Infrastructure Engineering - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20
-
ItemBridging SDI design gaps(Centre of Geo-Information Technologies (cGIT), 2006)The environment we inhabit is integrated and to properly manage the environment it is necessary to look at all environmental components and making multi-criteria decision about environment mostly needs an integrated view of built and natural environmental components to better interpret it.Despite the integrated nature of environment and requirements of users to integrate different components of environment, information about different elements of environment is being collected and managed by fragmented agencies under different and mostly inconsistent policies and standards to satisfy their own needs –for a single discipline- with little attention to the broad range of users – a multi-disciplinary approach. This fragmentation results in heterogeneity of technical and non-technical issues surrounding integration of datasets.An SDI is an initiative to facilitate the cooperation among all stakeholders and the interaction with standards and technological components and one of its objectives is to facilitate the integration of multi-source spatial data sets.This paper aims to address different issues connected to the integration of multi-source data sets in order to better serve different communities through their SDI initiatives and also a better management and sharing of their spatial data. The paper aims to discuss both technical and non-technical issues related to the integration of multi-source data sets in alignment with an ongoing research project devoted to developing models, guidelines and associated tools to facilitate the integration of multi-source datasets within an SDI.
-
ItemThe role of sub-national government and the private sector in future Spatial Data Infrastructures( 2006-08)A Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) facilitates and coordinates the exchange and sharing of spatial data between stakeholders in the spatial data community. With this objective in mind, countries throughout the world are developing SDIs to manage and utilise their spatial data assets more effectively. These countries are developing SDIs to assist in various kinds of decision-making at different levels of government jurisdictions that have an important impact within their national boundaries. However, current research shows that SDI is understood and described differently by stakeholders from different disciplines and different jurisdictional levels. Therefore, in many cases SDI initiatives remain very much an innovation even among practitioners. There are still uncertainties regarding the benefits and identities of SDIs, particularly in connection with how they evolve over time to meet user needs.This paper reviews and assesses the development of SDIs throughout the world over the past fifteen years and the leadership role of national governments in SDI creation. This assessment is based on the SDI activities of various jurisdictions including Asia-Pacific, Australia, North America and Europe and research into the worldwide effects of spatial information clearinghouses. This assessment includes a discussion on emerging trends in SDI development, with particular reference to the increasingly important role played by sub-national governments and the private sector within the framework of SDI development. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications for future SDI development, including the delivery of a virtual world that has a particular focus on facilitating decision making at a community level within a national context.
-
ItemAssessing the worldwide comparison of cadastral systems(Elsevier, 2006)There is growing interest internationally in land administration and cadastral systems and especially in their role as part of a national Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI). The important role the cadastre plays in supporting sustainable development is also well recognised. Both developed and developing countries accept the need to evaluate cadastral systems to help identify areas of improvement and whether their systems are capable of addressing future needs. Countries are continually re-engineering and implementing various aspects of the cadastre, comparing systems and trying to identify best practice within nations of the same socio-economic standing.In order to address this need, members of a team from the Centre for Spatial Data Infrastructures and Land Administration at the Department of Geomatics, the University of Melbourne, with the support of the United Nations Permanent Committee on GIS Infrastructure for Asia and the Pacific (PCGIAP) and the International Federation of Surveyors (FIG), have developed a cadastral template. The template aims to assist the evaluation and benchmarking of cadastral systems and the role they play in spatial data infrastructures.This paper aims to outline the concept and theory behind the cadastral template as well as analysing the results from 34 completed country templates. Several indicators have been used to analyse and benchmark countries cadastral systems, results of which will contribute to an improved understanding of the complex relationship between cadastral, land administration system and National SDI initiatives. This will also enable a worldwide comparison of cadastral systems, forming the basis for best practice and a tool to improve national cadastral systems.
-
ItemThe role [of] cadastral data modelling in e-land administration(Centre of Geo-Information Technologies (cGIT), 2005)Enablement of land administration with Information and Communication Technology (ICT) is heading toward e-Land Administration (e-LA): the transformation of land administration through the use of ICT. Existing initiatives include providing land information on line, electronic conveyancing, digital lodgement of survey plans, and online access to survey plan information. Thus far, implementation of these initiatives is isolated in their specific subsystems without reference to the broader land administration system or its core policy function of supporting sustainable development. One solution to isolation is to develop effective communication among the different land administration subsystems by harmonising data and functionalities, so they are capable of being used by all subsystems. The key to harmonisation is data modelling which both recognizes and reengineers existing business processes. Modelling allows every single process in land administration to influence the cadastral data model and vice versa. This paper describes the importance of cadastral data modelling in data management as well as coordination among subsystems in an e-LA.
-
ItemDeveloping a platform to facilitate sharing spatial data(Centre of Geo-Information Technologies (cGIT)., 2005)Users of positioning and spatial information services and tools require precise spatial information in real-time and real-world objects. Simply an accurate positioning of a future subdivision is no longer accepted by users, they require it to be visualized as well, in order to take into account outside influences. The capacity to meet such user needs and deliver services and tools within the spatial information market has gone well beyond the ability of single organisations (Rajabifard, et al, 2005a). There is now a wide range of products and services available for a wide range of information technology applications, and hence the development of an enabling platform can facilitate access to data and sharing resources and tools among different practitioners. The creation of an enabling platform for the delivery of these tools and positioning applications will allow users from diverse backgrounds to work together with current technologies to meet the dynamic market place. Up until now, individual jurisdictions within Australia for example have started utilizing different platforms in attempting to create mechanisms for accessing and delivering spatial data and associated applications and tools in a coordinated fashion. This has been done through the use of hierarchies of information, where jurisdictions utilize information both by those within a jurisdictional level as well as those at a higher or lower jurisdictional level. The benefits of this sharing of information have been documented, however they do not necessarily break down the barriers between jurisdictions. Just because different information can be gained about Victorian state for example from different jurisdictional levels, does not mean that the information will necessarily be compatible (it may not be of the same accuracy or have the same specifications, utilize the same symbology, etc) (Rajabifard, et al, 2005b). There is now a need to create a common rail gauge within Australia to aid in implementing initiatives which solve cross jurisdictional and national issues. In order to meet this need, there is a requirement for an enabling platform.
-
ItemHierarchical spatial reasoning applied to spatial data infrastructures( 2000)Many countries throughout the world believe they can benefit both economically and environmentallyfrom better management of their spatial data assets, enabling them to access and retrieve complete andconsistent datasets in an easy and secure way. This has resulted in the development of the Spatial DataInfrastructure (SDI) concept at various political and/or administrative levels. The SDI concept has beenrepresented by different descriptions of its nature, however, currently these demonstrate an overlysimplisticunderstanding of the concept.The simplicity in existing definitions has been slow to incorporate the concept of an integrated, multilevelledSDI formed from a hierarchy of inter-connected SDIs at corporate, local, state/provincial,national, regional (multi-national) and global (GSDI) levels. Failure to incorporate this multidimensionality,and the dynamic mechanistic and functional roles of the SDI, have rendered manydescriptions of SDI inadequate to describe the complexity and the dynamics of SDI as it develops, andthus ultimately constrain SDI achieving developmental potential in the future.As a result, the objective of this paper is to demonstrate the fitness and applicability of HierarchicalSpatial Reasoning (HSR) as a theoretical framework to demonstrate the multi-dimensional nature ofSDIs. It is argued that by better understanding and demonstrating the nature of an SDI hierarchy, anySDI development can gain support from a wider community of both government and non-governmentdata users and providers. The findings presented in this paper build on the authors' experiences inRegional SDI (multi-national) development and HSR.
-
ItemThe dynamic nature of spatial data infrastructures: a method of descriptive classification( 2001)Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) is understood and described differently by stakeholders from different disciplines and different administrative/political levels. However, current SD Idefinitions are individually insufficient to describe the dynamic and multi-dimensional nature of SDI. Despite the international interest and activities toward SDI development, SDI remains very much an innovation even among practitioners. There are still doubts regarding the nature and identities of SDI, particularly in connection with how it evolves over time to meet user needs. Asa starting point a means to describe SDI’s multi-dimensional capacity as an inter- and intra- jurisdictional spatial information framework is required. The aim of this paper is to better understand and describe the nature of SDI and its components. A method to classify the perceived roles of SDI is identified. The method is extrapolated from a technique to describe different perspectives of Geographical Information System (GIS) diffusion, based on identified parallels between GIS and SDIs. The methodology may facilitate description and understanding of the SDI technological and user environment, by promoting insight into the dynamic roles of SDI.
-
ItemDirections for the Future of SDI Development( 2002)Understanding the role of Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) is important to acceptance of the concept and its alignment with spatial industry objectives. Much has been done to describe and understand the components and interactions of different aspects of SDIs and their integration into the transactions of the spatial data community. However, what fails to be received through these perceptions, is that the role SDI plays is by necessity greater than the sum of individual components of SDI and stakeholder groups.SDI is fundamentally about facilitation and coordination of the exchange and sharing of spatial data between stakeholders in the spatial data community. To this end, the authors propose that the roles of SDI have been pursued through different approaches: product-based and process-based. Both approaches have value, but contribute to the evolution, uptake and utilisation of the SDI concept in different ways. They provide different frameworks for dealing with SDI mandates for the objectives of spatial data access and sharing. This paper reviews the nature and concept of SDI, including the components, which have helped to build understanding about the importance of an infrastructure to support the interactions of the spatial data community. Several examples of how SDIs have been described are offered to aid understanding of their complexity. The need for descriptions to represent the conflict between the role and deliverables of an SDI and thus contribute to a simpler, but dynamic, understanding of the complexity of the SDI concept, are postulated. The transition between the understanding of SDIs from product-based to process-based approaches is investigated, with a review of the positions taken by current SDI initiatives throughout the world. A model of how these approaches provide a framework to meet the mandates of the relevant jurisdictions is proposed, and factors contributing to the success of such positions in the future are discussed.
-
ItemFundamental partnerships driving Spatial Data Infrastructure development within Australia( 2002)Recent models of Spatial Data Infrastructures (SDIs) are overly simplistic and fail to address the dynamic nature, complexity, inter- and intra-jurisdictional nature and important role of partnerships. There is a need by governments and administrators to better understand the complex nature of SDIs to facilitate implementation of this form of infrastructure in an information society. This paper aims to build upon current SDI research at local, state and regional levels to better understand the complex and multi-dimensional nature at a national level, while building onthe principles of Hierarchical Spatial Reasoning (HSR) theory. To date little work has been undertaken on mapping these partnerships particularly at the national level within a country that is a federation of states. This paper will introduce the notion that better understanding of the partnerships that support SDI will enable administrators of spatial information to implement this type of infrastructure into the future. The paper will also highlight new research being conducted by the Centre for Spatial Data Infrastructures and Land Administration at the University of Melbourne on the Australian SDI (ASDI) and the aims to develop a methodology to map the complex nature of national SDI (NSDI).
-
ItemAsia-Pacific region and SDI activities( 2003-11)Asia and Pacific region is the largest region in the world with a vast geographic area of land and water, some 60 per cent of the world's population and includes 55 countries as defined by the United Nations. The countries span a wide part of the globe from Iran and Armenia in the west to French Polynesia in the east, from the Russian Federation and Japan in the north to New Zealand in the south. This region is one of the first regions in the world that has started to develop Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) for its regional level and has a complex social and political environment, typified by competing and often conflicting priorities and motivations. Every case in this region is unique because of its national context, language and characteristics (such as size, population, political systems, social and economic priorities, and varied infrastructures and skills), the national traditional and cultural attitudes, and the people who participate, develop and use SDIs. In this region, spatial data and Information is traditionally collected and disseminated by a range of mandated national organisations according to a wide variety of national standards. A major difficulty in relation to these types of data and information is a lack of coordination. This article aims to draw a picture of the status of SDI development at different political and administrative levels in this region. The main focus would be on institutional arrangements, technological, social and economic dimensions which affect the SDI growth nationally and regionally in this region. To achieve this aim, the article starts by reviewing regional cooperation in this region and providing a brief description of the past and current status of spatial data and information in this region. Then it discusses the need for SDI development followed by a discussion of its concept. Based on that, the article then reviews the Asia-Pacific SDI activities, mainly at national and regional levels including the structure and activities of its coordinating committee.