Estonian Information Society Yearbook 2011/2012. Karin Kastehein
Читать онлайн книгу.
spatial data. It appears that, thanks namely to address data, a number of database administrators have recently been surprised to learn that their database contains spatial data.
Publication and re-use
Compared to Europe and the rest of the world, spatial data that can be treated as public information are public in Estonia. The Land Board, being the largest state map producer and administrator of spatial data, published cadastral unit data, administrative boundaries and topographic basic maps back in 2001 via the Web-based map server (http://geoportaal.maaamet.ee/). In 2008, Web-based map services (WMS) were added to the public map server; the Land Board’s maps can be accessed through these services using various GIS/CAD software. The map server and services are very popular, with a total of 500,000 visits per month.
A second example we can cite is the Environmental Information Centre, whose website displays all sorts of environment-related spatial data. One example is the forest register’s web service.
The difference between publication and re-use is mainly the fact that published spatial data can be viewed, queried, searched and, to a limited extent, downloaded as an image and printed. The possibilities for using spatial data in re-usable form are unlimited and as a rule they can be downloaded as databases in the suitable format. Making spatial data available specifically in re-usable form creates the preconditions for the private and third sector being able to use public sector information for developing new and interesting services and applications.
With regard to availability of reusable spatial data, Estonia presents a variegated picture. Some re-usable spatial data covering all of Estonia are easily available; there are other kinds that are difficult to access for several reasons. Availability of data varies both from one agency to the next as well as within a given agency.
Conformity to open data principles
The following is my subjective assessment of the conformity of Estonia’s spatial data situation to selected open data principles. But the fact that these are spatial data does not have particular importance in this situation. Rather, the technological capability of database administrators, legal regulations, historical customs and other factors have influenced the situation.
One principle is that data have been gathered from original sources without processing and they have retained their original form and level of detail. This is a principle that was more problematic in the case of spatial data 10-15 years ago, but today it is generally no longer an issue. It took time before spatial data users understood that it was in their own interests for spatial data from information holders to be from the original source and up to date. Paradoxically, the implementation of open data policy in Estonia could make the situation even worse. In using applications developed by third parties, end users no longer have a direct link to the data generator – the original source. Nor do they know how different the spatial data visible to end users are compared to data that the developer pulled from the original source. While it is true that developers of open data policy are concerned about whether all interested parties – developers and creators of value added – can access data, including spatial data from the original source, it has not in any way been determined what happens to the data after the developer processes them and resells them. It will be likely left up to the market – and end-user awareness – to regulate the area.
Principles worth mentioning include machine-readability, up-to-dateness of data and use of free standards. These are principles where conformity can be ensured largely using technical means. In Estonia, many databases that include spatial data were established only 20 years ago, they can be administered in machine-readable form, not as scanned sets of historical documents. This is a big difference and advantage compared to Western Europe, where states have had to spend noteworthy sums on digitization and vectorization of maps. To ensure up-to-dateness of spatial data between the information holder’s database and the place where the spatial data will be available in re-usable form, the state’s open data consolidated site to be established will likely be an aid, allowing the data user to be sure that the data he or she downloaded are identical in the information holder’s database. A more troublesome question is whether the data in the information holder’s database are up to date and reflect reality.
In the case of open data, importance is placed on the principle that the data be presented in an open format that is not the exclusive property of any one company or person. A propos of the needs of spatial data users in Estonia, we should mention that users wish to obtain data in a format compatible with their GIS/CAD software. Converting spatial data from one format to another is an inconvenience that causes dissatisfaction even if the software enables conversion. Estonia makes use of both proprietary GIS software from specific manufacturers and freeware GIS programs, the latter being less common. Thus open spatial data should be available in the formats that are predominantly used, including in some producer-centred and closed as well as open format.
Open data policy will be effective if it proved possible to unify access, release and terms of use and fee-charging principles for public data in re-usable form nationwide.
As the last group, we can mention open data principles dealing with rights, restrictions and availability of the use of the data. For many reasons these aspects are regulated quite inconsistently in Estonia. The Public Information Act establishes a single set of principles for publishing data. With regard to spatial data, the Spatial Data Act governs questions of availability, the Act reflects the principles of the INSPIRE directive. The Spatial Data Act obliges information holders to make the spatial data they administer available via services (including download services) that conform to specific requirements, and in a format that likewise conforms to specific requirements. At the same time, the Act leaves the terms and conditions and procedure for distributing information – i.e. user privileges and licensing matters – open and empowers the minister in whose area of government a given database resides.
In large part, matters pertaining to use of data are governed by the relevant legal acts. The principles that pertain to requesting data from data sets and conditions for use of data are set forth in many legal acts, and it is difficult to orient in this landscape.
Money
Should public information be available free of charge in re-usable form to all or should people pay for it? How much should the fee be? These questions are at the centre of passionate debate in Estonia and throughout the European Union and are also salient among information holders administering spatial data.
For public sector information holders, spatial data from other information holders are available free of charge in Estonia. The situation varies greatly in terms of fees for data for the private and third sector. If we generalize (and do not distinguish what the fee is being charged for exactly – provision of service, issue of spatial information or other services) we can say that the fee and fee levels vary by data set. For instance the Spatial Data Act establishes fees for Topography database, but there is no fee charged for certain environmental data, such as Forest Register data, which can be freely downloaded from the Environmental Information Centre page. Or, for instance, address data are free of charge for all in re-usable form from the Land Board site, but the State Fees Act establishes a fee for releasing cadastral unit data.
Such a situation has developed over quite a long time and it is not only typical of spatial data but all public sector data. We can speculate that in the case of certain databases, a monopolistic status is sensed and the authorities are reluctant to forgo the possibility of charging a state fee. In the case of certain databases, it is in the interests of the information holder and the state to make the data more widely usable in society – in such a case they would be free of charge and available in as simple a manner as possible.
The situation in different European countries also varies. Much depends on the extent to which information holders receive state budget funding and how much they need to earn the money themselves. A telling example is the wording, pertaining to fees, of the draft act supplementing the PSI directive. It appears there is an attempt to find a compromise between opposing interests and the result is a wording that is open to many interpretations.
Conclusion
Open data policy will be effective if it proved possible to unify access, release and terms of use and fee-charging