----------------------------Original message---------------------------- In response to Patrick's message of 8 October, I have given the Area 2 Framework questions that are posed some thought. I am posting my thoughts to the net to allow others to contemplate and make suggestions and additional comments. Work Group A will be addressing 1-2 Types of Libraries and their functions;, 3 Services of these libraries; 4-5 Organizational Relationships; 1-3 Types of Libraries, their Functions & Services Robert S. Allen describes three types of configurations (i.e. levels) of service with regard to spatial data (SLA G&M Bulletin 173, Sept. 1993). I forsee three as well, slightly different from his. The three levels would be to have 1. A fully functional GIS in a library that is even capable of analyses; 2. Partially functional GIS in a library capable of producing maps (print or on the screen) and manipulating data, BUT NOT AVAILABLE FOR ANALYSIS OF DATA TO TURN OUT REPORTS; 3. Providing access to data, but not allowing maps to be produced in the Library on library equipment-an internet connection with limited assistance from staff. The function of these three types of Spatial Data Centers should be derived from the goals set for the center. The choice of level is also dependent on the goals set for the center. The services offered by these centers can be derived based on the goals. 4-5 Organizational relationships I believe that there should be at least one medium service spatial data center per state. The reason I do not favor a Full Service center is because there could be problems in Full Service Centers-- equipment could be monopolized by private contractors (consulting firms) who use the Library equipment rather than purchasing their own. Work Group B deals with administration of the system. I would like to see a single agency oversee the entire system, rather than trying to deal with separate agencies. The latter would return us to the pre-CUAC days that I have heard and read horror stories about. There should be a group similar to CUAC to deal with spatial data from the various federal agencies (SDUAC). The library offering the highest service level in the state ought to receive all the data that ESIC's and state geographic name authorities receive, as people tend to call libraries for information BEFORE they contact state agencies. Better yet, the ESIC system should be incorporated into libraries, preferably the largest one in the state or region. With respect to agreements, each medium-level spatial data center should become an archival site for information ON THAT REGION (the state it is in and the contiguous states). That way the boundary information and regional information will always be available. When spatial data is updated, there should be some type of "date" information attached, so that we can retrieve historical data in the future. That is the extent of my comments for now. Maybe there can be more comments based on this. Patrick, I hope that you will forward this to Melissa. Linda Zellmer * * * /\ * * * * Box 3006 University Station * * / \/^\ * * Geology Library, University of Wyoming * / \ \/^\ * Laramie, WY 82071-3006 / \ \ \ [log in to unmask] / \ \ \