Systems for data processing, anaylsis and representation

Allam, Mosaad; Plunkett, Gordon

Bibliographic data

Monograph

Persistent identifier:: 1067490280

Title:: Systems for data processing, anaylsis and representation

Sub title:: ISPRS Commission II Symposium : June 6 - 10, Ottawa, Canada

Scope:: 1 Online-Ressource (XX, 530 Seiten)

Year of publication:: 1994

Place of publication:: Ottawa

Publisher of the original:: The Surveys, Mapping and Remote Sensing, Natural Resources Canada

Identifier (digital):: 1067490280

Illustration:: Illustrationen

Signature of the source:: ZS 312(30,2)

Language:: English

Additional Notes:: Erscheinungsdatum des Originals ist aus dem Copyrightjahr ermittelt.

Usage licence:: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

Editor:: Allam, Mosaad; Plunkett, Gordon

Corporations:: Symposium Systems for Data Processing, Analysis and Representation, 1994, Ottawa; International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing; International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Commission Instrumentation for Data Reduction and Analysis; Kanada, Surveys, Mapping and Remote Sensing Sector

Adapter:: Symposium Systems for Data Processing, Analysis and Representation, 1994, Ottawa; International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing; International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Commission Instrumentation for Data Reduction and Analysis; Kanada, Surveys, Mapping and Remote Sensing Sector

Founder of work:: Symposium Systems for Data Processing, Analysis and Representation, 1994, Ottawa; International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing; International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Commission Instrumentation for Data Reduction and Analysis; Kanada, Surveys, Mapping and Remote Sensing Sector

Other corporate:: Symposium Systems for Data Processing, Analysis and Representation, 1994, Ottawa; International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing; International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Commission Instrumentation for Data Reduction and Analysis; Kanada, Surveys, Mapping and Remote Sensing Sector

Publisher of the digital copy:: Technische Informationsbibliothek Hannover

Place of publication of the digital copy:: Hannover

Year of publication of the original:: 2019

Document type:: Monograph

Collection:: Earth sciences

Chapter

Title:: [Wednesday, June 8, 1994]

Document type:: Monograph

Structure type:: Chapter

Chapter

Title:: [Joint ISPRS/ GIS '94 Plenary III]

Document type:: Monograph

Structure type:: Chapter

Chapter

Title:: PERSPECTIVES ON THE USE OF SPATIAL INFORMATION John D. Bossler

Document type:: Monograph

Structure type:: Chapter

| the and GRIP more oping NS weak nents rvey, nents It is nan's Irate" The tn dd, to ional ins of sions nent, even d by This Neen ver, it ecent t. al., that eying ot for orror GPS from ional t has Accuracy Example Applications | 0.001 m |Crustal motion, geodynamics. geophysics | E_001m |Property surveying, civil engineering | [ 701m |Cadastral mapping | | 1m |Facilities management for utilities | | 10m IMapping. soil and wetland mapping u | 100 m |Small scale mapping. National Biological Survey| | 1000 m lice flows, global change research | Table 1: Example applications of spatial data and their corresponding positional accuracy requirements. been dramatically reduced. It appears therefore, that the accuracy of spatial data necessary to satisfy growing market demands is satisfied by technology like that developed at The Ohio State University Center for Mapping (Bossler, J., et. al., 1994.) IMPEDIMENTS TO USAGE Standards The need for data standards in order to effectively use and share data has long been recognized (Mapping Science Committee, 1990.) The most needed standards are content, accuracy and transfer standards. However, the discussion below focuses on transfer standards. Federal Responsibility. While it is arguable, there is general agreement that standards are a federal responsibility. However, there still seems to be a reluctance to accept this idea by some federal, private, and professional organizations. It is important to note at the onset of this argument that the top down (federal) development of standards has existed for many years, e.g., in the mapping arena the 7 1/2’ quadrangle is a (de facto?) standards. | believe that setting standards may well be the most important thing a 157 federal agency could do because setting standards should be done by an objective, unbiased, public organization so that no one private firm is unfairly favored. Another characteristic of an organization that sets standards is that it should be inherently the organization of “ultimate” responsibility, e.g., the United States Geological Survey (USGS) is the ultimate mapping authority in the U.S. A spatial data standard should reach as many practitioners as possible, be widely available and have the potential--at least--of being maintained, changed, and updated until it is obsolete. Federal agencies have the mandate, scope and visibility to accomplish this development. These points confirm the assertion that spatial data standards should be developed and maintained by federal agencies. lt goes without saying that this should be done in cooperation with many other organizations by soliciting their views and supplying funding. Research. Presently there is virtually no enthusiasm in the GIS community for the idea that universities--or for that matter federal agencies--should perform research that fosters the development of standards. Research on standards was an explicit recommendation of the MSC in a recent report (Mapping Science Committee, 1990) to the USGS, but I am unaware of any federal research

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Systems for data processing, anaylsis and representation

Monograph

Chapter

Chapter

Chapter

Table of contents

Cite and reuse

Monograph

Chapter

Image

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation