March 4, 2003 FGDC Coordination Meeting Summary


Norm Anderson, INCITS L1
Fred Miller, GSA
Kim Owens, NOAA
Sarah O'Connor, NOAA
Ronald Matzner, FGDC
Julie Binder Maitra, FGDC
Lee R. Warren, NIMA
Mario Lopez-Gomez, DOJ/Civil Rights
Paul Cutler, NRC
Andy Caldwell, DHS
Sean Thrash, DHS/USBP
Ryan Cast, DHS CIO's Office
Richard Pearsall, USGS
Hedy Rossmeissl, USGS
Susan Hargrove, DOE
Carol Brandt, USDOT/BTS
Barry Napier, IGPT
Jon Sperling, HUD
Rob Dollison, GOS/ORKAND
Robby Wilson, NOAA/NOS
Bonnie Gallahan, FGDC
Hank Garie, GOS
L. Kerestesy, Consensus Systems
Chris Clarke, USDA/NRCS
Dennis Lytle, USDA
Myra Bambacus, NASA
Jochen Albrecht, UCGIS
Cliff Kottman, OGC
Bob Harding, GSA
John Clark, GSA
Leslie Wollack, GOS/NASA
Paul Young, USGS
Phil Thiel, Dewberry
Rick Yorzyk, NOAA
Sal Sclafam, HUD/CPD
Nancy Blyler, USACE
Doug Nebert, FGDC
David Morehouse, DOE
Sharon Shin, FGDC
Ann Hale Miglarese, NOAA

Action Items:

Action: Sharon Shin will convene a "metadata forum" to discuss and resolve issues concerning the metadata standard and policy guidance for GOS Modules 2 and 3. Sharon requests that agencies identify individuals to participate in this forum (please send their contact information to

NSDI Future Directions Update: Bruce McKenzie, FGDC

The effort will focus on the business needs common to all stakeholders and analyze the function of the NSDI within that context. The FGDC will be meeting with the CEG this week to discuss CEG's involvement in this effort and to outline the steps to begin the "Directions" effort. The CEG is expected to facilitate and help prepare strategic documents for discussion. Stakeholders will be contacted for participation in discussions; contact Ivan DeLoatch ( to be put on the NSDI Future Directions contact list.

Review Team for Geospatial Investments: Richard Pearsall, USGS

Update was provided on the activities to evaluate existing Federal geospatial investments. Current participants are OMB, FGDC, USGS, FEMA and Census. Activities to date include plans to use Exhibit 300 as basis for coordination, focus on elevation data and NDEP program, changes in business practice to reduce duplication, and use the NSDI Annual Report in analysis. There is a need to focus on all elevation activities. It was noted that there is no consistent definition for terminology between agencies such as the term "data collection," and there is need to include activities such as standards development. It was recognized that a full investment assessment requires an end-to-end breakout the data process.


NIMA Standards Tiger Team Update: Julie Binder Maitra, FGDC

Julie Binder Maitra, FGDC Standards Coordinator, gave a presentation on NIMA's Tiger Team for its National Center for Geospatial Intelligence Standards (NCGIS). Last year, the NIMA Standards Tiger Team recommended the establishment of the NCGIS to consolidate NIMA's diverse standards activities. The current NCGIS Tiger Team is chartered to develop a "roadmap" or strategy for the NCGIS. The NCGIS Tiger Team began as a NIMA-only effort in November 2002, and invited participation from external stakeholders this year.

The first meeting with external stakeholder participation was held on February 19, 2003. This meeting included breakout sessions for three working groups: Relationships, Standards Roadmap, and Return on Investment. These three working groups will be meeting individually weekly, with plenary meetings every three weeks to approve working results and share information. The first plenary will be held March 11-12, 2003. The NCGIS Tiger Team is scheduled to deliver the roadmap to the Director, NIMA, by May 30, 2003.

Ms. Maitra presented these recommendations for continued FGDC involvement in the NCGIS Tiger Team activity:

  • Continue monitoring, participation, and influencing NCGIS Tiger Team activity
  • Adapt findings from NCGIS Tiger Team to develop a coherent FGDC standards stance
  • Continue coordination with NCGIS after delivery of NCGIS Tiger Team roadmap

[ PowerPoint 151KB ]

One-Stop Metadata Posting Status, Sharon Shin, GOS/FGDC

Sharon Shin provided an update on GOS Modules 2 and 3. The Module 2 applications to document and search for existing framework data sets are now available on the GOS website as are the Module 3 applications to document planned acquisition data projects and a browser to locate planned acquisition projects. As requested by OMB extra budgetary fields were established in the optional supplemental fields. This information can be parsed and pulled out as individual fields. Issues discussed included the need for a single input operation for metadata creation rather that having to visit multiple sites, and the need for version and dating for policy guidance documents.

The new GOS Metadata tools can be found at, under
Module 2: Documentation of existing Framework Data Holdings - Document Existing Data Sets, and Module 3: Documentation of Spatial Data Acquisition Projects - Document Planned Data Acquisition Projects.

See link at the meeting minutes on the FGDC website for the PowerPoint presentation.

Geospatial One-Stop Overview - Hank Garie, GOS Program Director

Hank presented his vision for GOS, noting that it is evolving over time and asked for feedback from the coordination group in order to better define and present the GOS to the geospatial community.

[ PowerPoint 98KB ]

The central vision of GOS is to "support the business of government" and decision-making by making geospatial information easier, faster and less expensive to find and use. The GOS concepts are not new; they are based on the goals of the GIS community for the past decade -- provide the foundational pieces to the NSDI and encourage this effort to move forward quickly.

Hank described his challenge as a program director to refine and define the GOS vision and to then to keep the program on course and meet its current objectives. This initiative is valuable because it has visibility as a Presidential Initiative, highlights the value of geospatial information for meeting government business needs and supporting decision making and has the involvement of OMB that raises accountability for the stewardship and sharing of geospatial resources.

The presentation include an overview of the purpose of GOS, description of module activities, overview of the GOS information architecture, and GOS collaborative model based - "Geo-Partnerships" based on explicit expectations and incentives.

Items below were discussed:

GOS orientation: Hank indicated that OMB expects GOS to be a "government to government" initiative that has a strong citizen orientation. This initiative is weighted towards the non-federal community. There were concerns that these communities have different needs and requirements.

Note: Hank Garie, when asked whether GOS was a Govt to Citizen initiative, acknowledged that he felt in principal it was a Govt to Citizen initiative. In the preparation of these notes, Mr. Garie would like to clarify his statement to state that GOS is not a member of the E-Gov Govt to Citizen portfolio however believes that the citizen will have access to the GOS portal, however citizen requirements are not part of the GOS E-Gov initiative.

Hank discussed that in order for the data discovered through the GOS portal to support business cases additional 'Map Services' (or GIS capabilities) would be needed. He stated that One Stop would not be the developer of these services but could possibly act as a broker in helping to link up government and private providers or developers of these services with federal, state, and local government business cases needs.

PTI data call: PTI survey instrument has been developed that will be sent to the membership of the local government representatives on the GOS Board of Directors. A 50-member local government committee developed the survey with input from some state and federal representatives. Previous surveys were utilized in developing the survey. Concerns were expressed over overlaps between the local government survey and how it was utilizing older surveys such as the NSGIC/FGDC framework survey (exists as metadata). Census noted that it has conducted surveys of local government and was not contacted by PTI.

Hank also described the current direction of the portal development and direction from OMB that a functioning portal be available by May.

Standards: Agencies would be required to adhere to standards established under A-16. However, the intent is not to change internal business practices but would be required for data exchanged outside the agencies. Policy guidance was requested to clarify this issue. It was noted that the developed standards would be considered as one base standard with 7 parts when submitted to ANSI. Information on the standards can be found at the GOS website.

Other issues raised included:

  • what accountability is expected from the states,
  • the context and current visibility of the transportation pilot portal
  • whether there will be other standards and the process to introduce other standards to the GOS initiative
  • that the concept of "map services" is too narrow and needs to be broaden to include analytical or application services
  • the kinds of services need to be defined and explained. (We need to know not just where the data is but what kind of web services are available and who is responsible for it.)
  • coordination at the CIO level - how to bring similar programs dollars together to get business done
  • the need to develop GPRA performance metrics to meet OMB directives

Presentation was seen as helpful for informing managers and could lead to service level agreements for providing trustworthy service.

Suggested actions:

  • Provide more information and timelines on the ESRI, and OGC activities.
  • Provide clarification on the "Government to Citizen" viewpoint.
  • Provide policy direction on standards adherence

For more information visit the GOS website: