feature store in response
to Structured Query Language (SQL) from a client. It can also respond to a request for
capability to determine support for the datum and projection requested by the client.
Examples of web feature servers are:
Web Coverage Server - supports standard interfaces that allow it to calculate and encode
coverage, and deliver them to the client, in response to the client's request for a specific
coverage.
Catalogue Server - holds and indexes metadata records for (local or remote) data stores.
The Catalogue server is useful for the discovery of useful information in the context of
thousands or millions of potential sources of information. The metadata includes

information on how to obtain the data stores of interest. The web feature server may be
used to extract exactly the information desired.
98
5.3.1.4 Other Specialised Servers Emerging From OGC
There are many more specialised servers emerging from OGC, such as portrayal
servers, location-based servers, GIS calculus servers, decision support servers, modelling
servers, information community translators, repositories of feature type libraries,
repositories of symbol libraries, repositories of symbolisation rules, coordinate

transformation servers, language translator servers (including place names), route servers,
real-time servers, geocoding and geopositioning servers, gazetteer servers. The list goes
on and on (OGC, 2001c).
5.3.2 Client-Server
What is a client-server? Essentially any application that sends SQL requests
across the network to a DBMS server can be called a client-server application. But the
client-server model goes beyond database applications. Clients, in most applications, are
computers used to communicate with another node, for example, a World Wide Web
browser; also the definition can include any application, which can communicate with
other servers. Server and client do not necessarily need to be different devices. Servers can
be clients at the same time and vice versa. Figure 5-4 shows a conceptual model for client-
server (Bishr, el al., 1997 b).
Request
Web Site
File
HiMI, hege, File,Video,Sound
Lrternet
Clierrt Server
Figure 5-4 Client-server concept model.
99
L
5.3.2.1 Client-Server Architecture
Most modem network programming tools are based on client-server architecture.

The client-server model provides the possibility of using many computer platforms, from
small systems to large installations, and allows network configurations globally to share
different spatial data and other resources. A client-server application typically stores large
quantities of spatial data on an expensive, high-powered server, while most of the

application program and user -interface activity is handled by client software running on
relatively cheap personal computers. In this model a server(s), which resides somewhere
on the network, enables clients (or workstations) to accessand retrieve remote multi data,
application software and, in some cases, more powerful computing resources (Coleman,
1999).
The industry has fashioned a number of broad client-server architectures that are
currently known as one-tier, two-tier, three-tier and N-tier client-server architecture (N-
Tier is four or more tiers). These models comprise several layers and have logical software
partitioning, with each layer isolated and responsible for a separate task. The physical
separation of those layers could be machine boundaries, process boundaries, or corporate
boundaries, within a local or wide area network or the Internet (Roman, 1999).
5.3.2.1.1 One-Tier Architecture
In one-tier architecture, all the three layers, as shown in figure 5-5a, stay logically
together. The one-tier client-server architecture provides access and user interface with
main databases,using low-cost PCs and workstations. One computer provides the program
logic and the data services.
5.3.2.1.2 Two-Tier Architecture
In two-tier architecture,an application is split into two tiers (front end and back
end). In other word, the three layersarephysically separated,as shownin figure 5-5b.
The first tier or the front-end tier includesthe user interface; the secondtier or the
back end includesthe data layer. The servicelayer is attachedto either the front
end or the
100
Chapter 5 Computer. Aetuuw/ I, h,i
back end (usually the front end, as shown in figure 5-5b). It is generally thought that the
two-tier approach allows for rapid application development and offers good cross-platform
portability (Amor, 2000).
5.3.2.1.3 Three-Tier Architecture
In three-tier architecture, the user interface layer, service layer and data layer are
physically split into three respective physical tiers, with each layer isolated and running on
its own machine, as shown in figure 5-5c. The three-tier client-server is considered a better
architecture for large applications and implementations. It is generally considered to be

more scaleable, reliable, extensible, maintainable and secure.
Lad Qie First Tier

Dieaitra6, d DkwitralisW
Fixkmr Fnxhwr
Wrksb" WAstafim
FromFhd {"-" IIURxuxku\ -"-
Ie d Two Second-Tie-
Dishibuted DstribWed
SentrA AN IAN
I"-. -IILTl1xn ur-"-"I "-I icT11cxni -"-

RackBl
h Taw Tier C."ThreeTier
Figure 5-5 General concept of the three types of tiers architectures

/Adapted from Coleman, 1999 and ESRI, 20001.
101
a
5 THE, INTERNET
.4
As a result of the activities of the U. S. Defence Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA), which started in the 1960s, a number of different distributed host
computers were successfully linked in 1969, using the Advanced Research Projects
Agency Network (ARPANet). Since then, computer networks have expanded and
advanced. In 1972, a public demonstration of ARPANet was held and an electronic mail
application was used. In 1980 TCP/IP was adopted as a defence standard and in 1983 the
original ARPANet was split into two networks:
1. The Military Network (MILNet) used for military communications;

2. The Civilian Network (ARPANet) for continuing research and civil applications
needs(Man-Ho, 1998).
Since 1983, the Internet has changed much, mutating from mainframe computers to
personal computers and now to mobile telephones. It will continue to change and evolve at
the speed of the computer technology. The main technological key areas that are expected
to play a big role in future development of the Internet, are the telecommunication, satellite
technology, wireless network and cable companies (Amor, 2000)
Today, the Internet provides servicesand changesthe way we work and conduct
business. For example the Internet has increasingly become an important tool in the
geographic information system community. The Internet enables spatial data producers and
users to communicate, disseminate, search, accessand share a variety of spatial data at any
time and anywhere, regardless of the computer platforms, distances, type of data, and
formats. Furthermore the new generation of Internet map servers enables users to generate
maps on their web browser and to do GIS search, query and analysis without installing
conventional GIS tools on their systems.
Currently, the rapid evolution of the Internet and the World Wide Web technology has
accelerated the development of Internet-based GIS applications and changed methods of

processing, analysis and visualisation in GIS. Consequently, the development of a National
Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) including clearinghouses and its applications cannot be
achieved without the Internet. The Internet must be regarded as the backbone and best
means to link the spatial data community (Nebert, 1996).
102
5.4.1 What is The Internet and Who Owns It?
The Internet is an international network infrastructure consisting of many

technologies,protocols,networks,services,a huge library of information, and interfaces.It
does not belong to anyone in particular, although a very few organisationshave an
influence on Internet protocols, such as:
1. The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), an open international communities of
companies, who research Internet standards and design and operate networks;
2. The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), who manage the IETF technical
activities and the Internet standards process (IETF, 2001);

3. The Internet SOCiety (ISOC), an organisationof experts on Internet policies and
practices(ISOC, 2001);
4. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), a group (housed at MIT in Boston, USA)
who developed HTTP, hypertext markup language (HTML), XML and other web
standards built on the basic Internet standards (W3C, 2001).
The Internet networks are not connected directly to each other, but the Internet
infrastructure uses backbones, which are information highways (high-speed connections)
that connect separate network segments to each other, then connect sub networks (such as
Modems, smart card, intranet, extranet and others) into the Internet network. The sub
networks retain their own individual characteristics and the collections of the entire
Internet networks appear as a single virtual network to the users (Amor, 2000).
The following four definitions bestdescribethe Internet:
1. The Internet can be defined as "an international network of dispersed local and
regional computer networks used predominantly for sharing information and
resources. Developed primarily for military and then academic use, it is now
accessible through commercial on-line services to the general public" (McDonnell and
Kemp, 1995).
103
2. The Internet can be defined as "a computer networking system that allows millions
of computer users around the world to exchange information" (Man-Ho, 1998).

3. The Internet is a "network infrastructure, which consists of many networks that are
built on certain standards, the Internet standards, which are used by all participants
to connect to each other " (Amor, 2000).

4. The National Coordination Office for Information Technology Research and
Development(ITRD) agreedto the definition of the term "Internet" as follows;
"Internet refers to the global information systemthat is:
" Logically linked together by a globally unique address space based on the
Internet Protocol (IP) or its subsequent extensions;
" Able to support communications using the Transmission Control

Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) suite or its subsequent extensions and/or
other IP-compatible protocols;
" Provides uses or makes accessible, either publicly or privately, high level
services layered on the communicationsand related infrastructure described
herein" (ITRD, 2001).
From the above discussions and definitions, the Internet can be defined as computer
systemsinter-linked globally and logically to shareand exchangeinformation basedon the

Internet protocols and standards, especially the TCP/IP.
5.4.2 Internet Services
The following are someof the fundamentalInternetservices:
5.4.2.1The World Wide Web
With the proliferation of World Wide Web site, there exist enormous stores of data
all over the world. WWW is one of the most important services on the Internet. Searching
the WWW for documents and data requires certain site information, such as names,
addresses,and routes. A name specifies what an object is; an address specifies where it is;
and a route indicates how to get there (path). An example is the Universal Resource
104
Locator (URL). The URL is a tool that localises a resource on the Internet. Most of the
URL are in the form of http: //www. xxx. yyy/zzz. nnn, where http is the type of protocol
used for the connection, www is the name of the designated web server (even though there
are many possible variations, it is standard practice to name the web server "www"), xxx is
the name of the host or domain where the particular web page or information resides, yyy
indicates the final suffix, known as the zone name, which shows the nature of the
organisation, such as a company or commercial enterprise (.com) or organisation (.org) or

government (. gov) or country (.uk), zzz is the directory path on the server and nnn is the
extension, for example html, which indicates that the file is a hypertext markup language
(Corfield et al., 1999). Besides WWW, there are other protocols that enable people to
communicate via email such as post office protocol (POP), Simple Mail Transport Protocol
(SMTP) and Internet Mail Access Protocol (IMAP); to chat online with Internet Relay
Chat (IRC); and to participate in a news group with Network News Transport Protocol
(NNTP). The successof WWW requires specific tools to handle and index this information
so it can be easily accessedby users (Amor, 2000).
5.4.2.2 Electronic Mail (E-Mail)
Electronic mail is the first and most elementary service of the Internet, and for many
users, the most useful service. One-can send/receive messages,text files, graphics, maps,
spatial data, and so on. There are many email programs running on all kinds of computers
and operating systems. All email programs are an implementation of the Simple Mail
Transport Protocol (SMTP) and the Post Office Protocol (POP). The main components of
electronicmail are:
1. A mail client-server, which can be set up for daily document exchange on the
Internet. On the server side we can manage a database, define a command set and
develop a program to automatically process this command set. For instance one can
send a request for a document by using a predefined command set through the email,
and a return email can be sent to the requester with a result based on the server-side
search on the database.
2. A mail list server that has a databaseof one or several mail-list(s) containing all
email addressesof memberswho have common interestsin a certain field. They can
105
be connected to each other and can exchange their ideas about common fields of
interest and provide comments on interesting issues (Man-Ho, 1998).
5.4.2.3 File Transfer Protocol
FTP enablesany Internet user to move files from any web site to another one.
Before the invention of the World Wide Web, FTP sites were very popular. FTP has
limited functionality to get and to send files, but is fast and efficient for large data transfers
such as graphic, video, and sound files. The transfer of GIS datasets often requires some
compression mechanism due to the inherently large size of many GIS spatial data sets,
especially raster data (Man-Ho, 1998).
5.4.2.4 The Telnet Protocol
The Telnet protocol stands for Telecommunications Network protocol, which
provides a way for users to connect to multi computers or servers on the Internet. Telnet is
a terminal-oriented remote log-in service that allows an end user to log into another remote
computer by giving commands and instructions interactively to that computer, thus
creating an interactive connection, where the local system becomes transparent to the user,
who thinks that he is connected directly to the remote computer. The commands typed by
the user are transmitted directly to the remote machine and the response from the remote
machine is displayed on the user's monitor screen. Currently, end-users rarely use this
service, because most sites are open to the public and most applications provide remote log
in functions. However Telnet is largely supported by http. According to RAD data
communication, Inc., Telnet is composed of three main principles:
1. Network Virtual Terminal (NVT), which is a deviceusedby Telnet to enablea local
computerto communicatewith a remotemachine.

2. The concept of negotiations, which is a mechanism that allows the user to set
terminal parameters to values other than the default or to negotiate more
sophisticated facilities.
3. A symmetricalview of terminals and processesthat allows either the client or server
to requesta particular option as required,thus optimising the serviceprovided by the
other party.
106
Chapter 5 Computer. \rnrorb is
Figure 5-6 illustrates the path of data in a Telnet remote terminal session as it is
transmitted from the user's keyboard to the remote operating system. Adding a Telnet
server to a timesharing system usually necessitates modifying the operating system (RAD,
2001).
Saw Serer
Qiert Rids Giert sue
to Psuedo
f mTamriil ToSaNU T mIUI
Tdnet
ciat Reoeiws
FromQiat
usws VO De"
Figure 5-6 Telnet architecture /Source RAD, 2001/.
5.4.2.5 Information Searching
Using the web browser to search the Internet for information is usually done by
sending search criteria to the remote servers and databases,then the search results are sent
back to the user. Some users just enter a keyword or abbreviation, and then the browser
adds "http: //" to the keyword and tries to find a web page. If nothing is found then it adds
". com" at the end and then "www" to be come http: //www. keyword. com. Sometimes this
process leads to correct web sites and good results, but sometimes it does not. This
depends on what country the information resides in. For example, American companies
often use ". com", and others may use it, but for instance companies in France use ". fr"
instead.
107
Several different search engines and services have been developed over the past 10
years, for example, crawler, directories and meta search engines. Crawler was first created
in 1993. It "crawled" from one web site to another and indexed everything it found by
saving the contents of each web site into a huge database with URL, which users could
query. The web directories contain a structured tree of information, which are entered
either by the Webmaster who wants to announce his/her product or web page or by the
maintainer of the directory. Meta search engines do not have a database with URLs.
However they have a database of search engines. When information is requested from the
meta search engine, then is

a request sent to all directories and crawler databases. The use
of these search engines depends on the material and information needed and its quality.
Crawler, for example, provides the user or requester with a large number of web pages
with many different aspects of the desired topic. Directories provide few pages but better
quality. On the other hand meta search engines provide a mixture of both (Amor, 2000). In
addition to the general web search engines, many specialised search engines have been
developed. Initially, anonymous FTP-sites provided a service that allowed knowledgeable
users to log into and download files of interest from "public directories". The proliferation
of FTP-sites led to the creation of Archie software, developed by McGill University to

index all files names in all public FTP-sites around the world in order to facilitate easy
finding of files. Archie is a collection of resource and archiving tools that provide an
electronic directory service for locating information in an Internet environment. It has been
expandedto include the World Wide Web directories and resourcelistings, but does not
provide any content-basedsearching.
In the meantime another program named Gopher was developed at the University
of Minnesota as an Internet protocol for presenting menus of downloadable data. While
Archie manages downloadable files in a database, Gopher manages files, documents and
services on the Internet in a hierarchical menu system (Man-Ho, 1998).
Specialised search engines are good tools to find personal information, postal
addresses,telephone numbers and emails. However, searching the Internet for information
is still difficult for many users. Searching by keywords is the most common method of
using search engines. However, a keyword may have more than one meaning, which could
result in a huge volume of imprecise information. The method of browsing, on the other
hand, takes a long time to find the relevant information. Directories such as Yahoo are
trying to overcome these problems, but new paradigms of searching are needed, as well as
software and tools, which are able to categorise web sites automatically. Today, most of
108
Chapter 5 ComputerNetwork And WebMapping Services
the search engines come from the United States and focus on American English and
culture. Therefore more multi-lingual and multi-cultural search engines, such as Altavista,
Lycos, Google and EuroSearch, which present search results in several languages, are
needed. Also search engines are very specific and cannot cope with multi databaseformats
and file types. For example, text documents that are in special formats (such as postscript
or Star office documents) are unreachable for many search engines. The same applies to
scanned information and textural information from images and scanned maps. Therefore,
there is a need to improve information searching mechanisms, to include different formats
of text, documents, images, sounds and all other formats. It is necessary not only to
improve the search engine technology, but also to improve the user interface. The use of
natural language to access a database is needed, for example "Where can I buy a road map
of Spain?" or " What are the digital maps that cover Kabul city (Afghanistan)? " or "How
many spatial data web sites are there in the UK? " The answers to these types of questions
can be found on the web, but the search engines are not able presently to understand the
question. Also, the use of neural networks in the future may help to organise large,
unstructured collections of information and allow more in-depth search (Amor, 2000).
5.5 INTERNET-BASED GIS

The Internet-based GIS, according to Peng (1997) is simply a network-centric GIS
tool that uses the Internet as a major means to access,store and transmit spatial data and in
to
some cases conduct analysis and visualisation (Peng, 1997). There is little doubt that the
success of national and international spatial data infrastructures is based on the success of
the Internet technologies. Several attempts and activities have been undertaken to
implement and deploy GIS services on the Internet, to enable a wide number of users to
access and share spatial data and accelerate the adoption of Internet technology in the GIS
field.
5.5.1 Internet Servicesfor GIS
In general, Internet services for GIS can be grouped into five categories.
109
5.5.1.1 Raw Data Download
Spatial and non-spatial data can be transmitted from one computer or server to
another using the Internet FTP, as can any other data file delivery service on the Internet.
Spatial data is treated in a packaged form, such as Arclnfo export format, or a reformatted
form, which is compliant to some national or international transfer standard such as the
U. S. Spatial Data Transfer Standard (SDTS). A user who needs a raw dataset will first
contact the search engine. The search services will provide the user with the necessary
information about the availability of the data, the location of the data, the provider, the cost
(if any)... etc. This service can only succeed when the client has the same GIS software
installed, as shown in figure 5-7, as for the data set, and where there exists an efficient and
organised metadata service, such as a clearinghouse. An exception could be the growing

use of translators that allow GIS accessto non-native format (Man-Ho, 1998).
5.5.1.2 Metadata Search
The GIS metadata search mechanism is a typical Internet search engine. However,
it requires specific metadata content for spatial data sets, as discussed in chapter 3. The
best example of the Internet metadata search service is the United States of America
National Spatial Data Clearinghouse (NSDC) metadata managed by the Federal
Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). The metadata mainly requires a text search
capability, but allows a spatial query mechanism as well (FGDC, 2000). Another good and
customer friendly metadata search service example is the AskGlraffe data locator in the
United Kingdom (the National Geospatial Data Framework), which will be discussed in
chapter 6.
5.5.1.3 Map and Image Display
There are a great numberof different graphic formats used in hundredsof different
programs, due to the lack of a single accepted standard in computer graphic field. Among
those graphic formats, initially web browsers supported Raster Graphic Formats (RGF);
Graphics Interchange Format (GIF) and Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG). GIF,
developed by CompuServe, is designed primarily for on-line transmission and interchange
of raster data, rather than as storage format for a file. JPEG format was developed to
110
facilitate compression of large images with a high colour depth. The current technical
trends for map and Images display are towards the visualisation of vector maps and the
conversion of proprietary raster graphic format into Portable Natural Graphic (PNG) or
JPEG format. Currently, several technologies have emerged to allow other types of graphic
formats to be visualised on the web browser. Man-Ho (1998) categorised map display into
three types as follows:
5.5.1.3.1 Static Map Display
This is the simplest mechanism that the Internet usually offers to the client, because
this service uses pre-defined, pre-generated, and ready to display graphic files. All the
server needs to do is to link the proprietary GIS graphic to web pages using HTML tags
and their own identifiers (name of map file and its path) and put the image on the web
server. GIS servers can also generate static PNG or JPEG map files using the snapshot
technique to capture the graphic views generated from GIS tools displayed on the (possibly
virtual) screen (Man-Ho, 1998).
5.5.1.3.2 Dynamic Map Browser
A dynamic map display service generatesa fresh map on the fly based on the user's
request. This service requires a GIS server component that can interact with GIS software
installed on the server side. Based on the user's map production parameters such as theme,
scale, feature colour and so on, GIS software draws a new map on the server machine,
converts it into raster format such as GIF, JPEG, or into vector format such as Simplified
Vector Format (SVF) or the more modem structured format for carrying graphics
information, such as Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG), developed by the World Wide Web
Consortium (W3C, 2001).
5.5.1.3.3 Image Display
Satellite Images provide a valuable source of data for map making and geographic
information systems. Multispectral images are available in digital form on the web, and
can be easily accessed,corrected (geometrically and systematically), enhanced, classified,
111
analysed, and displayed. Internet real-time maps can be generated on the fly from remotely
sensed data with the help of computer techniques. Also remote sensing data can be
classified and overlaid on topographic maps using Internet-based GIS (Mather, 1999).
5.5.1.4 Web-Based Spatial Query and Analysis
Web-based spatial query and analysis is the most advanced Internet-based GIS
service, which provides most GIS functions such as attribute queries, spatial queries,
buffers, overlays, classification, and map display. Using an interface such as HTML forms
or Java applets, users can interact with the server side database. However, more work is
still required to provide all the necessary GIS functionality and perform more advanced
applications on the Internet (OGC, 2001b).
5.5.1.5 Building and Requesting GIS
There are severalways to build a GIS on the Internet; most of them following the
client-servermodel, discussedin more detal in section5.3.2.
Figure 5-7 show a the typical system architecture for an Internet-based GIS. The Internet-
based GIS requires specific software, which can interact with a GIS tool running on the
server side. When a client makes a request for a map or spatial data, the is
request sent over
the Internet to the remote GIS server. The server interprets the request, and translates it
into the internal code (query syntax or command with parameters) and invokes GIS service
module functions by passing the message.GIS service modules control the GIS software to
process the query or map production based on pre-defined procedures (Pleuwe, 1997).
112
m
CIS Server
Client Ii
:WWW ýI1ý
Request
N browser ii ýuý
Maps,, data, yuery: result etc.
Local Disk
IS Softw
i1 11 C IS Database
Internet
GIS Software
Figure 5-7 Typical system architecture for interner-based GIS /Adapted from Pleuwe, 19971.
5.5.2 Technologies Supporting Internet-Based GIS
The development of Internet-based geographic information system applications

involves an integration of a HTTP server with geographic information system needs, using
a Common Gateway Interface (CGI) by extending the browser functionality to support new
data types and develop a cross-platform application using a mobile code system. There has
been a growing integration of HTTP servers legacy systems, the Common Gateway
Interface (CGI) and the server Application-Programming Interface (API). In order to
enable GIS output to be visualised on a web browser, several technologies were also
developed such as GIS plug-ins, GIS helper programs, and Active X. Java has been
developed to provide client side processing and to provide more interactivity for the client.
The World Wide Web consortium performed an evaluation of the current status of Java
and their characteristics. Java is currently regarded as the most successful mobile code
system (W3C, 2001).

The tools and technologies mentioned above, such as CGI, API, GIS Plug-in, GIS
helper programs, Microsoft Active X, Java, OGC and other GIS commercial tools are
discussed briefly as follows:
113
5.5.2.1 Common Gateway Interface (CGI)
In the early days of the World Wide Web, most of the web servers were written for
a very specific web browser. Soon after, the Internet and WWW technologies applications
grew and have changed rapidly, as discussed in section 5.4.2.5. Therefore the
communication between web servers and browsers required a more general solution. CGI
program was developed as one such solution. The main purpose of the CGI is to enable
interaction between web servers and browsers using hypertext transfer protocols. The
common gateway interface programs act as interfaces between the databasesand the web
browsers and handle users' requests. They receive data such as spatial data, metadata and
so on and pass them on to a program, which can process the input and send the appropriate
information and results to the web browser. The server, using CGI, conducts some GIS
analysis. With the help of certain existing GIS tools and software such as that form ESRI
and Intergraph (discussed later in this chapter) a full functionality can be achieved.
The CGI mechanism is quite easy to implement using almost all programming
languages such as C, C++, Perl, Python, Java and so on. CGI is regarded as a de facto
standard (Amor, 2000). However the CGI has some significant disadvantages concerning
performance and functionality. Every interaction between the client and the server requires
tedious routine workflow, the common gateway interface process, for execution of
application, processing the request and translation of results (Man-Ho, 1998). It results in
an excessive load for the server system and traffic on the Internet, especially in the case of
simultaneous requests from multiple-users using slow modems. Providing interactivity to
the user requires a lot of programming and coding effort for handling the many different
customised pieces of a large and complex web site (Apostolopoulos et al., 2000).
5.5.2.2 Application Programming Interface (API)
In the client-server model, the client application usually communicateswith the

host or data layer through a databasebridge. This databasebridge or driver is called the
API; it was developed for specific servers to overcome the performance and functionality
drawbacks of the CGI. It works with different relational and object oriented databases,
such as Open Database Connectivity (ODBC) and Java Database Connectivity (JDBC).
The API includes most of the functions, that usually take place between the user's request
and reply. The server API is five times faster than CGI. The disadvantage of it is the
114
difficulty of building several APIs for each platform, for different web servers (Man-Ho,
1998).
5.5.2.3 GIS Plug-ins
Plug-ins are small applications, which add functionality to commercial

applications, such as the Netscape browser or PhotoShop. Plug-ins can be installed in the
web browser to extend its capability and functionality to support seamlessly spatial data
access and to interact with other browsers, web pages and to support new data formats.
Plug-ins enable users to interact with spatial data from their own web browser without
installing traditional GIS tools. Some simple functionality such as zoom, pan and query
can be built in plug-ins and performed locally. Visualisation of graphic data such as vector
formats; 3D, Virtual Reality Modelling Language (VRML) and video, requires a specific
plug-in for each format. For example, scalable vector graphics requires special plug-ins for
visualisation. Implementation of VRML is usually by use of Cortona (Parallelgraphics) or
CosmoPlayer (Sun Microsystems). The simplified vector format requires specific
visualisation tools such as Vdraft Internet tools for SVF, AutoCAD drawing and DXF
format (Amor, 2000).
Nowadays, even though most browsers support plug-ins, the Java and Active X
solutions are overtaking the plug-in market, especially in the case of XML becoming the
new basis for documents on the Internet (Eckstein, 1999). However, it will take some years
before browsers do not require plug-ins. A new world standard for mobile phones,
Wireless Markup Language (WML), which is similar to XML, was recently developed that
may be more quickly effective (Kottman, 1999).
5.5.2.4 GIS Helper Programs
Helper programs are large applications software located in the user's local
machine's GIS software. For example, ESRI ArcView can acts as a GIS helper program.
When the web browser detects a spatial data type in an HTML page, it will automatically
launch the appropriate GIS helper program and enable it to function locally.
The drawbacksof both plug-ins and helperprogramsare:
115
1. Both GIS plug-ins and GIS helper are platform dependent. Therefore, various types
of plug-ins and helper programs need to be developed for different platforms.

2. Web users have to download various geographic information system plug-ins in
order to manipulate different spatial data on the web. Since several geographic
information system tools result in different data format visualisation of each data
format requires its own specific plug-in.
3. Installation of variousplug-ins occupiesconsiderablespaceon the local machine.

4. If the user does not have helper programs, he/she cannot manipulate the data. These
helper programs are quite big and expensive for general public users.
Fully functional platform independentGIS plug-in and GIS helper mechanismsare not yet
available,but Java and Active X technologywill soonmakethis possible(Man-Ho, 1998).
5.5.2.5 Microsoft Active X
Active X software is an Internet tool developed by Microsoft for including
applications in HTML pages. Active X is to

used create GIS controls and is built using the
Object Linking and Embedding (OLE) standard to provide a common framework for
extending the capability of Microsoft's web browser and Internet Explorer. Active X
controls are components (or objects), which are embedded into a web page or other
application to reuse packaged functionality to activate the Internet. If these objects are
stored on the user's machine, the web browser can perform a designated function. If the
user does not have those Active control components, the web browser will try to install
those objects from another web site. Typical examples of GIS Controls are the MapObjects
developed by Intergraph(Korte,2001).
by ESRI,andGeoMediadeveloped
5.5.2.6 Java
Sun Corporation developed the Java programming language and defined it as "a
simple, object-oriented, distributed, interpreted, robust, portable, high-performance, multi-

threaded and secure architecture" (Roman, 1999). Java has been used as a major tool for
the implementation of interactive Graphic User Interface (GUI) and clearinghouse server
modules; the graphic user interface allows users to search spatial databases and other
datasets. Java is a successful technology tool that originated as a cross-platform
116
development language, and has wide industry support. Java is an interpreted Object
Oriented Programming Language (OOPL). It is a hardware independent language that runs
on all major platforms. Java can embed executable code in a web page or a web server,
which introduces the possibility of the development of a vast range of applications and
transmission capabilities across a network executed on different platforms. It has powerful
features of portability and safety and provides more interactivity to the web pages by
allowing client side processing (W3C, 2001). Java has a number of component engines,
such as enterprise beans, applets and servlets. Applets are portable Java programs that can
be embedded (deployed) in a web page and servlets are request/response-oriented network
components that can be used to increase the capability and functionality of a web server.
Enterprise beans can be embedded in application servers. Java can run on a variety of
computer platforms and operating systems by using the help of a unique standardised
hypothetical computer, called the Java Virtual Machine (JVM), which is emulated inside
the computer by a system specific program (Roman, 1999).

Finally, the CGI, API, Plug-ins, helper program, Active X control and Java
technology can generally be used together depending on the purpose of the system and its
application. Among those technologies, probably Active X and Java technology have more
powerful features than others.
5.5.2.7The OpenGIS Consortium (OGC)
Even with all the tools and technologiesdiscussedabove,thereare still numerous

non-interoperabilityspatial databecause of issuesdiscussedin chapter2, which can be
summarisedas follows:
1. Issuesrelated to data structures,geometry modelling and other matters of syntax.

Theseare mostly proprietaryproblemsdue to different GIS vendors' use of different
internal structuresto define the basicgeometryof geographicfeatures.
2. Issues related to the Universe of Discourse (UoD); that is, on issues of semantics.
3. Issues related to the sharing process (Kottman, 1999).
These issues are regarded as serious obstacles in the field of Internet use of geographic
information systems and spatial data. To solve this problem, many spatial data users,
vendors, integrators, distributors, producers, as well as telecommunications, universities,

government agencies, industries and others are joining the OpenGIS Consortium (OGC)
117
+:3
membership to share potential solutions to interoperability of data. In this field, OGC

initiated the OpenGIS project to provide a comprehensive suite of open interface
specifications that enable developers to write interoperating components that provide
transparent access to heterogeneous spatial data in a networked environment (OGC,
2001 a).
The conceptual model in figure 5-8 reflects the broad coverage of the OGC
activities.
Natural Resources
Government Business Logistics
Agriculture&
VNFFFMM9
rl: 2-el A
*1
L41 Utilities
Network computing resources

with OpenGIS interfaces 1)
4
11 Space
Imaging Transportation
Cadastre
Civil Engineering
Figure 5-8 OpenGIS Consortium (OGC) vision for spatial data connectivity / Source Kottman, 1999/.
118
The OpenGIS Simple Features Specification is a standard that supports storage, retrieval,
query and update of simple spatial features and ensures control over interoperability, to
help the producers of general open GIS and to allow interoperability between multi GIS
vendors and users throughout the Internet. By using the OpenGIS Simple Feature
Specification and Java development tools, any spatial data generated by specific GIS tools
can be converted into a standard format.

Nowadays OGC works closely with the ISO/TC 211, see chapter 3 section 3.3.2.1.1 for
ISO/TC 211 initiatives. The OpenGIS Simple Feature Specification for COM/OLE
standard will ensure a good fit between OGC standardsthe ISO/TC 211 standards.
5.5.2.8Other Commercial Tools For Internet-Based GIS
Most of the GIS software and hardware vendors are trying to develop Internet tools
and services to facilitate access to their proprietary data through the Internet, but their
approaches are different in terms of graphic types, publishing method, client-level
requirements, functionality, data format and computer platforms (Radwan, 1999). If we
take the four leading GIS vendors, according to the GIS industry: Intergraph, the
Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI), AutoDesk and Maplnfo, they
developed four different Internet-based GIS software products (Intergraph GeoMedia Web
Map, ESRI Arc Internet Mapping System (ArcIMS), Maplnfo MapXtreme and
AutoDesk MapGuide. The four products are based on the new technology, which aims to
provide seamlessinteroperable spatial data services.
By briefly summarisingthesefour productswe find similarities and differencesin

their approachesand functionalities. However, it is difficult to evaluateor comparethese
products with one another due to the fact that:
1. Eachproduct offers a largenumberof featuresand tools.

2. There is frequentupdatingand improvementof theseproducts.
3. Different applicationsneeddifferent comparisons.
4. There is insufficient time to test the functionality of each product.
However, the following brief discussionhighlights someof the similarities and differences
between the four products:
119
5.5.2.8.1 Intergraph
Intergraph GeoMedia Web Map is Microsoft Windows-based technology that
enables visualisation, publishing, analysis and distribution of spatial data from multi
sources over the Internet (Korte, 2001). It supports real-time links to spatial data
clearinghouses with a simple interface that allows the users to navigate through large
quantities of multiple spatial data in different formats (Intergraph, 2000). The GeoMedia
Web Map reads MGE, FRAME, MGEDM, without translation or conversions as well as
Microstation DGN, Arclnfo, ArcView, Field View, Maplnfo, AutoCAD, Oracle and
Microsoft Access data (Global Link, 1997). GeoMedia uses standard web browser tools,
such as Microsoft Internet Explorer or Netscape Navigator to access spatial data. It gives
flexibility to receive and create web mapping application facilities and provide data
integration into a single client environment. GeoMedia Web Map allows users to build
OpenGIS Consortium (OGC) compliant servers.For data storage,the user can choose
betweenMicrosoft Access,Microsoft SQL Server,or Oracleobjects,dependingon the size
of the spatial database. GeoMedia web map offers command development using familiar,
industry standard tools to build user applications in a way similar to Windows applications,
in an effort to reduce the learning curve for new users who are already familiar with
Microsoft applications, such as Word and Excel. Users choose the preferred language and
programming environment based on their application requirements and current knowledge

of industry-accepted programming tools (Intergraph, 2001b).
According to Intergraph(2001b), userswork with standardWindows development

tools, suchas:
1. Visual Basic and Visual C++

2. PowerBuilder
3. Delphi, Excel, FoxPro
4. Access/Oracle Spatial
Intergraph extended the ability of GeoMedia Web Map browser and introduced other
products, such as GeoMedia Professional and GeoMedia WebEnterprise. However, the
120
.
objects are the same across the entire product line (Intergraph, 2001a). Figure 5-9 shows a
rather simple view of the GeoMedia Web mapping process.
Figure 5-9 GeoMedia web map architecture /Adapted from Intergraph, 20001.
5.5.2.8.2 ESRI
The Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI) developed the Arc
Internet Mapping System (ArcIMS). ArcIMS is a framework that provides a common
platform for the storage, exchange, real-time integration, analysis and distribution of web-
enabled topologically structured spatial data and services over the Internet in a distributed
environment that consists of both users and producers. ArcIMS forms the backbone of the
ESRI Network (geography network) and provides data and services to the ESRI's ArcGIS
system, which is a new comprehensive and integrated GIS solution (ESRI, 2000). The
ArcIMS browser-based viewer and stand-alone ArcExplorer viewer offer tools for
accessing and querying spatial and related non-spatial data and perform analysis. ArcIMS
users can build custom Visual Basic and Visual C++ applications that use ArcIMS services
(Korte, 2001).
ESRI recently developed a GIS extension to the standard XML, named ArcXML.
ArcXML is a communication tool that offers a powerful way to customise ArcIMS
121
Chapter 5
applications. In addition, ArcIMS provides secure access to spatial data and services by
controlling the security of certain web sites and performing user authentication, allowing
authorised users to access the spatial data and preventing non-authorised uses from doing
so (ESRI, 2001 a).

Some mobile service providers are using ArcIMS to deliver digital maps to customers on
mobile phones with routing and proximity search functions, provide personalised traffic
reports and alerts, develop applications for fleet management and dispatching, etc (ESRI,
2001b). Figure 5-10 shows the three-tier client server architecture for ESRI ArcIMS Web
Map Architecture.
HTNIL ArcExplorer
Clients
Java I Internet
Services
ArcIMS Application Server
ArcIMS Service
Data Management
Figure 5-10 Arc/MS web map architecture /Adapted from ESRI, 20001.
122
5.5.2.8.3 Maplnfo
MapXtreme is a 100% Java mapping application server for the Internet.

MapXtreme provides a comprehensive list of powerful mapping functionality, such as map
viewing, manipulation, thematic mapping functions, buffering, object (map) editing, draw
layer, find, display, layer control, spatial selections, geocoding, extensive data base binding
and sample data (MapInfo, 2001). It enables spatial data visualisation to discover new
relationships and trends not apparent when viewing data using other tools. MapXtreme is
scalable and compatible with major web and application servers and supports two tier and
three tier architectures and multi platforms, including Sun solaris, HP/UX, Linux and
Windows NT.
MapXtreme uses standard web browser tools, such as Microsoft Internet Explorer
and Netscape to access spatial data. It provide access to a wide variety of spatial database
sources, such as Maplnfo tables, Oracle8i Spatial, Informix, DB2, ESRI shapefile and
raster files (Maplnfo, 2000).
5.5.2.8.4 AutoDesk
AutoDesk developed MapGuide as a tool for delivering, viewing and interacting
with GIS spatial data over the Internet. MapGuide is browser- based software, which
allows access to a pre-generated map published spatial data, through a web interface. It is
scalable software, which provides robust display, query and analytical features for a variety
of hardware platforms and browsers and can access spatial data from a variety of formats
and relational spatial databases. AutoDesk MapGuide works with AutoCAD Map and
AutoDesk VISION Enterprise to provide functional and operational services. VISION, as
described by its developer (AutoDesk, 2000), is a major spatial database management
product, which keeps all aspects of administration, management, manipulation and analysis
of spatial data fully within a single Oracle database(AutoDesk, 2001).
The databaseserveris usually in a central location and the client machinesresideat
the users' locations. The application servers can be deployed according to processing
requirementsand the size of the application. For organisationswith large applications,a
local application server is neededto process large complex transactions,but for small
departments,which are spreadover a province or state, a smaller number of serversat
123
Chapter 5 (bmpufer Network And Web Mapping Services
different locations are adequate (AutoDesk, 2000). Figure 5-11 shows the AutoDesk three-
tier client server architecture.
Design and Maintenance Operation Suport Field Operations
Client Tier
(Clients)
MapGuide
I- r- PDA
Internet Explorer/Netscape
AutoCAD Visual Basic
Autodesk MapGuide
Map VISION Objects
Middle Tier
(Services)
ý1LI
___i
Display Cashe
VISION MapGuide
Manager Server
Server Server
--------- --- ----------------------------
C Oracle DBMS
Data Server Tier VISION e
(Data Management) Cartridges
Figure 5-11 AutoDesk three-tier client server architecture (Source AutoDesk, 20001.
5.6 INTERNET SECURITY

The increasing demand for the use of the Internet raised awareness of the security
problem for many people who had not recognised the real risk posed by the security
challenges of the Internet. Communication and data transmission over the Internet is by
default open and uncontrolled and within the reach of many intruders, hackers and
criminals. Questions of confidentiality, integrity, availability, legitimate use and non-
repudiation (validity) are serious problems of the Internet, if better security measures are
not implemented (Amor, 2000). Many vendors, and sometimes users, claim that a system
or network is secure. Unfortunately this is not true. We should ask such people, secure
from whom and against what? (Schneier, 2000).
124
Internet security is a complex issue and growing a problem, with security hazards
and challenges to many users. Every day, huge amounts of confidential spatial data, bank
transactions, airlines, insurance data, personnel data, universities data, student records and
other private and confidential data are within easy reach of many criminals, intruders and
hackers, through the Internet. Once the intruder finds his/her way into the valuable and
sensitive data, it becomes easy for him/her to roam about and destroy, change or steal the
data, causing various types of damage, fraud and loss.
Even the most basic and ubiquitous Internet services, such as electronic mail
(email), cannot be said to be secure for the following reasons: anyone who has a protocol
analyser and access to routers or other web devices that have a role in processing emails
while crossing from one network to another through nodes, will be able to accessand read
any message being mailed (Brosais, 1997). Intelligence services probably use this method
of surveillance. Also emails carry viruses; this will be discussed at the end of this section.
The network security markets are in a state of chaos with respect to standards,
technologiesand products that can provide a solution to the information security puzzle.
Moreoverthere is a lack of co-ordinatedsecurityeffort betweenvendorsand users.
5.6.1 What is Internet Security?
Internet security principles involve procedures, policies and technologies

(hardware and software) needed to control and prevent unauthorised accessto digital data.
Security has the five major components, of confidentiality, integrity, availability,
legitimate use and non-repudiation. The confidentiality level is set to stop unauthorised
reading of a data or document, while integrity ensures that the data presented was not
altered or deleted (sometimes by mistake) during processing and transmission. Availability
means that the proper data can be accessed,by the authorised users, fast enough when it is
needed (Schneier, 2000). Legitimate use means that non-authorised users should be
prevented from accessing or using data or resources. Non-repudiation involves a trusted
third party, who time-stamps outgoing and incoming data and communications and is able
to verify the validity of a digital signature.
125
5.6.2 Security Measures
Many organisations (including survey and mapping organisations), companies, and
government agencies, are sensitive about protecting their data and have introduced security
systems. The design of a security system involves hardware and software components as
well as physical security such as controlled doors, shields, cameras, guards, ..etc. It also
involves policies and procedures. However security systems must be reasonable and well
designed. An over-complex security system for unrestricted data will cost a lot and slow
the system.
To protect valuable data, mainly from the Internet hazards, the first step should be
the development of comprehensive procedures and policies for data security, internally and
externally. These should state in detail the employees who will have accessto each type of
service provided by the Internet. It is also very important to educate the employees on their
responsibility for the protection of the data and information.
The "site security handbook" issued by the Network Working Group, an Affiliate
of Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), gives a good account of the topics to be taken
into consideration when an organisation gets ready to set its security policies. A security
plan requires, as part of its arrangement, an estimation of the cost to be borne by the
organisation in case the security arrangements are violated. Organisation officials at the
highest levels should be involved in the process. It may be useful to hire a computer
security expert to ensure system security; also, many of the Internet service providing
companies may be consulted. Once the security procedures and policies are in place, then
the organisation should evaluate available tools and technologies such as firewalls,
encryption, authentication, Virtual Private Networking (VPN) and Anti-virus software and
apply what is needed according to their security measures and requirements (Brosais,
1997).
5.6.3 Firewalls
Whenever the subject of Internet security is discussed, the minds of many people,
especially companies and government agencies go to firewalls, in spite of the fact that
firewalls do not solve all Internet security problems. A firewall is
simply a divider or
126
boundaries between private networks (Intranet), such as a LAN and WAN, and public
networks, mainly the Internet (Schneier, 2000). The firewall receives incoming network
packets at the network layer level and inspects all the packets and compares them against a
set of rules and regulations provided by the organisation network supervisor (for example,
the source and destination addresses of incoming packets). The firewall will pass packets
which meet the rules and regulations, and reject all other traffic, which does not comply
with the rules. Firewalls could consist of a variety of components, including hardware,
software and services, and deal with multimedia traffic.

There are several ways to configure a firewall, depending on the level of security
needed. There may be one or multiple firewalls, or multiple internal networks

(Apostolopoulos et al., 2000). Although there would be no way of restricting access to the
information on that web server, many organisations are definitely interested in stopping
any tampering with the server's contents. Most security system providers are trying to
protect web servers by providing legitimate access and by monitoring illegal activities
(Brosais, 1997).
Figure 5-12 shows a firewall within three-tier system architecture. A firewall is usually
installed between the user's interface (the first tier) and the application and database
servers (the second and third tier) as shown in this figure.
First-Tier Decentralised Enduser Workstation I

The Internet
Users Interface Layer Insecure Area
-"-"-FIREWALL. (+ The Boundary) ----- --- '
Second-Tier Distributed
Servers/LAN
secure Area
"-"-"-"---" 1 ier Boundary -. -. -. -. -. -
--
Figure 5-12 Firewall used in three-tier architecture.
127
.4
Most firewall technologies in use today contain one or more of the three critical
firewall elements, known as packet filtering, circuit proxy firewall and application proxy
(Apostolopoulos et at., 2000). Packet filtering technology is relatively cheap, transparent to
the user and has very limited effect on network performance, but the configuration of the
packet filtering technology is a somewhat complicated process and requires an accurate

knowledge of the web, the transfer protocols and, sometimes, requires knowledge of the
application protocols. Configuration problems often lead to security vulnerabilities, which

give an opportunity to computer hackers to gain access to organisation networks by
changing the Internet Protocol (IP) addresses in the packet headers to other addresses
acceptable to the local network. In the early days of network security, packet filtering used
to perform the very basic function of checking each packet traversing the network. Today,
packet filtering is smarter. Instead of checking each packet individually, the firewall keeps
data and information about the state of the network and what packets are expected
(Schneier, 2000). A more sophisticated and more secure system is the proxy technology
(circuit proxy and application proxy). The circuit proxy is similar to packet filtering, but
the circuit proxy forces all communications, whether client or server, to address all packets
to the circuit proxy (Apostolopoulos et at., 2000). Application proxy software is capable of
evaluating network packet to determine the authenticity of data relating to a particular

application. Most of the firewalls using the application proxy approach have a special
feature called Network Address Translation (NAT) that prevents any accessto IP internal
addressesby users from outside the trusted network. One major defect of application proxy
technology is the low level of performance resulting from the lengthy processing
performed by the proxy function. Additional firewalls may be required for sensitive
internal networks.
Most of the early firewall programswere written for Unix Systems,but then a large
number of firewall products based on Windows flooded the market from many Internet
security vendors. Windows-based firewalls have additional security features to provide
comprehensive security solutions on the Internet. These features include encryption,

authentication, Virtual Private Network (VPN). Anti-virus software and sometimes
protection from the malfunctioning of Java, Active X and other software (Brosais, 1997).
128
5.6.4 Encryption
Encryption is an important Internet security measure. Known modern encryption
processes depend on the use of numerical values used as a public/print key. System
encryption can be part of the Secure Socket Layer (SSL) and is widely used in web to
server communications (between browsers and servers).
There are many types of algorithms or standards for encryption. For example the
Data Encryption Standards (DES) used to be one of the most common algorithms,
depending on the use of a symmetric key or secret key. The DES has been used since 1977
all over the world, in thousands of different products and applications (Schneier, 2000).
Another example is the triple-DES, an updated version of the DES algorithm, which is
used with more than one key.

The Secure Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) standards were
introduced for the security of correspondence systems. They enable a secure exchange of
emails and cover email encryption software (Brosais, 1997). On the other hand the
Advanced Encryption Standards (AES) are more modern and advanced standards.
According to Schneier (2000) AES will soon be the U. S. government standards encryption
algorithm. These algorithms secure and protect privacy, such as emails, personnel
computer file, important data and financial transactions (Schneier, 2000).
Not only doesencryption ensuredata confidentiality and privacy, but also it can be
to
used guard passwords and important data such as credit cards and bank transactions. All
the data are encrypted by using the sender's key, ensuring the authentication of the sender,
whereas the data are decrypted by using the recipient's key, ensuring the authentication of
the recipient. It also enables a mechanism for the user authentication known as digital
signature (Amor, 2000). The certifying authority in any organisation, which is formally
responsible for delivering the public key to the user, could be set up by using digital
certificates within the organisation or extending their use to include trusted partners. The
certifying authority software providers are agencies or companies, trusted by a group of
users, who are well known for their strict procedures for checking identities and identifying
digital certificates. The X. 509 standard is one of the best-known standards for identifying
digital certificates (Brosais, 1997).
129
5.6.5 Authentication
As mentioned in section 5.6.3, firewalls stand between an organisation and the

outside world to protect data from unauthorised outside users, check incoming and
outgoing traffic, ensure legality and protect the organisation's systems and data. But if the
organisation wants to allow certain users to have accessto sensitive files and data on their
systems through the firewalls, then they need to check the authenticity of the actual user.
Authentication is defined as a set of procedures, which can positively identify the user and
ensure that received and transmitted data were not altered, modified copied or deleted.
Passwords are among the best-known procedures for user authentication, but it is well
known that users frequently use passwords that can easily be guessed or figured out by
experienced hackers.
5.6.6 Virtual Private Networks
Virtual Private Networks (VPN) are simply a secure connection over a public
network, such as the Internet. The expression refers to remote access using the Internet
Infrastructure to connect two offices (rooms) in an organisation or two different
organisations to one another. Many firewalls products offer the possibility of virtual
private networks. By using the remote access function, a remote user can contact the local
Internet Service Provider (ISP) and get connected to his central network through the
Internet. Certain standards were developed to facilitate remote access and connections
through virtual private networks. For example, a standard developed by IETF under the
name of IPsec or secure Internet protocol would permit the transfer of authentication and
certification procedures from an Internet service provider to a server located somewhere on
the Internet, say, at the head office of a company. This standard would enable VPN
products to exchange public keys and encryption algorithms in order to prepare VPN
sessions. Also, most VPN products and firewalls products support the IPsec standard.
Consideration should be given to the fact that exchange susceptibility tests are still new
and that the IPsec standard is still being developed. VPN networks and all encryption
technologies are heavily dependent on the computer's Central Processing Unit (CPU) and
130
could be the cause of low performance unless they are adequately designed and
implemented (Brosais, 1997).
5.6.7 Computer Anti Virus
After protecting systems to prevent hackers, intruders and criminals from breaking
into the networks, the looming risk of viruses is still a major problem threatening any
system. Java applications and Active X, which enter a system when network users browse
the Internet, can be a cause of virus attack. A computer virus is simply a string of computer
code that attaches itself covertly to another file and attaches copies to other programs and
infects and destroys files, programs and other resources. The first computer virus known
was written in 1983 by Fred Colen, a University of Southern California (USC) student. He
wished to prove his idea to a number of people who did not believe it was possible
(Schneier, 2000). Nowadays there are estimated to be between 10,000 and 60,000 different
viruses, with about six new or variant viruses appearing daily.

There are three types of viruses:file infectors,boot-sectorvirusesand macro viruses.
The file infectors are the most common. They work by attaching themselves to executable
program files. The boot-sector virus loads itself into memory when the computer first boots
up and then infects all the hard disks, diskettes and any other disks that are placed in the
drive and spreads into other systems. This worked well with Windows 3.1, but is less
common with Windows 95 and upward. Macro viruses are written in scripting (macro)
language and spread faster than other viruses, because data are exchanged more commonly
than programs. Nowadays, the fastest spreading Internet viruses are macro viruses.
The propagationof virusesvia email is new and will changeevery securitymeasure,
because email is everywhere and is not easily stopped, even at the firewalls. Email viruses
became topical in 1999 with the Melissa Microsoft Word macro virus and the
worm. exploreZip. For example, in the year 2000 the ILOVEYOU worm, and others,
attacked very large numbers of systems, by using the email and spread across the Internet
network using automatic e-mail features and mailing themselves to all the people listed in
the infected host's email address book (Schneier, 2000). The ILOVEYOU virus is said to
have infected about 10 million computers in a few hours. The anti virus companies release
updates, but every day new types of viruses with new codes are developed, which makes it
131
difficult to be secure. Finally, the following advice must be considered, especially for the
Saudi National Spatial Data Infrastructure (SNSDI) chapter 7:
1. Any strange email should not be opened, unless proper procedures are taken.
2. Any computer, which is linked or used to accessthe Internet, should not contain any
sensitive information or data files. It could be downloaded (from the computer to
some where else) easily.

3. Important data should be saved on daily, weekly and monthly bases (three copies are
recommended and should be saved in a different secured places).

4. Users should be aware of infected websites and not visit them, as virus or worms
would spread and destroy their system.

5. Anti-virus softwareshouldalwaysbe updated.
6. Newly receivedfloppy, zip disk, etc shouldbe scannedbeforeusing it.

7. The use of credit cards and dispatching personnel information or address on the
Internet should be minimised unless secure transmission is used.

The Internet has become an important and a major part of computer networking
technology. It is an essential communicating medium for the spatial data community and
has changed the way of accessing, transmitting, conducting, analysing, visualising and
sharing spatial data. The rapid development of the Internet and the World Wide Web
(WWW) technologies has resulted in the Internet-based GIS. The current technology for
Internet-based GIS application enables the successful implementation of a National Spatial
Data Infrastructure (NSDI) and forms the backbone of any national spatial data
clearinghouse. In addition, use of servers provides the ability to communicate with many
computer platforms from small systems to a large installation and allows network
configurations distributed across a nation or the globe to share different spatial data and
other resources.
Several good tools and technologies have been developed to build and facilitate
GIS applications on the Internet. Among those tools are the Common Gateway Interface
(CGI), the Application Programming Interface (API), GIS Plug-ins, GIS helpers, Microsoft
Active X, Java, and others. The OpenGIS Consortium (OGC) is the most innovating and
132
technically competent consortium and offers very promising tools and features for
interoperable Internet-based GISs in heterogeneous environments. Most GIS vendors have
developed Internet tools and services for interactive GIS functions and Internet-based GIS
following OGC guidelines. The Intergraph GeoMedia Web Map, ESRI Arc Internet
Mapping System (ArcIMS), Maplnfo MapXtreme and AutoDesk MapGuide products are
considered the best four systems in this field. However, further work is required to provide
all necessary GIS functionality and perform more advanced GIS analysis on the Internet.
Moreover, the increasing demand for the Internet services increases the security hazards
for many users. Intruders, hackers and criminals continually threaten the confidentiality,
integrity, availability, legitimate use and validity of received and transmitted data.
Therefore, high security awareness is needed and appropriate measures should be
developed and implemented, provided that the level of security set is in accordance with
needs, requirements and education of employees.

The Saudi NSDI should use the Internet network initially to promote the basic
concept of an NSDI by means of web information pages and links to international good
practice, and foster the formation of discussions groups amongst potential participants. The
Saudi clearinghouse should only contain metadata during the first stage of the
infrastructure project with spatial datasets supplied by the producers on their own servers.
This will minimise the administrative load in setting up the national system compared with
attempting to warehouse all the data at a national site or sites.

The initial metadata gateway will use the open Internet as a test vehicle for setting
up a full scale clearinghouse while critical reliability issues of Internet network
availability, speed and security are investigated. At the same time it should be possible to
incorporate flexibly the feedback from discussion groups amongst the Saudi spatial data
community to determine the best use of the Internet structure to access the spatial data
clearinghouse and to decide on the number of nodes needed in a fully operational failsafe
system.
Security is a major problem, both in terms of accessto metadataand to the data
themselves. One approach would be to rely on software security at the gateways, which
can be very effective, but not perhaps to the professional hacker. Another growing
alternative is to use either private lines or virtual private networks (VPNs) using high level
encryption tunnels between sites. The latter is more computing intensive, but cheaper to
implement and more flexible than secure private lines. The development of VPNs may be
a very useful feature of the communication system within the clearinghouse.
133
Chapter 6 TheSearchfor a Spatial Data ClearinghouseModel
CHAPTER 6
THE SEARCH FOR A SPATIAL DATA
CLEARINGHOUSE MODEL
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The development and implementation of an international, national, and regional
spatial data infrastructure, including clearinghouses, came as a result of the convergence of

spatial data technologies, the internet network, mobile services, high level governmental
support, the need to protect the environment and a desire to minimise duplication of effort
in the expensive and time consuming collection, production and management of spatial
data. The primary goals of creating a spatial data clearinghouse are to improve knowledge
about current and future spatial data and to maximise the use of data and technology by co-
ordinating and integrating a variety of spatial data from different sources, facilitating
facilitate its access and sharing, and reducing the costs of its collection, production and
maintenance by using common standards, policies, technologies and other facilities.

Clearinghouses are an integral part of all spatial data infrastructures and therefore, in
discussing spatial data infrastructure, it is appropriate to pay attention to the development
of spatial data clearinghouses.

The main purpose of this chapter is to investigate and evaluate some of the
worldwide initiatives in the field of spatial data clearinghouses in an attempt to learn the
advantages and disadvantages of each initiative. This in turn will facilitate the formation of
a proposal for the development and implementation of a national spatial data clearinghouse
in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which will be discussed in chapter 7. Section 6.2 defines
and highlights some aspects of spatial data clearinghouses. Section 6.3 forms the main and
most important part of this chapter. The search for a clearinghouse model tours the world,
starting in the African continent; where four initiatives in Kenya, Ghana, the Southern
African Development Community (SADC), and South Africa are briefly investigated.
Then, the focus moves to the Asia and Pacific Region; where five initiatives in South
Korea, Japan, Malaysia, The Permanent Committee on GIS Infrastructure For Asia and
Pacific (PCGIAP) and the Australia-New Zealand region are discussed. After that five
134
European initiatives including the European Umbrella Organisation for Geographic

Information (EUROGD, the European Spatial Metadata Infrastructure (ESMI), Portugal,
the Netherlands and the United Kingdom are examined. Following Europe, the section
reviews some of the North and South American initiatives, in Colombia, Uruguay, Canada
and the United States of America. Lastly the Global Spatial Data Infrastructure (GSDI) is
investigated. Section 6.4 contains concluding remarks.
6.2 THE CLEARINGHOUSE
The spatial data clearinghouse is the most important and essential component of
any spatial data infrastructure.A national spatial data clearinghouseconsistsof four main
components,spatial data, metadata,Internet and distributed interface and search tools
(Masser,1997).Thesehavebeendiscussedin previouschapters.
What is a Clearinghouse? -A spatial data clearinghousecan be defined (rather

verbosely) as "the creation of a centralised or decentralised (distributed) electronically
connected network of servers located on the Internet, which contain metadata and detailed
catalogue services that are collected in a standard format to facilitate query and consistent
presentation across multiple participating sites that band together spatial data providers,
custodians and distributors to promote their available digital spatial data and enable all
users to search relevant spatial data nodes, determine what spatial data exist, find the data
they need, evaluate the usefulness of the spatial data for their applications and obtain or
order the data as quickly and economically as possible" (FGDC, 1995).

Within any national spatial data clearinghouse, the role of data providers, data
custodians and data distributors varies among countries and relevant organisations. A
single site may perform all three roles, or the responsibilities for each role may lie with
different locations and organisations. The creation of initial metadata is normally the
responsibility of the spatial data providers. The provider defines most of the required
metadata during the generation of the spatial data. Each data provider then describes the
available data in an electronic form and provides these descriptions (metadata) to the
network using a variety of tools. The responsibility for reviewing the initial metadata could
be assigned to separate units within an organisation, or managed through external
dedicated organisations. The maintenance and update of metadata differ according to
135
policies and types of clearinghouses. For example in centralised clearinghouses, the

clearinghouse administration is responsible for maintaining the centralised metadata, but in
a distributed clearinghouse, each data provider is responsible for the maintenance of his or
her local metadata.
Due to the continuous change in technologies,user accessmethods and modes,

clearinghouse systems should be flexible and designed for maximum accessibility. Policies
related to copyright, licences, fees, security, formats and other matters should be
established. Existing policies and procedures should be extended, where possible, to avoid
modifications and changes in the future. The development, implementation, maintenance
and updating of a clearinghouse requires a considerable amount of money and effort, but it
is worth it because of the benefits gained by avoidance of duplication and the consequent
savings in time, money and effort.

A clearinghouse is heavily dependent on the manner of managing the metadata and
communicating with different spatial data providers and the extent of services to be
provided to the user community. In order to enable metadata to be easily read and
understood by different disciplines, metadata standards that provide a common set of
terminology and definitions for the documentation of spatial data should be developed and
understood (training and practice) (Radwan et al., 1997). The main developer of metadata
standards presently is the ISO/TC 211. Technical considerations including spatial data
security, as discussed in chapter 5, should be addressed during the building of any
clearinghouse. The protection of internal systems and networks, as well as the security of
spatial data that is sensitive, for example, military spatial data or any other restricted data,
needs to be assured; managers are responsible for protecting these organisational assets
(Radwan, 1999).
6.3 INITIATIVES
Today, many national, regional and international organisationsaround the world

are trying to develop strategies for spatial data infrastructure, including clearinghouses, as
discussed in chapter 1. Examples of these activities are given below, but owing to lack of
documentation and the fact that, in some cases initiatives are still in their early stages, the
type and amount of information provided varies greatly:
136
6.3.1 Africa
There have been severalefforts in Africa toward the developmentof spatial data
infrastructureand directoriesor clearinghouses.
Examplesof theseactivities are:
6.3.1.1Kenya
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), headquartered in Nairobi,

Kenya, supports a global directory of environmental spatial data, using UNEP software and
a subset of the United States federal geographic data committee (FGDC) metadata
elements (UNEP, 2000). This development is now in progress
6.3.1.2 Ghana
From 14-18 August 2000, staff from the United States of America, FGDC visited
Ghana to co-host a comprehensive five-day workshop on "Managing Spatial Data for
Development Planning in Ghana". Chartered under Ghana's multi-year Natural Resource
Management Project, the National Framework for Geographic Information Management
(NFGIM) initiative, hosted by the Ghanaian Environmental Protection Agency (GEPA),
has made steady progress in raising awareness of the value of Spatial Data Infrastructure
(SDI) and the need to facilitate collaboration on spatial topics across all sectors in Ghana.
As a result of this workshop, Ghana has been provided with the training material,
documentation, metadata and software tools necessary to implement a national spatial data
clearinghouse (Reichardt, 2000).
6.3.1.3 The Southern African Development Community
The Regional RemoteSensingUnit (RRSU) was originally establishedin Harare,

Zimbabwe for geographic information systems (GIS)-based applications in support of early
warning for food shortages. The RRSU was funded and technically supported by the Food
and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations and other donors. Initially the
RRSU and its spatial data activities were not known and the original
plan did not include
137
the development of SDI. However, over the years, the RRSU has been recognised as one of
the major spatial data-developing units in the Southern African region. In 1998, the RRSU
was integrated into the organisational structure of the Southern African Development
Community (SADC) and funded by the 14 SADC member countries (Angola, Botswana,
Democratic Republic of Congo, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia,
Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe) and other donors,
with the aim of developing the spatial data infrastructure in the region; such development
is now in progress (Nebert, 2001).
6.3.1.4 South Africa
South Africa is developing a national spatial data infrastructure in response to its
needs for spatially referenced data to enable sound decision making, provision of services
and other infrastructure (e.g. road networks, utilities). In 1997, the Deeds and Surveys
branch of the Department of Land Affairs (DLA) dedicated resources to develop the
National Spatial Information Framework (NSIF), South Africa's Spatial Data
Infrastructure (SDI) initiative. The USA and Australian models, experience and software
tools were used in building the SDI (NSIF, 2000).

The South African national spatial data infrastructureinitiative has received good
government support and is one of the most important activities in the African region. The
NSIF spatial planning task team address and sponsor a number of activities, which include
policies relevant to spatial data dissemination, setting standards to promote

interchangeability, including accuracy standards for data collection, classification
standards, metadata standards, a catalogue and a Spatial Data Discovery Facility (SDDF)
to provide access to various spatial data by linking spatial data providers and users and to
facilitate the exchange of spatial data using the Internet. The NSIF adopts the United States
FGDC Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata (CSDGM) and related software
and will change to the ISO/TC 211 content standard once it is finalised.
Following co-operation between the NSIF and the Regional Remote Sensing Unit
(RRSU) the NSIF set up a distributed SDDF system that includes about 3,000 records on
spatial data holdings within both public and private sectors, in South Africa as well as the
Southern African Development Community (SADC). As of April 2001, there were about
14 individual SDDF nodes on the Internet that provide digital spatial data covering much
138
Chapter 6 The Search for a Spatial Data Clearinghaue Model
of the country, with a large number of metadata records allowing multiple queries of the
spatial data through a single gateway. The primary digital spatial data themes that are
commonly used and will be made available throughout the distributed systems include
cadastral parcels and land ownership, topographic communications, urban areas,
administrative and political boundaries, transportation networks, rivers and main dams,
digital terrain models (DTM) and digital elevation models (DEM). The SDDF system
provides several mechanisms for spatial data query. For example the SDDF presents the
user with a map of South Africa, with tools to zoom in, zoom out, add to the map various
spatial features, then view all the available databases(nodes) on the SDDF
However, while progress has been made in developing the South African spatial
data infrastructure over the last four years, there are a number of obstacles that need to be
addressed.These include the lack of a uniform policy across government organisations and
agencieswith respect to the pricing of spatial data and other conditions associatedwith its
use; a spatial data sharing problem owing to the fear of some data providers over loss of
control over their spatial data if it is shared, and the lack of investment in spatial data and
associatedtechnologies (Gavin, 2001).
6.3.2 The Asia-Pacific Region
6.3.2.1 South Korea
South Korea (the Republic of Korea) has carried out a number of research and
development studies in the field of spatial data infrastructure (SDI) planning. According to
Tschangho John Kim, the Government of South Korea established, in January 1994, the
National GIS (NGIS) steering committee was established and created the following five
functional committees:
1. The NGIS Coordinating Committee.

2. The NGIS Mapping Committee.
3. The NGIS CadastralCommittee.
4. The NGIS StandardCommittee.
5. The NGIS R&D Committee.
139
Chapter 67 he Search fora Spatial Data Clearinghouse Model
In May 1994, another new committee called the NGIS Advisory Committee was
createdby the NGIS Steering Committee and 15 experts from the academic and the private
sectorswere appointed as members. The Advisory Committee was tasked to formulate and
recommend a national GIS implementation plan and financial issues. Each functional
committee also appointed its own committee members who recommend functional
development and implementation programmes to the NGIS Committee for the national
GIS (Kim, 1995).
In 1995, The South Korean National Land Information Centre (NLIC) was
established by the Ministry of Home Affairs and tasked to collect and provide information
about parcels registered in the Cadastral records using a computer network. The NLIC built
a central database which stores cadastral data produced and updated by 15 Local Land
Information Centres, which receive spatial data updates from 255 cities, counties and
districts, Resident Registration data and Posted Land Price data, all provided by major
participants through modems. The main participants in the NLIC include:
1. The Ministry of Home Affairs.

2. The Ministry of Construction and Transportation.
3. The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.
4. The National Tax Administration.
The NLIC is a centralised parcel-based land information system, which provides

the means, using a parcel-based key identifier, to link to the whole data set provided by
each participant. However, due to the lack of a national spatial data infrastructure and a
lack of coordination and cooperation between the various spatial data providers,
connection to NLIC is only allowed to local government offices. Therefore most of the
spatial data sets are not accessible to the public and duplication of data collection and
production exist (Man-Ho, 1998).
6.3.2.2 Japan
According to Imai (1999), the Japanese National Spatial Data Infrastructure

Promoting Association (NSDIPA) was established, based on the Japanese Geographic
Information System (GIS) academy initiative, at the time of the Great Hanshin Earthquake
140
Chapter 6 The Search for a Spatial Data Clearinghouse Model
and presented to the Japanesecentral government. To support the NSDIPA initiative, the
Japanese government decided to establish a liaison conference in the Councillor's Office
on Internal Affairs, and a related committee in the Ministry of Construction and National
Land Agency. The NSDIPA is a copy of the United States of America National Spatial
Data Infrastructure (NSDI). The major private sectors have recognised the importance of
the initiative and support it. The JapaneseNational Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDIPA)
has endorsed the creation of metadata and search facilities as part of its data infrastructure.
In 1997, a test Clearinghouse was established in the Okinawa Prefecture with a Japanese
language and web map-based query interface to search available spatial data across Japan.
It is anticipated that NSDIPA will use the ISO/TC 21 standardsand will become accessible
through the OpenGIS Consortium (OGC) compliant catalogue services specifications as
they become available (Imai, 1999).
6.3.2.3 Malaysia
In 1997, the Malaysian government issued a circular order calling for the
establishment of the National Infrastructure for Land Information System (NaLIS). The
NaLIS Co-ordinating Committee (NCC) was formed at the federal level under the
chairmanship of the secretary general to the Ministry of Land and Co-operative

Development. Also the State NaLIS Co-ordinating Committee (SNCC) was established
under the chairmanship of the respective State Secretaries. Besides the two co-ordinating
committees, the circular also established the National Land Information Clearinghouse
(NLIC). The NCC consists of three sub-committees: the clearinghouse, the standards and
metadata and the framework sub-committees. NCC was given the mandate to involve the
Economic Planning Unit, the Malaysian Administrative Modernisation Planning Unit, the
federal treasury, the Malaysian Institute of Micro-electronic Systems, the National
Mapping and Spatial Data Committee (NMSDC) and the Ministry of Land and Co-
operative Development. The private sector is also encouraged to participate in NaLIS

activities.
The goal of the Malaysian national spatial data infrastructure initiative is to provide
access to digital spatial data through the NaLIS clearinghouse nodes, similar to the U. S.
FGDC clearinghouse model. However, NCC is also studying other models and the
possibility of adopting them for Malaysia. The main digital spatial data being made
141
Chapter 6 TheSearchfora Spatial Data ClearinghouseModel
available through NaLIS are geodetic, cadastral and topographic data, which are being
produced by the department of survey and mapping. The acquisition of spatial data is co-
ordinated by the NMSDC. The NMSDC is headed by the Department of Survey and
Mapping and comprises various departments and agencies such as the departments of
agriculture, forestry, the geological survey, the national remote sensing centre and the
relevant academic institutions. NaLIS activities involve metadata and clearinghouse
definition and the discussion of standards and core spatial data. The ISO/TC 211 suite of
standards on geographic information and geomatics will be used as soon as it becomes

available. NaLIS is still in the development and implementation stage and no specific cost
structure has yet been developed or spatial data made available through the infrastructure.
However, the Malaysian Government issued an order in February 1997 for copyright
protection for all forms of digital survey and mapping data, as well as regulating the fees
chargeable for the data (Tamin, 1999).
6.3.2.4 The PCGIAP
The Permanent Committee on GIS Infrastructure for Asia and Pacific (PCGIAP)
was formed as a result of resolution 16 of the 13th United Nations Regional Cartographic
Conference for Asia and the Pacific (UNRCC-AP), held in Beijing, China, in May 1994.
The Committee was formally established at its inaugural formation meeting, held in Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia, in July 1995.
The aim of PCGIAP is to co-ordinate the development and implementation of a regional
spatial data infrastructure that comprises fundamental spatial data, standards, institutional
arrangements and access mechanisms, required to support activities undertaken by the
nations of the Asia and Pacific region, to maximise their common economic, social and
environmental benefits. It also ensures that spatial data users can acquire the data they
need, even though the data are collected and maintained by different organisations (Abdul
Majid, 1999).
6.3.2.4.1 The PCGIAP Structure
The PCGIAP operatesunder, and reports to, the UNRCC-AP. The United Nations
defined 55 member nations of PCGIAP across the Asia and Pacific region as shown in
142
table 6-1. The membership comprises directors of national survey and mapping
organisations and equivalent national organisations in the Asia and Pacific region. Each
nation nominates a single representative but may invite experts to meetings as advisors.
The current membership of the Executive Board is China (chair), Australia (vice-chair),
Japan (secretariat),Brunei Darussalam,Cook Islands, India, Iran, Malaysia, Philippines

and the Russian Federation. The Executive Board meets annually and the following
working groupscarry out the projects:
1. Regional geodesy.
2. Fundamental Data.
3. Cadastral.
4. Institutional.
The private sector is involved in the developmentof the Asia and Pacific Spatial
Data Infrastructure(APSDI) projects and in seminarsthat are being identified by PCGIAP
(PCGIAP, 1998).
15.Hong Kong, 29.Marshall 43. Samoa

1. Afghanistan
hina Islands (American)
2.Armenia 16.India 30.Micronesia 44. Samoa (Western)
3.Australia 17.Indonesia 31.Mongolia 45. Singapore
4.Azerbaijan 18.Iran 32.Nauru 46. Solomon Islands
5.Bangladesh l9. Japan 33.Nepal 47.Sri Lanka

6.Bhutan 20.Kazakhstan 34.New Caledonia 48.Tajikistan
7.Brunei Darussalam 21.Kiribati 35.New Zealand 49.Thailand
8.Burma 22. North Korea 36.Niue 50.Tonga
9.Cambodia 23. South Korea 37.Northern Marianas 51.Turkmenistan
1O.China 24.Kyrgystan 38.Pakistan 52.Tuvalu

11.Cook Islands 25.Laos 39.Palau 53.Uzbekistan
12.Fiji 26.Macau 40.Papua New Guinea 54.Vanuatu
13.French Polynesia 27.Malaysia 41.Philippines 55.Vietnam
14.Guam 28.Maldives 42.Russian Federation
Table 6-1 Member nations of the permanent committee JAdapted from Godfrey et aL, 19971.
143
6.3.2.4.2 The Asia and Pacific Spatial Data Infrastructure
The Australia - New Zealand model for spatial data infrastructures, which contain
four core components: institutional framework, technical standards, fundamental datasets,
and access networks has been accepted and Adopted by the Permanent Committee on GIS
Infrastructure for Asia and the Pacific region (Holland, 1998). The PCGIAP plans to
establish a distributed network of databases,linked by common standards and protocols to

ensure compatibility between the related bodies in the region and contribute to the
development of a more general global spatial data infrastructure for distribution and access
- the Global Spatial Data Infrastructure (GSDI). A key element of the Asia and Pacific
Spatial Data Infrastructure (APSDI) is the development of a spatial data directory system,
which will contain metadata for the fundamental datasets, including policies and
procedures for gaining accessto the spatial data (Holland, et al., 1998).
The PCGIAP has plans to identify a range of distributed fundamental datasets, to
include the following themes: geodetic control network, digital elevation data (DEM),
drainage systems, transportation, populated places, geographical place names, vegetation,
natural hazards, major administrative boundaries, topographic, hydrographic features and

land use. Each dataset would be managed and maintained by custodians and may be linked
electronically so that they appear, to the user, as a virtual database. The collection of
fundamental datasets in the APSDI is the responsibility of PCGIAP member countries. The
PCGIAP working groups for regional geodesy and for regional fundamental spatial data
determine and propose the mechanisms for the co-ordination of data collection at the
regional level. Data documentation and publications are expected to be made freely
available over the Internet. No information or communication technology and standards
have been formally adapted yet for APSDI. However PCGIAP is paying particular
attention to standards development in ISO TC 211 and the Global Map project (PCGIAP,
1998).
6.3.2.5 Australia and New Zealand
The Australian Land Information Council (ALIC) was inaugurated in January 1986
by agreementbetween the Australian Prime Minister and the heads of the State and
Territory governmentsto co-ordinatethe collection and transfer of spatial data between
144
different levels of government and to promote the use of spatial data all over the
Commonwealth. In November 1991, New Zealand became a full member of the Australian
Land Information Council which was renamed the Australia New Zealand Land
Information Council (ANZLIC) (Masser, 1998).
6.3.2.5.1 The ANZLIC
The Australia New Zealand Land Information Council (ANZLIC) is a co-
ordinating arrangement between the national, state and territory jurisdictions of the two
countries. This initiative has gained the support of both governments. The strategy behind
the development and implementation of ANZLIC is to provide leadership in building a
fundamental spatial data infrastructure to support Australia's and New Zealand's economic,
social and environmental benefits by providing spatial data compatibility between the
participating jurisdictions and minimising the barriers to spatial data sharing in the region,
with the recognition of issues of privacy and confidentiality. ANZLIC also encourages
industry participation in the development and implementation of spatial data infrastructure
and promotes education and training as well as research and development (ANZLIC,
1998a).
The members of ANZLIC represent ten jurisdictions, namely:
1. The Commonwealth Spatial Data Committee (CSDC).
2. The eight membersof the Australian statesand territories.

3. Land Information New Zealand (LINZ).
The Commonwealth Spatial Data Committee (CSDC), for example, provides the capacity
for integrating the views and interests of spatial data users within Australia's Federal
Government. Each state and territory member of ANZLIC represents a co-ordinating body
within their own jurisdiction, which provides co-ordination between the agencies that have
responsibilities for the management of various spatial data types. ANZLIC maintains links
with other related national co-ordinating bodies such as the Intergovernmental Committee
on Surveying and Mapping (ICSM) and the Public Sector Mapping Agencies consortium
(PSMA). ANZLIC plays an important role with respect to the development and
145
implementation of the Australian Spatial Data Infrastructure (ASDI) by drawing all levels
of government and the private sector together to identify the elements needed for the
infrastructure, and to ensure that spatial data users get the data they need (ANZLIC,
1998b).
6.3.2.5.2 The Australian Spatial Data Infrastructure
The main activities of ANZLIC toward the development and implementation of
spatial data infrastructure can be grouped as follows:
1. The creation of an institutional framework to lead the development of the national
spatial data infrastructure and to define priorities, policies, and managementfor

building, maintaining and distributing spatial data and to strengthenthe relationship
betweenall levels of governmentand industry.
2. The developmentof the technical standards and guidelinesnecessaryto define the
technical characteristicsof the fundamentaldatasetsand enablethe effective use and
integration of spatial data. ANZLIC metadata guidelines, necessary to describe and
identify spatial data sets, have been developed and implemented in many
jurisdictions and organisations. ANZLIC will review other emerging spatial data
standards, such as the ISO/TC 211 geographic information/geomatics standards
series and specifications developed by the OpenGIS Consortium (OGC), and make
recommendations with regard to their adoption as Australian and New Zealand
standards. ANZLIC will also review the emerging ISO 19115 international metadata
standard and revise the ANZLIC metadata guidelines to comply with it (ANZLIC,
2001).
3. The identification and prioritisation of fundamental datasets, which are produced
within the institutional framework and comply fully with the technical standards.The
collection of fundamental datasetsis the responsibility of individual custodians.
ANZLIC has identified a list of required fundamental datasets. According to Graham
Baker, Executive Officer, ANZLIC in his reply to a survey (questionnaire) of
national and regional spatial data infrastructure activities around the globe
(conducted by Professor Harlan Onsrud, the University of Maine, USA) the required
national datasetsare:
146
a. "Primary spatial data, such as the geodetic control network the national geodetic
database, the Australian Height Datum, the national geoid model, aerial
photography and satellite imagery.

b. Administration data such as land parcels/cadastre, land tenure, street address,
mining and petroleum lease boundaries and tenure, administrative boundaries,

national and state boundaries, suburb/town/locality and local government,
electoral boundaries, postcode, constraining or major Interests in land, feature
names/place names.
c. Natural environmental data such as soils classification, vegetation classification,
biodiversity regions, animals, earth's land surface, bathymetry, coastline (or
marine and coastal boundaries), river catchment/drainage areas, streamlines and

inland water bodies, geology, mineral resources, hydrogeology, oceanography,
climate, and areas subject to natural hazard.

d. Socio-economic data such as census collection districts, demography, planning
zones rural and urban land use.

e. Built environment data such as cultural features, aviation features, marine
transport, road centrelines, rail centrelines, water supply, waste water, irrigation
and drainage networks, electricity and gas networks, telecommunication network"

(Onsrud, 2000).
4. The development of a clearinghouse network to foster the integration of
fundamental datasets into the network and make spatial data accessible to the
community, in accordance with policies determined within the institutional

framework, and to the technical standards agreed by all spatial data providers and
users with due regards for privacy, and confidentiality (ANZLIC, 1998a).
6.3.2.5.3 The Australian Spatial Data Directory
The Australian Spatial Data Directory was launched in 1998 with the help and
support of the ANZLIC, through the MetadataWorking Group. The ANZLIC vision for
ASDD is for a network of distributed nodes that store the updated description of the spatial
data (metadata) while core spatial data are stored in a distributed array of several local
systems (databases). Each system is maintained by a recognised custodian and linked by

administrative arrangements, standards and a distributed network so that consistent
147
Chapter 6 The Search. for a Spatial Data Clearinghouse Model
datasets and new data products can be readily assembled and shared. ASDD is considered
a hybrid of centralised and distributed systems as shown in figure 6-1.

Prototype directory nodes have been implemented to promote the collection of
metadata according to ANZLIC guidelines and to test the technology for a distributed
clearinghouse system. Individual jurisdictions are well advanced in the development of
their own directories, which comply with the ANZLIC metadata guidelines.
Among the jurisdictions, the Commonwealth is taking a lead in co-ordination of the ASDD
and each member is implementing its own node. Currently there are more than 21 nodes
within the directory. Australia is developing a web mapping capability and participated in
the OGC Web mapping test bed initiative (ANZLIC, 2001).
Graphic ýearinghouse
User interface National
server
- n,etadat
Web browser ('Uh
Requestfor Metadataor SpatialData

Local Spatial
Local server - Data

, tai to
Request Results Am 4ý
Local server
Two
Local server
Local server
Figure 6-1 An approximate conceptual model for the ASDD system architecture%Source ANZLIC, 1998a/.
Finally, ANZLIC has adapted a hierarchical "pages" concept as the basis for a
national metadata framework where more general information is recorded at the highest
level (Page 0) and additional information is recorded at lower levels (i. e. Page 1, Page 2),
as shown in figure 6-2.
148
The highest level (Page 0) consists of a set of mandatory core metadata elements sufficient
to allow a user to searchand locate all relevant and available datasets,from national and
state government agencies. Subsequent pages allow spatial data custodian organisations at
the national, state, local government, academic, community or private industry levels to
include additional information not required in Page 0 (ANZLIC, 1998a).
National
Metadata
Directory
Pa¢e 0
Sv stem
Jurisdictional or Theme
Metadata
Paste 0
Directories
Aaencv
Metadata
Directories
Eal] Era FEa ..

D ataset A Dataset B DatasetC Datasetn
Figure 6-2ANZLICpage concept[SourceANZLIC, 1998a1.
6.3.3 Europe
Certain European countries and organisationshave developed and implemented

spatial data infrastructures, directories, national clearinghousesand web sites. The
following are someexamples:
6.3.3.1 EUROGI
In November 1993 the European Umbrella Organisation for Geographic

Information (EUROGI) was established to provide geographic information accessibility
149
Chapter 6 The Search fora Spatial Data Clearinghouse Model
throughout Europe by setting up and maintaining policies, regulations, standards,
procedures, guidelines, and the requirement for co-operation and agreement between the
European members (EUROGI, 1994). The aims of the EUROGI are to support the
definition and implementation of a European spatial data policy, to facilitate a European
Geographic Information Infrastructure (EGII), to provide communications between
European members and support the implementations of local GIS throughout Europe, to
improve spatial data exchange at the national and regional level and to encourage the
development of spatial data clearinghouses (EUROGI, 1996). The EUROGI also
represents the European view in the Global Spatial Data Infrastructure (GSDI) (Nebert,
2001).
6.3.3.2 The European Spatial Metadata Infrastructure
In 1998 the creation of a common data discovery infrastructure was initiated in
most European countries. The most important initiative was the European Spatial Metadata
Infrastructure (ESMI) project, which involves mapping organisations from Austria,
Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg,
Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. The ESMI provides a
common research and development framework for the discovery of spatial data in the
European Community. The ESMI project is expected to use the metadata developed by
ISO/TC 211 and the OpenGIS Consortium (OGC) when they become available (ESMI,
1998).
6.3.3.3Portugal
In February 1996 the development of a national spatial data infrastructure in

Portugal started as a government initiative, under the Secretary of State for Science and
Technology. In 1990 the spatial data infrastructure (Sistema Nacional de Informacäo
Geogräfica (SNIG)), was established by government decree. The National Centre for
Geographic Information (Centro Nacional de Informacäo Geogräfica (CNIG)) was created
as a research agency of the Portuguese public administration and tasked to co-ordinate

SNIG. The development of SNIG was slower than expected due to lack of available spatial
150
data and the inadequacy of the computer technologies used by most of the spatial data
providers (Nebert, 2001).

The Portuguese national spatial data clearinghouse, which was developed as part of
the infrastructure, is a distributed electronic network with metadata as well as other
procedures, policies and services that are intended to facilitate spatial data access through
the Internet. SNIG's plan for the future is to have each data producer generate metadata
each time a new dataset is created, according to a standard that will be managed and co-
ordinated by CNIG. Future plans also include the development of web mapping services to
explore spatial data in the country.
The policy for accessing the spatial data varies among the data providers. Some of
the data providers make their data available in the public domain; others impose several
restrictions on the to
access and use of the spatial data. The digital spatial data being made
available through SNIG cover all types of data that can be associated with the following
fields: topographic, hydrographic, soils cartography, geological, forestry, land cover, urban
planning, environmental, digital aerial photography and digital satellite imagery, geo-
referenced data bases on air quality, water resources, hydrology and climatology,
demography and housing, employment, electoral results, and cultural patrimony, among
many others.
The private sector in Portugal is involved in the development of SNIG, but only in
an indirect way, as private bodies are very often involved in spatial data project contracts
for the government, where the ownership of the data remains within the government bodies
(Onsrud, 2000).
6.3.3.4 The Netherlands
Most of the spatial data supplied in the Netherlands are from centralised services.
The Minister for Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) is made
responsible for national spatial data co-ordination on behalf of the Dutch government. The
registration of land titles and large scale cadastral mapping are the responsibility of the
Cadastre. The national topographic base map at the scale of 1: 10,000 and smaller is the
responsibility of the Topografische Dienst, which is part of the Ministry of Defence,

although its employees are all civilians. The collection of statistics is in the hands of
151
Chapter 6 The Search for a Spatial Data Clearinghouge Model
Statistics Netherlands and real estate data is delegated to municipalities (there are about
650 municipalities in the Netherlands).
In 1984 the Dutch Council for the Real Estate Information (RAVI) was founded as
an advisory body for the Minister for Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, on
matters related to the operation of the Cadastre. Owing to the increasing computerisation of
real estate and geographic information services in the early 1990s the RAVI was turned in
1993 into a consultative body comprising all public services and local authorities for all
geographic information matters in the Netherlands (Masser, 1998). In March 1995 the
RAVI took the initiative to launch the concept of the National Clearinghouse for
Geographic Information (NCGI) with representatives from the co-ordinating minister,
VROM, and other organisations. The aims of the NCGI are to make the existing spatial
data in the Netherlands accessible to all users using metadata and the Internet, to stimulate
the participation of all organisations in the spatial data community and increase awareness
of the importance of spatial data and its infrastructure (RAVI, 1996).
6.3.3.4.1 RAVI's Main Activities
The RAVI mission is to develop a National Geographic Information Infrastructure

(NGII) in the Netherlands. This plan incorporates a number of activities and topics, such
as:
1. Participation in the European standards activities.
2. Participation in the ISO/TC 211 standards activities.
3. Development and implementation of metadata and metadata standards.
4. Development and implementation of geographic information standards.
5. Creation of a topographic databaseat the scale of 1: 10,000 and other spatial data.
6. Development of a graphic user interface.
7. Developmentof a national clearinghousefor geographicinformation (NCGI) in the
Form of a National Action Plan (NAP) ElectronicHighway.
8. Registrationof soil pollution.
9. Development of a copyright act and recording titles of geographic information to
NCGI and other issues (RAVI, 2000).
152
6.3.3.4.2 The Main Digital Spatial Data For The NGII
The main digital spatial data identified as the fundamental data to build NGII and
being made available through NCGI are:
1. Administrative spatial data, such as parcels of land in the automated cadastral
register (AKR), the population registers that contain details about each individual
citizen maintained by the Municipal Population Records (GBA), companies in the
Chambers of Commerce Register (Handelsregister), and fundamental data sets for
buildings (partly developed as the result of a tax-law for the assessment of real
estate).
2. Nation-wide fundamental geometric/topographic data sets comprised of a Large
Scale Base Map of the Netherlands (GBKN) and a databaseat a scale of 1:10,000.
3. Other fundamental data sets of the Netherlands, such as a land cover database(made
by the Agricultural Research Department of the Netherlands (DLO-NL), land cover
ecological database (made by the DLO- NL), a waterways data set (made by the
survey department of the directorate general of public works and water management
(Rijkswaterstaat)), a geology data set (made by the national geological survey
(NITG-TNO)), an archaeology data set (made by the Institute for Archaeological
Soil Exploration (ROB)), a cadastral map and other core data and thematic data sets
(Onsrud, 2000).
6.3.3.4.3 The National Clearinghouse for Geographic Information
The National Clearinghouse for Geographic Information (NCGI) is a distributed
network of organisations that produce, maintain and distribute spatial data using an
electronic network (the Internet). The metadata service is a centralised system, which
stores the metadata of all providers in a single clearinghouse server (Radwan, 1999), as
shown in figure 6-3.
153
Rcsp
wN j Spatial
RaVestStealt Directly
fromthedata
-de
Spatial Data
provider
=
Swrch for dataset
Radara reystrý
Server
Regx)me SpatialData
/a providcr
0
Figure 6-3 Conceptual mode/for the NCGI system architecture /Source Radwan, 19991.
6.3.3.4.4 The Main Components of The NCGI
The main components of the NCGI are:
1. Metadata; At the end of 1997 the first clearinghouse in the Netherlands was
implemented with a metadata index called 'Idefix' - an Internet site through which
users can access metadata and some spatial data. In 1998, the new organisation of the
clearinghouse, the NCGI, was re-structured, the concept of the clearinghouse
improved and the metadata system was changed into a system called GeoPlaza,
which is more user-friendly. The European metadata standard CEN/"I'C 287 has been
used from the beginning to support organisations in describing their spatial data
(Radwan, 1999).
154
2. Spatial Data; At the time of writing this section (November 2001), more than 13
spatial data providers are offering 1,500 records about their products on GeoPlaza
(metadata) linked to the clearinghouse. More providers are expected to join.
3. Search Interface; A single search interface based on a WWW browser and HTML
was developed. This search interface enables the user to form a query based on the
geographic area, theme, or free text. The NCGI browser is not yet well developed
and has limited functionality.
The user sends a query to the search engine to find the distributed databasesfor requested
spatial data, searching in several catalogues. Each catalogue receiving a request from a
user can check other catalogues. After collecting the results and processing the user's
query parameters, the clearinghouse sends the results containing the names of the data
relevant to the client's request, and a small description of the data, back to the client
(NCGI, 2001).
6.3.3.5 The United Kingdom
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Irelandconsistsof the union of
England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland with an area of 224,000 square kilometres
and a population of 56.7 million. The United Kingdom is well covered with accurate and
reliable digital maps at various scales. For example, the Ordnance Survey of Great Britain
(OSGB) has completed the re-digitisation of topographic maps covering Great Britain, at
the scale 1:50,000 since 1994, in partnership with the private sector. It has also completed
the following digitisation of the following maps since 1995 (Masser, 1998):
1. More than 57,799map sheetsat the scale1: 1,250.

2. More than 166,877map sheetsat the scale 1: 2,500.
3. More than 4,040 map sheetsat the scale1: 10,000.
6.3.3.5.1 Initiatives
The United Kingdom until recently did not have a national spatial data
infrastructure (NSDI) or spatial data clearinghouse, despite the
availability of an accurate
155
geodetic network, a great deal of digital spatial data, the core of a digital national spatial
databaseand great interest among many users and key players to develop a national spatial
data infrastructure for the United Kingdom. Today, as much as 80% of the information
collected in Britain is spatially referencedusing, for example,national grid referencesand

postcodes,which have evolved since the early 1960s as key data providing spatial
referencesfor many usesin Britain. But most of thesespatialdataare incompatible,cannot
be combined, cannot be sharedand are difficult and sometimesimpossible to integrate
(NGDF, 2000).
However, there have been a number of initiatives towards the development of a local
and national spatial datainfrastructure,althoughsomeof theseinitiatives are now obsolete:
1. In January 1989, the Association of Geographic Information (AGI) was formed,
with a basic mission to promote and publicise the importance and benefit of
geographic information and to help and represent the views of the entire spatial
data user community. The AGI now has more than 7,000 members from
government departments, the private sector, the utilities and the academic
community.
2. In 1994 a joint working group of the Ordnance Survey of Great Britain, the
Department of the Environment, Her Majesty's Land Registry (HMLR), the
Valuation Office and the Local Government Management Board was set up to
carry out a feasibility study and to develop a National Land Information Service
(NLIS). As a result of the joint working group, the NLIS was developed as a joint
initiative between central and local government. The aim of the NLIS is to
provide estateagentswith on-line land and property related spatial data held in
different organisationsin order to speedup and simplify the processof buying and
selling properties. The Internet and the National Land and Property Gazetteer
(NLPG) will also provide services to different data users, such as surveyors, estate
agents, mortgage lenders, developers and insurers (NLIS, 2000).

3. The OrdnanceSurvey of Great Britain developeda Spatial Information Network
Enquirer Service(SINES) that has been in full operation since 1994.The SINES
is a simple metadataservices that contain details of more than 600 spatially
referenced databasesheld by more than 40 government agenciesand related

bodies.The initial conceptof SINESwas to provide useful information aboutthe
156
availability of spatial data in Britain and where it is held, the creator and the
contact address. It can be accessed by telephone, fax, or directly through the
World Wide Web (WWW). Since July 2000, the SINES Service has been
replaced by a new Metadata service, which will be discussed later in this section.
4. In 1995, the Ordnance Survey of Great Britain produced a document, which
among its other objectives, plans to develop a National Geospatial Database

(NGD), later named the National Geospatial Data Framework (NGDF). This
aimed to link the Ordnance Survey national topographic databases to other

distributed digital spatial databases held by other government agencies, such as
the land and property information held by HM Land Registry, City Councils,
Local Authorities, Coal Authorities, and the socio-economic data held by the
Office for National Statistics, British Geological Survey, Environment Agency,
Valuation Office and others (Masser, 1998).
6.3.3.5.2 The National Geospatial Data Framework
Following the Ordnance Survey's framework document, the National Geospatial

Data Framework (NGDF) was launched as the National Geogspatial Database (NGD)
initiative in 1995 at an Association for Geographic Information seminar. In June 1996, a
well-attended seminar was held, at which participants discussed and agreed on the
initiative guidelines. The outcomes of this seminar were presented at the Association for
Geographic Information in 1996 (NGDF, 2000). Since then, there has been formal support
and encouragement from British ministers for the government departments to work
together ("joined up Government"). The Secretary of State for the Environment has asked
the Ordnance Survey of Great Britain to take the lead in promoting more co-orporation
between spatial data providers and users across the United Kingdom. The OS is also tasked
to bring together all UK research and development initiatives into the main National
Geospatial Data Framework (NGDF) programme.
In the meantime it has been argued that the successof the United Kingdom NGDF
can only be achieved if common geographic information standards and metadata are
developed, accepted and implemented by all participants, and commitment are gained from
all participants to make all spatial data available and accessible through a common
network. Therefore, following discussions between the Ordnance Survey and a large
157
number of other interested parties in the United Kingdom, the NGDF Board (led by the
Ordnance Survey), the NGDF Advisory Council (led by AGI) and the NGDF Task Force
(working to the board) were established in 1996 (Masser, 1998).
6.3.3.5.2.1What is NGDF?
As discussed above, the National Geospatial Data Framework (NGDF) is the name
given to the United Kingdom geospatial data infrastructure, which is still under
development. The aim of NGDF is to enable better awarenessof spatial data availability,
improve data quality, improve access to the data, integrate spatial data by using common
geographic information standards and metadata and avoid duplication of spatial data. The
NGDF is not a government executive order yet, but it is a co-operating agreement between
different ranges of government departments, private sectors, academics, users and
individuals (Masser, 1998). NDGF will not create a physical framework or deliver data
sets, services or products, but it will help facilitate value-added data and services by
enabling the combination of data from multiple sources (NGDF, 2000).
6.3.3.5.2.2NGDF Structure
As discussed before, the NGDF Board was set up in 1996, when Dr David Rhind
(Director General of Ordnance Survey at that time, now Vice Chancellor of City
University, London) was appointed as the first Chairman of the NGDF Management Board
(from 1996 to 2000). The NGDF Board is made up of the following organisations:
1. Association for Geographic Information (AGI).

2. British Geological Survey.
3. Central Information Technology Unit.
4. City of London University.
5. Her Majesty's Land Registry.
6. Interdepartmental Group for Geological Information.
7. Landmark Information Group Ltd.
8. Local Government Management Board.
9. National Joint Utilities Group.
10. Office for National Statistics
158
11. Ordnance Survey of Great Britain.

12. Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland.
13. Property Intelligence Plc.
14. Registersof Scotland.
15. The Post Office.
On December 2000 a new Chairman of the NGDF Management Board was appointed. The
new Chairman is Mr Len Cook, recently appointed as the UK's first national statistician
and head of the Office for National Statistics (NGDF, 2000).
6.3.3.5.2.3 Progress of NGDF
The NGDF work programmewas divided into two phases:
1. Phase one from 1996 to 2001. This phase concentrated on laying the foundations and
setting up preliminary services.

2. Phase two from 2001 and beyond. The phase will concentrate on refining the
services and encouraging wide participation.
The progress of these phases and the national geospatial data framework (NGDF)
programme in general was initially slow, both due to lack of funds and resources to carry
out the work and due to differences in opinion over the strategic direction for the
programme. According to the NGDF Web site, the following events took place (NGDF,
2000):
1. In April 1998 a workshop was held in Britain to discuss and develop a strategy for
the NGDF programme. The workshop resulted in the development of a strategic
plan for NGDF for the United Kingdom.

2. In Autumn 1998, the OrdnanceSurvey of Great Britain managedto obtain funds
under a National InterestMapping Servicelevel Agreement(NIMSA) to establisha

central management team to manage the NGDF programme of work and to promote
its implementation.
3. In January 1999, the Ordnance Survey of Great Britain managed to obtain funds
from the Invest to save budget being provided by the treasury to help develop the
159
NGDF programme and to bring together more public service bodies together. With
these funds NGDF is now in a position to realise its strategic goals.
4. In July 2000 the AskGlraffe Data Locator (metadata service) was launched by
Minister Patricia Hewitt at a special event in London. Now AskGlraffe can be
considered as a queryable spatial data clearinghouse.

5. On September 2000 the AskGlraffe Data Integrator (the United Kingdom Standard
geographic base (UKSGB) service) was launched by Dr Robert Barr at the plenary
session of the Association for Geographic Information Conference at GIS2000. The

aim of this project is to link (using hotlinks) different organisations' web sites to
provide a more integrated solution and enable the user to access data directly from
the UKSGB Gateway and cross relate information between the different reference
systems. (NGDF, 2000).
6.3.3.5.2.4NGDF Activities
The NGDF programme has two major activities, which are currently underway.
They are:
1. Metadata Service
The NGDF board have developed guidelines to promote the development and
implementation of metadata that provide a consistent and simple method of documenting
any spatial data resources in the United Kingdom. The development and implementation of
the UK metadata system was carried out following extensive research into existing
metadata standards, guidelines and workshop in which data producers were encouraged to
compile metadata relating to their spatial data sets. The system is in line with the ISO/TC
211 metadata, the CEN/TC 287 Draft European Standard, the United States Federal
Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata
(CSDGM) and Dublin Core Online Computer Library Centre. At the time of writing this
-
section (March 2001), 42-metadata elements have been identified as necessary for
documentation at the discovery level. About 16 of those metadata elements will be
mandatory for documentation and a further 7 are conditional, depending on the context; the
remainder are optional. These compulsory elements cover title, theme, date, extent, access
constraints, nature of the resource, how to obtain additional information and data supply
160
(NGDF, 2000). The metadata service is now using the AskGlraffe Data Locator. This
service depends on the Internet and the metadata, which are submitted by each spatial data
provider to one of a family of databasenodes (servers) maintained by various spatial data
providers located in England, Scotland and Wales for regional nodes and local government
for community nodes (AskGlraffe, 2001).
2. The United Kingdom Standard Geographic Base
The NGDF is supporting the development and implementation of general
geographic information standard. The UKSGB is an initiative that aims to supply spatial
data providers and users with a geographic standard and consistent approach to commonly
used spatial data in the United Kingdom. The UKSGB will be a good source for the NGDF
programme and will improve the access, quality and consistency of spatial data in the UK
(NGDF, 2000). At present the IOS/TC 211 is proceeding with the development of various
digital geographic standards. Since the United Kingdom is a P-member of this committee,
the ISO/TC 211 standards can be used and incorporated within the UKSGB.
6.3.3.5.3 The Charter of the UK Strategic Alliance
In January 2001, Vanessa Lawrence, the Director General and CEO of the
Ordnance Survey of Great Britain, announced in a paper presented to the Seventh United
Nations Regional Conference for the Americas (New York 22-26 January 2001) that "the
Charter of the UK Strategic Alliance" will replace the NGDF. This replacement will
involve most of the spatial data providers, spatial data integrators, hardware and software
providers in the UK, application service providers and the Government in order for the UK
NSDI to succeed. According to Lawrence, the Strategic Alliance's key members will be:
a. Data providers, which include the OrdnanceSurvey of Great Britain (OSGB), Her
Majesty's Land Registry (HMLR), Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA),
Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (MAFF), Office for National Statistics,
GRoS and the British Geological Survey (BGS).
b. Data integration hub providers, such as the National Land Information Service
(NLIS), the National Joint Utilities Group (NJUG) and Vodafone.
161
c. Geographic information system and imagery application providers, for example

ESRI, LaserScan, Maplnfo, AutoDesk, Oracle, ER Mapper, ERDAS and ZI maging.
d. Application service providers representedby Landmark.
e. The Government, including Department of Environment, Transportation, and

Regions(DETR) and information agechampions.
6.3.4 South and North America
6.3.4.1 Colombia
As a first step toward the development of a national geographic information
network (RING) in the republic of Colombia, a national committee for the standardisation
of geographic information was created in April 1997. The Colombian standards national
body (ICONTEC) sponsors this committee. The RING initiative was a government,
academic and private sector effort, which is co-ordinated by the Instituto Geografico
Agustin Codazzi (IGAC). In July 2000 the RING preliminary initiative became the
Colombian Spatial Data Infrastructure (ICDE) as a result of an agreement signed by the
main spatial data providers and users. At the present time, IGAC is responsible for ICDE
co-ordination and working to build the fundamental pillars of the ICDE (Borrero, 1999).
The aim of the ICDE is to create distributed spatial data directories
(clearinghouses) linked by a network system that connects producers, administrators and
users electronically, through the Internet. During 2000, ICDE installed two clearinghouse
nodes based on training materials and software provided by the U. S. FGDC. The
Colombian datasets consist of the following eight basic themes: ground control points,
transportation, hydrography, cadastre, relief, vegetation and land use, administrative,
political areas and geosciences. These basic data will be linked by a network using the
Internet to provide the foundation required to developing multipurpose spatial data nation-
wide. The government agencies are the main producers of spatial data and agreed to co-
ordinate the collection of nation-wide of spatial data for the following small-scale maps at
scales of 1: 100,000,1: 500,000 and 1:25,000. And then create a seamless digital database
from the result. All digital spatial data produced by government agencies will be available
to the public, but all with copyright restrictions for any kind of use, whether commercial or
not. Users are required to pay a fee to the producer (these fees range between 5% to 10%
162
of the production cost of the data being used). The purchase price depends on the data
provider, the type of data and the number of licences required, etc. Analogue data sets are
sold at a lower cost (1% to 5%) (Onsrud, 2000).
The agenciesinvolved in collecting and co-ordinatingspatialdatain Colombia,are:
a. Instituto Geografico Agustin Codazzi (IGAC), in charge of producing and updating

topographic maps, cadastral and agrological information.
b. Instituto de Investigaciones en Geociencias, Mineria Quimica (INGEOMINAS), in
charge of geologic, geophysical and mining information.

c. Departamento Nacional de Estadistica (DANE), in charge of census information.
d. Instituto de Estudios Ambientales (IDEAM), in charge of environmental studies.
e. Empresa Colombiana de Petroleos (ECOPETROL), the national oil company.

f. EmpresasPublicas de Medellin (EEPPM), the biggestutilities companyin Colombia
(IGAC, 2001).
The vision of the Colombian SDI is to incorporate metadata, clearinghouse,
standards and core spatial data. They are examining the geographic information
standardisation that is being developed currently by ISO/TC 211 (in which Colombia
participates as an observer member) and the U. S. FGDC communications technology

standards (Z39.50) (Borrero, 1999).
The main progress made so far is the development of the Colombian metadata
standard NTC4611, which was developed jointly by private sector and public
organisations, under the co-ordination of ICONTEC, based on the assessment and

application of the United States FGDC, ISO/TC211 and European metadata standards
elements.
6.3.4.2Uruguay
Uruguay is developing a national spatial data clearinghouse (Clearinghouse

Nacional de Datos Geograficos (CNDG)), which is a public service, operated by the
private sector and co-ordinated by the Ministry of Transportation and Public Works
(Ministeno de Transportes y Obras Publicas (MTOP)).
163
The aim of the clearinghouse is to provide digital spatial data, and 1:50,000 paper
maps, as well as a GIS system for the ministry's own use. The primary digital spatial
digital data being made available through the clearinghouse are digital cartography,
original scale 1:200,000 and 1:50,000, with national coverage. These include hydrography,
contour lines with 10m resolution, roads, political boundaries, vegetation cover, etc.
Digital cadastral data from original scale 1:20,000, geological maps, land use, utilities
network (electric, water, gas, telephone) are also made available. Access to some of these
spatial data is being made available using the Internet and through the clearinghouse
CNDG gateway, but very few are free, and the price is decided and fixed by the supplier.
Moreover, some datasets are not intended for the general public, but are available only to
the owners of the parcels. The Uruguay clearinghouse is adopting the U. S. FGDC metadata
standards and Z39.50 (communicating and searching engine).

The Uruguay national spatial data clearinghouse is a co-operative project, which involves
the following organisations:
1. The Ministry of Transportation and Public Works (MTOP)

2. National Telephone Company (ANTEL).
3. National Wastewater and Waterworks Company (OSE).
4. Milk producer (CONAPROLE).
5. Part of the Social Security System (CJJPU).
6. Ministry of Transportation and Public Works.
7. National Cadastre.
8. National irrigation co-ordination body (PRENADER).
9. Geologyand Mining national administrationbody (DINAMIGE).
The clearinghouse is expected to co-ordinate all of these activities using standards (Lopez,
1999).
6.3.4.3 Canada
Over the last ten years or more the Canadian government agencies and private
sector have developed a number of concepts and initiatives to create a Canadian geospatial
data infrastructure (CGDI) to support, manage and improve the interoperability and
accessibility of dispersed multiple digital spatial databases,using a wide range of methods
164
and technologies. Current efforts are aimed towards the development and implementation
of spatial data infrastructures including a spatial data clearinghouse. The Canadians call it a
warehouse and it will be named warehouse in this section. The aim of the Canadian spatial
data warehouse approach is to integrate and assemble multi-dimensional, multi-scale
databases, including legacy data, satellite images, elevation data, feature data and other
spatial data that are already available and reside in various computer environments
throughout Canada. Another aim is to support the storage, processing, analysis, accessing
of those spatial data within a continuous and seamless spatial data architecture using
communications facilities (the Internet), and a distributed server architecture. The
Canadian spatial data warehouse concept is driven by an open data access interface, where
vector, raster, matrix and textual formats can be accessed through on-line network
gateways, compliant with national and international industry and government standards
(St. Laurent, et al., 1997).
6.3.4.3.1 The Canadian Initiatives
Owing to the availability of a large range of spatial data and a variety of GISs that
reside on different systems with different data types, structures and formats, the Canadian
government and private sectors carried out a number of initiatives, to develop and
implement the Canadian geospatial data infrastructure (CGDI), including the spatial data
warehouse:
6.3.4.3.1.1The Delta-X System
The Delta-X concept was one of the first Canadianinitiatives, developedby the
GeographicInformation Systemsand ServicesDivision of GeomaticsCanadain the late
1980s. The Delta-X was a federated multi-database spatial information management
system with a common integrated global conceptual schema definition, which was
intended to create an infrastructure for GIS interoperability between different spatial data
in a wide area network of heterogeneous spatial databasesand to help spatial data users in
identifying, accessing and sharing the source of data required for their applications (Allam,
1996).
165
As a major part of the Delta-X system, a spatial data warehouse and a metadata
database were initiated. Also, a MetaView/GIS Spatial Browser (MV/GIS) was developed
as a front end to the Delta-X to provide access to the metadata of various databases. The
Delta-X system was developed before the Internet revolution; and it is based on a loosely
coupled network of servers and clients that forms a LAN cluster. The clusters were
connected to each other via a wide area network (WAN), which forms the backbone of the
Delta-X system. Servers and clients can also be connected directly to the WAN or, via a
dial-up line, to one of the servers. Delta-X performs multiple client-server roles as shown
in figure 6-4 and 6-5.
Delta-X Server
Delta-X Server
Delta-X Clients
LAN
WAN
Delta-X Client
Other LANS
Figure 6-4 The architecture of Delta-X system /Source A/lam, 1996/.
Delta-X - Server 2
Data Mover
Delta-X - Client T` " ý-ý

-40-0- Mon0o
Delta-X -DBMS
Data
Specialized Server º °"w"°"

Module
Figure 6-5 The Della-X server /Source Allam, 19961.
166
16--.
Chapter 6 TheSearchfora Spatial Data ClearinghouseModel
6.3.4.3.1.2 The Mercator Alliance
The Mercator Alliance is a group of researchers, government agencies and private
sectors that came together in 1996 to stimulate and co-ordinate the creation of a common
spatial data management environment (infrastructure). The objective of the Alliance is to
develop: spatial data products, spatial data standards, data warehousing, related software
and contribute to the Canadian geospatial data infrastructure (CGDI) initiative. The
development was funded by the Canadian Network for the Advancement of Research,
Industry and Education Inc (CANARIE), the Canadian Hydrographic Service (CHS), the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA), the Canadian Centre for Marine
Communications (CCMC), and the National Action Committee on Ocean Mapping
(NACOM). The strategy (Kucera and Keighan, 1998a) of the Mercator Alliance was to:
1. Provide and leverageexisting and evolving technologyand expertise.

2. Achieve greaterinteroperabilityby harmonisingCanadiangeo-spatialstandards.
3. Gain competitive advantage by consolidating various independent Canadian
initiatives.
4. Ensurethe complianceof Canadianproductsby funding standardsbasedactivities

to influence international standards evolution.
5. Demonstratea solution for the global delivery of integratedgeo-spatialinformation
and applications.
The Mercator Alliance resulted in the following projects:
1. Mercator I
The first project of the Mercator Alliance series was Mercator I. The Mercator I
Project is a direct extension of ChartNet Project, an initiative of NDI and CHS that
provides a complete solution for the development, storage and access of hydrographic
charting information in a distributed network environment. In Mercator I, ChartNet is
expanded to provide a suite of geo-spatial data compilation, management, query and
analysis tools appropriate for the marine transportation sector and coastal zone
management (Kucera and Keighan, 1999). The project was developed by Nautical Data
International (NDI) to co-ordinate the creation of a common geospatial data management
167
environment, which included the following main objectives: the development of spatial
data standards, networking protocols, connectivity tools, extensions to databases and
human/machine interfaces and data warehousing. The development of the spatial data
standards, as a critical component to the success of the infrastructure, was involved and
influenced by national and international standards activities, such as SAIF, GIGEST,
SDTS, S-57, ISO/TC211, ISO database standards (SQL3 and SQL/MM) and OGC
interoperability (Kucera and O'Brien 1997).
The Mercator I project has been instrumental in the development of a common data
model for S-57 and DIGEST to facilitate the encoding, storage, access and exchange of
maps and charts (O'Brien, 1997).
The main participantsin the Mercator I Project include:
1. Canadian Hydrographic Service (CHS).

2. Department of National Defence (DND).
3. Nautical Data International (NDI) - Lead Contractor.
4. Natural Resources Canada (NRCan).
5. Oracle Canada Research and Development Centre.
6. IDON Corporation.
7. Logiciels et Applications Scientifiques, Inc. (LAS).
8. Universal Systems Ltd. (USL).
9. Compusult Limited.
10. Ice Centre of Environment Canada (ICEC).
11. CanadianNetwork for the Advancementof Research,Industryand EducationInc
(CANARIE).
12. Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA).
13. Canadian Centre for Marine Communications (CCMC).
14. National Action Committee on Ocean Mapping (NACOM).
15. Data Warehouse Technologies Ltd.
16. Holonics Inc.

17. Centre International de Recherche en Infographie (CIRI).
18. Mercator Systems Ltd (MSL).
168
2. Mercator II Project
The Mercator II project (MARINET) used Mercator I as a base to build upon. It
was developed for marine purposes as a real-time system that assimilates information from
a series of monitoring networks that can be used to plan for maximisation of shipping and
hazard avoidance with a common theme of real-time computation and analysis. One of the
Mercator II projects is MARINET which is a predictive system rather than reactive.
MARINET goes beyond 2-D geographical space, which has been the focus of past
projects, to 4-D space that includes time. MARINET will support the integration of diverse
data formats within the same data store and demonstrate the benefits of a more efficient
data management environment for accessing data from a large warehouse of
multidimensional data. MARINET will also provide a uniform interface for external users
while imposing no constraints on the data providers (Kucera and Keighan 1999).
3. Mercator III Project
Following the success of the first two projects (Mercator I and Mercator II),
Mercator III was developed in 1997. The Mercator I and II data and concept were used as a
base to extend other aspects of spatial data applications, but Mercator III is considered as
the next generation of technologies and smart applications. It is intended to create virtual
warehouse and knowledge-based methods and dynamic multimedia for the Canadian
geospatial data infrastructure (CGDD. The projects were originally built for the
Department of National Defence (DND) and the Natural Resources Canada, and then
migrated to commercial application. Components of Mercator III project will provide

services such as Dynamic Data Access through a multiscale spatial data warehouse giving
users the ability to create new views or products dynamically as they come into demand.
One of the Mercator III projects is the Integrated Multiscale Geospatial Data Warehouse
Project, which links metadata content with stored procedures in a data warehouse
environment to provide a means to create flexible, on-demand spatial information products

(Kucera and Keighan 1998b).
169
i lip//Viv I. i, ý ýýý; rýr. l i;, ýu ýý
, ýi ýi ýý,, Nrý; '. unit ýý'. n ;, i,; ýýýý,,
6.3.4.3.2 The Canadian Geospatial Data Infrastructure
The Canadian geospatial data infrastructure (CGDI) is a government-driven project,

led by the Inter Agency Committee on Geomatics (IACG), which was formed from 16
federal government agencies, as mentioned above. Most of the multi-spatial data collected
as part of the Mercator projects and other government and private sector projects will be
linked and integrated to be part of the Canadian geospatial data infrastructure. The aim is
to create a Canadian geospatial data infrastructure to provide interoperability between

different spatial data source and to support the exchange of data using the Internet, to
reduce duplication of effort in collecting and producing spatial data, and more importantly
to empower the economy, protect and enhance fisheries, wildlife and their habitat; ensure
healthy and safe water, air, and land for all, manage and exploit water, forest, and mineral
and natural resources, heritage and futures (31,2000). Figure 6-6 illustrates the vision of
CGDI.
Mine O oration, Pestici e Permit Fin iriºnmcntalý
Forest' enures jý
Watersheds x t
ýy
i1. ºn ºýýenti'ºº* Water Licens es ý aste Permi
v
Lakes Databa e
fisheries Stream class A
it Fish Stock Releases

I ntt
Rare & Endangered
Hatchery lt
L, Species
XX
º \)Iýr! '1itt+rn (biophysical habitat

WETLAND )
ý %11!
11: 11[äi 11'
roduets ianaemcnt
Figure 6-6 CGDI as supporting decision-making for sustainable development
/Source Kucera and Keighan, 1998a1.
The development and implementation plans of the CGDI over the next 10 years and
beyond, as proposed by the Information Interoperability Institute (3i) team, will he as
follows:
170
1. During the first two years CGDI will provide a bridge between the requirements of users
and appropriate offerings of the providers of spatial data and information.

2. By the end of five years, CGDI should have considerable impact on organisations making
use of it and be driving the organisational changes necessary for the efficient operation of the
infrastructure.
3. By the end of ten years, CGDI should have become part of everyday life for all Canadians,
from specialists to the general public.
To create the CGDI, the IACG used the following five thrusts (Kucera and
Keighan1999):
Access to Spatial Data - The Department of National Defence and the Natural Resources
Canada, in co-operation with other agencies and industry, developed key technical
components for the CGDI to enable Canadians to access vast quantities of spatial data
through the information highway using the Internet.
Framework Data - It has been proposed to group the Framework Data into three layers:
Geodetic Control to provide spatial reference system, Primary Data comprised of a subset
of National Topographic Data Base (NTDB) data, and other subsets of data from
participating federal and provincial agencies, forming the core spatial data set.
Geospatial Standards Large numbers of Canadian representatives from the government

-
and private sectors participated, nationally and internationally, to develop geographic
information standards to reduce barriers and simplify access to spatial data, improve data
quality, and facilitate data integration and interoperability. There were also a successful
efforts to harmonise and find common ground between the Canadian Spatial Archive and
Interchange Format (SAIF), the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)
geographic/geomatics standards (DIGEST), the hydrographic standards for marine-based

information (S-57) and the ISO/TC 211 standards. On the other hand standards for
Metadata are also being developed.
Partnerships - To develop partnerships between various government agencies and

industry, collaborative agreements and projects were established to collect spatial data,
make it more widely available and create a large range of different spatial data
applications.
171
Chapter 6 The Search for a Spatial Data Clearinghouse Aladel
Supportive Policy Environment As more and more spatial data providers and users
-
joined and understood the benefits of the infrastructure, the attitudes of many people
changed and tensions reduced. This change in thinking made data access easier and
encouraged a wide range of data providers and users to participate. Figure 6-7 shows the
complete and integrated CGDI system.
Irta,- ieda3ak Moe ands bm Franst
Deda value
Added serverIn6erfaoes ApIlicakm
Cdlectioii Dataw muses
Processing
K)PM 0
Tods
.4
sdBt
rýtim
11Data
'EY F
Pnxkcts If-'(l
Figure 6-7 The complete CGDI /Source Kucera and Keighan, 1998a/.
The CGD[ environment can be either central or distributed and will be accessible over the Internet
network through Java and XML repository (catalogue) browsing tools.
6.3.4.4 The United States of America
Spatial data collection, production, management and dissemination in the United

States of America is a multibillion-dollar business; the U. S. Federal government spends
about 4 billion dollars a year on spatial data. However, many of these budgets may have
been spent on duplicate collections of expensive digital spatial data that already exist. A
critical national need to solve duplication problems, improve means for collecting and
sharing spatial data was recognised by the former U. S. President Bill Clinton in Executive
Order 12906 on the 11th April 1994. The Executive Order called for the establishment of a
national spatial data infrastructure (NSDI) to support efficient collection, management,
172
easy access to and sharing of digital spatial data and to facilitate new analysis to meet
national needs. The Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) established the national
spatial data clearinghouse as a major component for the national spatial data infrastructure.
The clearinghouse is a distributed network of spatial data procedures, managers and users
linked electronically (FGDC, 2001). This clearinghouse is used in both the U. S. national
spatial data infrastructure and global spatial data infrastructures to support discovery of
spatial data in 26 countries (Hebert, 2000).
Today, the U. S. national spatial data infrastructure, including the clearinghouse, is
the most highly publicised and successful infrastructure of the entire 19 national and
international spatial data infrastructure activities discussed in this chapter. This is due to
the advancement of geographic information technologies in the United States, funding,
people, collaboration, education, the Internet, standards, metadata and the motivation and
desire to minimise duplication of effort in the collection and production of expensive
spatial data. A wide variety of data providers, distributors and users throughout the United
States, including local government, state government, federal government, regional
government, universities, utilities, non-profit organisations and the private sector are
participating in the infrastructure.
6.3.4.4.1 Initiatives and Background
Over the last decade,thousandsof organisationsand individuals have contributed

their ideas,efforts and researchto break the barriersof spatial data sharingand to develop
a nation-wide spatial data infrastructure. Examples include the clearinghouseproject
undertaken by the U.S. Geology Survey (USGS) that has now evolved into the NSDI
clearinghouseoperatedby the FGDC, the Alexandria digital library project carried out by
the University of California SantaBarbara(UCSB) and the GeoWebproject conductedat
the University of Buffalo (Pleuwe, 1997).
The FGDC gavesa brief history of initiatives and activities towardsthe development
of national spatial data infrastructure (FGDC, 1997a):
1. In 1990 the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a revised circular A-
16, which called for the establishment of an interagency co-ordinating committee,
called the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), to develop a national digital
173
Chapter 6 TheSearchfor a Spatial Data ClearinghouseMode!
spatial information resource, with the involvement of federal, state, and local
governments.
2. In 1992 FGDC initiated work on metadata standards and formed a liaison working
group to communicate, investigate and co-ordinate between the FGDC and the
private sector.
3. In 1993, former Vice President Gore's national performance review report called for
the establishment of a national spatial data infrastructure (NSDI). Also the national
GeoData policy forum and the work group on state and local partnership with the
FGDC were established.
4. In 1994, the U. S. NSDI was officially launched by the Executive Order 12906 to co-
ordinate the spatial data collection and management activities between governmental
and non-governmental organisation. The order required that all federal agencies that
produce spatial data should document new spatial data sets produced after January
1995 using the content standards for digital spatial metadata. The Executive Order
12906 defines NSDI as "the technology, policies, standards, and human resources
necessary to acquire, store, distribute, and improve utilisation of geospatial data"

(Clinton, 1994). The FGDC, local, state, regional and federal governments started the
development and implementation of the national spatial data infrastructure
immediately after the executive order and guidelines for implementing the
clearinghouse were issued by the FGDC. In August 1994 the Open GIS Consortium
(OGC) was founded to create interoperability specifications and open systems
approaches to spatial data processing.

5. In 1995 the FGDC sponsored the national GeoData forum, which was held in
Crystal City, Virginia. This meeting focused on building partnerships for the NSDI.
In the same year, FGDC became a member of the OGC and the FGDC framework
concept was approved as proposed by the working group's report.

6. In 1996, representation on the FGDC steering committee was broadened to include:
a. International City/County Managers Association (ICMA)

b. Inter-tribal GIS Council (IGC)
c. National Association of Counties (NAC)
d. National League of Cities (NLC)
e. National StatesGeographicInformation Council (NSGIC)

f. University Consortium for Geographic Information Science (UCGIS)
g. OpenGIS Consortium (OGC)
174
h. 31 State Co-operating Groups

7. In July 1996, a prototype for a clearinghouse node with geographic search capability
was demonstrated at the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association

(URISA) conference and pilot tested. By August 1996, approximately 200
clearinghouse server nodes, not all of them remotely searchable, were directly linked
to the FGDC national spatial data clearinghouse. In February 1996, a review of the
implementation of metadata in the clearinghouse was conducted throughout the
community of spatial data users. The review concluded that a number of effective
software tools to help in metadata collection and a refinement of the standard were
needed to make implementation easier. In September 1996, the work began to refine
the standard in co-ordination with the International Standards Organisation (ISO).
8. In 1997 it became evident that the NSDI original plan needed refinement. Therefore
the FGDC published a new strategy for the NSDI. The new strategy was developed
with broad input, not just from the federal agencies whose activities were the subject
of the executive order, but from many other organisations, universities, private
sectors and individuals.
9. In 1998, "Geographic informationfor the 21s1century: Building a strategyfor the
nation" was publishedby the National Academyof Public Administration.

10. In 1999, the GeoData Alliance organisational initiative was established to build
better relationships between organisations and to support the continuing
developmentof the NSDI.

11. In 2000, the FGDC secretariat became increasingly involved in international
standardisation efforts including acting as host secretariat for the global spatial
data infrastructure.
6.3.4.4.2 The Federal Geographic Data Committee
The federal geographicdata committee(FGDC) was designatedas the leading body

to promote the availability, quality, requirements,collection, development,use, access,
sharing, and dissemination of digital spatial data through a searchable on-line system
among government and non-government organisations (FGDC, 2001). The FGDC is
chaired by the Department of the Interior and composed of the following 17 cabinet and
executive level agencies:
175
1. Department of the Interior.

2. Department of Defence.
3. Department of Agriculture.
4. Department of Energy.
5. Departmentof Health & Human Services.
6. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
7. Department of Commerce.
8. Department of Justice.
9. Department of State.
10. Department of Transportation.
11. Department of Transportation.
12. Environmental Protection Agency.
13. Federal Emergency Management Agency.
14. Library of Congress.
15. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
16. National Archives and Records Administration.
17. National Science Foundation.
18. TennesseeValley Authority.
6.3.4.4.3 The National Spatial Data Infrastructure Components
The national spatial data clearinghouse is the central component of the NSDI
architecture and was also specifically mentioned in the Executive Order 12906 document
discussed above. To better understand and appreciate the role of the clearinghouse, it is
important to understand the FGDC's major activities in creating the NSDI. Figure 6-8
shows the five components or activities. These components form the building blocks of the
infrastructure.
176
7 T........
Providers
Figure 6-8 Relationship diagrams of the essential activities of the NSDI in the
(ISA LSource Nebert. 20001.
The components being developed by members of the FGDC to create the NSI)I can
be summarised as follows:
1. The creation of a national spatial data clearinghouse with geographic search
capability that provides the primary interaction between users and the spatial data.
2. The development of metadata to document the location of the spatial data,
document the content and structure of the data, and provide the end-user with
detailed information on its appropriate use. For example, the content and structure
outline the information that must be included in a metadata record, which includes
more than 220 items (composed of obligatory and optional items) that are intended to
describe general digital spatial data adequately. These items are grouped into seven
categories: identification information, data quality information, spatial data
organisation information, spatial reference information, entity and attribute

information, distribution information, and metadata reference information (Nebert,
2000). The metadata are stored on the clearinghouse nodes in a form of Ilypertcxt
Markup Language (HTML), eXtensible Markup Language (XMt, ), Standard
Generalised Markup Language (SGML), or text files, as discussed in chapter 5.
Conversion tools are available for the data providers to convert and validate their
177
native metadata context into a CSDGM compliant metadata (e.g., ArcView metadata
management system) (FGDC, 1999).
3. The development and implementation of several standards, including metadata
standards, such as the content standards for digital geographic metadata (CSDGM),
spatial data transfer standards (SDTS), content standards on cadastral data and
classification of wetlands and the standard for vegetation classification.
4. The creation of a national spatial data framework to organise and improve spatial
data activities such as collection, registration and integration of spatial data to reduce
costs, facilitate new analysis and help in decision making by providing a readily
available set of accurate and updated digital spatial data. The framework's key
aspects are:
a. Seven well known commonly used digital spatial data themes:geodetic control,
elevation and bathymetry, hydrography, digital ortho-imagery, cadastral (land
ownershipinformation), transportationand governmentboundaries.
b. Procedures,technologiesand guidelinesto supportthe integrationand sharingof
the digital spatialdata.
c. Institutional relationshipsand businesspracticesto maintain and use the digital
spatial data.
5. The U. S. national clearinghouse supports the discovery and access (through their
metadata) of other GeoData, that do not conform to well known specifications and
do not correspond to the seven framework themes, mentioned above, including
unique scientific data, local maps, etc (Nebert, 2000).
6.3.4.4.4 The Clearinghouse Concept and Architecture
The United Statesof America is one of the largest country in the world, with a
population of more than 250 million living on a land area of over 9,350,000 square
kilometres (Masser, 1998). Owing to this vast size and based on various experiments
conductedby the FGDC clearinghouseworking groups,it was concludedthat the national
spatial data clearinghouseshould be a decentralisedsystem(distributed) of serverslocated
on the Internet containing metadatathat describedavailable digital spatial data and using
readily availableweb technologyfor the client-serverarchitecture(FGDC, 2000).
178
The national spatial data clearinghouse contains a catalogue of locator records,
spatial data, ordering mechanisms, map graphics for data browsing, and other detailed use
information that are stored in the metadata entries. The spatial data being made available
through the national spatial data clearinghouse are multipurpose vector and raster data that
can be used for a large numbers of applications such as mapping, geographic information
systems (GIS), land information systems (LIS) (cadastral application), statistical, image
processing and so on. These spatial data may be stored at the site of the data provider or at
clearinghouse server nodes throughout the country (Nebert, 1995).
The clearinghouse uses a variety of user interfaces with the same search capability
and a common descriptive vocabulary (metadata), a common search and retrieval protocol
and registration system for servers of metadata collections. The protocol used for the
network search and retrieval is known as the American National Standard Information
(ANSI) Z39.50 (ISO 23950) (FGDC, 1997b). It was initially developed by the library
community and designed to support searching and retrieval of information (full-text

documents, bibliographic data, images, multimedia) in a distributed client-server network
environment. The Z93.50 protocol is independent of computer platform and permits

migration from FGDC metadata to future international metadata being developed by the
ISO/TC 211.
In general, spatial data can be searched using a single point-of-entry, or
clearinghouse gateway, managed by the FGDC. At present, there are six gateways to
access regional clearinghouse nodes. These gateways are located in Alaska Geospatial
Data Clearinghouse (GDC), the EROS Data Centre (EDC) of the U. S. Geological Survey,
ESRI-Redlands California, FGDC-Reston, the National Resource Conservation Services
(NRCS) and NOAA Coastal Services Centre (CSC). All entry points or gateways have
exactly the same lists of servers. The spatial data clearinghouse is implemented using a
multi-tier architecture (see figure 6-9) as follows:
1. The first-tier (client) is realised by a traditional Web browser and native search
client. The Web browser uses conventional hypertext transport protocol (HTTP)
communications, whereas the native search client uses the ANSI Z39.50 protocol
directly against a set of servers. According to Doug Nebert (U. S. geospatial data
clearinghouse co-ordinator) a commercial Java-based clearinghouse client,

"Metadata Browser, " was released in September 1999 by MapInfo to provide
179
desktop access to the U. S. spatial data clearinghouse servers through a map and tab
based search design.
2. The second-tier (gateway) architecture includes a World Wide Web to Z39.50
protocol gateway.
3. The third-tier (servers)architectureconsistsof Z39.50-compatibleservers,which are
implementedon top of XML documentdatabaseor relational databasesystems,in
for
which structuredmetadataare stored searchandpresentation.
The Z39.05 protocol facilitates simultaneous query to several clearinghouse nodes,
where the user builds a query and passesit to the gateway web server, then it is turned into
requests to many clearinghouse servers. The query results are returned as HTML (or
optionally SGML, XML, or text format) documents to the web client as titles of metadata
entries that meet the search criteria. When the user selects one of the resulting headlines,
he/she can access the metadata that resides on the clearinghouse node because each
headline is linked with designated metadata by means of the Uniform Resource Locator
(URL). If downloading of spatial data is allowed, the user can obtain the dataset in a pre-
defined format using the file transfer protocols (FTP). The architecture required to make
this work is described in the following figure.

Currently, the FGDC clearinghouse nodes allow users to make a query to five
nodes simultaneously. This means, if a user does not know the appropriate node(s) to use,
then the user will not find all the data unless he/she makes a query to all nodes. This
limitation reduces the efficiency of finding the needed spatial data and adversely affects
the query performance. However, a variant of a new Java search is being tested by the
FGDC to permit search of the entire clearinghouse by selecting only servers to search
based on geographic extent and FGDC metadata thematic "categories". In the meantime a
new Java-based map search interface is being deployed at all FGDC gateways so the
spatial data search can now be done by selection of place name, selection of a rectangular
region on a map, or by co-ordinates, so the users will not need to decide which servers
from over 240 to pick for the best possible results (Nebert, 2000).
180
1/ if 11I, The Search for u 5pi,, 7rýu rnýhuticr lodel
, , ir. i .t
First-tier
Second-tier
..............................
Third-Tier
Figure 6-9 The U.S. national spatial data clearinghouse architecture /Source Nebert, 20001.
6.3.4.4.5 Summary
The U. S. national spatial data clearinghouse is in its sixth year of its development
(1996-2001). During this period, the NSDI went through certain progresses and
refinements to improve the infrastructure and the relationship between spatial data
providers, distributors and users. NSDI in is
general a successful infrastructure. It became a
reality in the minds of not only many American people but also others worldwide. The
clearinghouse employs a distributed architecture that permits search of a number of servers
through a single interface. The distributed server architecture helps to avoid any single
point of failure and potential overload that could happen with a more centralised
clearinghouse. More and more organisations and individuals are joining and participating
in this infrastructure and more server nodes have been implemented. Now there are more
than 240 clearinghouse server nodes (January 2002) that provide data access, but this
number does not include many other NSDI sites that are run by smaller units of a larger
organisation. In addition, there is a migration toward treating metadata and data as
interrelated and even being managed together within a single database. Searching spatial
data using different languages is being considered by the FGDC. Multilingual search
181
requires the use of international thesauri of terms by which all metadata could be
classified. The European Environment Agency's GEneral Multilingual Environmental

Thesaurus (GEMET) offers over five thousand terms in 13 languages. The U. S. Geological
Survey programmers recently wrote a program (the MetaLite Window software) for their
international program and manage a subset of FGDC metadata with interfaces and help
available in four languages: English, Spanish, Portuguese, and French. In the future,
metadata and spatial data sets described in other languages will be able to be searched in
different languages. Automatic linguistic translation of documents may still be years away,
but data document discovery is feasible in today's technology when using a single,
common multilingual thesaurus (Nebert, 2000).
6.15 The Global Spatial Data Infrastructure
The Global Spatial Data Infrastructure (GSDI) is an international effort to support
and promote compatible readily accessible global spatial data. The first initiative to create
a GSDI cannot be exactly traced, but it can be concluded that the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in

1992, was the first step and main driver for the development of the GSDI. The Rio Summit
discussed environmental deterioration and established the basis of a sustainable way of life
in the next century (Agenda 21). The summit acknowledged that the availability of spatial
data is critical for environmental decision-making and provides one measure to help
protect the atmosphere and prevent pollution (Nebert, 2001). The GSDI held its first
conference in Bonn, Germany, on 4-6 September 1996, where more than 60
representatives from the spatial data community around the world attended. In November
1996, an international seminar on global mapping was held in Santa Barbara, California,
USA. The Santa Barbara Statement, prepared during this seminar, made a strong plea for
the establishment of national and global mapping programs and the development of a
global spatial data infrastructure (GSDI) (GSDI, 1999).
6.3.5.1 What is GSDI?
The following definition of GSDI was adapted at the second GSDI conference, held
in Chapel Hill, Northern Carolina, USA 19-21 October 1997: "... The policies,
182
Chapter 6 The Search for a Spatial Data Clearinghouse A/ode!
organisational merits, data, technologies, standards, delivery mechanisms and financial
and human resources necessary to ensure that those working at the global and regional
scale are not impeded in meeting their objectives... " (GSDI, 2000). Figure 6-10 defines
GSDI visually.
Figure 6-10 GSD! relationships /Source Reichardt, 20001.
6.3.5.2 The Aim of GSDI
The primary goal of the GSDI is to discover and link local, national, and regional
spatial data infrastructures into a global endeavour, and to highlight the need for multi-
national co-operation to realise the promise of GIS technologies and spatial data in
fostering sustainable development world-wide, through the implementation of globally
compatible international spatial data infrastructures (GSDI, 2000). The aim of the GSDI
will not be achieved without the development of common standards and metadata.
Accordingly, GSDI, rather than develop its own geographic standards, identifies the best
geographic standards being developed in national and international settings that can be
183
applied at all scales of application, (such as the standards being developed by ISO/TC
211). In the meantime, the Technical Working Group of the GSDI is developing a dynamic
electronic document that will assist countries and organisations in developing policies and
technology that are compatible with national and global infrastructure initiatives (Nebert,
2000).
6.3.5.3 The GSDI Management Architecture
The GSDI has a steering committee, comprising representatives from all continents
to establish a permanent global umbrella organisation that will serve as the guiding body
for the GSDI. This organisation is intended to bring together regional committee, national
committee, and other relevant international institutions (e.g. ISO, OGC, ISCGM, ISPRS,
ICA, etc). The GSDI steering committee has established the following two main working
groups:
1. Technical working group, to advise the GDSI steering committee on technical

issues.
2. Legal and economic working group, which comprises of a group of advisors for
the GSDI steering committee on economic, legal, and funding issues.
6.3.5.4 The Potential GSDI Spatial Data Providers and Users
There are a number of key players involved in GSDI activities, for example (Clarke, 1996):
1. The military (including Army, Navy and Air force).
2. The science and environmental communities.
3. The international development community.
4. National mapping organisations
5. Private sector.
6. Universities and education in general.
184
There are a growing number of spatial data infrastructure initiatives throughout the
world in recognition of spatial data's role as an essential national asset to serve economic
growth, social and environmental interests; all heavily dependent on land related
information. Most of the international, national and regional spatial data infrastructures
(including clearinghouses) are government initiatives, for example the NSDI in the United
States of America, the ANZLIC in Australia and New Zealand, the NCGI Netherlands, the
SNIG in Portugal, The NaLIS in Malaysia, the NSIF in South Africa and the ICDE in the
Republic of Colombia. On the other hand there are some initiatives that are driven by the
private sector, for example the NGDF in the United Kingdom, the CGDI in Canada and the
Uruguay clearinghouse (Nebert, 2001).
The worldwide initiatives discussed in this chapter (at the time of writing -
November 2001) vary from a very basic idea or plan to very mature and successful spatial
data infrastructures and clearinghouses. Most of the approaches of these initiatives are
similar, despite differences in languages, institutions, technology, geographic information,

users' requirements, etc. The U. S. national spatial data infrastructure (NSDI) is the most
well known infrastructure and has been recognised as the leading spatial data infrastructure
in the world. Most present SDI initiatives around the world use the United States of
America NSDI as a model and incorporate many or all of its components. The other well-
developed clearinghouses are the ANZLIC in Australia and New Zealand, the NCGI in the
Netherlands, the CGDI in Canada and the NGDF (or now the Charter of the UK Strategic
Alliance) in the United Kingdom.
The success of the U. S. national spatial data infrastructure was the result of high
level support (The Executive Order 12906), availability of fundamental spatial data sets,
funding, latest technologies, metadata standards, digital geographic information standards,
a communications network (the Internet), expertise, and the involvement of powerful

leadership (FGDC) that managed to stimulate co-ordinated and co-operative activities from
the spatial data community to solve spatial data sharing problems, institutional issues and
technical issues. The Charter of the UK Strategic Alliance is expected to be successful due
to the small size of the country, the availability of good, reliable and comprehensive
spatial data and the support of most of spatial data providers, spatial data integrators,
hardware and software providers, application service providers and the Government.
185
The factors and components listed above must be given high priority when
developing a strategy for a national spatial data infrastructure for the proposed Saudi
national spatial data infrastructure. Most nations already produce digital spatial data and
the ISO/TC 211 is developing metadata standards and a variety of digital geographic
information standards, which can be used (perhaps with a small modification) by any
ISO/TC 211 member. Also, the Internet network has become a worldwide major
communication network, which can be used and accessed by anyone anywhere. Most, if
not all, clearinghouses are now built on the Internet and use it as a backbone. Some
components can be achieved easily, but others will need a lot of effort.
In the meantime the success of building and implementing a national spatial data
infrastructure depends on the success of its clearinghouse. One of the most important
issues to be considered in the development and implementation of a national spatial data
clearinghouse is the metadata structure. The Clearinghouses architectures can be

categorised into three different types:
The centralised clearinghouse, such as the Netherlands NCGI, stores the metadata of all
spatial data providers in a single clearinghouse node. This type of service is normally easy
to search, maintain, manipulate, update, monitor and control, becausethe description of the
spatial data (the metadata) is stored in one place and managed by one management. It
causes some burdens to the spatial data provider however, due to the fact that a different
body not involved in spatial data collection, production and management manages the
metadata system. Therefore, spatial data providers have to follow strict metadata protocols
to describe their spatial data. Normally the spatial data has to be updated according to a
defined plan to maintain currency, but update of the metadata requires complicated
procedures by both the data provider and the metadata system management. Also, the
centralised system is not usually searchable using the standard catalogue and clearinghouse
techniques applied in- the distributed systems. Centralised solutions can fit within a
distributed framework. Purely centralised and isolated solutions do not promote regional or
global search until they support common search protocols adapted by neighbouring nodes.
The single centralised repository may be appropriate for the Netherlands (NCGI), but to
stay current and usable in the European context, it would need to collaborate with other
nodes in adjacent countries for a pan-European query to work in a distributed solution. But
this would mean that NCGI would have to support common search protocols adapted by
neighbouring European countries.
186
The distributed is in
clearinghouse, such as used the USA, Canada, South Africa and the
United Kingdom, is an open-market approach simply linking willing spatial data providers
with interested users. In distributed clearinghouse systems architecture, most of the

is
metadata stored and managed by local data providers using nodes (servers) located on
the Internet throughout the country or region. The distributed system requires each data
provider to enter, manipulate, update, control and monitor his or her metadata. Searching
for spatial data in a distributed clearinghouse is as easy as in a centralised clearinghouse,
provided that the correct technologies, search software and a protocols are in place to allow
sending multiple queries to several clearinghouse nodes at the same time.
The USA, Canada and Australia's clearinghouses employ the same search software,
protocols and technologies, but their user interfaces vary in complexity. In fact, they are all
moving to the same ISO metadata and linkage mechanism for global spatial data
infrastructure (GSDI) compatibility. The burden of supporting metadata exists within

distributed systems, but using new software such as ESRI's ArcCatalog this burden can be
reduced in the distributed environment, where every spatial dataset holding site could
become its own publishing node. The distributed system is considered more rigorous in its
connection between the spatial data and the metadata system and has been applied
successfully in e-commerce, data visualisation, and data access solutions. It also helps in
avoiding common mode failure, or the potential overloads that plague some centralised
clearinghouses.
The main benefitsof a distributedclearinghousesystemare:
1. Links betweenspatial data and metadataon the samesystemlead to current and even
dynamicpublication of metadatapropertiesfrom the data.
2. The metadataare managedand supportedby the spatial data provider, custodiansor
distributors, and tend to be more complete and correct than metadatasent away to a
'foreign' hosting service.
3. Distributed searchesbenefit from the power of the Internet, resulting in the ability to
search millions of metadatarecords in a sharedway by many machines,instead of

inside a single enormous warehouse.
187
The hybrid clearinghouse, exemplified by the one in Australia, is a mixture of both
centralised and decentralised clearinghouses to provide different levels of metadata to

users. Basically any large-scale clearinghouse should have elements of centralisation and
distributed (decentralised) management. In a hybrid clearinghouse, the metadata is stored
in one place while details or other metadata are stored on several local servers at the sites
of the spatial data providers. This hierarchy of the hybrid clearinghouse provides a more
efficient search capability and gives the users the capability of comparing different datasets
at the local and national level, but currency and update can be a problem.
Finally, it should be noted that with the advancement of computers, the power of the
Internet, web site technologies, user interfaces, application programming interfaces,
gateways, search engines, Java, XML languages and so on, the user will in the near future
not notice difference between these three types of clearinghouses in the near future.
Due to the size of Saudi Arabia (over two million square kilometres) and the spread
of the spatial data production, mainly between the Centre, East and West of the country, it
is recommended that the distributed clearinghouse systems, as in the U. S. are used or the
hybrid clearinghouse structure are used as a second choice. In the U. S. the decentralised
model has worked well, after initial problems with server "holes" in the network. The U. S.
approach has the benefit of being quite fault tolerant by having over 200 servers
transparently acting as both data providers and in many cases mirrors. In Saudi Arabia
similar conditions apply, although presently on a more limited scale.

The possibility of developing a hybrid system involving both government and
industry must be left open, as a number of successfultrials are under way in Europe and
greater flexibility may result in the end, especiallyas the rate of technologicalchangeis
not decreasing.
The plan for the Saudi spatial data clearinghouseswill be discussedin chapter 7.
However other systems which have become fully functional will be thoroughly
investigatedbeforethe final model is developed.
188
Chapter 7 Propaw/for a Saudi NSDI
CHAPTER 7
PROPOSAL FOR A SAUDI NATIONAL
SPATIAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE
7.1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The first Saudi Arabian State emerged in 1744 (1157 H) from an alliance between
Imam Mohammed bin Saud, the ruler of Al-Dirriya, and the Islamic reformer Sheikh
Mohammed bin Abdul Wahab. Under this alliance most of the Arabian Peninsulawas
brought under their control, however this unity was disruptedby an Ottoman invasion in
1811(1226 H) endingthe first SaudiArabian statein 1817(1233H).
In 1824 (1240 H) the second Saudi Arabian state was founded when the Al-Saud
family regained power under the leadership of Prince Torki bin Abdullah bin Saud, an
ancestor of the late King Abdulaziz. The invasion of Riyadh, the capital city of the second
Saudi state, by Mohammed bin Abdullah bin Rashid, ruler of Jabal Shamar, in the north of
the Arabian Peninsula, brought the second Saudi state to an end in 1891 (1309 H). Imam
Abdulrahman Al-Faisal Al-Saud withdrew from Riyadh to Kuwait with his family,
including young son Abdulaziz and became guests of the Al Asubah Family (the rulers of
Kuwait). However, young Abdulaziz decided to return to his family's land and restore the
Saudi power again (Al-Assiri, 1996).
On January 15th, 1902 (Shawwal 5th, 1319H), Abdulaziz bin Abdulrahman Al-
Faisal Al-Saud reclaimed Riyadh, after a long and hard trip from Kuwait to Riyadh (Figure
7-1) with about 60 fighters of his relatives and followers and very little in the way of food
and weapons. This trip took about four months, but it was the cornerstone in the foundation
of the third Saudi state, the modem Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Al-Saud, 1999) that has just
celebrated its centennial (100 years of building and unity) on January 22°d, 1999 (Shawwal
5t', 1419H).
189
Chapter 7 Proposal for a Saudi NSDI
The Rad To Riyacit ý,

(Bui l di ng and unity) ; "'
IN
Jordan KAVýt
-
Gdfot'
K"
ofMBdrin
Riyadh
IJAE
This trip famed a ndlesbam in the JMtmle

fa x tiai
of the third Sauä state,
the modem Kin ckm of Sam Arabia
Sea
.._. -
rte.
icofYen
Aidb Sea
ý '`'ý
Figure 7-1 King Abdulaziz's long and hard trip from Kuwait to Riyadh /Source Al-Shahrani, 2001b).
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is located in the south western of Asia at the
crossroads of Europe, Asia and Africa, as shown in figure 7-2. Saudi Arabia occupies four-
fifths (4/5) of the Arabian Peninsula, which makes it the largest country in the Middle East.
The founder of the modern Saudi Arabia, His Majesty King Abdulaziz, went to great effort
to unify this vast land from the farthest northern limits of the peninsula to the southern
precincts and from the Arabian gulf shores in the east to the Red Sea coast in the west to
create a kingdom with an area of over two million square kilometres and external borders
of about five thousand eight hundred kilometres.
As shown in figure 7-1, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is bordered in the north by
Kuwait, Iraq and Jordan and in the south by Yemen and the Sultanate of Oman. In the east
Saudi Arabia is bordered by the Arabian Gulf, United Arab Emirates, Qatar and the state of
Bahrain and to the west by the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba.
190
_ý
Figure 7-2 The strategic location of Saudi Arabia (Source Al-Shahrani, 2001 bI
Saudi Arabia has a varied topography, ranging from the famous Empty Quarter
(Rub al Khali) in the south-east (the largest continuous sand desert in the world), which
also links to another large sandy desert, the Al-Nafud in the north of the country, to
valleys, few lakes or permanent streams, and green and mountainous terrain rising to over
3,000 metres in the south-west. The topography of Saudi Arabia also contains salt flats,
gravel plains and other types of terrain (Mughram, 1973).

A country with such vast area, long borderlines, unique topography and a regular
pace of development and progress needs to pay close attention to spatial data and keep
them high on its list of priorities. Just like any other area of vital national importance,
spatial data in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are, therefore, receiving the close attention of
government, but the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia lacks a national spatial data infrastructure.
A Saudi national spatial data infrastructure is of critical importance to the well being of the
Kingdom. National security and defence, the management of infrastructure, agriculture,
healthcare, education, environment, industries, tourism, human development resources and
191
Chapter 7 Proposalfor a SaudiNSD!
many other vital aspects of national planning and services are supported directly or
indirectly by spatial data. Therefore the development of a strategy for a national spatial
data infrastructure in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, "the Saudi National Spatial Data
Infrastructure (SNSDI)", is essential to facilitate the availability, accessibility and effective
use of accurate, current and complete spatial data for use by all levels of government,
private sector organisations and others, thus creating a partnership between all spatial data
users and producers.

This chapter proposes an approach to the formulation and implementation of a
Saudi national spatial data infrastructure based on:
1. Spatial data sharing perspectives and issues that highlighted the benefits and
obstacles of spatial data sharing (chapter 2).

2. The universal spatialdata standards,developedby ISO/TC 211 (chapter3).
3. The current status of mapping activities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (chapter 4).
4. The Internet network, tools and technologies (chapter 5).
5. The worldwide national and global spatial data initiatives, specially the factors that
make the U. S. NSDI succeed as well as the UK strategic alliances, the ANZLIC in
Australia and New Zealand, the NCGI in the Netherlands and the CGDI in Canada.
6. The researcher's experience and background and a review of the General
Commission for Survey and Mapping-Internal Documents (GCSM-ID).
To address those issues and more, section 7.2 forms the most important part of this chapter.
It discusses the main components of the proposed SNSDI, namely, the institutional
framework, fundamental data sets, geographic information standardsand the technical
framework. Section 7.3 may be considered as laying down the building blocks for the
implementation phase for the SNSDI. It highlights a development and implementation
plans for SNSDI including concept, design, implementation and operation phases.
Concluding remarks are found in section 7.4.
7.1.1 Justification for Saudi NSDI
At presentmany organisationsin the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia collect and use spatial
data, but this is mostly confined to their own departments and no agent is responsible for
co-ordination of these activities or for enabling accessand exchange of spatial data, nor are
192
Chapter 7 Proposalfor a SaudiNSDI
common spatial data standards used. Existing spatial data consists of conventional and
digital products at various scales, types and formats. Small-scale complete digital map
coverage exists for the Kingdom at 1: 1,000,000 scale and at 1:2,000,000 scale. Also
medium scale digital map coverage exists at 1:250,000 scale. Large-scale digital map
coverage and geographic information systems exist for certain areas and main cities and
villages at 1:25,000 scale and larger. Good and accurate geodetic and land information is
available for the entire Kingdom at sufficient density to support mapping and national
spatial data activities. Also, a national geographic names database exists for the whole
Kingdom. On the other hand, and as indicated in chapter 4, there are conventional (hard
copy) maps covering the whole kingdom at 1:50,000 scale and the updating and conversion
of these to digital maps is in progress now. There are also hydrographic charts for the red
sea, etc.
The digital and conventional products are not widely exploited in the user
community. Current and future complex economic, social and environmental issues cannot
be solved with this limited access.
The aim of the SNSDI is to exploit fully and enhance(not destroy or replace)
existing national assets for the creation and exploitation of national spatial data
infrastructure. The infrastructure builds on existing capabilities by providing coordination,
prioritisationand central leadership so that spatial data can be widely accessible and
sharable for the benefit of all users. The SNSDI will be the ultimate solution for the
consolidation of isolated activities. It will avoid wasteful duplication of effort, time and
money, simplify co-ordination and facilitate the establishment of the general and legal
principles for partnership and co-operation in spatial data collection, donation, processing,
integration, storage, distribution and sharing by many ministries, producers and users alike,
no matter what types of hardware or software are used by each individual. For this purpose
MODA has initiated, supported and funded this research to develop a strategy for defining
and then implementing the SNSDI.
7.2 SNSDI COMPONENTS
The scopeof the Saudi national spatial data infrastructureincludes everythingthat enables
the development,implementation,and maintenanceof a national spatialdatainfrastructure,
which serves the whole Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is based on the information collected,
193
discussed, compared, and analysed in the previous chapters. The main Saudi NSDI
components should include the following:
1. Institutional Framework.
2. Fundamental Data sets.
3. Spatial Data Standards.
4. Technical Framework.
These SNSDI components, as in all other successful worldwide national projects, are not
independent activities, but complementary.
7.2.1 INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
The building of an institutional structureto co-ordinateand lead the development

and implementation of a national spatial data infrastructure is essential. A national
mapping body should be designatedby the governmentas the leading body for the Saudi
national spatial data infrastructure.
This research proposes the establishment of six specific new arrangements and
institutional structures for the SNSDI and they are:
1. Royal Decree(High ExecutiveOrder).

2. National Committee for Geographic Information (NCGI).
3. Organisational Framework.
4. National Spatial Data Policy (NSDP).
5. SNSDI Development Office (SDO) and SNSDI Management Board (SMB).
6. Spatial Data Users/ Producers Community (SDUPC).
7.2.1.1 Royal Decree
The most important step to authorise and start the Saudi national spatial data
infrastructure is to obtain a Royal Decree. The aim of the Royal Decree is to authorise and
support the development and implementation of a national spatial data infrastructure in the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and facilitates spatial data sharing and specifies the national
194
Chapter 7 Proposalfora SaudiNSDI
mapping body to co-ordination this activity. The Royal Decree should state the goal of the
Saudi national spatial data infrastructure and the responsibility of all the participating
organisations, spatial data user/producer community and spatial data donors. The Royal
Decree should also authorise the formation of a National Committee for Geographic
Information (NCGI) from ministries and organisations that produce and use spatial data
and encourage very positively spatial data access and sharing between all users and
produces.
7.2.1.2 National Committee for Geographic Information
The most important step in the implementation of the SNSDI is the formation of a
high-level body to provide co-ordination, leadership and authority at national level. The
high-level body is termed the National Committee for Geographic Information (NCGI).
The primary objective of the NCGI is to provide control, oversight and guidance to the
development and implementation of the SNSDI, and to promote the efficient use and
sharing of spatial data to prevent wasteful duplication of effort and yield high quality data
for the benefit of all users in the Kingdom. NCGI supports domestic, military and civilian
surveying and mapping activities, aids the use of spatial data and GIS and assists
ministries, organisations, universities and researchersin their related spatial data activities.
The NCGI should form alliance on specific topics and address national level issues within
the scope of the national spatial data infrastructure, provide co-ordination and set policies
for SNSDI execution in accordance with nationally agreed criteria.
The policies established by the NCGI would apply directly to the national mapping
body and to other users and producers of spatial data in the Kingdom. The national
mapping body should apply policies to prioritise its work in order to develop and
implement the infrastructure as quickly, economically and simply as possible. Through
adherence to national policy, the committee will arrive at national level spatial data
policies and management criteria that are most beneficial to the Kingdom. This in turn will
assist the national mapping body and the Saudi national spatial data infrastructure to
receive guidance and funding. Adherence to spatial data standards by all members of the
NCGI and the producer/user community will become a key and essential factor for the
success of the Saudi national spatial data infrastructure.
195
7.2.1.2.1 Implementation of NCGI
Initially the NCGI will address start-up issues, such as an action plan, funding,
staffing, standards, early implementation of spatial data products and design activities.
Later, the NCGI will provide a forum for ensuring co-ordination between all organisations
participating in the infrastructure, promote the SNSDI, encourage more producers and
users to participate, attach priority to requirements for data and foster improvement to the
infrastructure. The following are some of the main functions of the NCGI:
1. Promote the development and implementation of Kingdom-wide distributed spatial
databasesand network.
2. Promote interaction and spatial data sharing between users, producers and other
authorities.
3. Encouragethe developmentand implementationof spatial data standards,metadata
to
standards,proceduresand guidelines enablespatialdatato be shared.
4. Ensure that the SNSDI supports national security, national defence and emergency
readiness.
5. Promote the establishment of central training institution and educational programs to
support the SNSDI activities.

6. Promote technology development, knowledge transfer and spatial data analysis.
7. Provide a forum for discussion of financial matters.
8. Provide a national spatialdatapolicy framework.
7.2.1.2.2 Membership of the NCGI
The membership of the NCGI should come from the government and non-
government organisations,which make significant contributions to, or make significant
demandsupon, the national spatial data infrastructure.Members of the committee would
be Deputy Ministers, or AssistantDeputy Ministers. The presidentof the national mapping
body, who acts as a co-ordinator and advisor to the governmenton national spatial data
matters,should chair the committee.Figure 7-3 showsthe structureof the NCGI.
196
Chapter?
ý,6 \tilýl
-uv
Policy
Membership Committees
and Feedback
Members of the Spatial Data

NCGI Users/Producers
Community
Figure 7-3 NCGI structure.
The bodies in Table 7-1 should be invited to form an executive committee. At its
inception the membership of the executive committee should include main mapping and
GIS producers as well as representatives from spatial data users and the private sector.
No Name of Ministry/Organisation
I Ministry of Defence and Aviation and Inspectorate General (MODA), General
Commission for Survey and Mapping (GCSM).
2 Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources (MOP&MR) and Saudi Annco.
3 Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs (MOMRA).
4 King Abdulaziz City of Science and Technology (KACST).
5 Ministry of Communication.
6 Ministry of Finance and National Economy.
7 Ministry of Planning/ census department.
8 The Meteorology and Environmental Protection.
9 Representative from the Private Sector.
Table 7-1 Recommended Executive members of the NCG/
-.. .
197
0
Sub committees can be formed from other government and non government organisations
or institutions with proven activities or interests in spatial data. These sub committees
should cover different areas of expertise that may not be present from within the executive
committee.
It is also extremely important to include the private sector as it has close links with
government mapping organisations and has been responsible over many years for a
number of important cooperative and independent mapping programs. As the SNSDI

becomes established private sector participation will need to grow as spatial data moves
from the purely mapping domain into wider application areas. These will involve the use
of spatial data as the basis for more flexible arenas of display, varying from internet
browser applications to other markets yet in their infancy such as location based services
using Wireless Application Protocol (WAP) technologies. Similarly the user market will
change and expand. At the moment only a small proportion of the Saudi population are
directly concerned with the use of spatial data; in a few years the majority will expect to
use web based interactive mapping. This will lead to a democratisation of the
clearinghouse system and a large swing in the user base from organisational towards
domestic consumption as has already been seen in the U. S and Europe. As the market for
-
spatial data develops so need for a wider range of spatial expertise will be required
amongst the executive members of the NCGI.
7.2.1.3 Organisational Framework
7.2.1.3.1 Background
In 1990, the Council of Ministers completed a significant study to examine survey
and mapping organisations in Saudi Arabia, to consolidate related spatial data activities
that were being conducted by various ministries and organisations in the Kingdom. The
Council of Ministers study concluded in the issue of Council of Minister Resolution
Number 70, dated 22/04/1410 H (1990 G). This resolution recommended the consolidation
of all government entities, which engage in mapping and surveying activities into one
organisation (General Mapping Organisation). The resolution recommended that this
organisation report to the Ministry of Defence and Aviation (MODA) and should be
responsible for all surveying and mapping activities required by any government or non-
government entity. The resolution indicated that the General Mapping Organisation should
198
Chapter 7 Proposal for a South NSDI
comprised of two main divisions, the Military Survey Department (MSD) and the Civilian
Survey Department (CSD). The organisational structure of the National Surveying
Organisation should also include a Survey Information Centre (SIC) responsible for the
computer hardware and software required for geographic and survey information and
organising, classifying and maintaining all data and reproduction materials.
On Monday 2°d Jamad awal, 1422 H (2314July, 2001), the Council of Ministers, the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, approved resolution 70 and issued Executive Order number 133
to transform the existing General Directorate of Military Survey (GDMS) into a national
mapping organisation named "General Commission for Survey and Mapping (GCSM)"
(GCSM-ID, 2001).
7.2.1.3.2 General Commission for Survey and Mapping
The General Commission for Survey and Mapping will be the organisation that
brings the surveying and mapping activities of Saudi Arabia, military and civilian, under
unified management and coordination. With its authority and capability, GCSM will co-
ordinate and host the development and implementation of the Saudi national spatial data
infrastructure. In this way, large and varied amounts of spatial data, much of which already
exists in government organisations and elsewhere in the Kingdom, may be widely accessed
and shared. GCSM is a component of MODA and will be divided into 3 directorates, in
line with the Council of Ministers executiveorder:
1. The General Directorate of Military Survey (GDMS).

2. The General Directorate of Civilian Survey (GDCS).
3. The SaudiNational Centrefor GeographicInformation (SNCGD.
The organisational structure of the Saudi National Centre for Geographic

Information (SNCGI) should include the main national spatial data clearinghouse. In this
way GCSM will assume a predominant role in developing a Kingdom-wide spatial

databasesand a leadership role in the SNSDI. The president of GCSM will ensure that the
design and implementation of the GCSM and its systems satisfies the requirements of the
SNSDI. GCSM will collect, produce, maintain and distribute national spatial datasets and
ensure the modernisation of the mapping process necessary to support efficient
199
Chapter 7 ý.'lý;
exploitation of spatial data amongst all users that require it. The primary organisational
components of GCSM are shown in Figure 7-4:
Aviation
Figure 7-4 The General Commission for Survey and Mapping (GCSM) main components.
The General Directorate of Military Survey (GDMS) and the General Directorate
of Civilian Survey (GDCS) will be tasked according to military and civil requirements and
priorities. GCSM should start its activities with the main functions critical to the successof
the overall SNSDI. GCSM will obtain available digital spatial data from other
organisations and perform translation and processing into standard products, then integrate
it into a multipurpose spatial database, generated by the SNCGI. The SNCGI will be a
common resource and primary national focus providing spatial data products and services.
These include the supply of conventional maps, digital maps, spatial data, coordinates,
gazetteers, geographic names, satellite imagery, aerial photography and other resources,
which will be shared by GDMS, GDCS and all other organisations and users. The SNCGI
will be the home of the main "Saudi National Spatial Data Clearinghouse (SNSDC)"
discussed later in this chapter.
Finally the GCSM, with the help of the NCGI, is required to undertake the
following seven categories of activities:
200
( 'hapter 7
1. Coordinate with the spatial data user/producer community and determine optimum
use and development of resources for the SNSDI either directly or through the
NCGI.
2. Coordinate, receive and prioritise requests for spatial data and services according to
NCGI policies.
3. Develop and support spatial data standards, metadata standards and other product
specifications.
4. Gather, extract and integrate spatial data and other information from different
sources, as illustrated in figure 7-5, to produce standard digital spatial data products.
5. Manage a Kingdom-wide spatial database, including multipurpose information
generated in the user/producer Community.
6. Disseminate and deliver products and services to all users who require them.
7. Ensure that the human, hardware, software and financial resources required are in
accordance with national needs.
Figure 7-5 Saudi national spatial data collection framework.
201
Chapter 7 Proposaljor a aua tv. u,
7.2.1.3.3 Human Resource Development
The success of the Saudi national spatial data infrastructure depends directly upon
the abilities and capabilities of the people who develop, implement, manage, supervise,
maintain and operate the infrastructure. This includes a wide mix of managerial ability,
technical skills and operators. Therefore, GCSM and other participating organisations must
aggressively and pro-actively provide a plan, budget and institution to develop the human
resources needed to manage, administer, operate and maintain the total SNSDI system.
This should include also the human resources needed in the user/producer community for
full exploitation of the spatial data products and services.
The NCGI, through its membership, should provide recruitment, educational and
training policies and assistance, designed explicitly to develop the human resources
necessary for the continued successof the SNSDI. Additionally, the NCGI should establish
policies that promote career path development and reward professional growth within the
organisation. The GCSM and other participating organisations should establish a Central
Survey and Mapping Training Institute (CSMTI) and maintain a recruitment process that
attracts qualified and motivated individuals. It should provide training for specific
management and technical support, skills and operators needed for the SNSDI.
The SNSDI Development Office (SDO) requires upon its creation rapid staffing
with dozens of individuals. The selected individuals must have, or quickly develop, strong
technical, management and leadership abilities. These individuals will not only be the
driving force behind the design, development and implementation of the Saudi national
spatial data infrastructure system, but they will also be the future managers for future
strategies. The first wave of career development activities should involve the selection of
the best qualified of the present GCSM employees to form the cadre of the SDO. The
vacancies created could be filled by promotion of junior members of the present GCSM
and by outside recruitment. This process would continue until the SDO reaches full
strength, completes it mission, and becomes the SNSDI Management Board (SMB).
7.2.1.3.3.1 Central Survey and Mapping Training Institute
There are presently a number of survey and mapping training facilities in Saudi
Arabia. The most important one is the Military Survey and Geographic Study Institute
202
(MSGSI) in Riyadh. This specialised institute offers different courses at various levels and
grants qualified graduates a diploma to work in most areas related to survey and mapping
activities. This institute will certainly assist all survey and mapping organisations in the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in maintaining career development plans for all staff, by
coordinating and facilitating technical and management training courses and maintaining
the necessary level of professional and technical staff. However, the institute curricula will
be modified to cover more categories of professional and technical skills. These categories
will include training on different aspects of GIS and spatial data collection, production,
integration, dissemination, applying standards, metadata, research and development and
others. The required training, knowledge, experience and how to obtain staff for each of
these aspects must be carefully planned.
The required training, knowledge, experience and staff recruitment to achieve these
objectives must be addressed by SDO and later by SMB. The range of courses should
include, for example:
1. Training programmesfor professionalresponsibilitiesfor:
- Top decision makersand directors.
- Managers/supervisors.
- System programmers and analysts.
- Spatial databasesadministrators and analysts.
- Computer networking analysts.

2. Training programmes should also be designed for the following technical skills.
- Staff involved in the acquisition of all source materials of spatial and non spatial
data, such as aerial photography, satellite images, existing maps, field surveys,
geodetic survey, geographic names collection, reports and others.
- Staff involved in the data extraction from including

various sources, enhancementof
source documents, identification and extraction of spatial features, digitising,
scanning,verification and integrationof variousdatasets.
- Staff involved in the monitoring and quality control of spatial data production,
including the analysis of spatial data requirements,design of production plans,
testing of alternatives,optimisation,prioritisation and allocation of resources.
- Staff involved in the spatial data processes,including data enhancement, conversions
and integration of various data sets, reformatting and restructuring, conversions and
data modelling, storage and data dissemination.
203
Chapter 7 Proposalfor a Saudi NSDI
- Staff involved in presentation and generation of various products, including
cartographic enhancements and symbolisation, production of line maps, photo maps,

digital files in specific data formats, special maps, reports, etc.
- Staff involved in spatial data analyses for various fields of applications.
7.2.1.33.2 Role of Universities and Other Training Institutions
In Saudi Arabia there are a total of eight universitiesgranting Bachelor degreesin

various disciplines. Some universities offer masters and doctorate degrees in certain
specialties, including survey, mapping, GIS, etc. In response to any impact on Saudi
human resources and the stimulus of the NCGI, universities should design and conduct
courses and curricula specifically aimed at the professional and technical skills for a
successful career in the digital spatial data sciences. The universities and institutions
should actively recruit qualified students to enrol in these courses. Relevant university
level courses, basic as well as advanced, must provide the students with an initial
appreciation of and basic skills in spatial data handling and GIS theory. Specialised spatial
data courses, whose main purpose is to provide manpower for the completion of spatial
data and GIS operational tasks, also have major career development value. Some
educational institutions abroad have already started to include spatial data infrastructure
and GIS in their standard programmes. NCGI can build on this fact in the short term by
encouraging ministries to send appropriate numbers of people to study abroad.
7.2.1.3.3.3 Role of Research and Development
A healthy Researchand Development(R&D) activity is critical to the long-term

success of the Saudi national spatial data infrastructure. Without research and
development,the technology used by GCSM and other participating organisationwould
become inefficient, uncompetitive and uneconomical. Therefore, a research and
developmentteam should be establishedand taskedof maintainingthe technical leadership
of the SNSDI.
204
Chapter 7 Proposal for a Saudi NJUI
7.2.1.3.4 Financial Resources
It is very important that GCSM allocates part of its budget to start the SNSDI initial
implementation. The authority to proceed with the implementation of the Saudi NSDI can
be achieved in stages. The budget, likewise, will not be needed all at once. The GCSM,
through the SDO, should provide funding profiles to reflect the stages and activities of the
Saudi NSDI, including the development of a Saudi Centre for National Geographic
Information (SNCGD. Based on the funding profile, the needed budget should be obtained.
However, as the implementation phase is completed and spatial data become available a
price should be introduced for spatial data to compensate for the charge of the SNSDI
maintenance and operations. The question of what price this should be is important as if it
is set too high no users will cooperate and the NSDI will die. Too low a price will place
considerable costs for running and maintaining the system on the government. This has
been overcome in the U. S. by the government sponsoring the entire system, and in the UK
by the private sector taking the initiative. Both approaches have failings. The government
funded system could lead but in practice in the U. S. has not - to a depression of the
-
private sector value added market because of the undercutting of the basic worth of data. In
the private led model the perceived and actual danger is that only corporate users will be
able to afford to be members. This is the case in most of the European systems, and very
definitely in the UK where access to spatial data by the smaller (domestic, academic, etc)
usershas beenvery restricted.In SaudiArabia a compromisesystemwith the government

paying for the basic infrastructure,and also subsidisinguse of basic data sets for general
use might be envisaged.
7.2.1.3.5 Contracting and Procurements
The implementationof the Saudinational spatialdata infrastructurewill require the

services of experts and contractors to provide consultation, computer hardware, software,
communication network tools, training and other services. The procedures for selecting
contractor(s) should be set forth in the RFP document. Different systems, including
servers, graphic users interfaces, communication networks, protocols, programming
interfaces, gateways, encoding, data security, integrity and so forth, are needed for the
Saudi NSDI.
205
This system as a whole needs to be installed and integrated. Also the continuation of the
operation and maintenance of system components based on a clear architectural approach

shouldbe considered.
7.2.1.4 National Spatial Data Policy Document
NCGI, in co-ordination with all participating organisations has the responsibility

for proposing and implementing a national spatial data policy in a number of important
subject areas. The policy requires careful drafting and negotiation. It is essential that the
policy be circulated and agreed to by all the NCGI members, the participating
organisations and the user/producer community before final publication, if they are to have
the desired effect and be of substantial benefit to the users and producers. NCGI will,
therefore, be required to coordinate for discussion and approval of different parts and
sections of the national spatial data policy. The policy document should include guidelines
on spatial data collection, production, access and sharing procedures, copyright, updating,
pricing, security, privacy, education, training and any other issues to
needed achieve a fully
functional SNSDI. It also should include guidelines on what spatial data can be accepted in
the clearinghouse, its accuracy, update, completeness, etc. It also should include
information on metadata and how to find and fill the metadata forms (manually and
electronically), software, communication network tools, maintenance and operation of the

SNSDI. A pricing policy concerning the use of spatial data, clearinghouse service and the
delivery of spatial datasets should be decided. The pricing should be set based on a cost-
benefit analysis that provides provision for investment to the participants. Normally the
government supports initial funding, however the pricing policy should consider the cost
for SNSD system maintenance and operations. However, the NCGI may suggest free
distribution of spatial data. A general policy for the allocation of priorities and resources
for spatial data collection, integration, production and dissemination must be established,
agreed by the NCGI, and included in the national spatial data document. The national
spatial data policy must not be frozen, but will probably change as necessary. It is likely
that these policies will require updating, modification and expansion as the SNSDI
progresses.
206
The priorities, established by the national spatial data policy, must be observed and
followed. The mechanism for appeal against too low priority must be stated in the policy
document and understood. Many countries adopt quite sophisticated priorities programme
in which availability or currency of a particular product is weighted.
In this way, a product whose priority is too low to permit production in a particular year
will gradually in time gain a higher priority, sufficient to get it produced. The Policy
should cover circumstancessuch as somelocal or national emergency,which would cause
a delay or cancellation of the national spatial data infrastructurepriorities in favour of
somecrisis period alternatives.
7.2.1.5 SNSDI Development Office and SNSDI Management

Board
The SNSDI Development Office (SDO) is proposed to develop the infrastructure.

The SDO can be formed from different ministries and firms along with experts and
consultants from private sectors and other institutions. However, according to the Saudi
Council of Ministers Executive Order number 133, the General Commission for Survey
and Mapping (GCSM)) should administrate and manage SDO, up to the operation stage.
The president of GCSM can either delegate or assume the position of director of the SDO.
Under the leadership of GCSM, the SDO will be responsible for the design and
implementation of the SNSDI system. This responsibility should include the delivery,
installation, operation and readiness of hardware, software, operating procedures, funding
and human resources. The SDO should ensure that parallel developments are coordinated,
such as standards, metadata, provision of training, the productions of prototype spatial
data, research & developments and the establishment of a users/producers interface. Also,
SDO should control the performance, schedule and cost of developments. The SDO team
should be drawn from GCSM, other participating organisations and consultant personnel.
The SDO should include a wide variety of expertise including systems hardware and
software engineers, production managers, system operators, facilities engineers, network

analysts, etc. The proposed structure of the SDO is outlined in Figure 7-6.
207
Chapter 7 /'roposalfora Saudi NSDI
Figure 7-6 Structure of the SNSD/ development office.
During the final implementation phase, which will be discussed later, the SDO will
begin to be phased out and be replaced by a SNSDI Management Board (SMB) with the
same staff and within GCSM. The SMB will manage the SNSDI beyond the final
implementation phase (figure 7-15). Managers and supporting staff who had been assigned
to SDO and have no position in the SMB will return to other positions in GCSM that
directly support GCSM and the mission of SNSDI. The majority of these positions are in
three rapidly expanding organisations within GCSM; the General Directorate of Military
Survey (GDMS), the General Directorate of Civilian Survey (GDCS) and the Saudi
National Centre for Geographic Information (SNCGI). Personnel can be added, when
needed, to the SMB, from GCSM and other participating organisations to provide as much
operational continuity of the SNSDI as possible. The SMB should be always at full
complement and constant readiness, to operate, manage and update the SNSDL The
constant attention of this board is necessary to continue the operation, control costs and
maintain balance in allocation of resources to various aspects of the infrastructure.
Training continues to be a requirement, is paramount to the success of SNSDI and applies
equally to new and existing staff.
208
7.2.1.6 Spatial Data User/Producer Community
Spatial data users and producers in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia constitute a very
large community that embraces many disciplines. The numbers are certain to increase
along with economic growth. The user community is composed of all ministries,
organizations and private sector groups that produce and use spatial data. It is essential that
good planning and mutual understanding be put in place, in order for the users and
producers to benefit from the SNSDI.
On the other hand the collection of digital spatial data and the formation and
maintenance of spatial databases, cannot be the sole responsibility of GCSM. Numerous

producers collect spatial data for their specific applications. When such data proves to be
of interest to other users and producers, the collectors are to be encouraged to act as donors
to support the SNSDI. A spatial data donor programme is a vital element of the SNSDI and
must be established from the start of the programme. The president of GCSM should
provide leadership in the establishment and co-ordination of a Spatial Data User/Producer
Community (SDUPC) and a spatial data donor programme, partly through his role as a
chairman of the NCGI and partly as the leader of the national mapping organisation and
main provider of fundamental spatial data for the national spatial data infrastructure.
The aim of the spatial data user/producer community should be defined in the
Royal Decree. The user/producer community should involve all organisations within the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that produce and data and imagery. The SDUPC
use spatial
should interact through the NCGI to form a single voice concerning the national spatial
data interests and thereby participate in the establishment of a consistent national spatial
data policy, including priorities, co-ordination of products, education, spatial data
standards, metadata standards and funds.

The responsibilities accepted by the user/producer community must be declared in
the national spatial data policy document, which must express the precise role of this
community in the overall infrastructure, including responsibilities for conforming to
standards, for donating spatial data to the Saudi NCGI and for providing access to data
held by other organisations through a metadata and catalogue. GCSM must have
confidence in its relationship with the user/producer community and recognise that the
functions and responsibilities of this community forms an important part in the
overall
SNSDI.
209
Chapter 7 Proposal (or a Saudi NSDI
If full operational and economic benefits are to be gained from the creation of
SNSDI, it is vital that mechanisms be in place by which user/producer community
requirements are determined, nationally. This cannot be achieved solely by ensuring that
digital spatial data and other products are in stock, nor by maintaining an accurate database
to support spatial data and GIS activities. The potential users throughout the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia must be aware of the national spatial data infrastructure, its role, functions,
products and capabilities. A positive approach must be taken to explain this new SNSDI's
mission to the nation at large and to promote its function for the greater benefit of the
Kingdom.
Figure 7-7 illustrates the user/producer perspective and their relationship to the
NCGI.
NCGI
Membership co es
Policy Policy
Members of Spatial Data

the NCGI
sers/Producers
Community
Figure 7-7 The user/producer perspective.
Users' requirements are not static; therefore GCSM and other spatial data
producers must pro-actively identify future and emerging user requirements and provide
the essential focus for national requirements to be identified and prioritised in accordance
with the policies set by the NCGI. This activity must be promoted, especially in the early
years of the implementation of the SNSDI, so that spatial data available anywhere may be
made available elsewhere, subject to quality assessment, type, format and security
restrictions on dissemination. This will be of great economic benefit to the whole SNSDI.
210
('hapte-r 7 Proposal fora Saudi 1;S/)l
7.2.1.6.1 User/Producer Interfaces to GCSM
Users must know how to obtain spatial data, as well as aerial photography, satellite
imagery, or any other source data and the various responsibilities accepted. For example,
King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST) should continue to hold
responsibility for satellite imagery, whereas GCSM should remain the controlling authority
for acquisition of all spatial data and aerial photography in the Kingdom and its processing,
storage and copying under policy guidelines, the Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral
Resources (MOP&MR) continue to maintain geological maps and information and the
Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs (MOMRA) should continue to be in control of
cadastral data. However GCSM should integrate, maintain and provide information about
maps of various scales and types, digital spatial data as well as remote sensing data
available from other organisations. The user/producer interaction with GCSM for specific
products and services that are not available from their own organisations is illustrated in
figure 7-8. The figure identifies five major parts to the interface between GCSM and the
spatial data community. This section covers the general interface between GCSM and the
user/producer groups, including the provision of digital and non-digital products and
services. The technical interface will be covered in more detail in section 7.2.5.1 (SNSDI
clearinghouse).
E FOR
atial Data Requests

General
Commission for The
Standards
Survey and _ User/Producer
Mapping Community
(GCSM) Products
_
Product Service-
SPA] Anl. SPA I'IAI.
UA I'ABASI:
Donor Data
Figure 7-8 User/producer Interface with GCSM.
211
The administration interfaces between GCSM and the user/producer community can
be described as follows:
1. The first interface is User/Producer-to-GCSM, where the community makes requests
for standard spatial data products or any special GIS services. The request is
received, checked and prioritised by the SDO using a formal policy and procedures
set up by GCSM and the NCGI. Standard spatial data products that are already
available in the GCSM are then provided to users. Requests for standard spatial data
products not yet available in GCSM are fed into the prioritisation process. GCSM
should also facilitate special ad hoc data sets or a product series conforming to a new
standard. The special services requested may well include the production of complex
presentations or detailed analyses based on varied spatial data held in the GCSM
database as opposed to the mere reproduction of existing data. Through negotiations
with its users, GCSM formulates new products and their specifications that more
efficiently satisfy the mix of user requirements, taking into account the national need
for integrated spatial data. In all of these activities, GCSM coordinates with the
user/producer community and follows the national spatial data policy and the NCGI
guidelines for the optimum use of the Kingdom's spatial data resources.
2. The second interface is GCSM-to-User/Producer, to set up a national spatial data and
metadata standards authority under the Saudi Arabian Standards Organisation

(SASO). This interface addressesthe fundamental national needs for an authority to
set national standards.

3. The third interface is GCSM-to-Users/Producers, to provide them with spatial data
products. This interface will be the most common one, where GCSM provides spatial
data products to approved users who request them. The spatial data products may
include digital spatial data and traditional conventional maps; e.g. topographic maps,
aeronautical or nautical charts, hydrographical charts or any other products.

4. The fourth interface is GCSM-to-Users/Producers, to provide product services and
know-how for the optimum use and development of the user application. This
interface requires GCSM to provide spatial data services or perform spatial analysis
for users who are not equipped or trained to provide it for themselves. This basic
interface can be also used for training on the spatial data hardware and software.
Examples might take the form of a request from a military or civilian firm to GCSM
to carry out terrain analysis, mission planning, road network analysis, wildlife
protection planning, hazard assessment,etc. GCSM can either perform the service
212
Chapter 7 Proposalfora SaudiNSD/
and analysis through its own GIS capability, or by providing qualified GCSM
personnel, who can be stationed temporarily at a user site, or by user personnel using
assets at GCSM while under its supervision and training, or by contracting the
needed services to qualified contractor or organisation.
to offer GCSM some spatial data
5. The fifth interface is Users/Producers-to-GCSM,
collected by the other organisation, which can be made available through the SNCGI
to other parties. This interface is exemplified by an organisation that produces spatial
data useful for other organisations. Rather than requiring the producer to set up a
spatial data sharing mechanism, the design allows the producing organisation to
donate the spatial data to the main SNSDI server at GCSM, thus avoiding either
wasteful duplication elsewhere or attempts to share data in inefficient non-standard

mechanisms and simplify the searching process for the users. Examples might be a
city map or street names produced by MOMRA, geological maps produced by
MOP&MR, or hydrographical charts produced or contracted by the Port Authority.
When accessto the spatial data is provided to GCSM, GCSM will integrate, maintain
and provide Kingdom-wide accessto a variety of spatial data for all approved users.
Organisations that otherwise might have to capture the data, or that would be
ignorant of important pertinent data, should have information as to its existence and
access to the data itself through GCSM. It should be noted that GCSM can provide
management of spatial data, without physically holding it, by acting as a "directory"
to digital spatial data actually stored and administered elsewhere in the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia. To do this, GCSM should provide common metadata and catalogue to
digital spatial data stored in other clearinghouse servers.
7.2.2 Fundamental Spatial Data sets
Chapter 4 revealed that there are huge volumes of digital spatial data in the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which have been collected or are about to be collected by
different ministries and organisations, to be used for their own purposes and applications.
By creating a common core spatial database framework with broad geographic coverage,
as illustrated in figure 7-9, and making it available to all users in the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia through the proposed national spatial data infrastructure, duplication can be
213
Chapter 7 Proposed fi ra 1,5/)l
,SiwI,
avoided. In most countries core spatial data includes both small scale and large-scale
spatial databases (Masser, 1998).
The proposed fundamental Saudi spatial data should include standardised large
scale, medium scale and small scale datasets, formed in and supported by the following
themes and databases; the national geodetic database (including, field surveys, geodetic
control network, gravity and magnetic information), topographic database, aerial

photography/orthophotos database, satellite images/orthoimages database, national
geographic names database, gazetteers, elevation/bathymetry, hydrography, marine and

oceanography database, cadastral, transportation network, political boundaries, vegetation
cover and classification, soil classification, data on education facilities, economic data,
statistical data, photogrammetry, cartography, geology, mineral resources, petroleum,
utilities network (electric, water, gas, telephone, telecommunication), province and
administrative boundaries, biodiversity, climate, tourist information, areas subject to
natural hazard, environmental data, aviation and aeronautical information, etc. The
fundamental spatial datasets should also include other spatial data, which might not
conform to well-known standards, as well as a directory for conventional (paper) products.

Figure 7-9 shows a proposed model for a Saudi interoperable spatial data
environment with user interaction using the Internet, passing through an electronic front
gate to prevent unauthorised accessand data security as discussed in chapter 5.
Users
Small Medium Large
Scale Scale Scale
Maps Maps Maps L1Ns
aJ'
temote Photogr.
sensing
Data
SNCGI
T
E
Aerial ectronic
Main Metadat Front Gate
Photog
Database R
N
levatio
GIS
Data E
Carlo Standards Ot er
Data Data
Users
Work flow management system
Figure 7-9 A model for Saudi national interoperable spatial data environment.
214
Chapter 7 Proposal for a Saudi NSU!
GCSM should design flexible spatial database schemas. The schemas should include
detailed definitions of all the data types that can be stored and managed in the main Saudi
NCGI, as well as other spatial databases. GCSM can make changes to the schema based
on approval of the NCGI. Upon approval, GCSM has the capability to control the creation
and revision of the schemas and other databasesmanagementand control systems.
The design of the databaseschema, quality control methods and other integrity and
topological structures are to be determined during the SNSDI system design phase, which
will be discussed later in this In to

chapter. order ensure quality and integrity of the source
data, GCSM should evaluate spatial data donated by other organisations to determine if it
meets the requirements for use within the Saudi NCGI database.The evaluation criteria are
specific to the nature of the source. The evaluation reports should be maintained in the
source database.
Every spatial data product and databasewill have separatepolicies concerning
updating,duration of archive and so on. This will dependmainly on the natureandvalue of

each data set. Archiving digital spatial data products,as a back up for the on-line spatial
data in the SNSDC, involves placing the data on durablemedia and storing the productsin
a safe and secure facility that is environmentallycontrolled and located away from the
production facility.
7.2.3 Spatial Data Standards
The development and implementation of spatial data standards and metadata
standards are key elements in the successof the SNSDI. Chapter 3 examined and evaluated
existing and emerging spatial data standards, worldwide, for their potential use in the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Also this research, through the General Directorate of Military
Survey (now, the General Commission for Survey and Mapping, GCSM) and the Saudi
Arabian Standards Organisation (SASO) took the lead and initiative, in 1998, in
representing the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on the worldwide International Organisation for
Standardisation, Technical Committee (ISO/TC 211), geographic information/geomatics.
215
Chapter 7 Proposalfor a Saun!NvNut
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has now become a permanent member of ISO/TC
211. Rather than invent new spatial data and metadata standards the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia should adopt the ISO/TC 211 broad standardsand modify them as necessaryfor the
specific needs of the Kingdom and name it "the Saudi National Geographic Information
Standards(SNGIS)". GCSM should play a critical role in nominating and co-ordinating the
selected standards, which are most likely to be the ISO/TC 211 standards. This set of
standards should be announced and enforced by GCSM in agreement with the NCGI
policy and in co-operation and co-ordination with SASO to promote interoperability in
both military and civilian communities and assist the commencement the SNSDI.
7.2.4 Technical Framework
The SNSDI will provide a fundamental framework for the development and
implementation of technologies and technical capabilities and support. The main part of
the technical framework will be a clearinghouse (the SNSDC) that will use a distributed
network system to link all potential spatial data users and producers by a common network,
a proven set of standards, procedures and policies to share and discover spatial data in
SaudiArabia and its condition, contents,structureand accessibilityof the data.
7.2.4.1 Saudi National Spatial Data Clearinghouse Architecture
The proposed SNSDC assumesa distributed spatial data modular network to enable
spatial data integration and facilitate access, process, ordering mechanisms, distribution
and so on. The clearinghouse will provide high-speed physical links between all spatial
data users and producers and can be achieved using the Internet and other local and wide
area networks available within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as shown diagrammatically
in Figure 7-10.
216
(71,111trr 7 Propox i/ /or Gulch %.'; / )/
" Gulf
iyadh
Saudi Arabia
Red
Sea
Arab Sea
Figure 7-10 General concept of the Saudi national spatial data network (SNSDN).
The Saudi national spatial data clearinghouse should be structured using a multi-
tier model architecture. Figure 7-11 shows the proposed model, based on the OGC
solutions discussed in chapter 5. This model architecture includes a first tier (client or user
interface-level), a second tier (services and application-level) and a third tier (database-
level). Each level is connected to the one above or below it using, wherever possible,
standardised software interfaces and protocols. These standard software interfaces permit
the connection of software in a highly distributed environment.
The first-tier represents the user and client software to access and integrate
information provided through interfaces with application services and Web-based GIS
processing services working on remote spatial data. This tier includes components such as
a Web browser, search application and other users capabilities. The client tier employs
interfaces and protocols such as the Hypertext Transport Protocol (http) over TCP/IP to
access the Web Services in the next tier.
217
Chapter 7 Proposal for a Saudi 'Si )!
,
The second-tier in this architecture includes integrative services - services that can
work with, combine, and process remotely accessed data from more than one source.
Software which exists in this tier, generally known as an Application Server includes
distributed World Wide Web (WWW) servers, gateways between http and other protocols
(e. g. Z39.50, Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP)), catalogues of data and services, and
integrative application software that handles user requests and deliver processed
information to the requesting user. This tier may include geo-processing facilities that can
play an important role to search and integrate spatial data from different locations and
perform certain operations, such as transformation, integration, symbolisation, overlay of

different spatial data and deliver it to the user (Nebert, 2001). This tier is connected to the
next one by standardised data access interfaces such as OpenGIS Simple Features SQL and
the pending OGC Web Feature Services.
The third-tier provides accessto data stored in distributed spatial databases.Access
to this tier is provided through standardised data access methods. This tier includes data
source and access services, spatial data, metadata, and catalogues.
First -Tier
Client Tier (User Interfaces)
-"-"-"- ---- Tier Boundary ----------------
Second -Tier
Integration (Application Servers)
-"-"------- Tier Boundary -----------"-"--
Third -Tier
Data Access (Spatial Database,
Metadata and Catalogues),.
_
Figure 7-11 General concept of three-tier architecture for the SNSDC.
218
The metadata is one of the most important components of the SNSDC. The first
step in developing and implementing the clearinghouse is to identify the relevant elements
of the metadata based on the producer and user needs and requirements. Each spatial data
producer or distributor will be required to describe their spatial data in an electronic form
of documentation (metadata) and will publish these descriptions to the clearinghouse
through the Saudi National Spatial Data Network (SNSDN) using standard methods and
protocols. The metadata should describe all existing (and planned) digital spatial data and
related data, in the Kingdom, precisely and concisely in order to provide the primary
interface and interaction between spatial data users and producers and to facilitate spatial
data discovery and sharing in a heterogeneous distributed environment. The metadata
should include elements, capable of answering basic questions, which arise most
commonly from the users. For example; "where can I locate certain type of spatial data,
covering a specific geographic area, containing certain information, last update, cost and
the access conditions? ".
Metadataand spatialdata,whereverpossible,shouldbe storedand maintainedat
the institutions responsible for their collection. As illustrated in figure 7-12, the main
spatial data clearinghouse, with a national metadata, will be the Saudi National Centre for
Geographic Information (SNCGI) and should be built within the General Commission for
Survey and Mapping (GCSM), the Ministry of Defence and Aviation and Inspectorate
General (MODA). Other distributed local clearinghouse servers, with the same architecture
and metadata, should be installed around it, for example within the Ministry of Petroleum
and Mineral Resources (MOP&MR), the Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs
(MOMRA), King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST), the Ministry of
Communications, the National Commission for Wildlife Conservation and Ar Riyadh
Development Authority (ADA).
Figure 7-12 showsa conceptualmodel for the development,discoveryand

disseminationof spatialdatain a web environment.
219
Chapter 7 Proposal for a Saudi NSU/
LDU I
lÄrvu
' Cixiw, r---------------------------
rp
*fij
Läa
L FlKtaxl (I1tp)
Iii satin gVW
V1fdj5 IV
LU ýLRý.
spdd XL Wb Iim scr

La 731M
Lccal 9aNu
WA
1a
Lavl sma
SOW
Dta
Figure 7-12 A conceptual mode! for the Saudi National Spatial Data Clearinghouse (.SNSDI).
The interaction between the Gateway (controller), shown in figure 7-12, and the
distributed catalogue services would probably use the ISO 23950 (ANSI Z39.50) protocol
or http if an http implementation is standardised by the time of implementation.

SNSDI should anticipate the deployment of web mapping services in gateway
environments or at the spatial data sites. The Web Mapping Services should take remote
data and apply symbolisation rules to generate quick and detailed maps, as GIF or JPEG
files, from raw data sources. Many users would benefit from the access to the maps as
georeferenced pictures, though some users will still require direct access to the raw GIS
data sources in their applications.
220
The SNCGI should be structured and well equipped to handle and maintain a
central spatial databasesfor the whole Kingdom. To achieve that, the SNCGI should
support enough spatial data servers, communication network, interfaces, protocols and a
powerful search engine(s) to allow users to search the spatial databasesquickly and
efficiently.
To prepare seamless interoperable spatial data services in the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia, the OpenGIS Consortium (OGC) Simple Features Specification, spatial data
servers, interfaces, test beds and other tools and services are considered important for the
implementation of the SNSDI. Moreover the latest and powerful web browser and search
engine technology, discussed in chapter 5, which presents search results in several

languages and different formats should be considered. Also user interfaces and the
Internet-based GIS supporting technologies and services, such the CGI, API, Plug-ins,
helper program, Active X control and Java technology should be used in the SNSDI. In the
meantime Intergraph GeoMedia Web Map, ESRI Arc Internet Mapping System (ArcIMS),
Maplnfo MapXtreme, AutoDesk MapGuide and other systems should be more carefully
evaluated, tested and used as the SNSDI progresses.

The SNCGI systemshould also provide policies and proceduresfor accessingthe
dataand provide a dataformat conversionmechanism.
The proposed clearinghouse technology should be specified and deployed widely at
all levels (government and private) in the Kingdom. GCSM will be the main focal point for
the introduction of a new technologies and new capabilities within the overall SNSDI
strategy. The clearinghouse system should be implemented using available technologies to

allow the user to access graphic and non-graphic datasets directly by using metadata
standards. However the type and specification of the tools and technologies, needed for the
SNSDC, must be stated clearly and in detail in the Request For Proposal (RFP), which
should be prepared by GCSM in co-ordination with the NCGI and other participating
organisations.
All clearinghouse servers within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia should be logically
identical and the search facilities should be capable of performing a single pass search of
all servers instead of requiring the user to select server(s) from a list of ministries and
organisations, or to search all servers one by one. The clearinghouse system should be
capable of handling all users' queries by receiving queries and passing them to the gateway
web server, where they will be processed and the user's authority (user name, password
and other verifications) checked. The clearinghouse should be capable of building a users
221
profile from this data and the queries themselves. Then, each server will simultaneously
search its own metadata to find out whether it contains data meeting the user's search
criteria. Each clearinghouse server may include metadata as well as the spatial data, or
sometimes just the metadata. The clearinghouse gateway will then collect all results from
each clearinghouse server and summarise and return them as Hypertext Markup Language
(HTML) or Extensible Markup Language (XML) documents to the user as titles of
metadata entries. When the user selects one of the resulting headlines, he/she will be able
to access the full descriptive metadata entry. Reference to how the data can be accessedor
mapped will be stored in the full metadata as one or Uniform Resource Locators (URL).
The user may `click' on these URLs to map or download the data. The clearinghouse query
parameters, tools, accessesmechanism and downloading capabilities should be developed
carefully and clearly stated and documented in the national spatial data policy document as
well as the request for proposal document.
7.2.5 An Alternative Model for the SNSDI

Institutional Framework
Section 7.2.1 discussed in detail the building of an institutional framework to co-
ordinate and lead the development and implementation of a Saudi national spatial data
infrastructure. It must be emphasised that a national mapping body is designated by the
government to lead the development of the Saudi national spatial data infrastructure. This
section also proposed the establishment of six specific new arrangements and institutional
structuresfor the SNSDI. They were:
" Royal Decree (High Executive Order).
" National Committee for Geographic Information (NCGI).
" Organisational Framework.
" National Spatial Data Policy (NSDP).
" SNSDI Development Office (SDO) and SNSDI Management Board (SMB).
" Spatial Data Users/ Producers Community (SDUPC).
222
Chapter 7 Proposalfor a Saudi NSDI
It is to be hoped that such an integrated approach with logically centralised control

but with a distributed clearinghouse structure would be the most successful in the Saudi
situation. If, for any reason, the above arrangements and models do not succeed, are
delayed, or deemed inappropriate, then the following alternative model could be proposed.
This alternative owes much to the UK system of private enterprise development of a
disseminated spatial data approach where developments outside government lead to
integration through business necessity and market development, with data warehouses and
clearinghouses being constructed according to subject themes. This model allows mapping
organisations access to all types of data from the individual providers classified according
to their data types and format. For example, cadastral, topographical, geological, remote
sensing, etc. Figure 7-13 outlines the co-ordination and integration of various modules and
systems centred around a directory of all spatial data producers.
A client web server should be established and all spatial data producer are invited
to list information about their products on the web, and the requirements and mechanisms
to get those products. Then the users have to contact the spatial data holder directly and
each organisation disseminate its spatial data separately. This process should include
information about standardised and non standardised digital spatial data as well as
conventional products and should provide a mechanism for converting any existing non
standardised formats into standard or specific data formats based on the user's request.
This alternative would be roughly equivalent to that presently being provided on a
somewhat experimental level by the AGI initiative (AskGiraffe website) in the UK.
The critical problem with this alternative, which makes it the second choice for the
Saudi situation, is the difficulty of controlling data currency and the management of the
updating process for spatial data controlled by numerous different supplier systems.
Adherence of all producers to the same standards might well be a serious problem. Also
the chance of successful integration and utilisation of interoperable spatial data is more
difficult owing to the decentralised and amorphous nature of the project, but this model is
perhaps a more secure model for producers as they continue to be responsible for their own
data. In contrast, the first proposal is more easily controlled and developed, and can be
made directly beneficial to the whole Saudi population. The Royal backing also provides a
very positive impetus to help development proceed as opposed to the somewhat "ad hoc"
arrangements otherwise necessarily undertaken.
223
Chapter 7 Proposal for u kwdý S. 1'/ U
. .
Client web Search for Spatial Data

server that list Firms
all Spatial Data Response of
Producers and what is available
their link and where
Standardised I
Spatial Data Request
Products Spatial
spatial data
I Data
end applicatior
Spatial data Producer Services
to Users
r
Directory for Standardised Non Non
Conventional Products Standardised Standard
Products P Data
Figure7-13 An Alternative Mode/ for the Saudi National Spatial Data Directory.
The following diagram (figure 7-14) summarises the components of the proposed Saudi
national spatial data infrastructure in the first model.
Figure 7-14 Summary of the Saudi NSDI components /Source: AI-Shahrani, 2001 b/.
224
Chapter 7 Proposal/or a SaudiNSDI
73 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND

INPLEMEMTATION PHASES
The SNSDI system development and implementation process depends on a high-

level decision support, institutional framework, standards, technologies, policies,
distributed network, funds, human resources and development of partnerships among
spatial data users and producers. However obtaining the Royal decree and the formation of
the National Committee for Geographic Information (NCGI) will be the main driving force
for developing and implementing the supporting tools for the SNSDI system.
This research recognises that it is crucial to have a full and complete understanding
of user requirements before committing to any system design and implementation plan. It
also recognises that users cannot state meaningful requirements in a vacuum. Many users,
particularly those with no or little digital spatial data experience or facilities cannot
articulate accurate requirements. Therefore, it is important to create prototype spatial
datasets and develop pilot spatial data infrastructure capabilities, raise awarenessand carry
out demonstrations to help the users and assist them to state their requirements accurately.
These efforts are termed early implementations and intermediate implementations phases,
which will be developed in parallel with the system design activities and will be discussed,
along with other phases, in the following section.
7.3.1 SNSDI SystemDevelopment
The proposed Saudi national data infrastructure system developmentconsists of

four phases; the Concept Phase, the Design Phase, the Implementation Phase and the
Operation Phase. An overview of each phase is discussed as follows:
7.3.1.1 Concept Phase
The conceptphasedefines the Saudi national spatial data infrastructure functional

requirements and structure. It identifies the participating organisations, their roles and
responsibilities and the way in which they relate to each other. This phase also identifies
the functions that contribute to the overall infrastructure. The concept phase should
225
Chapter 7 Proposa/jor a SaudiNSDI
produce a suite of documents, including development of standards-basedRFP, to facilitate

the acquisition of an appropriate SNSDI hardware and software system that collect,
produce, integrate, manage, discover and disseminate the required spatial data. It is
important that all participating ministries and organisations are involved in the planning
and procurement of hardware and software, so that costs are minimised. The management
of the concept phase should be handled by GCSM and other participating organizations, in
close co-ordination with the NCGI.
7.3.1.2 Design Phase
During this phase, appropriate experts should prepare engineering designs and
detailed plans for both a preliminary and a detailed design. Functional requirements should
be refined and resources allocated for distributed network, hardware, software, operations
and human resources. In this phase, also, the spatial data products, procedures, formats,
spatial data standards, metadata standards, exchange standards to translate existing digital
spatial data into the new required standard format, and other tools and service will be
defined. GCSM and all other participating organisations should participate in all design
functions and ratify the final documentation.
At the preliminary design level, the functional requirements should be traced to
testable engineering requirements, then to a detailed design level. The detailed design
activities should result in hardware and software specifications, operating procedures,

detailed management plans, installation, testing and acceptance requirements. GCSM
should manage the process of the design phase through co-operative efforts of other
participating organisations, consultants, contractors and the user/producer community. A
draft standards and prototype spatial data products document conforming to a draft
standards should be prepared as an early implementation of the Saudi national spatial data
infrastructure. Feedback on the draft standards and the prototype data should be gathered
by hosting meetings and seminars that involve users and producers. The feedback should
be in the form of:
1. User reactions to the draft standards and the prototype products in terms of data
content, coverage, accuracy, format, structure, media, user friendliness and so forth.
2. Suggestions for improvement or alternative spatial data products.
3. Suggestionson the creationof a distributedversuscentralisedelectronically
226
connected network servers and the location of each server.

Shortcomings discovered in the design process should be used to correct inadequate or
inappropriate requirements and faulty engineering design or detailed design. The process
should be iterated in the implementation phase.
7.3.1.3 Implementation Phase
The implementation phase is of major importance in providing feedback to enhance
the design of the SNSDI system and strengthen the user/producer interface mechanisms.
The implementation phase overlaps with the design and operation phases, as shown in
figure 7-14 and is divided into three successivephasesor stages,as follows:
1. The early implementation (prototype) phase, which consists of spatial data
integration, of limited scope and complexity on selected framework categories,
starts early in the design phase. The purpose of this phase is to promote and test
spatial data sharing procedures, set priorities, guide the standardisation of spatial
data products and their encoding, stimulate the growth of a user/producer
community, establish metadata publishing and search services, spatial data access
services and a user interface, provide an environment for the development of

necessary human resources and provide feedback to the design process. Initial
programmatic and technical coordination between various members of the
user/producer community should be incorporated into the early implementation
phase. The early implementation, as well as the design phase, should be built upon
the existing GCSM and other participants' capabilities to minimise the costs and
delays associated with new hardware, software and other new techniques and
requirements and to demonstrate a readiness to start building the SNSDI. It is also

noted that the SNSDI should be compatible with global standards wherever
possible, to minimise cost in systems development, maximise compatibility with
adjacent SDIs, and exploit commercial software solutions in lieu of constructing
special solutions.
The early implementationphaseshouldalso include the following activities:
a. Identification of digital spatial data sets (standardised and non standardised)
available in other organisations within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
b. Collection and integration of digital spatial data and metadata, donated by
other organisations.
227
c. Conversion of the donated data set into standard structures and formats and
creation of metadata for these data to document their data content and
characteristics.
d. Distribution of a second prototype of the spatial data and metadata for user
evaluation.
e. Promoting experimentaland systematicuse of the spatial data analysis in
support of users' missions.

f. Assisting usersto exploit the spatialdatathroughthe technologytransfer,
and other technical assistance.
g. Collecting user second feedback in the form of:
- Suggestions for improvement in spatial data content
- Suggestions
for improvementin data structuresand standards
Suggestions for improvements in spatial data user friendliness and utility.
-
Suggestions for improvement in the network and spatial data exchange
-
procedures.
2. The intermediate implementation phase is associated with a steady build-up in
the activities started in the early implementation phase and incorporates suggestions
and lessons learned in the design phase. This phase includes testing of hardware,
software, delivery, installation and small runs of the SNSDI system on a spatial
data prototype. Prototype products, standards, tools, services, and an initial set of
standardised products and techniques should be selected based on users' input and
evaluations of the spatial data. During this phase the Saudi NCGI should start to
disseminate and announce the availability of national spatial data through its Web-
basedClearinghousemechanisms.
3. The final implementation phaserefersto the achievementof the full operating
capability of the entire SNSDI system. This includesthe constructionof necessary

facilities, final selectionand installation of hardware,software,network, interfaces
protocols, integration, training, recruitment, site acceptance, system testing and
system initialisation. If several contractors are involved in the SNSDI system
development, their equipment must be integrated in this phase according to the
plans made in earlier phases. The implementation phase, as well as the transition,
which will take place during the final implementation phase, will be managed by
the SNSDI Development Office (SDO). This phase will also need to address issues
of data privacy, security, fees, and internal and external access. The availability of
228
Chapter 7 Proposal. for a Sandi NSF)!
.
spatial data and metadata to the public in addition to participating government and
academic organisations, for a fee or at no cost, may provide opportunities for
economic development, analysis of development and planning alternatives, and
other applications suited to helping to diversify the economy of the Kingdom.

At the end of the implementation phase, the benefits and capabilities of the SNSI)I must be
advertised widely in order to raise awarenessand allow the SNSDI to benefit all users.
7.3.1.4 Operation Phase
The operation phase refers to the routine satisfaction of the users and producers
requirement to access and share standard spatial data products and services rapidly and
responsively through the Saudi national spatial data clearinghouse. This assumes that all
previous phases and activities are properly executed and adequate levels of staffing, state
of production, maintenance and dissemination of spatial data have been attained.

Receiving and integrating donated spatial data will continue during the operation
phase. Also, system evaluation and training of personnel will continue to ensure the
necessary long-term base of qualified Saudi staff and research and development activities.
Figure 7.15 shows the system development phases and management stages under the
guidance of the NCGI.
Concept
Study
Prelim inaryl Detailed
Implementation Phase
Final
F Early Intermediate
Lnetations
Phase
CCS M SUO
M anagement M anagement
SI)0 SM1I It
and SDO fit-M and 1'.
anagemen t
Development Transition X11anaKement
TIME
Figure 7-15 The SNSDI system Development and Management Phases
229
7.3.2 SNSDI Security Policy
By the nature of its work, GCSM will be the custodian of an enormous quantity of
digital spatial data, critical to the SNSDI and to national security. The main databasein the
SNCGI will contain most of digital spatial data produced by GCSM and other participating
organisations and therefore a clear policy for national spatial data security must be
established to control and protect spatial data from unauthorised user access, e.g. by
software, user name, password, firewalls, encryption, authentication and other means, as
discussed in chapter 5. The security policy arrangement must also cover Virtual Private
Networks (VPN) and physical security issues. The Saudi National Centre for Geographic
Information, which contains the main national spatial database and the clearinghouse
server at GCSM, must be installed in physically secure quarters in accordance with the
security policy. The system must provide for safety against accidental loss of, and
intentional damage to, subsystems or data. The same security policy must be applied also
to spatial data and clearinghouse systems held by other participating organisations.
Spatial data is of critical importance to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The managements
of infrastructure, agriculture, environment, education, healthcare, transportation, assistance

to private industries, and natural and human resources for the benefit of the Saudi
economy, are supported directly or indirectly by spatial data. Also spatial data are critical
to national security and defence.
Many different organisationsin the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia collect, produce,
maintain, and use valuable digital and non digital spatial data. However, the Kingdom
lacks a national spatial data infrastructure; a common problem to many countries in the
world. Without a national spatial data infrastructure, individual organisations are forced to
create isolated paths of development, technology and effort in collecting and producing
spatial data that may already exist in other organisations, but are not known or cannot be
accessed or shared. The consequenceis inefficiency and increased cost in the investment in
hardware and software and effort by multiple organisations and loss of ability to share and
control spatial data. It is therefore necessaryto co-ordinate all the Saudi efforts being made
230
for spatial data collection, production, maintenance and dissemination through the
development of a strategy for a national spatial data infrastructure (SNSDI). The SNSDI is
designed to bring the benefits of spatial data and geographic information system
technologies to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom now is in a unique and
enviable position to establish the national spatial data infrastructure. Highly developed,
low-risk technology is currently available; mature hardware, software and communication
network tools have been extensively tested and implemented throughout the world and new
processes and services are being developed, which can be easily adopted and incorporated
into the SNSDI as it evolves.

This research appreciates and recognises the large digital spatial data assets that
have been collected, produced and maintained within the CSMA, Ministry of Defence and
Aviation (MODA), the Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources (MOP&MR), the
Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs (MOMRA) and King Abdulaziz City for Science
and Technology (KACST), as well as other ministries and government and non-
government organisations. These assets will be used as the nucleus of the Saudi national
spatial data infrastructure.

Moreover, this researchappreciatesthat the Council of Ministers Executive Order
number 133, forming the GeneralCommission for Surveyand Mapping (GCSM), has been
a big step towards the establishmentof the SNSDI and will hastenthe creation of the
institutional framework and fundamentaldatasetsrequired.It is envisagedthat GCSM will
assume a predominant role in developing a Kingdom-wide spatial data databaseand a
leadership role in establishing a SNSDI capability in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Building the first implementationof a national spatial data infrastructurefor a country as
large and extensive as Saudi Arabia is not an easytask. It is, rather, a task that requires
high level governmentsupport, leadership,core spatial data, planning, co-ordination, co-
operation, accessmechanisms, including the privacy and security, communication links,
technology, policies, procedures, standards, metadata, human resources, a positive

partnership involving all spatial data users and producersin the Kingdom and critically,
funds (from the government,industries,partnershipandusers).
The developmentof Saudi national spatial data standardsand technical framework
need seriousefforts and work. The GCSM and other participating organisations,under the
umbrella of NCGI should lead this and raise awareness of the SNSDI. This can be
accomplished through publication, seminars, workshops, TV programs, general education

and training processes. However, the educational institutions must also play an important
231
role in promoting the infrastructure. Demonstration and pilot projects are a very effective
way of promoting SNSDI. Joint ventures with manufacturers of software and hardware
would invariably contribute to the promotion of SNSDI by demonstrating spatial data
capabilities to users and producers.
232
Chapter8 Final Summaryand ConcludingRemarks
CHAPTER 8
FINAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING
REMARKS
8.1 INTRODUCTION
The quality of life of a nation depends to a great extent on that nation's ability to
develop and maintain the components of its infrastructure, such as education, healthcare,
electricity, water, gas, communication, telecommunication, road networks and so on.

Currently a significant new component of infrastructure is emerging, which is the national
spatial data infrastructure. A major challenge to developed nations is the viable integration
of spatial data with existing social, economic and environmental activities. This integration
can only be enabled through sound and informed implementation of a strategy for a spatial
data infrastructure managedat a national level ratherthan individual or local levels.
This researchwas initiated in October 1998 to develop a theoreticalstrategyfor a

national spatial data infrastructureand was intendedto be not only a piece of researchfor a
PhD degreebut also a practical plan to develop a real and comprehensivestrategyfor a
national spatial data infrastructurefor the Kingdom of SaudiArabia in supportof its needs
to
and requirements continue building its
and maintaining other It
infrastructures. is hoped
that the new strategy presented here will overcome the deficiencies of the current
mechanismsfor spatial data sharing in the Kingdom, get individual organisationsto work
together and share common spatial data, thereby decreasingthe overall investment in
hardware,software data collection, production and avoiding wasteful duplication of effort,
money and time.
This chapterdraws the researchto a conclusion;reviews the researchin relation to
the aims and objectives statedin the introduction given in Chapter 1 and highlights what
the researcher has achieved in theoretical terms. Section 8.2 summarises the major
findings, and the researchendswith a note on implementationproblems that leads to the
potential for further research in section 8.3.
233
Chapler 8 Final Summary and Concluding Remarks
8.2 MAJOR FINDINGS AND SUMMARIES
This research project is probably the first initiative to investigate and evaluate all
the main components of a spatial data infrastructure and summarise worldwide activities
and initiatives in this field in an effort to develop the conceptual framework for a national
spatial data infrastructure, and also present the proposed Saudi National Spatial Data
Infrastructure (SNSDI).
Figure 8-1 shows an overview of the structure and interrelations of the eight chapters
that forms this thesis, were chapter I and 2 set the thesis framework, chapter 3,5 and 6 highlight
and provide the spatial data standards, technical framework and institutional issues needed for the
Saudi national spatial data infrastructure (chapter 7). In the meantime chapter 4 provides a
framework for the Saudi spatial datasets.
Sharing (Benefits and Problems)
Spatial Data The SearchFor ä'

Standards(World Spatial Data
Wide Initiatives) Clearinghouse
A Proposal for Saudi
(Chapter 3) im 1el(SDI World
National Spatial Data Wide Initiatives)
Infrastructure (Chapter 6)
(Chapter 7) ,.,..,,
Annex I
and Web Mapping rutai J1LII1CUJ`""` Current 'Statusof

Services Concluding Remarks Mapping Activities
(Chapter 5) (Chapter 8) in the KSA
Figure 8-I The structure and interrelations of the eight chapters and two annexes.
At the end of each chapter specific concluding remarks have been drawn in a
summary. In this chapter a brief outline of those findings is presented as thllows:
234
8.2.1 Worldwide Efforts
During the past three decades many worldwide survey and mapping organisations
collect, produce and maintain digital spatial data independently and indifferent formats and
structures. However, when the time was ripe to share and exchange spatial data, most of
these activities have encountered serious formatting and structuring problems and
obstacles, causing severe limitations in spatial data sharing and resulting in redundancy of
data and increased cost for spatial data collection, processing, management, storage,
analysis and updating.

Some of the data sharing problems were due to heterogeneity arising from the fact
that different applications - and some people - have different views of reality (the real
world), as a result of differences in contexts of application, each having its own syntax,
schema and semantic heterogeneities. To solve these technical problems of spatial data
sharing, many initiatives to develop spatial data transfer standards from a large number
of countries and independent organisations have been undertaken over the last two decades
as a way of improving spatial data transfer, access and sharing between a wider range of
users and producers.
However, the need has increasedfor more structured and interoperabledigital
spatial data for sharing on-line and at international, national and regional levels to help
strengthen and improve social, economic, political and environmental activities as well as
the security and defence of nations. Therefore, a growing number of more comprehensive
spatial data standards and metadata standards activities and initiatives have been
conducted throughout the world in an environment that links the spatial data standards and
information technology (IT) standards to create common structured and standardised
spatial data products. Currently, ISO/TC 211 dominates the field of developing more
structured and comprehensive spatial data standards and metadata standards. Together with
the OpenGIS Consortium (OGC) they form the most innovative and technically competent
organisations that offer very promising standards, interfaces, features, test beds and other
tools for enabling interoperable spatial data activities in heterogeneous environments.
Moreover the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
(UNCED), held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992, which discussed environmental
deterioration and established the basis of a sustainable way of life in the next century
(Agenda 21) acknowledged that the availability of spatial data is critical for environmental
235
decision-making and provides one measure to help protect the atmosphere and prevent
pollution. This summit has been considered the first step in the development of spatial
data infrastructures.
But most of the problems with spatial data over the years were associated with and
inherited by the building of spatial data infrastructures. Foe example, heterogeneity
problems, lack of spatial data standards and other various problems, have been mainly
attributed to lack of funding, high level support, availability of reliable, accurate and
updated digital spatial data sets, expertise, effective systems, policies, co-operation,
technologies, communication networks and the commitments of spatial data producers to
participate.
In addition there have been debates over charges imposed on spatial data by
distributors and data custodians, legal issues such as copyright, security and most
importantly, the tendency for some organisations to see spatial data as their own property,
over which they have sole authority and their consequent unwillingness to share it freely
with others. It is clear that installing a national spatial data infrastructure would not be
feasible without resolving institutional, fundamental dataset and technical issues. Therefore
most worldwide spatial data infrastructure initiatives grouped the main components of
building an SDI into four items; spatial data standards, institutional frameworks,
fundamental data set, and technical framework. These four components form the pillars of
any SDI initiative.

Moreover, the current rapid development of the Internet, web mapping and World
Wide Web (WWW) technologies and services has became an important technical issues to
be considered in the development and implementation of a national spatial data
infrastructures. The Internet has become the de facto communication medium for the
spatial data user/producer community and has changed the way of searching for and
sharing spatial data. Most, possibly all, proposed spatial data infrastructures around the
world have now suggested the use of the Internet as a main backbone to enable the rapid
and successful development and implementation of national spatial data infrastructure, to
provide successful communication between multiple computer platforms from different
manufacturers and to encourage many organisations to provide their spatial data to large
numbers of users on the WWWW. Several good tools and technologies, thereafter, have
been developed to build and facilitate spatial data and GIS applications on the Internet.
Among those tools are specialised servers, Common Gateway Interface (CGI), Application
Programming Interface (API), GIS Plug-ins, GIS helpers, Microsoft Active X, Java, and
236
Chapter 8 Final Summaryand ConcludingRemarks
others. Moreover most GIS vendors have developed Internet tools and services for
interactive spatial data functions and Internet-based GIS. Examples, the Intergraph, ESRI,
AutoDesk and Maplnfo. However, the increasing demand for the Internet services
increases the security hazards for many data providers and users. Therefore, a number of
issues concerning security awareness and appropriate measures have been discussed at the
end of chapter 5.
Most present worldwide spatial data infrastructure initiatives (government
initiatives, as well as initiative that are driven by private sectors), discussed in chapter 6,
are similar in terms of their approaches and components and use the United States of
America NSDI as a model. The U. S. national spatial data infrastructure has acted as a
pioneer, is now well developed and has been recognised as a worldwide leader. The other
well-developed initiatives are the ANZLIC in Australia and New Zealand, the NCGI in the
Netherlands, the CGDI in Canada and the Charter of UK Strategic Alliance in the United
Kingdom. However, the researcher expects the United Kingdom latest initiative (the
Charter of the UK Strategic Alliance) to be one of the best NSDI becauseof the small size
of the country, the availability of good, reliable and comprehensive spatial data at large,
medium and small scales, as well as the support of most of spatial data providers in the
UK, spatial data integrators, hardware and software providers, application service
providers and the Government. It would be beneficial for the Saudi NSDI developers and
decision makers to keep in close contact with the developers and institutions involved with
those initiatives as well as the vendors and providers of related technologies and services.
Finally, it has been concluded that the successin developing and implementing
spatial data infrastructuredependson the successof its clearinghouse.Clearinghousesare
categorisedinto three different types (centralised,distributed and hybrid) each having its
own advantagesand disadvantagesas discussedin chapter6.
8.2.2 Saudi NSDI
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a member of the worldwide digital spatial data
community. It has been influenced by ongoing technological developments and follows

similar paths in developing its digital spatial data capabilities as the rest of the world.
Saudi Arabia has carried out hundreds,if not, thousandsof spatial data projects in
support to its infrastructureand strategicplans,which resultedin a large volume of digital
237
spatial data, non digital data, aerial photography, satellite images, geodetic data,
geographic names and so on. Most of the available digital spatial data in Saudi Arabia were
current, accurate and produced using a number of reliable spatial data standards. The data
is maintained in a proper environment. It covers the whole Kingdom on medium and small
scalesand most cities on large scales.

There are also future plans to produce a variety of digital spatial data, including
digital topographic maps at a scale of 1:50,000 covering the whole Kingdom. There are
highly developed hardware, software and communicating networks available. Most
importantly, all respondents to the researcher's questionnaire fully supported the
development and implementation of a strategy for a national spatial data infrastructure in
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and willing to be part of it and wanted to use the ISO/TC
211 standards. On the other hand, the results of the survey questionnaire (chapter 4 and
Annex I and II) indicated that as yet there are duplications in spatial data collection and
production; the co-ordination and sharing of spatial data is per minimal.

All these factors highlight the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's urgent need to
implement the proposed SNSDI. Without a national spatial data infrastructure, the
available spatial data will not be properly shared and managed on a national level and
individual Saudi survey, mapping and GIS organisations will continue working separately,
which will increased cost of spatial data collection and production and prevent users from
accessing and sharing variety of different types of spatial data easily.

It is thereforeproposedthat a Saudinational spatialdata infrastructureis developed
and implementedto co-ordinateall the Saudiefforts being madefor spatialdatacollection,
production, maintenanceand dissemination.The scopeof the Saudi national spatial data
infrastructure covers four main components;institutional framework, fundamental data
sets, spatial data standardsand technical framework, which form the building blocks for
the developmentand implementationof the proposedSNSDI. To developthe SaudiNSDI
two models have beenproposedto build an institutional frameworkto co-ordinateand lead
the developmentand implementationof a Saudinational spatialdatainfrastructure.
The first model discussed six specific arrangements and institutional structures for
the SNSDI. They are: Royal Decree, National Committee for Geographic Information
(NCGI), Organisational Framework, National Spatial Data Policy (NSDP), SNSDI
Development Office (SDO) and SNSDI Management Board (SMB) and Spatial Data
Users/ Producers Community (SDUPC). This model proposes that the General
Commission for Survey and Mapping (GCSM) manage and control the SNSDI, in line
238
with the Council of Ministers Executive Order number 133. The Executive Order gave
GCSM a predominant role in developing a Kingdom-wide spatial data database and a
leadership role in establishing a SNSDI capability in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
However an alternative model is proposed. The alternative model suggestedthat the
SNSDI can be developed within each mapping organisation and supported by a centralised
directory for all spatial data producers. The metadata and spatial data would be maintained
by the organisations separately according to data types and format (e.g., cadastral,
topographical, geological, remote sensing, etc). The alternative model would be difficult to
control, update, and manage. Also structured and interoperable spatial data integrations
will be impossible, but it is more secure it terms of protecting a producer's data.
The alternative model could be proposedas an addition to the main model and is
unlikely ever to be implementedon its own. But there may be situationswhere the main
thrust of the SNSDI is assistedby private commercialdevelopments.This should not be
discouragedas long as the standardsrequired for the SNSDI are maintained by other
cooperatingbodies.
It is therefore, recommendedthat the first model proposal is implementedfor the
building of the SNSDI and that the Saudi Council of Ministers issued Executive Order
number 133, dated 23d July 2001, be followed very closely. The Executive Order is a big
step towards the implementation of the SNSDI and will support the creation of the
institutional framework and fundamental data sets much more quickly and easily. In the
meantime various systems, technologies, standards and communication networks and

services discussed and analysed in this research are considered in the development and
implementation of the proposed SNSDI. These include:
1. Worldwide effort and experience in the field of spatial data infrastructures and
It
clearinghouses. is recommendedthat the distributed clearinghousesystems,as in
the U. S. be used as a first choice. In the U.S. the decentralisedmodel has worked
well, after initial problemswith server"holes" in the network. The U.S. approachhas
the benefit of being quite fault tolerantthroughhaving over 200 serverstransparently
acting as both data providers and in many casesmirrors. In Saudi Arabia similar
conditions apply, although presently on a more limited scale. The hybrid
clearinghousestructureoutlined in chapter6 is recommendedas a secondchoice.
2. The OpenGIS Consortium (OGC) efforts, specifications, spatial data servers,
interfaces, test beds, and other OGC tools and services. However, the OGC standards
are industry driven and may not be useful in a Saudi context by themselves.
239
3. The ISO/TC211 broad band spatial data standards and metadata standards so that
Saudi Arabia can join the world in terms of data sharing and exchange in the future.
If no nationally applied international standards are introduced to the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia the drawbacks will be great. Spatial data users and producers will not
be able to successfully share data, make a clearinghouse of any type, or know what
data might be available in the Kingdom owing to disparate querying approaches and
metadata provision.
4. The Internet, the latest and powerful web browser and searchengine technology,
which present search results in several languages and different formats, as well as
user interface and Internet-based GIS supporting technologies and services,
mentioned above in section 8.2.1. These highly developed, low-risk systems and
technologies are currently available and have been extensively tested and
implemented throughout the world and would be easily adoptedand incorporated
into the SNSDI as it evolves. The Saudi NSDI should use the Internet network
initially to promote the basic concept of an NSDI by means of web information
pages and links to international good practice, and foster the formation of discussions
groups amongst potential participants. The Saudi clearinghouse should contain only
metadata during the first stage of the infrastructure project with spatial datasets
supplied by the producers on their own servers. This will minimise the administrative
load in setting up the national system compared with attempting to warehouse all the
data at a national site or sites. The initial metadata gateway will use the open Internet
as a test vehicle for setting up a full scale clearinghouse while critical reliability
issues of Internet network availability, speed and security are investigated. At the
same time it should be possible to incorporate flexibly the feedback from discussion
groups amongst the Saudi spatial data community to determine the best use of the
Internet structure to access the spatial data clearinghouse and to decide on the
numberof nodesneededin a fully operationalfailsafe system.

5. Security is a major problem, both in terms of access to metadata and to the data
themselves. One approach would be to rely on software security at the gateways,
which can be very effective, but not perhaps to the professional hacker. Another
growing alternative is the use of either private lines or virtual private networks
(VPNs) using high level encryption tunnels between sites. The latter is more
computing intensive, but cheaper to implement and more flexible than secure private
240
lines. The development of VPNs may be a very useful feature of the communication
system within the distributed clearinghousenodes.
8.2.3 Final lote
This research provides a framework of ideas, components, benefits, techniques,
awareness, and methods towards the development of a strategy for a national spatial data
infrastructure designed for implementation within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The
research contains a large number of concepts and basic requirements for the
implementation of a SNSDI. However, theoretical research alone will not be enough to
build all the components of the infrastructure and solve all matters, as the field of building
NSDI is very large and complex, especially for a country as large and extensive as the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is, -rather, a task that requires a great deal of effort, funds,
human resources, co-operation and, most importantly, commitment from all spatial data
producers and users in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Until now, most of the worldwide spatial data infrastructures initiatives are still at
the theoretical and research stage. The theory expounded in this research must be put into a
real world practical application to provide benefits and services to the modern Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia and its people and enable the creation of Saudi national virtual spatial data
communities.
Finally, the researcher has proposed that the Saudi national spatial data
infrastructure is achievablefrom both technical and managementperspectives.However,
he feels that there will be a need to continue the researcheffort as discussedin the
following section.
8.3 FUTURE WORK
The study of spatial datainfrastructuresis a new subjectthat has emergedin the last
decade. There is an exciting and promising future for national spatial data infrastructures,
which will be influenced by what the future challenging technologies bring to us. The
vision of the Saudi national spatial data infrastructure should keep looking ahead and
241
should go beyond the implementation and continue research and development works. At
this time the following issues will need further research:
1. Continue the efforts to promote the SNSDI, first within the General Commission for
Survey and Mapping (GCSM) and subsequently throughout various ministries within
the government, to ensure the correct start towards the implementation of this
initiative.
2. Design a generalmodel for the SNSDI and completethe formalisation and funding
of this initiative.
3. Evaluate and analyse spatial data networks and servers (nodes), especially fibre
optics, portable communications, intelligent spatial data links, commercial spatial

data servers, and neural networks.
4. Explore further the Location Based Services (LBS) and the issues attached to LBS,
such as privacy and authenticity.

5. Investigate mechanisms and techniques that enable automatic update of medium and
large-scale maps from high-resolution remote sensing data.
6. Develop a geodeticreferenceframework and explore differential GPS,active control
systems,and real time GPS and what the impact of thesetechnologiesand services
will be on the SNSDI.
7. Evaluate how will the SNSDI can take advantage of the growing capability of
artificial intelligence, smart databases,and virtual reality.

8. It will be necessary to investigate further how spatial data and NSDI will change the
way commerce is structured. What will be the effects on the "vertical domains" such
as utilities, transportation, landscape architecture, urban planning, civil works,
education, healthcare, training, etc? How can these disciplines take synergistic
mutual advantage, through the medium of the SNSDI?
9. Expand the Saudi national spatial data infrastructure initiative to enable the creation
of a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) regional spatial data infrastructure.
242
References Towards the Development of a Strategy for Nazi
REFERENCES
243
References Towardsthe Deve%pmenlof a Strategyjor NSDI
REFERENCES
ABDUL MAJID, D. (1999), Permanent Committee on GIS Infrastructure for Asia and the
Pacific (PCGIAP) and the Asia-Pacific Spatial Data Infrastructure (APSDI): Paper
Presented at the PCGIAP 5t' meeting, Beijing, China.
Al-ASSIRI, A. M. (1997), Islamic History in Brief. Second edition. Dammam, the

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Al ebtikar printing press.
ALLAM, M. M. (1996), A Canadian Solution for Spatial Data Clearinghouse: Federated

Multi-Database Infrastructure for GIS Interoperability: Paper presented at the
International GIS Strategy Seminar, Seoul, South Korea.
Al-SAUD, F.A. (1999), King Fahd bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, speechon the occasion of the
Inauguration of the centennial celebration on January 22°d 1999 (Shawal 5th 1419H),
Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Al-SHAHRANI, A. M. (1983), Translator Design for Data Exchange Between Two

Computers Controlled Networks Used In Automated Integrated Manufacturing.
M. Sc. Thesis, Presented to the Department of Computer and Electrical
Engineering, San Diego State University, San Diego, USA.
Al-SHAHRANI, A. M. (1989), Geographic Information System In Perspective: Paper

Presented at the 5`hSaudi Computer Conference, Riyadh, the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia.
AI-SHAHRANI, A. M. (2001 a), Towards the Development of a Strategy for National

Geographic Information in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Al-Thagafiah, Arabic
Magazine published by the Saudi Cultural Office, the Embassy of Saudi Arabia,
London, United Kingdom, Volume 37/38, (7), Page 58-61.
Al-SHAHRANI, A. M. (2001b), Proposed National Spatial Data Infrastructure for the

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Paper Presentedat the 13`hISO/TC 211 Plenary meeting
Workshop, Adelaide, Australia
AMOR, D. (2000), The E-business evolution, Living and Working in an Interconnected

World. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall, Inc.
ANKARY, K. M. (1991), GeographicalInformation Systems,International Journal,

Volume 5, (1), Page85-98
ANZLIC, (1998a), Spatial Data Infrastructure for Australia and New Zealand, Discussion
Paper. Australia New Zealand Land Information Council, Canberra A. C.T,
Australia, Home Page, URL: http: //www. anzlic. org.au/anzdiscu.html.
ANZLIC, (1998b), Australia New Zealand Land Information Council, Guidelines for
Custodianship, ANZLIC, a Discussion Paper, ANZLIC, Canberra.
244
References Towardsthe Developmentof a Strategyjar NSDI
ANZLIC, (2001), Strategic Plan, Australia New Zealand Land Information Council, Home
Page, URL: http: //www. anzlic. org.au/t)ublications.html.
APOSTOLOPOULOS, N., et al., (2000), Professional Site Servers 3.0, Birmingham,

United Kingdom: Wrox Press Inc.
AskGlraffe, (2001), AskGlraffe Home PageURL:

http: //www. askgiraffe. org.uk/datalocator.
AutoDesk, (2000), Vision Enterprise Concepts, AutoDesk, Inc., USA.
AutoDesk, (2001), MapGuide, Release 5, AutoDesk, Ltd, Guilford, Surrey,

United Kingdom.
BISHR, Y. (1997), Semantic Aspects of Interoperable GIS. Ph.D. Thesis, Presentedto the
Wageningen Agricultural University, and the International Institute for Aerospace
Survey and Earth Sciences (ITC), the Netherlands.
BISHR, Y., et al., (1997a), Aspects of Interoperability: A Geographic Information

Infrastructure (GII) Perspective. ITC Internal Work to set up a ResearchAgenda
and Proposes Direction for Viable Approaches and Concepts to Achieve
Interoperability Between Geospatial Information Application in the context of
Geographic Information Infrastructure, ITC, Enschede, The Netherlands.
BISHR, Y., et. al., (1997b), SemWeb- A Prototype for Seamless Sharing of
Geoinformation on the World Wide Web in Client/Server Architecture: Paper
Presented at the EGIS 97, Vienna, Austria.
BOOTH, G.M. (1983), The Design of Complex Information Systems,Common Sense

Methods for Success:New York, USA. McGraw-Hill Book Company.
BORRERO, S. (1999), Case Study at National Level: ICDE, the Colombian Spatial Data
Infrastructure: Paper Presentedat the National Mapping Organisation Conference,
Cambridge, United Kingdom.
BROSAIS, J. (1997), Security of the Internet Network. PC Magazine (Arabic Version)

Volume 123, (4, August), Page 74-80.
BROWN, L.A. (1949), TheStory of Maps. Boston,USA: Little Brown

and company.
BUEHLER, K., and McKEE, L., (1998), Introductionto InteroperableGeoprocessingand

The OpenGIS Specification,The OpenGISGuide, OGC, Inc., 35 Main Street,Suite
5 Wayland,Massachusetts, USA.
CALKINS, H. W., et al., (1992), Institutions sharing Spatial Information: In Newton, P.W,
Zwart, P.R, Cavill, M. E. Networking Spatial Information Systems. London, United
Kingdom: Belhaven Press. Page 283-292.
245
References Towardsthe Developmentof a Strategyfor NSDI
CASSETTARI, S. (1993), Introduction to Integrated Geographic Information

Management. London, United Kingdom: Chapman and Hall.
CASTELLANOS, M., et al., (1996), Semantic Heterogeneity in Multidatabase Systems:

In Bukhres, O.A, and Elmagarmid, A. K. Object Oriented Multidatabases systems-a
Solution for Advanced Applications. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA:
Prentice Hall, Inc., Page 129-202.
CHOI, W. J. (1998), Development of a Prototype For Semantic Translation Between

Cadastral And Land use Application In A HeterogeneousDistributed GIS. M. Sc.
thesis, Presented to the ITC Education Programme: GIC2 (Geographic Information
Management, the Cadastre Stream), Enschede,the Netherlands.
CHOU, Y. H. (1997), Exploring Spatial Analysis in Geographic Information Systems.

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA: OnWorld Press.
CLARKE, D. (1996), Developing a Geographic Data Infrastructure: An Asia-Pacific

Perspective: In Moellering, H. and Hogan, R. Spatial Database Transfer Standards
2: Characteristics for Assessing Standards and Full Descriptions of the National
and International Standards in the World. Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier
Science Ltd, Page 39-50
CLINTON, W. J. (1994), Coordinating Geographic Data Acquisition and Access: The

National Spatial Data Infrastructure, Executive Order 12906, the White House,
Washington DC. Published in the April 13,1994, edition of the Federal Register,
Volume 59, (71), Page17671-17674.
COLEMAN, D. J. (1999), Geographical Information Systems.Networked Environments:

In Longley et al. Geographical Information Systems,Principles and Technical
Issues, Second Edition. New York/USA and Toronto/Canada: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., Volume 1, Page 317-329.
COLEMAN, D. J. and McLAUGHLIN, J. (1998), Defining Global Geospatial Data

Infrastructure (GGDI), Components, Stakeholders and Interfaces. Geomatica
Magazine, Canada Institute of Geomatics, Canada,Volume 52, (2), Page 129-143.
CORFIELD, M., et at., (1999), Using the Internet. Second edition. London, United
Kingdom: Dorling Kindersley Limited.
CROSS, P.A. (1999), Accuracies Achievable by GPS in Practical Engineering and

Surveying Applications. In Proceedings of Geodesy and Surveying in the Future:
The Importance of Heights. Gävle, Sweden: National Land Survey of Sweden,
Page 175-184.
DANKO, D. M. (1999), Metadata For Geographic Information, Understanding Data: Paper

Presented at the 9t` Plenary Meeting of ISO/TC 211 in Kyoto, Japan.
ECKSTEIN, R. (1999), eXtensibleMarkup Language(XML), PocketReference.

Sebastopol,California, USA: O'Reilly & Associate,Inc.
246
References Towardsthe Developmentof a Strategyfor NSD!
ESMI, (1998), The European Spatial Metadata Infrastructure, Home Page, URL:
http: //www. geodan.nl/esmi.
ESRI, (2000), An Overview of the GeographyNetwork. In ESRI ArcNews, User

Conference, ESRI 380 New York Street, Redlands, California 92373-8100, USA.
Volume 22, (2), Page 1-12
ESRI, (2001a), Arc Internet Mapping System (ArcIMS). ESRI 380 New York
Street, Redlands, California 92373-8100, USA. ESRI Home Page, URL:
http: //www. esri.com/software/arcims/overview. html.
ESRI, (2001b), The Geography Network and NSDI, An ESRI White Paper. ESRI 380 New
York Street, Redlands, California 92373-8100, USA.
EUROGI, (1994), The European Umbrella Organisation for Geographic Information

(EUROGI)'s Work Programme for Standardisation: Paper presented at the inaugural
assembly of EUROGI.
EUROGI, (1996), Towards a European Policy Framework for Geographic Information:

A Working Document, Working Group report, prepared on behalf of the European
Organisation for Geographic Information.
FGDC, (1995), National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse. Version 1.0, Federal Geographic
Data Committee, U. S. Geological Survey, 590 National Centre, Reston, Virginia,
20192, USA.
FGDC, (1997a), Strategic for the National Spatial Data Infrastructure. Federal Geographic
Data Committee, U. S. Geological Survey, 590 National Centre, Reston, Virginia,
20192, USA.
FGDC, (1997b), Framework International and Guide. Federal Geographic Data

Committee, U. S. Geological Survey, National Centre, Reston, Virginia 20192, USA.
FGDC, (1998), Geospatial Positioning Accuracy Standards,FGDC-STD, U. S Geological

Survey, 590 National Centre, Reston, Virginia 20192, USA.
FGDC, (1999), Framework Data Survey, Preliminary Report, International and Guide.
Federal Geographic Data Committee, U. S. Geological Survey, 590 National Centre,
Reston, Virginia 20192, USA.
FGDC, (2000), The Value of Metadata,National SpatialData Infrastructure.Federal

GeographicData Committee.U.S GeologicalSurvey,590 National Centre,
Reston,Virginia. 20192,USA.
FGDC, (2001), Federal Geographic Data Committee, U. S Geological Survey, 590

National Centre, Reston, Virginia 20192. Home Page, URL:
http: //www. fgdc. jzov/nsdi.html.
247
References Towardsthe Developmentof a S&ategyfor NSD/
FRANK, A. U. (1992), Telecommunications and GIS: Opportunities and Challenges: In

Newton, P.W, Zwart, P.R, Cavill, M. E. Networking Spatial Information Systems.
London, United Kingdom: Belhaven Press,Page 235-249.
GAVIN, I. (2001), Information, received by the researcher,through e-mail, from

Dr. Isabelle Gavin Former Co-ordinator of the South African National Spatial
Information Framework (NSIF).
GCSM-ID, (2001), Number of the General Commission for Survey and Mapping's
Internal Documents, Proposals and GIS studies, Riyadh, the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia.
GLOBAL LINK, (1997), Intergraph's International Mapping/GIS Newsletter, Huntsville,

Alabama, 35894-0001, USA.
GLOSSARY of the MAPPING SCIENCES, (1994), Prepared by the Joint Committee of

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), American Congress on
Surveying and Mapping (ACSM) and American Society of Photogrammetry and
Remote Sensing (ASPRS), USA.
GODFREY, B., et al., (1997), The Contribution of the Permanent Committee on GIS
Infrastructure for Asia and the Pacific to Global Spatial Data Infrastructure: Paper
presented at the Global Spatial Data Infrastructure conference Chapel Hill, North
Carolina.
GROOT, R.U. (1997), SpatialData Infrastructurefor SustainableLand Management.

ITC Journal, Enschede,The Netherlands,Volume 3 (4), Page287-294.
GSDI, (1999), Global Spatial Data Infrastructure, GSDI Home Page, URL:
http: //www. gsdi.or
.
GSDI, (2000), Global Spatial Data Infrastructure, GSDI Brochure, Home Page, URL:
http: //www. gsdi.org/pubs/press/brochure.pdf.
GUPTILL, S.C. (1999), Metadataand Data Catalogues:In Longley et al. Geographical

Information Systems,Principles and TechnicalIssues,SecondEdition. New
York/USA and Toronto/Canada:JohnWiley & Sons,Inc., Volume 2, Page677-692.
HACKMAN, C. (1997), SpatialData TransferStandards(SDTS), Profiles: Paperpresented

at The FGDC-SDTS Workshop, University of Missouri, Rolla, USA.
HAWRYSZKIEWYCZ, I.T. (2000),Introduction to SystemsAnalysis and Design, Fifth

edition. Sydney,Australia: PrenticeHall.
HOGAN, R. and SONDHEIM, M. (1996), Spatial data Transfer Standards Activities

in North America: In Moellering, H. and Hogan, R. Spatial Database Transfer
Standards 2: Characteristics for Assessing Standards and Full Descriptions of the
National and International Standards in the World. Oxford, United Kingdom:
Elsevier Science Ltd, on behalf of the International Cartographic Association
(ICA), Page 31-38.
248
HOLLAND, P. (1998), Roles of the PermanentCommittee on GIS Infrastructure for Asia

and the Pacific and the United Nations Regional Cartographic Conference for Asia
and the Pacific: Paper presented at the Special Working Group Meeting of the UN
Regional Cartographic Conferences,Aguascalientes, Mexico.
HOLLAND, P., et al., (1998), The development of a spatial data infrastructure in the Asia-
Pacific region with special reference to Australia: Paper presented at Session 38 -
SDI National Overviews The 10thInternational Geomatics Conference
Spatial Data Infrastructure'98 Ottawa,Canada.
HSIAO, D. K. and KAMEL, M. N. (1993), HeterogeneousDatabases:Proliferation, Issues

and Solutions: Hurson, A. R, Bright, M. W, and Pakzad, S.H. Multidatabase
Systems,An Advanced Solution For Global Information Sharing. Los Alamitos,
California, USA. IEEE Computer Society Press, Page 60-77.
HUME, V., et al., (1998), Why Do We Care About Standards?.Geomatica Magazine,

Canada Institute of Geomatics, Canada. Volume 52, (2), Page 203-208.
IETF, (2001), The Internet engineering task force (IETF). Home Page, URL:
http: //www. ietforg/iesiz. html.
IGAC, (2001), The Instituto Geografico Agustin Codazzi (IGAC), Home Page, URL:
http: //www. igac.gov.
IHO, (2001), The International Hydrographic Organisation, Home Page, URL:

http: //www. iho. shom.fr.
IMAI, O. (1999), National Spatial Data Infrastructure Promoting Association (NSDIPA):

Paper Presented at the OGC 27' annual meeting, Tokyo, Japan.
INTERGRAPH, (2000), GeoMedia (WebMap, Network and GIS) Brochures.
INTERGRAPH, (20001a), Home Page, URL: http: //www. intergraph.com/geomedia.
INTERGRAPH, (20001 b), Bringing It Together, WebMap, Home Page, URL:

http: //www. intergraph. com/products.
ISOC, (2001), The Internet SOCiety (ISOC), Home Page, URL: http: //www. isoc.org.
ISO Secretariat, (2001), The International Organisation for Standards (ISO), Home Page,
URL: http: //www. iso.ch/iso/en/aboutiso/introduction/index. html.
ISO/TC 211, (1994), The inaugural TC 211 meeting in Oslo-Norway, first resolution.
ISO/TC 211 Secretariat, (2001), ISO/TC 211 Geographic Information/Geomatics, project

19115, Metadata, Home Page, URL: http: //www. isotc211. org.
ISO/TC 211 Secretariat, (2002a), The Scope of ISO/TC 211 Geographic

Information/Geomatics, Home Page, URL: http: //www. isotc211. ora/scope.html.
249
ISO/TC 211 Secretariat, (2002b), ISO/TC 211 Geographic Information/Geomatics, Home

Page, URL: http: //www. isotc211.orJ/organizn.html.
ITRD, (2001), The U. S Federal Networking Council (FNC), The National Coordination
Office For Information Technology Researchand Development (ITRD), Home
Page, URL: http: //www. itrd. gov/archive/fnc-material. html.
KIM, T. J. (1995), National GIS Implementation in Korea, Plans, Programs and Processes:
Paper, Delivered as a Keynote Speechat the International GIS StandardsWorkshop
held in Seoul, South Korea.
KORTE, G. B. (2001), The GIS Book, fifth edition. Santa Fe, NM, USA: OnWorld Press.
KOTTMAN, C.A. (1991), Some Questions and Answers About Digital Geographic
Information Exchange Standard, Intergraph Corporation, 2051 Mercator Drive,
Reston, Virginia 22091-3413, USA.
KOTTMAN, C.A. (1999), OpenGIS Consortium Vision for Spatial Data Connectivity:
Paper Presented at the 9`hPlenary Meeting of ISO/TC 211 in Kyoto, Japan.
KUCERA, H. and O'BRIEN, C.D. (1997), Harmonisation of the SQL/MM Spatial and
ISO/TC 211 Standards,Joint CanadianContribution to ISO/TC 211 andJTC1
SC21/WG3,CAC SC21WG3 N 429, Madrid, Spain.
KUCERA, H. and KEIGHAN, E. (1998a), The Mercator Vision - Designing the Canadian
Geospatial Data Infrastructure. Special Issue of Geomatica Magazine, Canada
Institute of Geomatics, Canada. Volume 52, (2). Page 227-231.
KUCERA, H. and KEIGHAN, E. (1998b), Mercator III: Toward a Canadian Geospatial

Information Infrastructure, Technical Report to Natural Resources Canada,
GeoAccess Division, Canada.
KUCERA, H. and KEIGHAN, E. (1999), The Technical Architecture for NFIS: Paper
presented to the 13thAnnual Symposium on Geographic Information Systems,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
LEE Y. and McLAUGHLIN, J. (1991), Distributed Land Information Networks: Database

Management Issues. Canada Institute of Survey and Mapping Journal, Volume 45,
(3), Page 231-238.
LONGLEY, P.A., et al., (1999), Introduction: In Longley et al. Geographical Information

Systems,Principles and Technical Issues, Second Edition. New York/USA and
Toronto/Canada: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Volume 1, Page 1-20.
LOPEZ, C. (1999), Clearinghouse Nacional de Datos Geograficos - Ministerio de

Transportes Obras Pzblicas, in his reply to a survey (questionnaire) of national and
regional spatial Data Infrastructure Activities Around the Globe (conducted by
Professor Harlan Onsrud, the University of Maine, USA, Home Page, URL:
http: //www. spatial.main. edul-onsrud/GSDI. html.
250
References Towardsthe Developmentof a Strategyjoº NSDI
MAN-HO, J. (1998), National Geographic Information Infrastructure for South Korea.

M. Sc. Thesis Presented to the ITC Education Programme: GIC2 (Geographic
Information Management, the Cadastre Stream), the Netherlands.
MAPINFO, (2000), Maplnfo MapXtreme Java Brochures.
MAPINFO, (2001), Home Page, URL: http: //www. mapxtreme.com.
MASSER, I. (1997), Government and Geographic Information. London, United Kingdom:

Taylor & Francis Ltd.
MASSER, I. (1998), The First Generation of National Geographic Information Strategies.

Proceedings of the 3`d Conference on Global Spatial Data Infrastructure, Canberra,
Australia.
MATHER, P.M. (1999), ComputerProcessingof Remotely-Sensed Images:

An Introduction, SecondEdition. Chichester,UnitedKingdom:John Wiley& Sons,
Ltd.,
McCULLAGH, M. J. (1999), Review of Longley, P. and Batty, M. SpatialAnalysis:

Modelling in a GIS environment,in Progressin PhysicalGeography,Page152-153.
McCULLAGH, M. J. (1996), Quality visualisation and Terrain Models in Physical

Modelling: Paper Presented at the 3`dInternational Conference on Integrated GIS
and Environmental Modelling, National Centre for Geographical Information and
Analysis, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA.
McDONNELL, R. and KEMP, K. (1995), International GIS Dictionary. Cambridge,

United Kingdom: Geoinformation International, Pearson Professional Ltd.
McKELLAR, D. G. (1996), the Global Geospatial Information and Services Initiatives,

Directorate of Geographic Operations, Defence geomatics, Department of National
Defence, Canada.
McKELLAR, D. G and BEAULIEU, P. and O'BRIEN, C.D. (1995), The Role of

Functional Standards in Global Geospatial Information Interchange: Paper
Presented at the Geomatics Conference, Ottawa, Canada
MOLENAAR, M. (1991), Status and Problems of Geographical Information Systems, The

Necessity of a Geo-Information Theory. ISPRSJournal ofPhotogrammetry and
Remote Sensing: Elsevier Science Publisher B. V., Amsterdam, Volume 46,
Page 85-103.
MOLENAAR, M. (1997), An Introduction into the Theory of Topologic and Hierarchical

Object Modelling For Geo-Information Systems. Lecture notes, Department of Land
and Surveying and Remote Sensing, Wageningen Agricultural University,
the Netherlands.
251
References Towardsthe Developmentof a Strateg for NSDI
MOELLERING, H. (1996), An Introduction to World DatabaseTransfer Standards:

In Moellering, H. and Hogan, R. Spatial Database Transfer Standards 2:
Characteristics for Assessing Standards and Full Descriptions of the National and
International Standards in the World. Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier Science
Ltd, on behalf of the International Cartographic Association (ICA), Page 3-13.
MOELLERING, H. and HOGAN, R. (1996), Spatial Database Transfer Standards 2:

Ltd, on behalf of the International Cartographic Association (ICA).
MUGHRAM, A. A. (1973), Assarah, Saudi Arabia, Change and Development in a Rural

Context. Ph.D. Thesis Presentedto the Department of Geography, Durham
University, Durham, United Kingdom.
NCGI, (2001), The National Clearinghousefor GeographicInformation,Home Page,

URL: http://www. ncgi.nl.
NEBERT, D. D. (1995), What does it mean to be an FGDC Clearinghouse Node? Draft

Position Paper for FGDC Clearinghouse Working Group. U. S. Geological Survey,
National Centre, Reston, Virginia 20192, USA.
NEBERT, D. D. (1996), Supporting Search for Spatial Data on the Internet: Proceedings of
the Sixteenth Annual ESRI User Conference. ESRI 380 New York Street, Redlands,
California 92373-8100, USA, Home Page, URL:
http: //www. fgdc gov/clearin house/pubs/esri96/tevised html.
NEBERT, D. D. (2000), Building a geospatial data clearinghouse for data discovery and
access, Statistical Journal of the United Nations ECE, Volume 17, pages
149-156.
NEBERT, D. D. (2001), Developing Spatial Data Infrastructure, The SDI Cookbook,

Version 1.1 (OnLine Version), Home Page, URL:
httn: //www. P-Sdi.
orv-/Publication/Rsdi-cookbook.
NEWTON, P.W., et al., (1992), Introducing the Next Wave, Networking Spatial Data
Systems: In Newton, P.W, Zwart, P.R. Cavill, M. E. Networking Spatial Information
Systems, London, United Kingdom: Belhaven Press, Page 1-11.
NGDF, (2000), The National Geospatial Data Framework, Home Gage, URL:
htti): //www. n-Rdforsz.
org.uk.
NLIS, (2000), The National Land Information Services, home page, URL:
http: //www. nlis. org.uk/docs/2000/index html.
NSIF, (2000), National Spatial Information Framework, Vision and Mission Statement,
http: //www. nsif ora.za/vision. html.
O'BRIEN C.D. (1997), DIGEST/S-57Harmonisation-InterfaceControl Document,
252
References Towards
theDevelopment
of a Strategy
for NSD/
Version 2.
O'BRIEN C.D. (2001), Personal Communication and Discussions, with Douglas

O'Brien, President of IDON, Technologies Inc., 280 Metcalfe St. Suite 301,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada and former ISO/TC 211 WGI Convenor, During the
ISO/TC 211 Plenary Meetings.
OGC, (2000), Abstract specification, The OpenGIS Consortium, Inc. 35 Main Street, Suite
5 Wayland, MA, USA, Home Page, URL:
http: //www. openizis.orp,/vublic/abstract. htrnl.
OGC, (2001 a), Vision and Mission Statements, The OpenGIS Consortium, Inc. 35 Main
Street, Suite 5 Wayland, MA, USA, Home Page, URL:
http: //www. oi)enizis.org/ýVision.html.
OGC, (2001b), Web Server Initiative Request for Technology, The OpenGIS Consortium,
Inc. 35 Main Street, Suite 5 Wayland, MA, USA. Home Page, URL:
hLtp://www. opengis.org/ows/index. html.
OGC, (2001 c), Guide Introduction to Interoperable geoprocessing, The OpenGIS

Consortium, Inc. 35 Main Street, Suite 5 Wayland, MA, USA, Home Page,
URL: http: //www. opengis.org/guide/guidel. html.
ONSRUD, H. J. and PINTO, J.K. (1995), Sharing Geographic Information Across

Organisational Boundaries: A Research Framework. New Brunswick.
ONSRUD, H. J (2000), Survey of National and Regional Spatial Data Infrastructure

Activities Around the globe, Home Page, URL:
http: //www. spatial.main. edu/-onsrud/5zsdi/GSDI.html.
PASSOLE, A. (1996), Towards the Development of a National Geolnformation

Infrastructure In Burkina Faso: "The Reseau d'Information Urbaine' As A Strategic
Starting Point". M. Sc. Thesis, Presented to the ITC Education Programme: GIC2
(Geographic Information Management, the Cadastre Stream), Enschede,the
Netherlands.
PCGIAP, (1998), The Permanent Committee on GIS Infrastructure for Asia and the
Pacific (PCGIAP) Publication Number 1: A Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Asia
and the Pacific Region, Home Page, URL:
http: //www. permcom. apgis.gov. au/tech,papers/apsdi,cnts.html.
PENG, Z. (1997), An Assessment of the Development of Internet Geographic Information

System: Paper Presented at the ESRI User Conference, ESRI 380 New York Street,
Redlands, California 92373-8100, USA.
PLEUWE, B. (1997), GIS Online: Information Retrieval, Mapping and the Internet. Santa
Fe, New Maxico, USA:. OnWord Press.
PRETTY, R.W. (1992), LANs, MANs and WANs: IntroductoryTutorial on Computer

Networking: In Newton, P.W, Zwart, P.R, Cavill, M. E.
253
References Towardsthe Developmentof a Strategyfor NSD/
Networking Spatial Information Systems.London, United Kingdom: Belhaven

Press. Page 15-27.
RAD, (2001), RAD Data Communications, Inc. 900 Corporate Drive Mahwah, New
Jersey, 07430, USA. Home Page, URL:
http: //www. rad.com/networks/1997/telnet/index. htm.
RADWAN, M. M., (1997), Technical Aspects of Geographic Information Infrastructure

(GII). Lecture Notes on Geographic Information Systems. ITC, Enschede,the
Netherlands.
RADWAN, M. M. (1999), Technical Aspects of National Spatial Data Clearinghouse.

Lecture Notes, ITC, Enschede, Netherlands.
RADWAN, M. M. and PARESI, C. (1995), The Development and Maintenance of

a Geoinformation Utility in a Distributed Environment. Internal Reports, ITC
Enschede, The Netherlands.
RADWAN, M. M., et al., (1997), Guideline for the Development of a Geospatial

Clearinghouse in a Heterogeneous Environment: Paper presented at the JEC'97,
Vienna, Austria.
RAISZ, E. J. (1956), Mapping the world. London, Great Britain: Abelard Schumann.
RATCLIFFE, J.H. (1999), The Genius LOGI of Crime: Revealing Associations in Time
And Space. Ph.D. Thesis, Presented to the Department of Geography, The
University of Nottingham, United Kingdom.
RAVI, (1996), The NetherlandsCouncil for GeographicInformation (RAVI) Half-

Yearly Report: CoordinatingBody for GeographicInformation in The Netherlands,
P.O.Box 508,3800 AM Amesterfoort,the Netherlands.
RAVI, (2000), National Geographic Information Infrastructure in the Netherlands,

Report. RAVI, P.O.Box 508,3800 AM Amesterfoort, the Netherlands.
REICHARDT, M. E (2000), Initiative for Ghana and GSDI effort, Presentation at the
Federal Geographic Data Committee, U. S Geological Survey, 590 National Centre,
Reston, Virginia 20192.
RHIND, D. (1997), Frameworkfor the World. Cambridge, United Kingdom:

Geoinformation International, Pearson Professional Ltd.
ROBINSON, G. (1999), Keynote speechto the National Mapping Organisation

Conference, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
ROMAN, E. (1999), Mastering Enterprise JavaBeans and the Java 2 Platform Enterprise
Edition. Toronto, Canada: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
SALG)J, F. (1996), Standardisation in the Field of Geographic Information: The European

Efforts: In Moellering, H. Hogan, R. Spatial Database Transfer Standards 2:
and
254
Ltd, on behalf of the International Cartographic Association (ICA). Page 17-30.
SALGE, F. (1999), National and International Standards: Longley et al. Geographical

Information Systems,Principles and Technical Issues, Second Edition. New York
USA and Toronto/Canada: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Volume 2, Page 693-706.
SCHNEIER, B. (2000), Secrets and Lies, Digital Security in a Networked World.

Toronto, Canada: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
SHEHT, A. and LARSON, J. (1990), FederatedDatabaseSystemsfor Managing

Distributed Heterogeneousand AutonomousDatabases. ACM ComputingSurveys,
Volume 22, (3), Page183-236.
St. LAURENT, L. et al. (1997), GeospatialData Warehousing:

An Architecture: Paper Presented at the International Symposium, Geomatics in the
Era of Radarsat GER'97, Ottawa, Canada.
TAMIN, M. Y. (1999), The Director General of Survey and Mapping, Department of

Survey and Mapping, Bangunan Ukur, Jalan Semarak, 50578 Kuala Lumpur, in his
Reply to a Survey (questionnaire) of national and regional spatial data
Infrastructure Activities Around the globe (conducted by Professor Harlan Onsrud,
the University of Maine, USA, Home Page, URL:
http: //www. spatial.main. edu/--i)nsrud/gsdi/GSDI. html.
TANENBAUM, A. S. (1988), Computer Network, Second Edition. Upper Saddle River,

New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall, Inc.
TI-IAPA, K. and BOSSLER, J. (1992), Accuracy of spatial data used in geographic

Information Systems. Photogrammetry Engineering and Remote Sensing, Volume
58, (6), Page 835-841.
UNEP, (2000), The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Home Page, URL:
http: //www. unep.org.
VENTURA, S. (1991), Conversion of Automated Geographic Data to Decision Making

Information. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, Volume 50,
Page 511-516.
VEREGIN, H. (1999), Data Quality Parameters: In Longley et al. Geographical

Information Systems,Principles and Technical Issues, Second Edition. New
York/USA and Toronto/Canada: Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Volume 1,
Page 177-189.
WORBOYS, M. (1995), GISA Computing Perspective. London, United Kingdom:

Taylor & Francis Ltd.
W3C, (2001), The World Wide Web Consortium(W3C), Home Page,URL:

http://www. w3.org.
255
YOUSEFI, R. (1994), Adaptation of Existing Standards for Exchange of Topographic Data

In Iran with Specific Attention to Cadastral Applications. M. Sc. Thesis, Presented
to the ITC Education Programme: GIC2 (Geographic Information Management, the
Cadastre Stream), Enschede, The Netherlands.
OSTENSEN, O. (1996a), ISO Standardisation in the Field of Geographic Information: The

Global Perspective: In Moellering, H. and Hogan, R. Spatial Database Transfer
Standards 2: Characteristics for Assessing Standards and Full Descriptions of the
National and International Standards in the World. Oxford, United
Kingdom: Elsevier Science Ltd, on behalf of the International Cartographic
Association (ICA). Page 51-59.
OSTENSEN, 0. (1996b), Mapping the Future of Geomatics, International Standards Come

To The Support of Informatics in Global Mapping. Geomatica Magazine, Canada
Institute of Geomatics, Canada. Volume 50, (3), Page 301-304.
31, (2000), CGDI Target Vision and Implementation Plan: Proposal for a Vision and
Architecture For the National Geospatial Infrastructure; by 3i (Information
Interoperability Institute), Canada.
256
Annexes SurveyQuestionnaireand QuestionnaireReturnsSummaryand Tabulation
ANNEXES
257
Annex / Survey Qui shonnarre
ANNEX I
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ON
DIGITAL AND NON DIGITAL
SPATIAL PRODUCTS IN THE
KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA
1.1 INTRODUCTION
In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, there are a large number of different and isolated
mapping, surveying, remote sensing and geographic information systems (GIS) activities
within various ministries, other government organisations and in the private sector. This
survey questionnaire was distributed to the main spatial data producers and users to collect
as much information as possible about digital and non-digital spatial data in the Kingdom.
1.1.1 Clarifications
When we say department or organisation, in this questionnaire, it means the Section.
Division, Department, Directorate, Establishment, Ministry or any other name of the
organisation, which completed this questionnaire document.
1.1.2 Completion and Correspondence

Thank you for receiving this questionnaire and please note the following:
I. Fill in the sections of the questionnaire that apply to your department as clearly,
accurately and completely as possible.
2. Write down any comments or suggestions that you may wish to include in this
questionnaire.
3. Write down any relevant comments or suggestions you may have regarding the idea of
building and implementing a strategy for national spatial data infrastructure (SNSI)I)
in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
4. Provide citations of all documents, reports, materials, books, email addresses,or any
other references, which were used to complete this questionnaire.
5. Please make sure that you return the completed questionnaire no later than 25/9/142111
(21/12/2000G). The estimated time to complete this questionnaire is about one hour
and a half.
6. When you have completely answered the questionnaire please forward the entire
document to the researcher or to the research and development section, General
Directorate of the Military Survey (GDMS), Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
258
Annex I Survey Quest-Ir
7. If you have any questions, comments on this questionnaire or any useful information,
please contact:
A. The researcher:
Eng. Abdullah M. Al-Shahrani

E-Mail: Ashahranina,aol.com
Address: 115 East Acton Lane
London, W3 7HB
United Kingdom
Tel: 0044(0)2087461020 Home
Fax: 0044(0)208746083 8 Home/Fax
Mobile: 0044(0)7887652030
B. Any one of the contact persons at the General Directorate of Military Survey.
Eng. Mohammed Dalbouh

E-Mail: dalbouhna,saudionline. com. sa
Address: P.O. Box 51860
Riyadh 11553
Tel : 014541200 ext. 5225
Fax: 014563048
Eng. Eid Al-Mutairi

E-Mail: isxeam(a)hotmail.com
Address: P.O Box 87918
Riyadh 11652
Tel: 014567255,3878,2979
Fax: 014563048
1.1.3 Organisation Correspondence

In order to contact you or provide you with a response to your comments please complete
the section below.
Name of Department:
Name of person(s),who completedthis questionnaire:
Position(s):
Address:
Telephone:
Fax:
E-Mail:
259
Annex I SurveyQuestionnaire
1.1,4 Some of The Ministries and Governments

Organisations, Who Received.Copies of This
Questionnaire
Number Name of Ministry/Organisation Name of Department
1 Ministry of Defence and Aviation and General Director of Military
Inspectorate General (MODA) Survey (GDMS)
Resources (MOP&MR)
3 Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral General Manager of Saudi Aramco.
Resources (MOP&MR) Saudi Aramco
4 Riyadh City Municipality The Municipal of Riyadh
5 Ministry of Municipal and Rural General Director of Surveying
Affairs (MOMRA)
6 King Abdulaziz City for Science Head of the Saudi Centre for Remote
and Technology (KACST) Sensing
7 Ministry of Interior Deputy Minister of Provinces affaires
8 Ministry of Communications Deputy Minister of Highway
9 Ar Riyadh Development Authority The Municipal of Riyadh, Headof RDA
(ADA)
10 The Ports Authority General Director of the Port Authority
11 Ministry of Agriculture and Water Manager of the Documentation and
Information Centre
12 Ministry of Finance and National Department of Census and Vital
Economy. Statistics
Design
14 Saudi Telecommunication Company Manager of Riyadh District
15 The Saudi Consolidated Electric General Director of the Saudi
Company Consolidated Electric Company
.
16 General Presidency of Girls Education President of Girls Education
17 National Commission for Wildlife Chairman of the NCWCD
Conservation and Development
18 Presidency of Civil Aviation General Director Saudi Arabian Airlines
19 The Meteorology and Environmental President of the Meteorology
Protection and Environmental Protection
I. 2 QUESTIONNAIRE CONTENTS
1. Section one: Filtering Introduction.
2. Section two: Digital Products.
3. Section three: Geographic Information System (GIS).
4. Section four: Conventional Maps (paper maps).
5. Section five: Users' Needs and Requirements.
6. Section six: Digital Geographic Information Exchange.
7. Section seven:The developmentof a strategyfor national spatialdata infrastructure
in the Kingdom of SaudiArabia.
260
1.2.1 Section One: Filtering Introduction

For an easy and quick completion of this questionnaire, please read this section carefully. It
serves as a guide that takes you directly to the sections relevant to your business and your
area of interest.
1.1 Does your department produce maps spatial or geographic/ topographic/ geological/
land survey/ geodetic survey/ cadastral information/ aerial photography/ satellite
imagery in any scale and format or are you a user of geographic products produced
by another organisation or both? User Only Producer 0 Both F.
1.2 If the answer to question (1.1) is "User Only", go now to section five (1.2.2), and any
appropriate part of section six (1.2.6) and seven (1.2.7).
1.3 If the answer to question (1.1) is " producer or both producer and user", complete
this section (section 1.2.1).
1.4 What type of products are you currently producin

[]
Digital Products [} Conventional Maps Both Q.
1.5 If the answer to question (1.4) is "Digital Products", complete section two (1.2.2).
1.6 If the answer to question (1.4) is "Conventional maps" complete section four (I. 2.4).
1.7 If the answer to question (1.4) is "Both", complete both sections two and four (1.2.4).
1.8 Do you have a Geo phic Information Systemor any of its capabilities?
Yes LJ No
1.9 If the answer to question (1.8) is Yes, complete section three (I. 2.3).
1.10 All participants, Please complete sections six and seven (1.2.7).
1.2.2 Section Two: Digital Productions

2.1 What type of digital products are you producing?
Raster
Vector
Matrix
Other
If other, please specify?
2.2 List all the spatial dataformatsusedby your department?
261
ýý SurveyQuestlwuralrr
Annex I
2.3 List the Main Digital Productsproducedby your department(if you needmore space
please use a separate sheet).
Product Scale
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
2.4 What areas do your products cover (you can use Co-ordinates, area or province name,
title... )?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10.
2.5 Who identified the types and scalesof your products?

Your department 0 the user[ý].
2.6 Who identified the requirementsand contentsof your products?
Your department F--1 the user[:-:: ].
2.7 In your production line, what type of quality assuranceand quality control do you use?
2.8 Do you produce your products in-house, contracted or both?

In-house F] Contracted 0 Both Q.
2.9 If contracted,what is the name(s)of contractor(s)?
262
2.10 Are you using any standards or specifications for any of the following production
(Please () for Yes and (X) for No in the appropriate box(s))?
steps use tick
Land & geodetic survey

Photogrammetry
Cartography
Quality assurance and quality control
Data transfer and exchange
Printing
Others
If others,pleasespecify?.
2.11 For the production steps ticked with () in question (2.10), please indicate what
standards and/or specifications are you using.
2.12 For the production steps ticked with (X) in question (2.10), please indicate if you
have future plans to develop standards or use existing standards?
Yes [-j No 0.
2.13 If the answer is Yes, please indicate what is your plan and what standards or
specifications are you planning to use or develop?
2.14 The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia became a permanent member of the International
Organisation for Standards/Technical Committee for Geographic
Information/Geomatics (ISO/TC 211), so do you want to use this committee's
standards or other standards? ISO/TC 211 Standards 71 Other Q.
standards
If other standards,pleasespecify?
2.15 What geodeticreferencesystemare you using (pleasetick the appropriatebox)?
International Spheroid
WGS 73
WGS 84
Other
If other, please specify?
263
Annex I SurveyQuesiau ire
2.16 What datum are you using, for both horizontal and vertical (please tick the appropriate
box(s))?
Ain Al abd for horizontals
Jeddah (1972) for vertical
Others
If others, please specify?
2.17 Pleaselist your product typesand dates(If you needmore spacepleaseusea separate
sheet).
Fi-
Product type Production date
2_
3
4
5
6
7__
8
9
10
2.18 Do you have the reproduction materials available? (i. e. individual feature separatesor
final colour negatives, plates... etc) Yes 0 No 0.
2.19 If Yes, pleaseindicate the condition and quality of the reproductionmaterials:
2.20 Who are the potential users of your products?,
2.21 In brief, what hardwareareyou using for?
1. Geodetic and land survey
2. Photogrammetry
264
Annex ! Survey Questionnaire
3. Digital Cartography.
4. Reprographics
5. Printing system
2.22 In brief, what software are you using for?
I. ' Geodetic and land survey
2. Photogrammetry
3. Cartography
4. Reprographics
5. Printing system
2.23 How do (E. 2

often you updateyour products? g. everyyear,every years... etc)
2.24 How often do you prefer to haveyour productsupdated?.
2.25 Do you have a digital geographic database(s)? Yes C] No

.
,
If Yes, please explain what type of database:
2.26 In what form doesyour department its

maintain geographicdata?
Hardcopy (Maps, Charts, Co-ordinates, Reports, Etc).

Digital (CD-R, Disk, High density disks, Mag. tape etc)
...
Database
DBMS
Others
If others, pleasespecify?
2.27 If you have a Geographic Information System or any of its capabilities, please
complete section three (1.2.3).
265
Annex I Survey Quests-Ire
1.2.3 Section Three: Geographic Information

System (GIS)
3.1 How many Geographic
II Information Systems(GIS) do you have?
Number of GIS
.
3.2 If you have more than one GIS, please fill one copy for each System used in your
department?
3.3 What is the nameand version (if applicable)of your GIS?
3.4 What is the main use for your GIS?
3.5 What Data formats do you use for your products?
3.6 When did your department buy this system?
3.7 Does this system work as art of a network(s) (such Local or Wide area network or
Internet)? Yes No 0.
3.8 If yes, please indicate the network(s)
3.9 Did your departmentco-ordinate,the purchaseof this system

the hardwareand
software) with other organisation(s)? Yes 0, No
3.10 If the answer is Yes, please list those organisations
3.11 Do you think the benefitsof your systemmeetthe expectationsof your department?
YesEl No O.
3.12 If the answer is No, please explain why not?
266
Annex I
Survey
Quesaomiaf
, $""
3.13 Are you aware of any other organization(s) in the Kin dom of Saudi Arabia that use
the same geographic information system? Yes No =.
,
3.14 If the answer is yes, please list those organisations
15 Do you use your system for data: (please tick the appropriate box(s))?
.
Collection
Processing
Management
Analysis
Display
Output.
Other
other, please specify?
16 How long have digital geographic products been produced in your department using
.
this system?
17 Who identified the type and scale of your products? Your department Q the user.
18 Who identified the requirements and contents of your products?
,
Your department 0 the user ý.
19 In your production line, what type of quality assuranceand quality control do you
use?
20 Did you encounter any difficulty during data collection, rocessing, management,
.
analysis, display or output? Yes 0 No
21 If the answeris Yes, pleaseexplain the difficulties and your suggestionsfor the
.
solutions.
N
s
267
3.22 Do you have enoýn. well trained Saudi personnel working in your department?
Yes F-I No
3.23 If the answer is No, what is your plan to train Saudi personnel?
3.24 Is your department aware of any other organisation(s) in the Kingdom that maintain
geographic information system similar in type to the geographic information system
maintained by your department? Yes No
3.25 If the answeris Yes, pleaselist thoseorganisations.
1.2.4 Section Four: Conventional Maps

4.1 Since digital products and geographic information systems are not your only product at
this time, do you have future plans for digital products? Yes 0 No
4.2 If the answeris Yes, pleaseclarify:
4
List the main conventionalproductsproducedby your department.
.3
Product Scale
1.
-
2.
_
3.
-
4.
s.
_
g"
-
4.4 List the areascoveredby yourproduct(youcanuseco-ordinates,

areaor province
name, title. ).
268
Annex I Survey Questionn ire
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
7.
ýä8.
9.
10.
"4.5 Do you produceyour conventionalproductsin-house,by contractor both?

In-house F-1 Contracted 0 Both [__j.
4.6 If contracted, what is the name of the contractor(s)?
4.7 Are you using any standards or specifications for your conventional products?
I YesO No O.
4.8 If the answeris Yes, what standardsor specificationsareyou using?
4.9 What geodeticreferencesystemare you using?
International Spheroid
WGS 73
WGS 84
Other
If other, pleasespecify:
4.10 What datum are you using (for both horizontals and verticals)?
Ain Al abd for horizontals

Jeddah (1972) for verticals
Others
If others, please specify:
269
Annex l SurveyQuestionnaire
4.11 How current is your product (If you need more spaceplease use a separatesheet)?
Product type Productiondatc

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
14.12 Do Yes F7 No
you have the reproductionmaterials .
4 13 If Yes, indicate their condition and quality:
--------------------------
4.14 Who are the potential users of your conventional product?
---------------
I
15 In brief, what equipment are you using for your conventional products?
.
1. Geodeticand land survey:

2. ' Photogrammetry
3. Cartography
4. Reprographics
5. Printing
270
1.2.5 Section Five: Users' Needs and

Requirements
S. 1 Who produced the maps you are currently using?
a. General Directorate of Military Survey (GDMS)
Ministry of Defense and Aviation (MODA).
b. Saudi Geological Survey Department
Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources (MOP&MR)
c. Department of Mineral and Natural Resources.
Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources (MOP&MR)
d. Saudi Aramco Company
F-I
Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources (MOP&MR) Q
e. GeneralDirectorateof Surveying.
Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs (MOMRA)
f. Ar Riyadh DevelopmentAuthority (ADA).
The Departmentof Urban and EnvironmentalDevelopment Q
g. The PortsAuthority.
h. Ministry of Communications
i. Others?
If others, pleasespecify.
5.2 What typee of mapsand information are you

Y using?
Paper maps [ Digital products 0 Other spatial data 0.
5.3 If the answeris other spatialdata,pleaseclarify

1
514 If your department is not presentlyusing digital products,do you haveplans

for using it in the future?
YesL No[ý.
55 If the answer is Yes, please explain your plan
56 When ou request geographic information, do you receive it on time?

Yes[J No[.
If the answeris No, pleaseexplain why
- 271
Annes I Survey Questionnaire
7 What types and scales of maps is your department currently using?
Map Type ScalesUsed
'opographic Line Maps

eological Maps
adastral Maps
ydrographic Maps
rthoimage Maps (Aer. Photos) -Rectified
r hoimage Maps (Aer. Photos) -Unrectified
rthoimage Maps (Sat. Images) -Rectified
rthoimage Maps (Sat. Images) -Unrectified
)G Series Maps
thers
others, please specify.
g What are the primary usesof the geographicinformation in your department?
y. -
3ý
l0
g
y, Which map scalesdo you prefer working with, and why?
;. 10 please complete the following table to indicate the desired vertical and horizontal
accuracy, contour intervals, supplementary contours and map type that your
department would require to satisfy your future needs.
272
Annex I Survey Questionnaire
Supplementary
Map Horizontal Vertical Contour
Map Type Contours
Scale Accuracy Accuracy Interval
Interval
1: 1,000
1:2,000
1:5,000
1: 10,000
1:25,000
1: 50,000
1: 100,000
1:250,000
1: 500,000
1: 1,000,000
1: 2,000,000
A. ny, additional Comments:
273
Water Contours
Roads Maritime From Pipe- Dams/ Terrain Developer
Map Scale and Areas
Features Wells, lines Bridges Types
Spot Ills
etc
1:1,000
1:2,000
1:5,000
1:10,000
1:25,000
1:50,000
1: 100,000
1:250,000
1:500,000
1: 1,000,000
1:2,000,000
Any additional Comments:
5.11 What cultural features are needed for your department (features to be printed on the
maps)?
5.12 If you use image maps, please indicate the resolution which you prefer and type of
images (coloured or black and white).
274
5.13 Please list the types and dates of products used by your department? (If you need
more spaceplease use a separatesheet).
Producttype Productiondate
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
5.14 How often are the mapsusedby your departmentupdated?And how often would you
prefer to havethem updated?
L2.6 Section Six: Spatial Data Exchange

6.1 List the organisations, with which your department is exchanging data.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
6.2 How are new dataor productsrequested?
By official letter
By agreement
By phone
By filling forms
By E-Mail
Other means
If other, please specify
275
Annes I SurveyQuestionnaire
Maintain Exchange
ArcInfo Coverages
ArcView Shapefiles
Microstation DGN files
AutoCAD (DWG/DXF)?
GIF (Graphic Interchange Format)
SDTS (spatialdatatransfer standard)
SIF
TIFF
CIB
JPEG
DTED"
DLG
Digest
Postscript
CGM
CCITT
HTML
VPF
Vmap
ADRG/CADRG
IGES
ASCII
Others
If others, please specify
6.7 Do you have any commentor observationsconcerningthe exchangeof

F-j No F -T
data with other departments? Yes
If the answeris yes,pleaseexplain
6.9 Do you think your data meet the users expectations in terms of?
Completeness.
Accuracy
Clarity
Currency
Format?
Response time
Quantity
Quality
Other
If other, please specify.
277
ARºsex I SurveyQuestionnaire
6.10 If the answer is No to any part of the above question, please comment.
6.11 Do you find the current circumstances of exchangin information with

other organisations appropriate and efficient? Yes] No
.
6.12 If the answer is No, what are your suggestions for the improvement of services?
6.13 Do you expectthe exchangeof spatial databetween within

organisations the
Kingdom of SaudiArabia to haveany effects? Yes [] No L.
6.14 Whether your answeris Yes or No, pleaseclarify.
4.15 In general, what do you think is the main obstacle to the exchange of spatial data
among government organisations?
Data format
Data type
Currency of geographic products
Media
Inconsistency and discrepancy of data
Unwillingness to exchange data
Cost
Hardware & Software Problems
Human resources
Others
If others, pleaseclarify
6.16 Do you have any final comments or suggestions regarding data exchange?
278
Annex l SurveyQuestionnaire
L2.7 Section Seven:The Developmentof a Strategy

for National Spatial Data Infrastructure in the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
7.1 What do you think SNSDI for the Kingdom of Saudi
of the establishment of an
Arabia?
7.2 Would you like to be a part of this strategy? Yes = No 0.

participate and
7.3 If the answer is No, please explain why not.
7.4 If the answer to question (7.2) is yes, is your organisation willing to place your spatial
data (or some of it) in the main Saudi spatial databasedirectory, which is planned to
be implemented as a part of the strategy (SNSDI)? Yes No Q.
7.5 If the answer is Yes,

please explain.
7.6 If the answer to question (7.4) is No, can you provide written information about your
spatial data and other related activities, so it can be used in the recommended Saudi
National Spatial Data Directory (SNSDD)? Yes Q No [-ý
.
7.7 If the answer is Yes, please explain
279
Annex I
SurveyQuestionnaire
7.8 Final Notes:
1_ Please write
any relevant comments or suggestions, you may have with regard to this
questionnaire.
2. Please write
any relevant comments or suggestionswith regards to this recommended
strategy.
3. Please provide
citationsof all documents,reports,materials,books, e-mail addresses,
or any other references,
which wereusedto completethis questionnaire.
Finally, I would like to take

this opportunity to express my gratitude, thanks, and
appreciation to all those in filling this form helped the
who participated questionnaire and
researcher to complete the
research successfully.
The Researcher
Abdullah AI-Shahrani
280
Annex 11 Questionnaire Returns Summary and I ahulalion
ANNEX II
QUESTIONNAIRE RETURNS
SUMMARY AND TABULATION
This annex summarises and tabulates all the answers to the survey questionnaire. which
contain the following sections:
A. Section One: Filtering Introduction
B. Section Two: Digital Products.
C Section Three: Geographic Information System (GIS).
D Section Four: Conventional Maps (paper maps).
E. Section Five: Users' Needs and Requirements.
F. Section Six: Digital Geographic Information Exchange.
G. Section Seven: The development of a strategy for national spatial data infrastructure in
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
However, as mentioned in chapter 4, in order to make this annex a reasonable length each
participant is given an ID number to indicate the name of the ministries/organisations.
ID Name of Ministry/Organisation Name of Department who

completed the questionnaire
1 Ministry of Defence and Aviation and General Directorate of Military Survey
Inspectorate General (MODA) (GDMS). Research and Develo ment.
2 Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral General Directorate of Surveying
Resources (MOP&MR)
3 Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Projects Support & Control Department
Resources (MOP&MR) Saudi Aramco Surveying Services
- -
Division (SSD)
4 Riyadh City Municipality Department of Names, Numbering and
Aerial Surveying
5 Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs General Directorate of Surveying
(MOMRA)
6 King Abdulaziz City for Science and Space Research Institute, the Saudi
Technology (KACST) Centre for Remote Sensing GIS ('entre
7 Ministry of Interior Not Given
8 Ministry of Communications Service Coordination and Geographic
Informatioystem
9 Ar Riyadh Development Authority Urban Information System Department.
10 The Ports Authority Department of Lighthouses and Marine
Communications
11 Ministry of Agriculture Documentation and Infiºrmation ('entre
and Water
12 Ministry of Planning The Department of' Public Statistics,
Ma ping I Jnit
Design. t)eputyship of buildings and
school supplies
281
Annex II QuestionnaireReturnsSummaryand Tabulation ""'
14 Saudi Telecommunication Company Riyadh Province

15 The Saudi Consolidated Electric Geographic Information System and
Com an SCECO network design-Central Province
16 General Presidency of Girls Education Not Given
17 National Commission for Wildlife information and documentation Centre
Conservation and Development and Geographic Information System
A. SECTION ONE: FILTERING

INTRODUCTION
The filtering introductory sections were answered as follows (No refer to Participant ID):
1. Main activities of the ministries/organisations (producers, users or both).
Producer User Both

None 13,14 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,11 (in the near future), 12,15,16,17
2. Type of products produced.
Digital Maps Conventional Ma s Both

6,14 2,12,16,17 1,3,4,5,8,9,11(in the near future), 15
3. The Capabilities of Geographic information system (GIS).
Yes No
1,3,4,5,6,8,9,11 (in limited bases),51,17 2,14,16
B. SECTION TWO: DIGITAL PRODUCTS

Each answer (summary of answers) in all the following sections has the same number as
the question, for example 2.1 in this section is the summary of answer for question (2.1
What type of digital products are you producing?
2.1 Type of digital products,which are availablein the Kingdom of SaudiArabia.
Raster Vector Matrix Other

1,3,4,5,6,8,9,11,14, 1,3,4,5,6,8,9,11, 1 9 (Combination of
15 15 Raster and Vector
2.2 Spatial data formatsused.
Format ID Format ID
DGN 1,3,4,5,911 BMP 11
Arc Info 1,8,9,11 DTED I
Arc View 1,9 ADRG I
282
Annex 11
Quesuonw; re Rei;; i Summary and 7i7vuuum
--, _
Cam" 1 JPEG 3,4

DXF g, 11 CAD 8
DWG 11 ASCII 8
TIFF 1,3,4,4, il
, CARIS 10
LAN E; :
1 Others 6
GeoTIFF 3
2.3 Main Digital

products (including scales,area covered and product date) produced in
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (This
summary includes replies to questions 2.4
and 2.17).
ED Digital Products Area Prod.

Scale
"a tu
%lovereu
1 1. Topographic Parts of KSA 92-Now
maps 1:25,000
2. Joint Operation Graphics The whole KSA
(JOG) 1:250,000 1992-98
Air and ground
versions
3. Map of SaudiArabia 1:2,000,000 The KSA 2001
4. Planning 1:1,000,000 The KSA 1990-95
charts
5. The Provinces Map The KSA
Dif. Scales
6. OrtholmageMaps Parts of KSA
1:100,000
7. Topographic Under production
maps 1:50,000
8.Digital Terrain Elevation
Data 1:250,000 Parts of KSA
(DIED) 1:250,000 Parts of KSA
9.Digital Feature Analysis Data Parts of KSA
1:250,000
(DFAD)
I O.Arc Digitised Raster Graphics
3 1. PI All Aramco Dill.

metric and Topographic 1:1,000
Maps 1:10,000 Dates
operating areas;
2. Planimetric in
and Topographic As needed primarily
Maps EasternProvince
3. Planimetrie (about 120,000
and Topographic
Maps squarekm).
{ 4. Plan and Profile
4 1. Digital Maps City of Riyadh 1996
of Riyadh City 1: 1,000
2. Digital Maps of Riyadh City 1:25,000 City of Riyadh 1996
3. Riyadh Maps Update 1:1,000 City of Riyadh 1996
4. Satellite Imageof Ri 1999
adh
5' 1. TopographicMap 1:1,000 All Cities and
2. Topographic Maps 1:2,500 Villages in the
3. TopographicMaps 1:10,000 KSA
4. To ographic 1:20.000
mans =
283
Annex, U QuestionnafrcReturnsSummarymudTabulation"
5. Ortho-photo Ma vs 1: 10,000 =
6 1. Different types of Satellite The received Updated
images images covers yearly
are receivedat the centre's 5000km diameter
receiving stationin KACST circle with an area
in Riyadh. of about 23
million sq. km,
2. Jeddah Explorer, which contains which covers all
the basic maps of the Jeddah City the middle east 2000
countries
8 1. The Road Network All type of All the KSA 2000
2. Pavement elements of a road Scales 1999
3. Non-pavement elements of a 2000
road 1999
4. Asphalt surface condition
5. Traffic accidents
6. Traffic counts
9 1. City planning 1:1,000 The developed 1999
1:2,500 areaof Riyadh
2. Riyadh Explorer, which contains representing an 2000
the basic map of the Riyadh City area of 1782 km2.
and some public facilities such as The extended
Ministries, hotels,hospitals, limits of greater
embassies,mosques, schools, Riyadh City
police stationsandcivil defence representingan
stations etc. (GIS criteria: area of about
Version 1) 4,000 km2 will be
covered later. The
3. Geographic standards and spec. extension will 2000
include the
developedareas
of the Riyadh
City and nearby
villages. This will
be carriedout as
part of the
2001/02-landuse
survey.
10 Hydrographiccharts 1:50,000 The Kingdom's
1:150,000 Coastlineand
Seafronts.
11 The products will differ according to Our target is to
the needsof eachsectionor dept. of havea complete
284
Annex II QuestionnaireReturnsSummaryand Tabulation"""'"
concern, most importantly: The Land coverage of all

Department will have cadastral Provinces in the
maps. The Forests and Pastures Kingdom (13
Department medium and small-scale Administrative
maps. The water Deputyship will areas).
have a variety of map scales.
14 1. Cadastral maps showing the 1: 1,000 All the exchanges
locations of the telephone within the
network. 1: 10,000 developed areas
2. Cadastral maps showing the of Riyadh
Locations of the telephone Province. The
network. primary highways
in the KSA.
15 Basic Maps of Riyadh City Riyadh City
2.5 The main identifier of type and scale of products (Department or Users).
Department User
1,3,4,9,10,14,15 1,3,4,5,6,8,9,11,14,15
2.6 The main identifier of requirements and contents products (Department or Users).
Department User
1,3,4,5,9,10,14 1,4,5,8,9,11
2.7 Quality assurance(QA) andquality control (QC) usedin the digital production lines.
Quality assurance used in production Quality control used in production

YES NO YES NO
1,3,5,6,8,9,10,11,14 2,4,7,12,13, 1,3,5,6,8,9,10,11,14 2,4,7,12,13,
17 17
2.7 (continued)Typesof Quality Assuranceand Quality Control used.
ID Type of Quality assurance and quality control used

1 At each phase of production, starting from data collection in the field to the printing
stage, the product is checked before it passes to the next phase. The checking
procedures include both automatic (systems) checking and manual checking. In
some casesthe work has to go back to the field for field verification.
After compiling each map sheet goes through several main QC checks, then
separations for field editing, where quality, positional accuracy, completeness and
other aspects are checked and verified. Then it returns to the office to apply all
corrections and perform the final office QA. At the printing stage, the registrations,
colours and other qualities are performed.
285
Annex 11 QuestionnaireReturnsSummaryand Tabulation
3 After Maps are compiled, they go through several preliminary QC steps. At this
point the preliminary map sheet is sent to the field for field edit. After field edits, all
corrections are applied and a final office QC is performed. QC includes both
software data integrity checks and manuscript editing.
5 During the quality control phase, map sheets produced from aerial photographs are
carefully checkedto ensureconformity to the specificationsstatedand required by
Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs (MOMRA). We also check the
geographical locations of featuresby comparing measurementsin reality to map
measurements.
6 1. Image display on the screen.
2. Reading the information on the producing media.
8 A road survey was carried out using Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment.
The survey was used to determinethe accuracyof information. The accuracy of
90% of the datais determinedat part of a metreand the accuracyof 10% of the data
can be determined at + or - 50 meters. Samples of the data are compared with
certain well-known geographiclocations.
9 1. Ensure that product meets the requirements stated in the task order.
2. Ensurethat coloursand symbolsare in accordancewith the map legend.
3. There is a special Ar Development Authority (ADA) scale for each particular
land use marked by a special colour. Scalesare therefore checked to ensure
correctness.
10 This is done in accordance with internal procedures based on the requirements of the
IHO and other agencies of concern.
11 This will be determined by the concerned departments such as the land section, the
forests section etc. This would typically include field verifications based on
international standards.
14 Quality control procedures are conducted manually by checking each product before
it is given out to contractorsfor production.
2.8 Contracted products against In-house productions.
In-house Contracted
1,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,14,15 4,5,9,11,14,15
2.9 Name of contractors used.
ID Contractor
4 Not Named.
5 Asia Company of Korea, BKS, Terra, KLM Aerocarto Hunting, Ilansaluftbuild,
IGN.
9 e.g. The Riyadh Explorer. A contractwas signedwith Adaleel Information Systems
Company whose job is to take care of developmentand production whereasAr
Riyadh Development Authority (ADA)'s role is to supply information and maps.
11 This shall be decided upon once the system becomes operational. We will probably
start by contracting local companiesuntil we begin to gain experiencegradually.
Our target is to become self-sufficient at the end of the day.
14 Rolita Company, Saudi Arabia.
15 Not named
286
Annex
ReturnsSummaryand Tabulation
Questionnaire
2.10 Standards used for mapping production activities.
Activity Yes No
Land and Geodetic Survey 1,3,5,8,9,11 4,6,10,14,15
Photo imetry 1,3,4,5,9,11 6,8,10,14,15
Cartography 1,3,5,8,9,11,14,15 4,6,10
Quak assurance and quality control 1,3,5,9,11 4,6,8,10,14,15
Data transfer and Exchange 1,3,4,9,11,15 5,6,8,10,14
Printing 1,3,5,8,9,11 4,6,10,14,15
Others 6. (Satellite images spec.) 1,3,4,5,8,10,11,
9. (Land use spec. to check 14,15
land use against maps)
2.11 Type of standardsused.
ID Standard
1 We use the specifications suitable for each product and compatible to the DIGEST
In
specification. the nearfuture the ISO/TC 211 as
standards it become
we will use
available through the Saudi Arabian StandardsOrganisation (SASO).
3 Geodetic Survey usesNGS Standards;Photogrammetry usesASPRS Standardsfor
accuracy and internal standardsfor GIS content, structuring, data modelling, etc.
Data transferstandardsuseMGE/DGN. The Land Surveyusesinternalstandardsfor
map production and follows USGS for accuracy
4 Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs (MOMRA) specifications for feature table
and categories are used.
5 The Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs (MOMRA) has specifications and
standards for all the above steps (in summary 2.10) -of production but they cannot
be easily describedin a questionnairelike this.
-6 There are special standardsfor the satellite images processing and production at the
Saudi Remote Sensing Centre, KACST.
8 -
We use the specifications in the "Map Design and Specification"
recommended
compiled as part of the Ministry of Communications GIS Study conducted on behalf
of the Ministry by British Aerospace Company.
9 Ar Riyadh development authority (ADA) has its own standard for checking land use
i. is
againstmaps. e. quality checkedon logical grounds. For instance if an empty
piece of land (no building it) is found with a 3-5 storeybuilding, this is obviously
on
illogical or if a clay househasa height of 30 storeys,thenthis is illogical. It must be
rejected and corrected. For digital mapping products, MGE programs are used to
check the good quality and accuracyof graphicsandthat thereis an attribute for
every element. Transfer information: In this
and exchange of geographical
connection the standard available to ADA is DGN which applies to the international
geographic standards of ISO/TC211
10 In accordance with IHO requirement S-57.
We will use the ISOTTC21I specifications as the Kingdom hasjoined membership
11 of that committee.The specificationis now being appliedthroughthe SaudiArabian
Standards Organisation (SASO).
14 Maximum accuracy of measurement to the nearest metre is required.
We have a constant list of codes and symbols that remain unchanged for the electric
15 networks. Our new project for Riyadh City is based on Oracle databaseswith
Spatial, which is compatible to all different GIS formats.
287
Annex 11 QuestionnäirrReturnsSummaryam ....... _. __
n .ý
2.12 Future plans to develop standardsor use existing standards
YES NO
1,3,4,5,6,11 8,9,10,14,15
2.12Standards or specifications planning to use or develop.
ID Comment
1 The Ministry of Defence and Aviation and Inspectorate General (MODA),
General Directorate of Military Survey (GDMS) is a member of the ISO/TC 211
and shall therefore adopt the set of standardsand specifications being prepared
b the above International Organisation once it is ready.
3 ISO/TC 211 standards.Depends on review and application of Aramco
operations.
4 1. Kingdom wide Standardisation of GIS activities. Riyadh Development has
takenthe
initiative in this directionby conductinga studyand holding meetings.
2. This shouldpreferablybe handledby the SaudiArabian Standards
Organisation (SASO).
3. Once completed all parties concerned shall adhere to the standards.
5 The General Directorate of Surveying, being the central body of concern at the
Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs (MOMRA) is trying to lay down the
standards and Specifications for the transfer and exchange of geographical
information. The aim is to establishconsolidatedprocedures,specificationsand
standards as part of the information adopted by MOMRA to serve the sectors
affiliated to it.
6 In relation to GIS, there is a plan for establishing consolidated specifications
drawing on International GIS Standards ISO/TC 211).
8 For the production steps marked No (in 3.10), our department is waiting for the
action of competent authorities such as SASO regarding the approval of
consolidated National Specifications and Standards for the exchange of
Information through GIS Systems.
9 _
We do not have a plan as already indicated, but our intention is to adopt all the
standards and specifications produced by ISO/TC 211 and approved by the Saudi
Arabian Standards Organisation (SASO).
11 As part of the field study carriedout in relation to the applicationof the proposed
GIS, the Ministry will adopt the specifications established by Ar Riyadh
Development Authority (ADA) where the Ministry staff have participated in the
precedingdiscussionsand attendedtraining given on the specifications.
2.14 Views and intentions with regard to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia being a mcmbcr of
the International Organisation for Standards/Technical Committee for Geographic
Information/Geomatics 211 (ISO/TC 211).
to use ISO/TC 211 standards Propose to use other standards

4,5.6.8.9.10.11.14,15 None
2.15 Geodeticreferencesystemin use.
288
QuestionnaireReturnsSummaryand Tabu![mon
International WGS 72 WGS 84 Others

Spheroid
3,4,8,10,11 10 1,4,6,8,9,10,11 5 UTM ?, 10
2.16 Datum used.
Horizontal Vertical
WGS 84 Ain Al Abd Others Jeddah 72 Others
1 3,4,5,6,8,9, 1,4,5,6,11 3(SaudiAramco
11 Vertical Datum,
SAVD 78
2.18 Reproduction Material for the digital (This includes

available products summary
replies to question 2.19).
Yes No The condition and uali of the re roduction materials
1 All reproduction materials for our digital products are available in digital
format and in excellentconditions,storedin the database.
3 Our primary deliverable is digital. If hard copies are required we print
directly from digital file.
4 Stored under special storage conditions at fixed temperature.
5 In ood condition
6 In respect to the satellite images. Information is stored on digital linear tapes
- DLT
8 The are stored in a databasein digital format.
9
10 In ood condition.
11
14
2.20 Potential users the digital

of products.
ID Potential user
1 1. All the military to the Ministry defence
sectors affiliated of and aviation.
2. All the civilian agencies other Armed forces.
and
3. Universities
and Researchers.
3 Saudi Aramco Or
anizations.
4 De artmentsof the municipality and its branches.
S The different sectorsof Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs (MOMRA),
governmentdepartmentsand private sectorcompaniesinvolved in roads,water
su 1, electricity and cleaning services along with consulting offices.
6 1. Satellite images are used by
most government and private organizations.
2. GIS is ex ected to be
used by service industries.
8 1. Ministry of Communications
staff.
2. Some other organizations
such as KACST.
9 1. Ar Riyadh Development Authority Departments
2. All governmentagenciesand institutions involved in the developmentof Riyadh
Ci or in 5ervin it.
289
Annex 11 QuestionnaireReturnsSummaryand Tabutatlon
3. Universities, private companies related to the execution of projects in Riyadh,

individuals, and researchers.
10 Many different government departments, marine navigators and seaport users.
11 The entire Ministry of Agriculture and Water affiliates (Directorates and branches)
as well as the Ministry's staff.
14 The only user is the department of network engineering and development and
facilities development at the Saudi Telecommunications Company.
15 All departments in the Saudi Consolidated Electric Company for now. The digital
map to be produced will be suitable for use by everybody.
2.21 Hardware used for digital products.

1. Geodetic and 1 and Snrvev
ID Hardware
1 The Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment, total stations, theodolites
(mainly Wild and Zeiss), distances measuring, leveling instruments-various
classes.
3 GPS Receivers and NA-3003 digital level for geodetic survey.
Trimble RTK GPSsystem,Leica TCA-1800 total stationand differential GPS
System (Omnistar). NA-2002 Digital level.
4 Total stations, GPS equipment, theodolites.
5 In the latest projects, land and geodetic survey depends on the GPS technology.
Trimble equipment is used for this kind of work along with conventional survey
equipment such as total stations, theodolites and balance equipment. Equipment is
suppliedb Wild.
6 GPS equipment.
8 Trimble differential GPS, Calcomp digitizer.
11 GPS equipment, total stations.
2. Photogrammetrv
ID Hardware
1 IntergraphIMA, DEC VAX and workstations,Dell workstations,Intergraph/Zciss
scanner PSII and various types of Wild and Zeiss digital and semi digital
equipment.
3 Cessnacitation aeroplane,RC-30 aerial cameramountedon PAV30 stabilizer,
ASCOT system for AGPS data collection, DSW 300 Leica scanner.
4 Stereoplotters.
5 Scanners,type Zeissare usedfor aerial photoswhile imagestationsof Intergraph
are usedfor collecting three-dimensionalimages.
11 We cooperatewith qualified governmentagenciesof concernto obtain such
products. We will not try to handle this at the Ministry except within very limited
scopein the field of digital photogrammctry.
290
Annex If QuestionnaireReturnsSammaryand Tabulation
3. Di ita1 Cartoornnhv
ID Hardware
1 Intergraph Workstations TDs, Dell Pentium II and III PC Workstations, Compaq
II, Micron and other image processing stations.
3 Image Station "Intergraph ZII" for data collection, Dell graphic workstation (620
Precision), IBM graphic workstations for data editing (Intellistation Z Pro).
4 Intergraph workstations TD7 2000
5 TD7 image station system of Intergraph is used for digital cartography along with
sophisticated computers used for the cartographic enhancementof digital maps.
9 Workstation Hardware, MicroStation software, MGE, MGA
10 Intergraph charting system
11 Our plan provides for the obtainment of large and accurate digitizers for sectors
and also for acquiring scanners.
15 NT-Workstation.
4. Renroaranhics
ID Hardware
1 HP755 & 2500, Villa G rafx-XL50, Roland Hi-Fi jet, Optronics (Film Recorder),
Tan ent 5480 Scanner.
3 IBM Graphic Workstation (Intellistation Z Pro), Dell Graphic Workstation (620
Precision).
4 Intergraph Server, Intergraph TD7 Workstations, HP Brio PC's, 3 Com network,
Eagle Scanner black and white, Large Format Colour Scanner (Colour Trac 3680).
5 During the early stages of mapping, we use versatec map plotter of Intergraph
alon with HP2500 & HP3500 plotters.
6 Digital equipment, SGI equipment.
9 HP plotters, MicroStation, I plot, Arc View.
10 Intergraph charting system.
11 The plan anticipatesthe useof largeplotters for vectorsand raster.
5. Printing System
ID Hardware
1 Man Rolandand SpeedMaster for the final mapsprintings.
3 ElectrostaticVersatecPlotter, Inkjet Large format ColorspanPlotter, LightJet
5000 for large format imageproduction, lip 3500 Plotter, liP 750c Plotter, lip
600 Plotter.
4 HP 750C Plotter, HP 2500 CP postscript plotter, Epson Stylus Printer.
5 For Final map printing, we use:
1. Optronic Map Setter from Intergraph
2. Contact Copier
3. Dupont Processor
291
", ",_-ý.. -.m..,ý.. -..._,._...
Annex II QuestionnaireReturnsSummaryand Tabulation
6 Complete development and printing labs, plotters, printers (HP), Kodak, printers,
Totters,display maker.
8 HP 1050 C Plotter, HP 750 C, Calcomp Tech Jet 5336.
9 HP Plotters, MicroStation, I Plot, Arc View.
10 Inter graph Charting System
11 Different printers will be procured.
2.22 Software used for digital products

1. Geodetic and Land Survey
ID Software
I SDR 2000 for analysing, SOKIA for total stations, Trimble GPSurvey and
Pathfinder, GeoMedia, MicroStation 95/SE.
3 Geodetic Surveys utilise, GPSurvey, Geolab, Geographic Calculator, Leica Level
Reduction Program. Land Survey utilise, Trimble Survey Office (TGO),
Gewogenius, MicroStation, Terra Survey Terramodular, StarLev, StarNet, and
LandMark.
4 Win Comms Software for data transfer from cartridges and total stations.
5 Pathfinder Office, GPSurvey, Trimvac, Geolab, Ma Info, Liscad plus.
8 Trimble Software
11 We will be using the software supplied with the GPS and total station equipment.
2. Photogrammetry
ID Software
1 NT Software- Pro 600 Helava & Socet set Helava (softcopy)
IMA-Inter ra h MGE and BC2 System.
3 ASCOT software,Flykin for AGPS dataprocessing,Adobe Photoshop,ER-
Ma er, Intergraph Mapping Suite (IMDZ).
4 MGE - Base Imager
IRASC
5 For Aerial Triangulation: Bundall, Munjy, ISSBA, matchT, Bat B; for Aerial
photos, we use PhotoScan ISPN program from Intergraph for the
program and
processingof threedimensionalimages.
11 We will use a few simple programs such as:
Stereocorrelationin digital photogrammetry,aerial triangulation,DEM
Generation, Ortho-Rectification.
3. Carto ra h
ID Software
I1I MicroStation 95/SE, IRASIC, MGE, various in-house software
3 MicroStation, Image Analyst, MGE and MGDM
4 MicroStation J, GeoMedia 3.0 Pro
292
AmAexg Questionnaire Returns Summary and TQDUlanan
,
5 We use the Intergraph MicroStation program together

with support programs such
as ISPN and MAYS for writing names in Arabic
8 Arc Info, Arc View.
9 MicroStation, MGE
10 Cans
11 Depends on what the GIS
system will produce.
14 Inter h's FRAM software
15 MicroStation
4. Reprographics
ID Software
1 I Plot, CADScri t, ;hop, IRASIC
3 MicroStation, Image Analyst, MGE &MGDM
4 MicroStation J/ SE, GeoMedia3.0 Pro andMGE 7.0
5 We use MicroStation and IPlot
6 Special software for sat. image productions
- PGS, image analysts software ER-
Mapper, ERDAS, Photoshop, Arc Info, Arc View, Maplnfo, GeoMedia,
GeoMedia Pro.
9 MicroStation, MGE
10 Cans
11 De nds on what the GIS system will produce.
5. Printin, System
ID Software
1 MGE-ma ublisher
3 IPLOT, MicroStation, s stem manager from Picto Graphics-
4 I Plot 9.0 Server, I Plot Service Pack, On top of MGE and MicroStation.
5 For final printing, we use MicroStation, Iplot and SRIF. All operated by
Inter h Sofico s stem.
6 PGS,ER-Ma r,ERDAS, Arc
Photoshop, Info, Arc View and GeoMedia.
8 Arc Info and Arc View.
9 I Plot, Arc View andPlotting through-IRASC
10 Cans
11 Depends on what the GIS support software will produce and also on office
software.
2.23 Digital products update

period.
Annually Two Three Four Five Six Years When needed and
Years Years Years Years or more whenever possible
6,11 3,9 8,9 8 4,9,11 1,5,10,14,15 (daily)
293
Annex A7 QuestionnatrcReturnsSummaryand Tabulation""'-
2.24 Preferred Products

update period
1 Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years 5 Years or more As and when

needed
3,4,6,9, 8 1 1,11 5,10,15 (daily)
11,14
2.25 Digital Geographic Databaseheld

and types
Yes No Type Database

1 1. A databasefor the Kingdoms geodetic network information.
2. A databasefor the Kingdoms digital elevation data.
3. A geographic names database.
4. A databasefor topographic maps scale 1:250,000.
5. A databasefor topographic maps scale 1:50,000 (under development)
3 Saudi Ammonproducestheir own BaseMaps for the company.
4 Oracle8.0
5 Our current policy for the latest aerial photography projects is to produce
digital maps and keep them for use in GIS applications. This was applied to
the ma s of Riyadh, the northern parts of Riyadh province and Madinah.
6 We Ian to establish a digital geographic databaseusing satellite images.
8 Oracle8 DBMS
9 General Database
10
1 In the near future will be developed (the design is ready and complete).
14 The telephone network information is stored in a geographic information
databasedesigned for the FRAM system.
15 Oracle-Spatial81
2.26 How is geographic data maintained?
Hardcopy (Maps, Digital (CD-R, Disk, Database DBMS

Charts, Co-ords, High Density disks, Others
Reports etc.) Mag. Tape, etc.)
1,4,5,8,9,15 1 4,6,8,9,11,14 1,4,5,8,9,11 1,3,5,11,15 Nonc
C. SECTION THREE: GEOGRAPHIC

INFORMATION SYSTEMS (GIS)
3.1 Numbersof geographicinformation systems(GIS) including the namesand versions
(This summaryincludesreplaysto question3.2 and 3.3).
ID No. of GIS Name and Version

1 2 1. Arc Info (8.0) numberof users6 and Arc View (3.2) No of users
12.
2. GeoMedia Professional (3.0) and MGE number of users 1.
3 2 1. MGE/MGDM V. 07.01
2. Arc Info and Arc View
294
Annex II QuestionnaireReturnsSummaryand Tabulation
4 2 1. MGE and GeoMedia

2. Arc/Info
5 1 MGE from Intergraph
6 2 1. Arc/Info (8.0), Arc/View
2. GeoMedia 4.0, GeoMedia Pro
8 1 Arc Info V 8.0.1 and Arc View V 3.2
9 2 MGE from Intergraph and ArcNiew from ESRI
10 2 Caris DatabaseManager-2 systems
11 1 Either ESRI or Intergraph or both. The study for establishing such a
system has been conducted, finalised and the is
plan waiting to be
implemented.The systemdesignedwill be semi-central.25 branch
centres will be connected to a main Centre covering the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia. Each centre will have its own peripherals and
workstations.
14 1 Intergraph's FRAM system.
15 1 MGE - Oracle
17 1 Arc View 3.1
3.4 The main use for the GISs.
ID Main uses
1 GIS a (Maily ESRI)
1. Use the different applications of GIS systems.
2. Carry out special projects such as the ministry of education project.
3. Terrain analysis and cross country movements
4. Build the Saudi Arabian topographic databasefor scale 1:250,000 maps (STDB
5. Build up the databasefor the basic topographic maps scale 1:50,000 maps (ST
2).
6. Training the staff in GIS.
GIS b (Maily Intergraph)
1. At presentit is usedfor a limited numberof applicationsand for somestudies.
2. Most of the MGE functions are used in production steps in the
photogrammetry and digital mapping production phases.
3. The systemwas usedfor pilot projectsand somedemonstrations.
3 For Map Production and to make it available on-line for Aramco users.
4 1. Naming and numbering of streets and buildings.
2. Updating digital products.
3. Settlementof disputedboundariesof property and license.
4. Land Surveying
5 1. Area calculation
2. Elevation analysis
3. Built-up area analysis
4. Road network analysis
5. All the GIS servicesneededby Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs
(MOMRA) for digital mapping
6 1. Establishing a geographic database.
2. Carrying out a number of projects.
8 Management and maintenance of roads.
9 Urban planning which involves land use, environment, transportation, housing.
economy and social aspects etc.
295
Annex 11 QuestionnaireReturnsSummaryamaraoMý.....
10 Transfer of all information relating to navigational aids.

11 A wide range of applications is expected given the many applications nccded by the
ministry
14 AutoCAD
15 1. To display locations of subscribers, plants and networks.
2. Monitor andkeeprecordof network loads,typesand distribution.
3. Study and estimate future loads.
17 1. Processing digital maps.
2. Data and information analysis.
3.5 Data formats used
ID Formats
1 1. Arc Info Coverage and Arc View Shapefiles.
2. Intergraph format DGN
3 DGN MicroStation for Vector Data, TIFF, GeoTIFF and JPEG for raster data.
4 DGN; TIF:
5 DGN for graphics, Oracle for database,Visual Basic, Visual C and MDL for
develop ent
8 Arc Info Coverage, Shapefiles, ASCII files.
9 DGN; Shapefile
11 Not yet decided.
15 Oracle DB with Spatial
3.6 When were the systems purchased/upgraded?
ID System Date of
Purchase
1 1. Intergraph MGE. 1990
2. ESRI Arc Info and Arc View 1998
3. Inter ah GeoMedia 2000
3 1. MGE/MGDM V. 07.01 1991
2. ESRI Arc Info and Arc View 1991
4 1. Intergraph GIS 1996
2. ESRI Arc Info 1990
5 Intergraph MGE 1992
6 1. ESRI Arc Info and Arc View 2000
2. IntergraphGeoMedia 2000
8 ESRI Arc Info and Arc View 1996
9 1. Intergraph MGE 1993
2. Arc View 1996
10 Cans 1999
14 Intergraph FRAM system 1998
15 Pilot Project under development
17 Arc View 3.1 1999
296
Am3exff
QuestionnaireReturnsSummaryand TaDuumowr
3.7 Does the system

work as part of a network and if so, what type of network (This
summary includes replies to question 3.8)
Yes No Type of Network

1 Local Area Network
3 Local Aramco Intranet
4 Local Area Network, 3 Corn Cards and TCP/IP protocol
5B Thin Net
6 Network
g Network
9
et LAN star to olo
11 Detail yet determined.
14 Network
15 AN using optical fibre network
3.8 Was the purchase

co-ordinatedwith other organisations(This summaryincludes
replies to question3.10).
Yes No Organisations co-ordinated with

1
3 Some Saudi Aramco organisations
4
5
6 The General Directorate of Information.
8 1. Ministry of Defence and Aviation and Inspectorate General (MODA),
the General Directorate of Military Survey (GDMS).
2. Ministry of Petroleum & Mineral Resources(MOP&MR).
3. Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs (MOMRA).
4. Ar Riyadh Development Authority (ADA).
5. King Abdulaziz City Science and Technology (KACST).
6. Plus departments of concern at the Ministry.
19
10
11 I. Ministry of Defence and Aviation and Inspectorate General (MODA),
4. King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST).
5. King Saud University (KSU).
6. Minis of Petroleum and Mineral Resources(MOP&MR).
14 Ar Riyadh Development Authority (ADA) who had past experience with the
system.
stem.
15 1. Ministry of Defence and Aviation and Inspectorate General (MODA),
4. Ri adh City Municipality.
17
297
Annex If .mýp.. 'ý. Tabulation
Questionnaire Returns Summary and
3.11 Do the benefits of the system meet the expectations of the department? (This
summary includes replies to question 3.12).
Yes No The reasons for not meeting the expectations
1
3 The company started recently to form a Corporate GIS.
4
5 1. Limitation of System
2. System is difficult to use
6
8
9
10
11 Hopefully they will.
14
15 Hopefully they will.
17
3.13 Is the Departmentawareof any similarity betweentheir GIS andothersin

the Kingdom of SaudiArabia? (This summaryincludesrepliesto question3.14)
Yes No Organizations
1 1. Riyadh City Municipality.
2. King Saud University.
3. Ar Riyadh Development Authority.
3
4
5
6 1. Ministry of Communications
2. Ministry of Agriculture and Water
3. Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs
4. Riyadh City Municipality.
5. Department of Geological Survey.
6. Department of Meteorology and Environmental Protection.
8 King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST)
9 1. Ministry of Defence and Aviation and Inspectorate General (MODA), the
GeneralDirectorateof Military Survey(GDMS).
4. Ministry of Petroleumand Mineral Resources-Saudi Aramco.
5. SaudiConsolidatedElectric Company.
6. Saudi Telecom.
7. The Water Supply Department.
10
14 Ar Riyadh Development Authority (ADA)
15 1. New Project at Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs.
2. New project at Saudi Consolidated Electric Company (Western Region).
17 1. Ministry of Defence and Aviation and Inspectorate General (MODA), the
General Directorate of Military Survey (GDMS).
3. King Abdulaziz City for Scienceand Technolo (KACST).
298
Annex II M
Questionnaire Returns own..
-,
3.15 How is GIS used in the departments
ID --+ 1 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 14 15 17
Data Collection y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Data Processing y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Data Management Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Data Anal sis y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Data Display y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Data Output y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Other y Y* Y
* Conversion of data from
one system to another.
3.16 How long havedigital geographicproductsbeenproducedin the Kingdom
1 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 14 15 17
Since Since Early Since Since Since Since Since Not Since Since Since
1990 1991 1991 1996 2000 1996 1986 1999 Yet 1999 1999 1998*
* With the compilation of a digital map of the Red Sea Coast North of Jeddah to the Aqaba Culf in co-
operation with Japan International Co-operation Agency (JICA)
3.17 Who identified product (This summary includes replies to question 3.18)
Requirements and Contents Type and Scale

Department User Department User
1,3,4,5,6,9,10,17 1,4,5,6,8,9,11,14,15,17 1,3,4,5,6,10, 1,4,5,6,8,
14 11,15
3.19 What type of quality assuranceand quality control is used
ID Quality assurance and quality control used in GIS steps

1 1. There are quality control and quality assuranceschecks after each phaseof
the GIS (same procedures as in number 2.7
preparation and production
above).
2. Also a thorough check of quali! X is made at the final phase.
3 Sameasnumber2.7 above.
4 1. Quality control check accordingto the scaleof the map produced.
2. Following the Municipal and Rural Affairs (MOMRA) standards.
3. Checking against field data.
5 1. Elevation checks.
2. Symbologychecks.
3. Cartographic presentation checks.
4. Level and graphic array validity analysis.
5. Field Checks.
6. Spelling and placement of names checks.
7. Various map production steps counter checking.
299
Annes Un.
Questionnaire Returns Junuºnrj...,..
.
6 1. Checking to ensure the images co-ordinates.

2. Accuracy of information.
3. Makin sure that the roduct meets the user
requirements.
8 Same as number 2.7 above.
9 1. Verifying the place names.
2. Checking the control points.
3. Checking the map scale.
4. Matchin the le end with the map contents.
14 Manual QC Procedure.
17 The NCWCD's GIS is just starting. The Red Sea Coast digital
map was made in
Japan after the initial data collection was completed by researchers from
NCWCD andJa an.
3.20 Were there any difficulties during data collection, processing,

encountered
management, analysis, display or output? (This summary includes replies
to question 3.21).
Yes No Difficulties Encountered

1 We still experience some technical problems especially in relation to the
databasewe are using.
3
4 1. Sudden breakdown of systems and equipment.
2. The trained Saudi personnel leave to other agencies.
3. Expiry of consumables such as ink and printing paper.
5 1. Data integration problems due to MGE
2. Operating system conversion problems due to UNIX
3. MGE complex data handlin problems
6 1. Obtaining information from other agencies.
2. Difference of specification from one agency to another.
To overcome these problems we should co-ordinate activities and set up a
National databaseafter the approval of a consolidated GIS specification.
8
9
10
14
1S Data collection and verification and the continuous updating thereof.
3.22 Are enough well trained Saudi personnel working in the departments and what are
the plans to train Saudi personnel? (This summary includes replies to question 3.23).
Yes N12. Explanation

1 1. A number of Saudi employees have been recruited and are now at
work.
We will continue to attract more people until all the vacancies are
manned with concentration of specialized university and technical
institute graduates
3
4 We don't havea plan. All we do is coordinatewith the personnel
departmentand authorisedexecutivesat the Ministry of Public Service.
300
Annex 11 Quest Returns Summary mit au
noonllnä
T delays recruitment.
existing plan aims at attracting qualified university and technical
ute duates and train them to operate the system in future.
ttract specialised Saudis.
aintain on the job training programmes.
stablish as cialised center of trainin .
ecruit Saudi personnel as required.
ive them on-the-job training with the help of current personnel who
are the system operators at the Ministry.
3. Send them for training at the Kingdom's Universities and overseas
training colleges.
9
10
11 Hopefully, per our plan. Recruitment, Training at Universities and training
in the Kin dom and Overseas.
14
15 Our programme for Saudisation is in good progress.
17 We are Cooperating with the General Directorate of Military Survey
(GDMS) to produce a digital map for the Ibex Sanctuary and the other
sanctuarieswith sufficient trainin for our staff.
3.24 Are departments aware of the maintenance of similar geographic information

databasesby other organisations in the Kingdom? (This summary includes responses
to question 3.25).
Yes No The Organisation

1
3
4 The General Directorate of Military Survey (GDMS) and Ar Riyadh

Develop ent Authority (ADA).
5 Ar Riyadh Development Authority (ADA), Saudi Aramco, City
municipalities affiliated with the Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs
(MOMRA)
8
9
10
14 Ar Riyadh Development Authority (ADA)
15 The General Directorate of Military Survey (GDMS), Riyadh City
Municipality, the Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs (MOMRA) and
Ar Development Authority (ADA).
17
301
Annex If ionnaire
Queater Returns Summnrymw iawx...,..
-,..,.-.,, a,,,t, _
D. SECTION FOUR: CONVENTIONAL MAPS

4.1 Future plans for digital maps and geographic information systems (This summary
includes replies to question 4.2).
Yes No The Plans

2 The General Directorate is currently working on a plan to acquire an
integrated digital system. It would eventually scan all the conventional maps
available at different scalesand convert them into digital maps for future
roduction.
5 The General Directorate of Surveying is now producing both digital and paper
printed. This began in 1987.
8 Now we use digital maps and GIS systems. We also produce paper-printed
maps using the GIS system available to the Ministry of Communication.
11 Plans in hand to start digital production.
15 The project will soon be awarded. Construction will start early 142211.
16 No plans
17 The plan is to first establish the GIS System and train our staff for future
productionof digital for in
maps all sanctuaries the Kingdom.
4.3 List the main conventional (paper) products produced (This summary includes replies
to questions 4.4 and 4.11).
ID Conventional Products Scale Area Covered Prod. Date

1 I. TopographicMaps 1:25,000 Partsof the KSA 92-Now
2. JOG (Air and Ground) 1:250,000 The KSA 1992-98
3. Map of the KSA 1:2,000,000 Partsof the KSA 2001
4. The Arabian Peninsula 1:3,000,000 The KSA 1987
5. PlanningCharts 1:1,000,000 The KSA 1990-95
6. The Muslim World Map 1:30,750,000 The Muslim World. 1992
7. Aerial photography 1:120,000 The KSA 1987-90
9. Others Different s. Different area Dif dates
2 1. Topographicmaps 1:50,000 1,3,4and 5 covered Up to
2. Topographicmaps 1:100,000 All of the Kingdoms 1984
3. Topographic maps 1:250,000 provinces and
4. Topographicmaps 1:500,000 governorates.
5. Topographicmaps 1:1,000,000
6. Topographic maps 1:2,000,000 6,7 Covered KSA
7. Topographic maps 1:4,000,000
3 We only produce hard copy
when proponents ask for it.
Therefore, all the answers for
this section (section 4) can be
from digital mapping section
section 2
302
Annes II QuestionnaireReturnsSummaryand Tabulation
5 1. Topographic Map 1: 1,000 All cities and

2. Topographic Maps 1:2500 villages in the
3. TopographicMaps 1:10000 Kingdom of Saudi
4. Topographic maps 1:20000 Arabia.
5. Ortho-photoMaps 1:10000 =
6. Aerial photoproject#101 = 1976
7. Aerial photoproject#102 All cities in the KSA 1978
8. Aerial photo project #103 All cities in the KSA 1979
9. Aerial photo project #104 Taif and Jizan 1980
10. Aerial photo project #105 Makkah Al 1982
11. Aerial photoproject #106 Mukramah 1982
12. Aerial photoproject #107 Qassim/Hail& 1984
13. Aerial photo project #108 Makkah
14. Aerial photoproject #109 Arar
15. Aerial photoproject #110 The EasternRegion 1987
16. Aerial photo project #112 The Eastern Region
Albaha
17. Aerial photo project #113 Makkah/Madinah 1992
18. Aerial photo project #115 and Jouf Abha, 1993
19. Aerial photo project #116 Khamis Mushayt 1995
andNajran 1995
Madinah
North Riyadh
Province
Riyadh City
8 1. The Road Network All Different All Provinces in the 2000
2. Pavement elements of a Scales Kingdom of Saudi 1999
Arabia. 2000
road
3. Non-pavementelements 1999
of a road
4. Asphalt surface condition
5. Traffic accidents
6. Traffic counts
10 Hydrographiccharts 1:50,000 The Kingdom's Red

(Navigational) 1:150,000 Sea Coast and
Seaports.
11 The products will differ the target is to have a
according to the needs of complete coverage
each section or department of of all Provinces in
The Ministry. the KSA
12 1. The KSA Provinces. 1:2,000,000 The KSA update
2. The KSA Provinces. 1:3,000,000 The KSA after cad
303
Annes U Questionnaire Returns Summary and Tabulation
3. KSA Supervision areasof 1:2,500,000 The KSA activity

the 1993Censusand
House count. Various Major Cities
4. Al Farsi Cadastralmaps scales
Showingjurisdiction and
the distribution of census. Various Area
5. The KSA Topographic Various
maps showing borders of scales
Provinces, governorates,
aswell asgeographic
names.
15 r Maps of RiyadhCity Riyadh City
16 ap of the KSA. The mapsare
2ýap of the KSA distributedto the
Provinces. departments of
3. Map of the Kingdom's education in the
Roads. Kingdom's
4. Map of the Kingdom's provincesand
most important oil fields. governorates who
5. Map of the Arab Gulf would in turn
Countries. distribute them to
6. Map of the Arab World. schoolsfor use in
7. Map of the Muslim education.The maps
World. haveno reference
8. Maps of some Arab, value as regards
Muslim and European international
Countries. boundaries.
9. Map of Asia (Political)
and Latin America
(Natural and Political).
10. Map of the four seasons
and the solar system.
17 1. Map of the Northern 1:500,000 Al Jouf and Tabouk 1988
Sanctuaries. 1: 100,000 Farasanislands 1990
2. Map of the Farasan 1:100,000 Al-Hariq, Al-Hilwa
Islands. and Hotat Bani
3. Map of the Ibex 1:500,000 Tameem
Sanctuary. 1:100,000 Al-Siyah, Al-
Mowayh and Al-
4. Map of Mahazat Assayd Khurma
Sanctuary. (Governorates).
5. Map of Mahazat Assayd
Sanctuary.
304
Annex II QuestionnaireReturnsSummaryana 1aowur.
4.5 Contracted conventional products against In-house productions.
In-house Contracted
8,9,11,12,15 2,5,9,11,12,15,17
4.6 Name of Contractorsused.
ID Contractor
2 Asia Company, PASCO Company, plus some others.
5 Asia Company of Korea, BKS, Terra, KLM Aerocarto Hunting, Hansaluftbuild,
IGN.
9 "Riyadh Explorer" was produced by local contractors - Addaleel Information
Systems.
11 This will be decidedupon once the systembecomesoperational.We will probably
start by contractinglocal companiesuntil we begin to gain experiencegradually.
Our target is to become self-sufficient at the end of the day.
12 Topographic maps in co-operation with the General Directorate of Military Survey.
Al Farsi maps for jurisdiction of each census inspector.
15 Al Masdar Company (Saudi information system company and its Partner `E-Spatial'
an Irish Company).
16 1. Al Muayyad Printing and Publishing House.
2. Al Na ed International Advertising Agency.
17 The General Directorate of Military Survey GDMS
4.7 Standards used for conventional products and what standards (This summary includes
Yes No Standard
1 1. The General Directorate of Military Survey (GDMS) prepared
specifications adopted for some products.
2. International specifications for some products (DIGEST)
2 1. International Standards
2. Private Standards
5 Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs (MOMRA) has specifications and
standards for all the above steps of production but they cannot be easily
describedin a questionnairelike this.
8
9 We use National and International Standards based on ISO/TC 211
We
specifications. continue to update thosestandards as Now
needed. we
havea first version of the draft specificationsfor Riyadh City.
10 IHO Specifications.
11 We will use the ISO/TC 211 specifications as the Kingdom hasjoined
membership of that committee. The specification is now being applied
through the SASO.
12 Maps used in our department must give good resolution of the targeted area
E. in
or place. g. named populated areas villages and blocks in cities.
15
16 The conditions and technical specifications required by the department
include the quality of printing paper, printing method, types and quality of
inks used, the number of colours and the arrangement of the source or map.
17 Same as those used by The General Directorate of Military Survey GDMS
305
Amu Questionnaire Itelurns Summary and Tanuuma.
.,.,
4.9 Geodetic reference

system in use for your conventional products
International Spheroid WGS 72 WGS 84 Others

1,2,8,10,11 10 1,8,9,10,11 5 UTM ?, 9,10
4.10 Datums used
Horizontal Vertical
WGS 84 Ain Al Abd Others Jeddah 72 Others
1 1,2,5,8,9,11 1,2,5,11
4.12 Reproduction Material (This includes

available summary replays to questions 4.13)
M Yes No Re r oduction material condition and uali
All reproduction materials for the conventional products are available. The
uality differs between old and new materials, as the new materials are
toredunder erfect conditionsand accordingto specifications.
2 Excellent condition. Format. Positive and negative film.
5 In good condition.
8 Not hard conies- but di ital format stored in the database.
9
10 In good condition and quality.
11
12
16 Good condition
1I The reproduction material of the Northern Sanctuaries Map is available at
the NCWCD but not in good condition. For the rest of the Sanctuariesthe
General Directorate of the Military Survey (GDMS) keeps the reproduction
material.
4.14 Potential users of the conventional products.
ID Potential user
1 All Ministries and Government Agencies as well as private organizations and
researchers.
2 All Ministries and GovernmentAgenciesand governmentowned companiesas well
as rivatel owned com anies,individuals and researchers.
5 All sectorsof Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs (MOMRA) at municipalities,
villa e clusters, water and sewage department, all government sectors,
8 1. Ministry of communication employees.
2. Other agencies, such as King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology
KACS
.
9 Individuals, companies, government institutions,
planners and researchers.
10 Man different government departments,
marine navigators and seaport users.
11 All the Ministry's affiliates (Directorates and branches)
as well as the Ministry's
staff.
12 Our ma s are usuall used within the department only for statistical purposesas wo
306
dunes U" ý", "'"ý, ý--°ý__ ______
QuestionnaireReturnsJummaryw...
-
said. They are given to Statistical sections of concern whenever needed for field
researches.
15 All Saudi Consolidated Electric Company Departments. The new planned map will
be good for all civilian applications.
16 The Schools run by the General Presidency of Girls Education.
17 1. National Commission for Wildlife Conservation and Development Researchers.
2. Experts.
3. Rangersassignedto the Sanctuaries.
4. Air Control of the NCWCD aircraft.
4.15 Equipment used for conventional products.

1. Geodetic and land C»rvem
ID Equipment
1 Sameas number 2.21 above (Digital products).
2 Levellin equipment and GPS
5 Same as number 2.21 above
2 GPS E ui ment.
1. Photogramme
TID Equipment
e as 2.21, plus various types of Wild and zeiss equipment and Aerial Cameras.
alogue instruments such as A10, B8, B8s, A7 etc. Analytical Instruments-
nicom and ACI di itizer
e as number 2.21 above
e as number 2.21 above
coo
cooperate with the General Directorate of the Military (GDMS).
3. Cartozranh
tManual Equipment
I 2.21, plus various types of conventional equipment.
Engineering tools
ge station system of Intergraph is used for digital cartography along with
sophisticated computers used for the cartographic enhancement of digital ma s.
umber 2.21 above
antcta lar e and accurate di itizers und scanners.
kstation
anualtechniques,but we are in the processof commissioningthe GIS.
307
"
Annex 11 ýrxs.,,
ý,
QuestionnaireRetu Summaryýand Tabulation
4. Reprographics
ID Equipment
1
Same as 2.21, plus various types of conventional equipment.
2 Conventional Equipment
S During the early stagesof mapping, we use Versatec map plotter of Intergraph along
with HP2S00 & HP3500 plotters.
9 HP Plotters
10 Intergraph Charting System.
11 The plan anticipates the use of large plotters for vectors and raster.
J. Yrintin System
ID Equipment
2 Conventional Equipment
5 4. Same as number 2.21 above
9 HP Plotters
E. SECTION FIVE: USERS' NEEDS AND

REQUIREMENTS
5.1 Which agencies are the main producers for the maps currently in use within
departments.
ID Main Producing Agency

1,7,8,11,12,13,14, Ministry of Defence and Aviation, the General Directorate of
16,17 Military Survey(GDMS)
1,3,5,9,11,12,16,17 Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources (MOP&MR)
4,5,9,11,12,14,15, General Directorate of Surveying, Ministry of Municipal and
17 Rural Affairs (MOMRA)
9,11,14,15,16 Ar Riyadh Development Authority (ADA)
16 The Ports Authority
8,16 Ministry of Communications
9,15 Riyadh City Municipality
9 King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST).
11,12 Al Farsi (private sector
308
AnnexH Queslon a: wý..... ý
5.2 What types of products are being used? (This summary includes replies to
question 5.3).
ID Type of products
4,5,7,8,9,11,12,15,16 Paper mas
4,5,8,9,11,13,14,15 Digital maps
15 Other (Plans for future use of satellite imagery)
16 Other (Geographical map featuring terrain, climate, mineral
resources, population distribution, transportation and natural
lants).
5.4 If department is not presently using Digital Maps and Geographic Information are there
plans for future use (This summary includes replies to question 5.5).
ID Future Plans
5 Our department is now producing digital maps intended for use with GIS
a lications
7 Our plan is to establish a GIS system.
11 We will soon start implementation of The Ministry of Agriculture and Waters GIS
Project.
13 By cooperating with the General Directorate of Military Survey (GDMS) we hope to
have our staff trained on this kind of mapping technique
15 No ex lanation
17 Geographic Information S stem (Arc View 3) is still being developed.
5.6 When spatial data is requested, is it received on time?
F Yes No Why spatial data were not received on time
7
8 Coordination with the map producers is difficult. Some producers insist on
the privacy of the information and refuse to pass it to other organisations.
9
11 Routine procedure and requests for approval. The basic problem is the non-
law and specifications that would determine ways and means
existence of a
of tackling such transactions.
13
14
15 No reason given.
17
5.7 Tvne and scale of mans- which are currently in used

ID Type of Map used Scales
5 TopographicLine Maps 1:25,000,1:50,000,1:250,000&
7 Topographic Line Maps 1:500,000
9 TopographicLine Maps 1:50,000,1: 100,000:1:500,000.
11 Topographic Line Maps 1:2,500
12 Topographic Line Maps Different types
15 TopographicLine Maps 1:50,000to 1:3,000,000
16 TopographicLine Maps 1;500,1: 1,000,1:2,500,1:5,000,
309
Anna ff QuestionnaireReturnsSummaryana 1aouwut ..
17 Topographic Line Maps 1: 10,000

According to needs
9 Geological Maps 1:10,000
16 Geological Maps According to needs
17 Maps
5 _geological
Cadastral 1:1,000and 1:20,000
Maps
7 CadastralMaps 1:1,000,000and 1:2,000,000
8 CadastralMaps Any scale as specified
11 CadastralMaps Different
12 CadastralMaps Depends on City size and density
16 CadastralMaps According to purpose
17 CadastralMaps
10 Hydrographie Charts 1:50,000 and 1:150,000
17 H dro hic Charts
4 Orthoimage Maps (Aerial Photos)-Rectified 1: 1,000
5 OrthoimageMaps (Aerial Photos)-Rectified 1:5,000and 1:10,000
7 Orthoimage Maps (Aerial Photos)-Rectified 1: 1,000,000
9 OrthoimageMaps (Aerial Photos)-Rectified 1:1,000/ 1:2,500
11 Orthoimage Maps (Aerial Photos)-Rectified Different
12 Orthoimage Maps (Aerial Photos)-Rectified
14 Orthoimage Maps (Aerial Photos)-Rectified 1:50,000
15 Orthoimage Maps (Aerial Photos)-Rectified
16 Orthoimage Maps (Aerial Photos)-Rectified According to purpose
17 Orthoima e Maps (Aerial Photos Rectified
4 Orthoimage Maps(Aerial Photos)- 1: 1,000
Unrectified
4 Orthoimage Maps (Sat. Images)-Rectified Spot Panchromatic
5 Orthoimage Maps (Sat. Images)-Rectified As needed
11 Orthoimage Maps (Sat. Images) -Rectified Different
17 Orthoima e Maps (Sat. Images)-Rectified
4 Orthoimage Maps (Sat. Images)-Unrectified Spot Panchromatic
5 Orthoimage Maps (Sat. Images)-Unrectifed As needed
8 Orthoimage Maps (Sat. Images)-Unrectified Resolution: 10 metres
9 Orthoima e Maps (Sat. Ima es Unrectifed Resolution: 10 metres
JOG Series Mans
9 Others Plansapprovedby Riyadh City
Municipality for new quartersin the
city.
5.8 What arethe Primary usesof the Maps and GeographicInformation?
ID Prima Uses
4 1. Naming and numbering Streets and buildings.
2. Settlement of disputes (boundaries, property ownership, and licenses).
3. All other work requiring land surveying.
5 1. Identify ownership, their boundaries, and areas.
2. Settle property disputes by providing map data.
3. Town planning and organization studies.
7 All the studies and research efforts relating to the "law of governance in the
provinces"
310
Armer II Questionnaire Returns Summary ana 7aouwr«m
--. -,
8 I. Maintenanceof roads
2. Operation of roads
3. Traffic safety
4. Other administrative and managerial works relating to roads.
9 1. Planning
2. Analysis
3. Conducting exploratory studies
4. Future forecasts
5. Drawing of policies
6. Administrative boundaries
777Desalination
Dsion making
mainly used for marine navigation.
cultural land
r
ts
res
nal Parks
on
8. Crops, fertilizers and treatment
9. Directorates and branches
10. Meteorology and Meteorology Stations
11. Agriculture guidance
12. Livestock quarantine
1372.
Silos and Grains
cation of populated places, routes leading to them and the difficulty and ease
accessto those places.
entify the boundaries of cities, villages and other named features and
ocations. Also providing details of cities at block level.
3. Maps of the department are used as an assistant factor in conducting statistical
researches,population, and economic censusesas a quick means of reading the
required statistical research unit.
4. Distribution, organization and follow up of field work and monitoring the work
progress.
5. Assess to figure out the manpower and other needs required for each area of
supervision including means of transportation and communication.
6. Identify the boundary limits, defining the locations of different field workers.
13 1. Locating the Educational facilities
2. Establish a strategy for the distribution of educational facilities within cities and
neighbourhoods.
3. Determine the standard for the provision of school services.
4. Selection of optimum location for placing schools with a view to educational
environment consideration.
5. Selecting optimum locations for rented school buildings.
6. Selecting optimum locations for private schools.
7. Determining the type of service and school building size based on density of
ovulation.
14 Determining the boundaries of exchanges
and cabins for residential areas receiving
service or targeted for future service.
15 S eci the locations of subscribers, plants and networks.
16 1. Showing natural features and how they differ from
one another.
311
w.mesI! P-ý., ý Quest
onwi ieReran Summaryý .-
2. Showing the population distribution and variety of religious affiliations around

the world.
3. Showing the distribution of economic activities; namely mining, livestock and
agriculture.
4. Showing the different types of transportation routes, nationally and
17 1. Field Surveys.
2. Study of Sanctuaries.
3. Establishing new Sanctuaries.
4. Air and Ground Control.
5. National Commission for Wildlife Conservation and Development Researchers
and experts.
5.9 Which map scalesarepreferredand why?
T
Preferred Scales and the Reasons
01: 50001: 25000
General Department of Surveying is recognised as one of the main map
in
cers the Kingdom. It producesmaps at scalesof 1:
25,000 or larger that are
d by municipalitiesand other governmentdepartments.
7 No scific scale, the scale is selected in accordance with the needs.
8 No scific scales.
9 We prefer 1:1,000 for the following reasons:
1.Enables the accuracy required to compile a basic consolidated digital map of
Riyadh City.
2-Facilitates map production at different scales.
3-The scale is easy to use by the parties involved in the operation and maintenance
of Riyadh such as Saudi Consolidated Electric Company, Saudi Telecom, The
Water Su 1 Department and the Municipality.
10 The scales are selected as needed. The scales used now are 1:50,000 and 1:150,000.
11 1. Cadastral 1:250 to 1: 1,000
2. Non-Cadastral 1: 10,000 to 1:500,000
12 1. Maps of geographic names (1: 50,000 scale) for areas with numerous populated
it
placenameswhere would be easyto show namesand identify the boundaries
of governorates and administrative areas on those sheets.
2. City maps.Dependson the size of city and density of population. The needalso
dependson the resolution of the boundariesof blocks within the cities and
towns.
13 1:5,000 and 1: 10,000 for clarity and easy recognition of cultural features and their
locations on maps.
14 1.1: 1,000 Clearer and easier to read during network construction.
-
2.1: 10,000 Important reference for arriving at locations and locating work sites.
-
3.1: 20,000 Used for exchange cables (exchange service area).
-
4.1:
T 50,000 Used for the entire area cables (involving several exchanges).
-
15 1:. 1000,1: 2500,1: 10,000,1: 20,000, and 1:50,000.
17 would normally depend on the type of study needed, e.g. for detail studies, we
prefer larger scales such as 1:50,000 or larger. For more general studies smaller
scales are preferred such as 1:250,000 or smaller.
312
A 11 Summaryand Tabulation^^ ^'^
QuestionnaireRehzens
S. 10 Desired vertical and horizontal accuracy, contour intervals, supplementary contours

and map type that organisations would require to satisfy their future needs (ID in
brackets).
Supplcm.
Map Horizontal Vertical Contour
Map Type Contours
Scale Accuracy Accuracy Interval
Interval
(4)-Digital (4)-0.20m (4)-5m (4)-lm
(5) (5)-0.15m (5)-0.20m (5)-Im
1: 1,000 (9)-MOMRS Spec. (9)-0.15m (9)-0.20m (9)-lm
(11)-MOMRS Spec. (11)-0.15m (11)-0.20m (11)-lm
(14)-Survey (14)
(5) (5)-0.40m (5)-2m
(5)-0.30m
(9)-MOMRS Spec. (9)-0.30m (9)-0.40m (9)-2m
(11)-MOMRSSpec. (11)-0.40m (11)-2m
1:2,000 (11)-0.30m
(12)-City map (14)
(14)-Survey
(5) (5)-0.60m (5)-0.80m (5)-5m

(9)-MOMRS Spec. (9)-0.60m (9)-0.80m (9)-5m
(11)-MOMRS Spec. (11)-0.60m (I 1)-0.80m (11)-5m
1:5,000
(12)-City map
(13)
(14)-Survey (14)
(5) (5)-1.5m (5)-2m (5)-10m
(9)-MOMRS Spec. (9)-1.5m (9)-2m (9)-IOM
(11)-MOMRS Spec. (I1)-1.5m (11)-2m (11)-Om
1:10,000
(12)-City map
(13)
14)-Survey (14)
(1)-Togo. Digital (1)-2.2m (1)-IOM
(1)-8.5m (1)-Sm
(1)-Topo.Printed (1)-Sm (1)-IOM
(1)-12.Sm (1)-Sm
Map (4)-20m
(4)-digital
(5)-10m (5)-15m (5)-20m
1:25,000 (5)
(9)-IOM (9)-15m (9)-20m
(9)-MOMRS Spec. (11)-15m (11)-20m
(11)-l Om
(11)-MOMRS Spec.
(41)
(14)-Survey
(1)-Topo. Digital (1)-20m

(1)-17m (1)-3.7m (1)-IOM
(1)-Togo. Printed (1)-20m
(1)-25m (1)-l Om (I)-IOM
Map (8)-5-
(8)-Topographic
(8)-10m IOM
1:50,000 (11)-25m (11)-I Om (I 1)-l Om
(11)-GDMS specs (11)-20m
(12)-Topographic
(14)
(14)-Survey
(17)-5m
(17)-Topographic 17)-l Om
1: 100,000 (11)-GDMS specs
(1)-Digital (1)-85m (1)-22m (1)-50m (1)-25ni

1:250 000
, (1)-PrintedMap (1)-125m (1)-25m (1)-50m (1)-25m
313
QuestionnaireReturnsSummaryand Tabu/a1(on
"° ý- R--
(8) -General Map (8)-200m

(11)-GDMS specs (11)-125m (11)-25m (11)-50m (11)-25m
17)-Topographic (17)-50m (17)-25m
(11)-GDMS specs
1:500,000 (12)-Topographic
17)-Topographic (17)-50m 1(17)-25m
(11)-GDMS specs
1: 1M (12)-Topographic
17)-Geological
(11), 50-
(11)-GDMS specs (11)-200m
1:2M loom
(
S. 1U (continue) Additional comments:
ID Comments
12 1. For cadastralmapsof cities, we usually care for streetand block details,as only
thoseare relevantto our fieldwork.
2. We usually use them to show namesof population-relatednames.Thereforethe
scaleis selectedin accordancewith the densityof populationrelatednames.
5.11 What cultural features are needed for departments (features to be printed on the
maps)?
Water Contours
Map Scale Roads Maritime Dams Terrain Develope
From Pipe-lines &Spot
Features Wells etc
Bridges Types d Areas
fits
4,5,8,
4,5,8,9, 4,5,8, 4,5,8, 4,5,8, 4,5,8,
1:1,000 5 11 4 5 8 9 11
11,14 , 9 , , , 11,14, 9,11, 11,15, 9,11, , 9
, 15 11 16 14 17
15,16 , 15,16 15 16 15 , ,
20
5,8, 5,8, 5,8,
1:2,000 5 8,11, 5,11, 8,11, 5,8,11, 5,8,
, 11,12, 11,12, 11,12,
12,15 15 12 15 11,15
15 15 15
4,5,8, 395989
4, 5, 8,9, 4,5,8, 4,5,8,
1:5,000 5 11 4 5 8 4 5 8, 9,11, 9, 11,
11, 12, , , , , , , , 11,12, 9 11
15 11 12 11 15 12,12, 12,13
13,15 , , 15 15 ,
15 15
5,8,9,
5,8,11, 5,8,9, 5,8, 5,8, 5,8,9,
5 11 5 8 9 11 12
1:10,000 12,13, , , , , , 11 12, 11,12, 11,12, 11,13, , ,
15 11 12 , 13,14,
14,15 , 14,15 15 13,15 15
15
4,5,8, 4,8,11, 4,8, 4,5,8, 4,5,8, 4,5,8,
1:25,000 11 15 4 8 11
11,15 , , , 15 11,15 11,15
11,15 11,15
5,7,8, 5,8
8,11, 5,7,8, 5'7,8,
1:50,000 11,12, 11,12, 7,8,11, 811,12, 11 12
; 12 15 11,12, ' 11,12,
14,15, 15,17 12,17 1 17 , , 14 15
, 17 15 17 ' 15,17
17 , 17
5,7,8, 798, 5,7,8 5' 7' 8'
1: 100,000 11,12, 8,11, 11, ' 5,11,
11,12, 11 12 11 12 11,12,
15 1
12 12,15 , , , , 12,15
15 15 IS 15
314
Questlonruilro Re/ury 37wrnýnry
w, r, , o, _
S, 8,11,
1:250,000 12,1 S, 11,11, 11 12, 811,12,8,11,511 511,5,8,
, ;]
15,17 17 IS, 12,1 12,112,1 5,1
17 17
17,11, 17 17 7 1S 17
5' 7' 8' / /8,11,12, 7' / 7,
7,11, 7,11, ; 5,7,8,
1: 500,000 11,12, 11,12, 1,12, 11,12,
12,17 12,17 17 12,17
17 17 17 17
1: 1,000,00 7,8,11, 7,11,1 7,11, 7,11, 7,11, 7,11, 7,8,
8,11,12
12 12 12 12 12 12 11,12
j
7,8,11,1 7,8'
1: 2,000,00 7,11, 7,11, 7,11,
ll 12 8,11,12 11,12 11 12
12,17 12 , 14 12 , ,
17
5.11 (Continued)Additional comments
ID Comments
7 The limits of administrativejurisdiction betweenprovinces,the limits of
administrativejurisdiction betweengovernoratesand districts and the locationsand
namesof governoratesand districts.
11 Other features are used, such as forests (Woodlands), Pastures,Public Parks,
Cultivatable lands, Soil. Note maritime features are used if and when needed
12 Locations of girls schools, school clinics, fire stations, police stations.
15 Electric Power Lines
5.12 Preferred images in terms of resolution, type of images and colour or B&W.
5.13 List of types and dates of products used by organisations.
ID Product Type Production Date

4 Digital maps, Aerial photographs and Satellite Images of
1996-1999
Riyadh Ci see number 2.3 above)
5 Mainly aerial photographyas indicatedin number4.2 above 1976-1995
8 The Road Network and road service maps 1999-2000
10 The products are updated as and when needed.
11 1.1: 1,000 Various dates
2.1: 2,5000
12 1.1: 50,000 1979-1988
2.1: 250,000 1981
315
An QuestionnaireReturnsSummaryand Taourarmm
ý- .
3.1: 500,000 1981-1991

4.1: 2,000,000 1987
5.1: 3,000,000 1987
Ci Ma s Different dates
14 Accurate Aerial Surveying 1 year from update
15 Aerial Photos (current use)? 1983
Aerial Photos (prospective use)? 1995
17 Aerial Photographsof the Red Sea Coast. 1998
5.14 How often are maps updated, and preferred period for updating
ID Comments
5 As and when needed.
7 1. Maps are updated as need may arise.
2. We prefer to have them updated when a new data is added or upon the
deletion or revision of data.
g U ted eve 1 to 4 years. Preferred to be updated every year.
9 Now they are updated every 5 years. For the future, we would prefer to have them
u ted eachyear.
10 As and when needed.
12 Within the unit, maps are updated after each field research in order to match the
char es seen in the research specimen
13 This depends on what we receive from the general directorate of military Survey
(GDMS) but we believetheir productsare up to dateand updatedevery five years.
We refer to have them updated at 5-year intervals.
14 At present the products are updated each year or at two years' interval maximum.
The interval shouldbe one year.
15 As needed.Prefer annual.
F. SECTION SIX: GEOGRAPHIC

INFORMATION EXCHANGE
6.1 Departments exchanging geographic data.
LID Departments exchanging with

1. Different Sectors of the Armed Forces.
2. Ministry of Education.
3. Ministry of higher education.
4. Ministry of Communications.
5. Ministry of Information.
6. Ministry of agriculture and water.
7. Ministry f Hajj.
9. King Saud University.
10. King Abdulaziz University.
11. King Fahad University.
12. The National Commission for Wildlife Conservation and Development
316
A7°ß u QuestionnaireReturnsSummaryaºdl'aöukuToh
2 1. Ar Riyadh Development Authority.

4. Ministry of the Interior.
3 1. Internal to Saudi Aramco only.
2. No information exchange with non-Saudi Aramco Organizations.
4 1. The Ministry of Municipal and Rural affairs (MOMRA)
2. The GeneralDirectorateof Military Survey(GDMS) 1:25,000& 1:50,000
ma s for somepartsof Riyadh City and only ashard copies.
5 1. Ar Riyadh 'Development Authority (ADA)
3. Ministry of Communications
4. Ministry of Interior
6. Saudi Telecom Company
7. Saudi Consolidated Electric Company
8. Universitiesof the Kingdom
9. Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources.
6 1. The General Directorate of Military Survey (GDMS).
2. Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources.
3. Ministry of Municipal and Rural affairs (MOMRA)
4. Ministry of Agriculture and Water.
T 5
4ýc Ministry of Communications.
7 General Directorate of Military Surve GDMS
.
8 Ministry of Municipal and Rural affairs (MOMRA).
2 King Abdulaziz fcience and Technolo KACS
.
9 Riyadh City Municipality
2. Riyadh Water and Sewage Department
3. Saudi Consolidated Electric Company
4. Saudi Telecom
3. The Ministry of Municipal and Rural affairs (MOMRA).
5. Saudi Aramco.
6. Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources (MOP&MR)
8. Chamber of Commerce
11. King Saud Universi
10 The General Directorate of Military Survey GDMS
.
11 1. All departments,sections,branchesand directoratesof the Ministry of
Agriculture and Water.
4. The Ministry of Municipal and Rural affairs (MOMRA).
6. Ministry of Petroleum and Resources.
7. Other related agencies.
13 The General Directorate of Military Survey (GDMS).
14 1. Municipalities.
317
An' fl QuestionnaireReturnsSummaryand Ta&6iioi "
15 I. Riyadh City Municipality.

16 1. Ministry of Education.
17 1. The General Directorate of Military Survey (GDMS).
2. King Abdulaziz City for Scienceand Technology(KACST).
3. The Department of Meteorology & Environmental Protection.
6.2 Means of requesting geographic data.
Means ID
By official letter 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,14,15,17
By Agreement 8,13
By Phone 7,9
By filling in forms 3,9
By email 9
Other means 16
6.3 How the requesteddatais identified.
Identified by ID
Co-ordinates 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10,11,13,17
Area of Covers e 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,11,14,15
Main Features 1,4,6,8,11,15
Contents 1,3,7,11
Cost 11
Other means
6.4 How the digital geographicdatais transferredto the users.
Transferred by ID
Ordinary mail 6,15,17
DHL 6,9
E-Mail 8
Network (Local or Wide 3,14
area network)
Courier 1,2,4,5,6,9,11,13,15,17
Other means- Specified 3-Userpicks up.
0-By formal delivery to user
6.5 Media used for receipt of data
Media used ID
Hard Co 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,11,14,15
CD-ROMs 1,3,4,5,6,8,9,11,15,17
Diskettes 1,4,8
Xbyte 5
318
Ammx 11 QuestionnaireReturnsSummaryand Tabulation
6.6 Frequency of exchanging digital products with other organisations.
Frequency ID
Daily
Week1 9
Monthly 15
Quarterly 8
Annuall 6
As needed 1,3,4,5,8,11,13,14,15,16,17
Other - Specified 1-Each request is different from others and it is difficult to
specify a time. There is generally no specific time frame
for these re uests.
6.7 Format usedto maintainandexchangethe digital geographicinformation.
Format Maintain Exchange

Arc Info Coverage 1,4,6,8,11,13 6,8,11
Arc Info Sha file 4,6,8,9,11,13,17 1,6,8,9,11
MicroStation DGN file 1,3,4,5,6,9,10,11,13,14,15 1,3,4,5,6,9,10,
11,15
AutoCAD DWG/DXF 4,5,8,10,11,13 1,4,5,6,8,9,10,11
GIF (Graphic 10,11 10,11
Interchange Format)
SDTS (Spatial Data 11 11
Transfer Standards)
SIF 8 8
TIFF 1,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11 1,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,
11
CIB
JPEG 3,5,9,11 3,5,9,11
DTED I 1
DLG
Digest I
PostScript
CGM
CCITT 9 9
HTML 5
VPF
Vmap I
ADRG/CADRG
ADRI I I
IGES
ASCII 3,4,5,8,9 3,4,5,8,9
Others Specified 5- MOS, RLC, RLE, RGB, EPC, CIT
-
6.8 Can Organisations deliver geographic information on time?
YES I NO I Comments
7.8.9.11.13.14.15.17
319
Annes II ýýýý®'
Queadonnalre Returns Jumina7
6.9 In the participants' view, does the data meet the users expectations in terms of the
given items?
Items YES No
Completeness 1,3,4,5,6,8,9,11,13,15,17 2 14
Accuracy 1,2,3,4,5,6,9,11,13,15,17 8,14
Clarity 1,11,13,15,17 14
Currency 1,3,5,6,11,13,15,17 4,8,
9,14
Data Format 1,3,4,5,6,8,9,11,13,15,17 14
Response Time 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,11,13,14,17 15
Quantity 1,2,3,5,6,8,9,11,13,14,17 4,15
Quality 1,2,3 To some extent), 4,5,6,9,11,13,14,17 8,15
Other-Specified 1-In many caseswe receive requests for update coverage of 2,3,
1:50,000 map for certain areas where we only have old maps. 5,6,
8-The product available now meets the user requirements for 9,
quality but it does not cover all the areas in demand. The 11,13,
Department is now planning to update and compile the latest 14,
digital maps to meet the user requirements. 15,17
6.10 Why did not the data meet the users expectations?
Terms ID Comments
Completeness
Accuracy 8 Since the available land surveys are too old, new and more
accurate surveys are being made.
Clarity
Currency 2 Due to lack of funds the maps are not updated, therefore they do
not include some of the recently constructedfeatures.The maps
were produced more than 15 years ago.
4 No comment
8 As the road network is too extensive, it is difficult to make the
land surveysat short intervals.
9 All users would want to have the information supplied by us to
be more up to date than it is.
Format 2 Lack of digital mapping system
Response Time
Quantity 4 No comment
Quality 3 To some extent the GIS requirements are evolving. Although the
quality control (QC) meetsthe original QC
requirements, is
evolving to meetthe evolving requirements.
8 In the past,no advancedtechnologywas available for carrying
out the land surveys. State of the art technology like differential
GPS is now used to ensure good quality work.
Other -S ec. 4 No comment
6.11 Do you find the current circumstances of exchanging information between

organisations in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia appropriate and efficient? (This
summary includes replies to question 6.12).
320
Questionnaire
Ames U ReturnsSummaryand Tabulritlan' '°'""°'
Yes No Thoughts
I If the proposed Central Surveying and Mapping Agency is approved and if
the proposed SNSDI is developed, we will be in an excellent position to
handle this role.
2 For paper printed maps the present system is OK. Digital data and digital
maps are not available to the department now. We believe that a network is
needed for speedy exchange of data among government departments.
3 Lack of standards,no coordination, and no centralization.
A centralized GIS body to encourage standardization, data sharing, and
cooperation would improve the value of GIS data.
4 An exchange network should be established to connect all the departments
and agencies using geographic information. This would ensure a speedy
access to information and a speedy exchange thereof. It is also important to
use security systems to protect the information against damage or leaks e.
5 We suggest:
1. That communication among government institutions should be easy
difficult
and avoid unnecessarily procedures.
2. Those Government institutions are connected to a computer network in
order to facilitate the transfer of available data from one to all other
partners.
6 Establish a national GIS database based on consolidated specifications
throughwhich data information can be exchangedundercertainregulations
and controls.
8 All parties of concern must use consolidated standards and specifications
for the exchange of information.
9 Through the Internet
10 We need a work team who must meet on regular periodic basis to review
the latest developmentsat all agenciesand organizationsof concernand
the information needsand requirementsof all.
11 1. Issue of a law enabling easy exchange of information for both the user
and producer and handling problems of information security.
2. Sortingout classifiedand non-classifiedinformation and userclasses.
3. Using electronic communication systems for the immediate transfer of
information through networks.
4. Establishingconsolidatedstandardsand specificationsfor all users.
5. Documentationof information as regardsquality, temporal dimension,
copyrights. Fees could be levied to cover the cost of maintaining and
updating information.
13 1. Flexibility and mutual confidence among the agenciesof concern is
needed.
2. The information must not be restricted to one departmentor agency.
Free access should be allowed for all at any time.
3. We must preferably have a product for the market offered for sale.
14
15 1. Establish a comprehensive network linking all producers and users
together.
Alternatively, the information can be provided through Internet and email
so that up ating can be made automatically and continuously.
17 A coordination committee involving all departments of concern must be
appointed. The proposed committee should meet on regular periodic basis
to discuss developments and problems.
321
A QuestlonnalnReturnsSummarya... .
6.13 Expectations that the exchangeof spatial data between

organisationswithin the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will have an effect (This summaryincludes replies to
Question 6.14).
ID Expectations
1 The expected impact will be positive, as it would reflect on product giving better
quality products. It would also make dataexchangeeasier,stop duality and save
time, effort and money.
3 That might affect producing departmentsas follows:
1. Require additional resources.
2. Identify duplication of effort.
3. Be viewed as a threat by some organisations.
4. Increasedefficiencies
5. Improved knowledge levels.
4 1. Quick accessto informationwould positively affect the quicknessand integrity
of decision making.
2. Swiftness of the exchangeof information.
3. Avoiding unnecessaryduplication of effort and cost.
4. Easyupdateandearly deliveryof datato users.
5 No
6 No change expected. It could not have a negative effect on the work performance of
the department. It would rather savetime and money.
8 It may be necessary to divert intensive efforts to the goal of having uniform
standardsfor the transferof data sharedby all usersfor a smoothexchangeof data
among them.
9 Reducing costs,time economy,standardisation,
elimination of repetition of work,
improving quality of products, consistency and integration among agencies of
concern.
10 No - It would improve and facilitate the overall performance.
11 The exchange in itself should have no problem but it must be accompanied by a
clear-cut plan on who should have the power to decide on updating the information,
such as roads are the work of the Ministry of but
Communications the decision to
add them to maps should come from a national committee. The Ministry of
Agriculture should similarly take care of its own information. The same should
apply to municipalities, GDMS, KACST, etc.
13 The decision-making strategy will become clear to executives in the government
agencyor departmentof concern.
15 It would cut the costs,eliminaterepetition,consolidateefforts and provide the latest
information in the shortestpossibletime.
17 We believe that a sharedtransfer and exchangeof geographicinformation would
help each individual party to make use of the efforts of other parties and minimise
the wasting of resourcesin repeatedefforts. It would also help with the quicker
completion of work.
5.15 In general, what is thought to be the main obstacle to the exchange of spatial data
among government organisations? (ID 13 shows grading in brackets, may be out
of 10?).
322
Annex Questionrtalrr Returns Summary
Obstacle ID
Data format 1,4,5,6,9,10, l 1,13(8), 15,17
Data type 9,13 6,17 ._
Currency of geographic products 3,5,6,9,11,13(5), 15
Media 5,10,137,15
Inconsistency and discrepancy of data 3,4,5,9,11,13(9), 15
Unwillingness to exchangedata 3,4,6,8,9,10,11,13(4), 15
Cost 3,9,132,15,17
Hardware & Software Problems 5,10,13 1,14,15,17
Human resources 3,5,10,11,13 (3), 15,17
Others - Specified I- The obstacles have more than one factor but
there is essentially a lack of coordination among
the different agencies of concern.
6.16 Additional commentson how to exchangegeographicdatain the Kingdom.
ID Comments
1 We suggest that all agencies of concern in the Kingdom should adopt the
international digital geographicinformation standardsbeing developedby (ISO
/TC 211) now that the Kingdom has becomea full memberof this committee.The
expectedset of standardswould make the exchangeof information easier and
remove all obstacles in future.
2 The primary issue is the data itself and the willingness of effective resourcesto
cooperate.
4 1. Steps should be taken to set up a centre or organisation, which will have central
control of network transfer and exchange of data.
2. The exchange procedure should be protected.
3. Using the latestand most advancedsatellitesin the acquirementof imagesand
making them available to users.
6 Establish consolidated specifications.
8 It may be better to establish a common geographic information system shared by
all parties, which can also be used by the parties for the exchange of information.
9 1. Absence of relevant policies, ordinances and regulations.
2. Some users are not connected to the Internet.
3. Lack of Standardsand specifications.
4. Users are not informed on what information is available to other agenciesor
organizations,which can be useful to them.
13 If the information is put in an exchangenetwork, it will be easily accessiblefor all
and therewould be no needfor formal correspondence in this case.
15 1. All agenciesand organisationsof concernshould meet to discussthe subject
and come up with a common agreed version.
2. A formal Royal decree should then be issued to all parties to abide by the
commonly agreed version.
323
Amex il "_
Questloruwire - Returns summary wa . w.
ý
G. SECTION SEVEN: THE DEVELOPMENT OF

A STRATEGY FOR A NATIONAL SPATIAL
DATA INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE
KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA.
7.1 Thoughts on the development and implementation of a Strategy for National Spatial
Data Infrastructure (SNSDI) in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
ID Thoughts
1 The idea is innovative and worthy of much support and attention as it constitutes the
first step on the right way to building a National GIS System which can serve all
civilian and military sectors in the Kingdom. The matter should receive highest and
immediate attention to enable speedy implementation. All parties should co-operate
in this effort.
2 We believe that the establishment of SNSDI will be useful and a positive step for the
common good. It can also help the concerned departments each in their own field of
activity
3 It is a great idea, and when its achieved it could be valuable to the Kingdom. This
idea needssupport at very highest level to be successful.
4 This is a good idea and must be carried out as soon as possible as it would save a lot
of wasted effort and money. It would support sound decision-making based on
geographic information and prevent duality in decision making as it provides for an
integrated geographical information.
5 We believe that the proposed SNSDI would give the country a main pillar in the
Country development. We look forward to seeing the idea executed for the common
good.
6 An essential idea to benefit from all geographic information and reduce cost. The
S ace Research Institute is interested in this idea.
7 The idea is good and fruitful.
8 We think this is a good idea, which will help with removing many difficulties in the
establishment of GIS systems in different organisations including the exchange of
information and the consolidation of standards and specifications.
9 Very good idea but it needs a great effort and continuous co-ordination among the
different parties. The goals and objectives of the SNSDI should be drawn up and
clearly stated. All relevant parties must be allowed to effectively contribute to the
building of the proposed database.Individual organisations must be allowed to work
in their respective areas of speciality as long as they do not clash with the other
organisations in goals or strategies.
10 We look forward to the realisation of this goal.
11 This is a great aim; we name it the national spatial database.
13 This is a national goal for which we must all work together. We believe that The
General Directorate of Military Survey (GDMS) is most qualified to undertake this
effort as it has much to its advantage.
14 Very good idea and must be supported.
15 It is a must.
17 This is a good and constructive idea that could result in a dramatic shill for both
users and producers. It can also help with the organisation of work.
324
Annex Il Questiannalrr Returns Summary an07aeuwrron '
7.2 Willingness to participate and be part of this SNSDI (This summary includes replies to
question 7.3).
YES NO
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,13,14,15,17
7.4 Willingness to provide geographic data or information about their data on the Saudi
Nat. Spatial Data Clearinghouse (SNSDC) on the Internet, (This summary includes
Yes No Willingness and comments

1 There are huge volumes of basic geographical information covering the KSA
availablein digital format. Suchinformation canbe usefulto many
governmentsectorsand organisationsand could becomethe nucleusof a
National GIS. The GeneralDirectorateof Military Survey(GDMS) hasno
objectionto includethis information as part of the proposedSNSDC.
2 We have no objection to the publication of non-confidential geographic
information, which can be useful for researchersand other information users.
4 We can contribute part of the unclassified geographic information
5
6 We can provide information such as satellite images etc., offer technical
in
supportandparticipate establishinga nationalnetwork.
7
8 We can include some of the Ministry of communication geographic
information in the GIS databaseof the proposed GI centre.
9 1. Publish and distribute the basic city map with full details.
2. Consolidatethe GIS standardsand specifications.
3. All partiesinvolved should be connectedto a speedyinformation
network for easyaccessand utilisation of the hugevolume of
information made available.
4. It is necessaryto establisha completesetof metadatarelatedto
geographic information.
10 The available information will be released on request.
11 As mentioned already, this issue must be the work of a specialised
committeewho should identify and sort out the information into classified,
unclassifiedand highly strategicinformation, which can only be circulated
within very restricted limits. I repeat, the proposed effort is very large and
needsto be carefully legalisedunderguidanceof specialisttechnical
committees.
13 The Ministry of Educationdealswith educational,building facilities,
teachers and students. If all the information is available to the employees it
becomes easy to save time and effort.
In order to securefree accessto all information on the Ministry so that the
userswill cometo know the work methodadoptedby the Ministry of
Education and that the Ministries needs and requirements will become clear.
14 Yes
15 We agree to place any information available to us that are useful to the other
parties in the proposed network.
17 This would boost the cause of data and information exchange, eliminate the
problem of repeatedwork efforts and allow bettercoping with latest
developments in the field.
325
VFA
AnnexII QuestionnaireReturnsSummaryand Tabukdion
7.8 Final Comments

1. Relevant suggestions or comments by the participants with regard to the
questionnaire.
ID Comments
4 1. We wish the scholar every success.
2. When the questionnaire data are analysed it is hoped that the final result will be
sent to us for our perusal. -
6 The questionnaire concentrates on maps and geographic information and gives no
attention to satellite imagery, which are essential for mapping.
8 1. Some of the questions mostly concentrate on map production.
2. Some questions are similar.
3. It would havebeenbetterto include an English versionof the questionnaire.
9 1. Setup specialisedand branchcommitteesto discusstechnicalmattersresulting
from the establishmentof an essentialdatabasefor the Kingdom and its different
cities.
2. Governmentinstitutionsand departmentsof concernmust be connectedto a site
on the Internet to exchange geographic information and expertise.
3. Setu ualified training centresto qualify local in
manpower the field.
10 We wish you every success.
11 This questionnaire is too big. It would have been better if.
1. Before writing "The Purpose of the Questionnaire" page 2, there should have
been4-5 concentratedlines on the purposeof the study.
2. The GIS strategy in this Questionnaire concentrates more on maps than other
elements of importance to the strategy.
The Questionnaireis too bulky with a lot of repetition.Many peoplewould find it
difficult to respondproperly. Someagenciesor departmentsmay fail to respond
either because of the size of the questionnaireor because
it is sometimesunclear.
13 We wish you all success.
15 Kindly send us a copy of the study when concluded
3. Relevantsuggestionsor commentsby the participantswith regardto the SNSDI.
ID Suggestions and Comments

I We wish the researcher every success.
4 1. We recommend that a specialised national centre of geographic information is
establishedfor the Kingdom of SaudiArabia.
3. An effective mechanismshouldbe establishedfor datasecurityand to stop
hackers.
6 We heartily wish you success.
8 1. The responsibility for establishingthe proposedstrategyshouldpreferably be
managedand overseen by King Abdulaziz City for Scienceand Technology
(KACST)
2. We suggestthe creationof an independentbody to overseethe developmentof
the strategy. This body should involve permanent members representing
organisations that have or plan to have GIS systems.
It is suggest that the establishment of the strategy should be made as soon as
possible. As the technology used in GIS to
systems continue change very fast, it may
be difficult, in the future, to reachagreementon the consolidationof standardsand
326
AmtesII QuestionnaireReturnsSummaryand Tabulation
specifications becauseof the variety of GIS systems and the disparities between
them.
9 We suggestthat the proposed strategy be built on a decentralisedrather than

centralised basis and that all parties shall be allowed to take part in the formational
andadvisoryactivities on the national,provincial and city levels.
11 It is thought that your subject for the proposed strategy should need 3 or 4 NO
dissertationsand not just the one. If it is treatedas a single subjectit would be very
generalised,hencelessuseful. The dissertationssuggestedare as follows:
I. Maps and mapping information, map types, their validity, production and
handling etc. through a national centre of exchange, updating and maintenance of
maps.
2. Databases,their types, encryption, contentsand the exchangeof their contents,
whether they are relational or object-orientatedand how to establisha matching
standardcodeetc.
3. Communications and networks. This alone is an extensive subject, which can
havea drastic influenceon the whole idea.
3. Citations of documents, materials, reports, bulletins, emails or any other references that
were used by the participants to complete the survey.
ID References used
4 1. MOMRA Standards.
2. TERRA Survey Standards.
3. Inter h Standards.
8 1. British Aerospace GIS Study - User Requirement Report.
2. British AerospaceGIS Study- User requirement- ExecutiveReview.
3. British Aerospace GIS Study - Map Design and Specification Report.
4. British Aerospace GIS Study - Functional Requirements and GIS Evaluation
Criteria.
5. British Aerospace GIS Study - Development Programme
9 1. Ar-Riyadh Explorer (CD-ROM)
2. Ar Riyadh Development Authority Draft Standards
11 The detailed field study for the development of geographic information system
(GIS) for the ministry of Agriculture and Water.
15 We will be glad to receive you in our office and show you what we have.
LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY
NOTTINGHAM
327

PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Al-Shahrani, Abdullah M.R.

(2002) Towards the

Access from the University of Nottingham repository:

Copyright and reuse:

For more information, please contact [email protected]

A thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham

for the degreeof

A thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham

for the degree of

PRAYERS TO MY FATHER, WHO PASSED AWAY ON

SUNDAY 12TH SEPTEMBER 1999 (2/6/1420H),

DURING THE FIRST YEAR OF THIS STUDY AND TO

MY MOTHER, WHO PASSED AWAY ON THURSDAY

18T" FEBRUARY 1993 (27/8/1413H). MAY ALLAH

BLESS THEM BOTH.

ALSO DEDICATED WITH LOVE AND GRATITUDE TO

MY WIFE AND CHILDREN.

giving me the honour and opportunity to study for my PhD.

I am deeply indebted and grateful to Dr Michael J. McCullagh, who supervised this

My thanks and gratitude go to his Excellency Dr Ghazi Al-Gosaibi, Ambassador of the

support during my study.

administering the survey questionnaire and following up the responses.

My thanks go to Dr Cliff Kottman, Vice president of OGC, USA, Dr Mohammed Mustafa

Last but not least, I

please accept my apologies and my thanks and appreciation.

List of Figures ziii

List of tables zvi

List of abbreviations avii

Abstract ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ xxvii

CHAPTER 1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1.2 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK 2

1.3 CONCLUDING REMARKS 12

CHAPTER 2 SPATIAL DATA SHARING

2.2 SPATIAL DATA SHARING PERSPECTIVES 14

2.3 METHODS OF RESOLVING HETEROGENEITY PROBLEMS 29

2.3.1 Shared Schema and No Context Mediation 30

CHAPTER 3 SPATIAL DATA STANDARDS

3.2 EVOLUTION OF STANDARDS

3.3 STANDARDISATION INITIATIVES 48

3.3.1 National Standards Initiatives 49

3.4 CONCLUDING REMARKS 62

CHAPTER 4 CURRENT STATUS OF

4.1.1 The Goal of the Survey Questionnaire 65

4.2 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS 69

4.2.1 Section 1: Filtering Introduction 69

4.3 CONCLUDING REMARKS 83

CHAPTER 5 COMPUTER NETWORK AND

5.2 NETWORK COMPONENTS AND ARCHITECTURE - 88

5.2.1 Types of Networks ---- ---- ---- -- 88

5.3.1 Types of server 97

5.4 THE INTERNET 102

5.4.1 What is the Internet and who owns it? 103

5.5 INTERNET-BASED GIS 109

5.5.1 Internet Services for GIS --------- 109

5.6 INTERNET SECURITY 124

5.6.1 What is Internet Security? 125

5.7 CONCLUDING REMARKS 132

CHAPTER 6 THE SEARCH FOR A SPATIAL

6.1 INTRODUCTION 134