FGDC Working Group Report Summary
Out of 9 Working Group responses:
- CHARTER - 89% had a current charter or plan for data collection
- ACTIVITY - 89% were active in FY 2000/2001
- INTERNATIONAL PARTICIPATION - 78% had international/global coordination
- DATA SHARING - 78% had a policy in place for full and open access or data sharing
- METADATA - 55% had metadata discoverable through the NSDI Clearinghouse
- STANDARDS - 55% had standards for their working group theme
- PARTNERSHIPS - 55% had collaborative partnerships regarding their working group theme.
Areas of Concern included:
- There is confusion regarding the role of Working Groups and Subcommittees and the leadership role for theme generation as defined by A-16.
- The lead agency should implement endorsed standards in its activities and that of other stakeholders.
- Use of professional societies and NGO's has been very beneficial in developing FGDC Standards.
- Planning process should include procedures for updating GIS data.
- Continual GIS training is needed.
- GIS implementation requires funds and manpower.
- Boilerplate Procurement Language is needed.