Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Confronted with a major crisis in the form of the destructive Canterbury earthquakes of 2010/11, various information communities in Christchurch, New Zealand were suddenly compelled to re-engineer business-as-usual information sharing practices. The former ways of doing things would not scale to meet the new demands for timely and up-to-date information. They addressed the challenge by adopting standards-based interoperable services to share geospatial information. These achieved efficiencies critical to the disaster response and are on-going for the recovery processes. Sharing information is one step; Christchurch Earthquake recovery partners defined a further ambition to transact updates between one another, on their different platforms. To accelerate cross-platform interoperability, the recovery partners, with support from LINZ, hosted a so-called ‘Plugfest’ in May 2012. Within three days a working solution between four vendor platforms was implemented and demonstrated, based on OGC compliant, transactional web-services. This presentation outlines what was achieved and how. It also invites the audience to consider whether other communities could do likewise i.e. leverage similar benefits, without a catastrophe as catalyst? Establishing geospatial web services as the new ‘business as usual’.
Citation preview
CANTERBURY PLUGFEST:
Geospatial Interoperability Works!
Maurits van der VlugtMercury Project Solutions
Richard Murcott | Geospatial Standards Leader New Zealand Geospatial Office
Overview
Background
Data Sharing Challenges
Solution: a Plugfest!
Should you consider hosting one yourself?
Kyle Dow, Senior Data Analyst, Corporate Data Team, CCC
2010-11 Christchurch Earthquakes
4 Sept. 20107.1 magnitude
22 February 20116.3 magnitude
- 185 dead- NZ’s costliest disaster
Post Feb 2011 – Recovery Period
Council Systems Intact!
Data Sharing Council EM Agencies Civil Defence Utilities Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Environment Canterbury (ECAN) Etc…
Initially: Sneakernet…
Photos: Kyle Dow, Senior Data Analyst, Corporate Data Team, CCC
Kyle Dow, Senior Data Analyst, Corporate Data Team, CCC
Next step: Interoperable Supply
Wait: Death by Acronym!
WFS:
Web Feature
Service
Kyle Dow, Senior Data Analyst, Corporate Data Team, CCC
Next step: Interoperable Supply
Kyle Dow, Senior Data Analyst, Corporate Data Team, CCC
WFS for Data Supply Works
Kyle Dow, Senior Data Analyst, Corporate Data Team, CCC
Next step: Receiving Data?
?
? ?
?
Same Issues, but… Christchurch City holds
Authoritative Data, e.g… WasteWater Building Status
Construction partners manually submit data in variety of formats
Time & Money wasted on data loading & management
WFS has no capability to receive updates through interoperable web services
Transactional Web Service: WFS-T
WFS: Geometry & Attributes - “Read Only”
WFS-T: As WFS + “Create, Update, Delete”
CCC + Partners struggled to successfully enable WFS-T
OGC compliance of their Software? Schema harmonisation? “Too hard” basket?
Image: http://villagescribe.com.au
What they needed: Transactional Interoperability between
recovery partners: CERA, CCC, SCIRT ESRI, Integraph OGC Standards (NZGO SDI Cookbook)
Practical, short-term solution (can’t wait)
Focus on issues with existing (OGC) standards interfaces, notably WFS-T
Immediate results that will accelerate recovery & reconstruction efforts
Solution: WFS-T Plugfest
Short Duration
Collaborative
Hands-on
Independent Facilitation & WFS-T Architect
“Just Make it Work”
Image: http://www.ispcs.org
Two Use-Case scenarios
Set-up Data and Services
Implement end-to-end Interoperability
Live Demo
All in 3 days!
Photo: Maurits van der Vlugt
Technology AgnosticOrganisation Technologies
CCC Intergraph GeoMedia Pro
Intergraph GeoMedia WebMap
SCIRT ESRI ArcGIS Server
ESRI ArcGIS Desktop
Safe Software – FME
WFS ‘Pump script’
CERA Benoli Silverfish
ESRI GeoDatabase
WFS ‘Pump script’
InsureCorp* Pitney Bowes Software MapInfo Professional
* fictitious name to protect any commercial interests
Before and After
Before
* Data submitted to CCC on
paper, email, disk
* Significant effort & resource
strain for data entry
* Doesn’t Scale
After
* “Set and forget”
* Significant time & resources
savings
* Submitters choose their own
technology
Lessons Learned Interoperability works!
WFS: Mature COTS WFS-T Servers: Mature COTS WFS-T Clients: Maturing
WFS/WFS-T Schema Sensitive Good Community Schema is important
Submitting to WFS-T requires scripting or Client plug-ins
Conclusions
Plugfest model is highly effective to achieve hands-on practical interoperability
Demonstrated viable solution architecture with immediate business benefits
Achieved in 3-day Plugfest, what would have taken weeks (effort) or months (elapsed) otherwise
DO Try T
his at H
ome!
Photo: Andy Coote
THANK YOU
More Information:http://www.geospatial.govt.nz/christchurch-plugfest-2012-report
Maurits van der Vlugt
Twitter: @mvandervlugt
Richard Murcott
