Problem: SDSFIE and the Federal Geographic
quently than yearly, then include the month, day, or
Data Committee standards
even time of collection. The use of naming conven-
tions for file names decreases the amount of time
Description
Data producers in USACE are being told to orga-
necessary to find data relevant to a project. Other
nize their data dictionaries using the SDSFIE. They
USACE elements are encouraged to incorporate nam-
are under the impression that this conflicts with
ing conventions along with data dictionary and meta-
FGDC standards. Data producers feel that using both
data standard use into their GIS implementation for
is redundant and time consuming.
optimal results.
Problem: Geospatial data documentation
Solution
Since the SDSFIE implements FGDS standards,
Description
there is no conflict. This needs to be explained to the
Use of the Federal Geographic Data Committee's
field.
Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata
within USACE varies by command and by disciplines
Problem: Refinement of SDSFIE
within the Districts, Divisions, and laboratories. Offi-
cially, most Districts state they use the FGDC meta-
Description
It is thought by some data creators that creation of
data standard and use CORPSMET software created
spatial databases adhering to the SDSFIE results in
to support the creation of metadata by USACE per-
unwieldy, slow applications because of the required
sonnel. In conversation with various USACE person-
data structure of the SDSFIE.
nel, it became obvious that many USACE employees
do not realize the benefit of the metadata standard and
do not use it. Many Districts use their own "propri-
Solution
A high-level panel on the SDSFIE should be
etary" schemes for metadata documentation. In most
formed to determine if revision would be useful.
cases, the leap from these to full FGDC metadata files
is a small but vital step for sharing data beyond the
Problem: File-naming conventions
organization's walls.
USACE personnel see the metadata requirement
Description
File-naming conventions are important to a GIS
as another unfunded mandate. What they don't real-
implementation. Where there is no organization of file
ize is that documenting their work is part of being
names or coordination of file names between organi-
a USACE employee. Excuses for not doing metadata
zational elements, available data may be overlooked
ranged from "you can't make me do it" to "the cus-
or lost.
tomer did not ask for it." In the same way that USACE
employees must use CEFMS to manage a project's
finances, the requirement to create geospatial meta-
Solutions
Many sections have naming conventions related to
data is not an extra duty--it is one of the steps in a
their file names and have had them for years. These con-
geospatial data creation project.
ventions are given to new employees on their first day,
so the schema is not broken with personnel turnover.
Solutions
The Regional Engineering and Environmental
For a more positive attitude about geospatial meta-
Geospatial Information System (REEGIS) utilizes
data to take hold in USACE, a conscious effort must
Intergraph's MGE forced data directory structure.
be made to educate the project managers so the pro-
Each REEGIS category has a two-letter code. The
cess includes GIS data and its associated documenta-
hydrosurvey portion uses year-rivermile.dgn as the
tion. This should dilute the perception that metadata
file name convention. Another implementation is
is not necessary.
using projection, county, and type of data as the direc-
Some Districts have been proactive in metadata
tory tree structure so users gain information about
creation and dissemination. In some instances, meta-
the data without having to look at the actual data.
data files have saved tens of thousands of dollars
Once the data layer is identified, the metadata file pro-
because they provided the information necessary for
vides the appropriate completed information so that
a vital project. In one instance, a contractor knew
the user is able to use the information correctly and
more about the metadata standard than the COTR
intelligently.
did and was happy to provide the information since
It is suggested that the year of the data file be incor-
they saw it as a vital portion of the project. Some
porated into the file name if the data and metadata
Districts have a vast collection of data and metadata
are stored separately. If the data is updated more fre-
on the Web; since the data are available electron-
6
Previous Page
