MN Parcel Data Standard State Standards Process and

MN Parcel Data Standard State Standards Process and Useful Insights DCDC 12/04/2009 Mark Kotz

Overview n State Standards Process n Purpose n Semantics n Required vs. Optional n Scope n Metadata n Attributes n Implementation Considerations

State Standards Process n Existing Standards 1. Codes for state 2. Codes for counties 3. Codes for cities, townships, unorgs 4. Codes for lakes and wetlands 5. Codes for reaches and watercourses 6. Codes for watersheds 7. Coordinate system interchange (State) 8. Positional accuracy reporting 9. Metadata 10. USNG

State Standards Process n Typical Parts of Standard n Applicability: When does/doesn’t it apply? n Purpose n Requirements (specifics) n Compliance: What is it, How measured? n References & Resources

State Standards Process n Driven by SMEs & stakeholders (e. g. your committee) n Start: Clear purpose for standard and defined stakeholders n Propose a draft (take the time needed) Well thought out n Input from stakeholders n n Preliminary approval by DCDC & Standards

State Standards Process n Public review of draft n Must demonstrate: n n n Standards Committee n n n Active review by stakeholders Opportunity for review by all affected stakeholder groups (within reason) Post draft Spearhead review in MN geospatial community DCDC n n Facilitate review outside geospatial community Producers and users

State Standards Process n Both: Document and respond to comments n Modifications may be needed n Propose final draft, addressing comments n Approval by Standards Committee n Approval by ? – Probably both Mn. Geo advisory groups? n Post on Standards and OET web sites

Purpose n What is the purpose of your standard? n What do you hope to accomplish? n Who does it help? n How does it help them? n Who might it affected?

Semantics Are Important n “Standard” can be viewed as unfunded mandate n “Guidelines” can be viewed as too weak n “Data Transfer Standard”: more palatable, often true purpose No mandate for collection/storage n Just ability to convert to standard n Often has implications for collection/storage n n “State Wide Parcel Dataset Specifications” n …and transfer standard?

Required vs. Optional Aspects n Tie to purpose. Required for what purpose? n Examples: n All fields must be present and specified format n Fields X, Y and Z must be populated n Field X must comply with defined domain n Format affects this. E. g. XML more flexible than shape file

Scope of Standard n Geography… attributes… n Projection or datum? May be good idea n Metro. GIS had “issues” n So many transformation may be tricky n Precision requirements? No n “low” positional accuracy can be highly useful for many purposes n Very mandatish n Require description of positional accuracy?

Metadata Requirements n Opinion: require some metadata n Is data suitable for a particular purpose? n Getting updates is challenging n Reserve right to use “none provided”? n Nancy Rader = excellent resource n Originator, contact info, time period, access & use constraints, positional accuracy description

Attributes – What Balance? n A few attributes everyone has vs. lots of optional attributes many won’t include… now n Metro. GIS 5, then 29, now 65 n Many not populated n Completeness assessment n www. datafinder. org/metadata/Metro. GIS_Regional_Parcels_Att ributes. pdf n Fixed domain vs. free text? n Potential use vs. realistic

Implementation n Is “who” part of standard? n Business needs of data developers!!!!! n Why should they spend any resources? n Metro. GIS paid $4 k to each county n Some may really want and use it voluntarily n Many will not have resources/political will n What resources are available to aid them? n n n Guidance Money Technical support

Implementation n Just defining standard is very valuable if… n Well thought out n Input and buy-in from stakeholders n Clear purpose n Clear compliance rules n No perception of unfunded mandate n …even if it is not widely used right away.

Resources n Existing State Geospatial Standards www. gis. state. mn. us/committee/standards_adopted_d evel. htm n Metro. GIS 29 attributes www. datafinder. org/metadata/metrogis_regional_parcels_20 02. htm n Metro. GIS 65 attributes www. datafinder. org/metadata/metrogis_regional_parcels. ht m n Attribute Completeness assessment (starts p. 2) www. datafinder. org/metadata/Metro. GIS_Regional_Parcels_ Attributes. pdf

Mark Kotz Metropolitan Council Chair, Standards Committee mark. kotz@metc. state. mn. us