[GSDI Legal Econ] official reference of SDI concept / ontologies

[Roger Longhorn]

To me, the main failing with all such 'block diagram' approaches is that 
they simply highlight components, overlapping or not, of different 
types, purposes, which each have often quite different implementation 
considerations. Creating an SDI is a process whose complexity sometimes 
seems boundless, as opposed to a clutch of components. In my opinion, we 
have yet to find a way to capture and represent (especially to decision 
makers) the complex relationships between not only the components, but 
also the processes required to implement the components, let alone 
indicate how the components must interact in order to create an 
infrastructure.

Roger
ral at alum.mit.edu

Walter de Vries wrote:

> The reason why I would be interested in the reference is that I was 
> trying to find out when and why this originated. The building block 
> principle seems for many students a set of independent lego blocks 
> that you just put on top of each other, and then one would create an 
> SDI. It is by the way very similar in the EGOV discussions, The most 
> quoted reference in eGov discussions also uses interrelated building 
> blocks. This one is from Maria Wimmer (2002):
>  
> Funny enough it is making use of overlapping layers, something which 
> one would expect to originate from the GIS communities!
>  
> Still, the confusing part I find with these concepts is that each of 
> the building blocks have their own dynamics, and each of the blocks 
> are not independent from each other. A building block standard is not 
> necessarily seperate from a building block legal framework. However, 
> the frequency by which the reference appears seems to suggest that 
> this is the common thinking of what an SDI needs to be, and that one 
> could work on each block seperately to create something which only by 
> the combination of all the blocks becomes an SDI - or eGov for that 
> matter -.
>  
> In an historial perspective one could also view and try to find out 
> why the original building block figure did not include partnerships 
> for example (institutions come later than technologies...?). Does this 
> mean that the building block figure is also not a way to prescribe the 
> development stages of SDIs, and would this be a correct perspective on 
> the SDI matters?  
>  
> Walter
>   
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* legal-econ-bounces at lists.gsdi.org 
> [mailto:legal-econ-bounces at lists.gsdi.org] *On Behalf Of *Kate Lance
> *Sent:* Monday, January 22, 2007 11:36 AM
> *To:* SDI-legal-econ
> *Subject:* Re: [GSDI Legal Econ] official reference of SDI concept / 
> ontologies
>
> in my previous message, although I suggested that that FGDC had newer 
> ways to convey SDI, I did come across one of Doug's 2006 presentations 
> still based on component "building blocks"... see:  
> http://edina.ac.uk/ogcconference/interop_pres/NSDI06-DouglasNebert.ppt
>  
> But keep in mind the audience, for the OGC sponsored Interoperability 
> Day (30 June 2006, Edinburgh), and the other presentations 
> given: http://edina.ac.uk/ogcconference/interopday.html
>  
>
> On 1/21/07 3:13 AM, "Kate Lance" <klance_remote at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>     Walter,
>     As far as I'm aware, the boxes came from efforts of Doug Nebert
>     (and/or others) at FGDC in the 1990's as a means to describe SDI
>     components and how they related to each other (check with Doug,
>     ddnebert at fgdc.gov).  As originally conceived, the boxes were
>     limited to maps, metadata, clearinghouse, standards, and
>     partnerships (5 boxes).  Although boxes were used to convey the
>     ideas, I wouldn't say that those promoting SDI thought that you
>     could construct these boxes and thus have an SDI.  I think most
>     fully understood that the
>     institutional/organizational/partnership/social aspects were the
>     most significant.    
>      
>     In 2000, for work that Diego Pedreros and I were doing on SDI
>     Honduras, and without the time/means to develop entirely new
>     presentation materials, we extended some of Doug's slides and
>     included additional boxes for communications network, legal
>     framework, information policy.
>      
>     In a similar vein, I know of others who used a presentation that
>     Diego and I put together, because it was easier to use existing
>     slides than create new ones that would have been more apt.  
>      
>     Does this mean we all had a "building block concept" of SDI
>     development.... or were we too busy/rushed to put more thought
>     into better presentations!  Not knowing why you may be interested
>     in this slide, I wouldn't put more meaning into it than it
>     actually represents.   
>      
>     You might want to check out recent FGDC presentations to see what
>     ideas currently are being conveyed and how.  I don't think these
>     boxes have been in FGDC presentations in quite some time.
>