Subject: Re: The Policy of GILS -Forwarded
Doug Nebert (ddnebert@fgdclearhs.er.usgs.gov)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 11:54:17 -0400
Message-Id: <35DC46A9.B1DD72B4@fgdclearhs.er.usgs.gov> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 11:54:17 -0400 From: Doug Nebert <ddnebert@fgdclearhs.er.usgs.gov> To: gils@cni.org Subject: Re: The Policy of GILS -Forwarded References: <s5cf0947.020@USGS.GOV>
On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, Philip Coombs <pcoombs@wln.com> wrote:
>
> We have proceeded in GILS on two planes of goals:
>
> 1) geographic and scientific data should have compatible and mappable
> data schemas and be available across dissimilar computing
> platforms, and
>
> 2) the public should have an inventory of what government information
> exists and how to get it.
>
> I think good progress has been made toward goal #1. However, only a
> few installations have made significant progress toward goal #2.
I believe that the main shortcoming of the current GILS architecture
is that GILS resource services themselves are not organized or
discoverable through a single mechanism. In the old WAIS world,
we had a Directory of Servers, effectively mapping out all the known
information servers that could be connected to. The server of servers
notion provided an initial approach to a very heterogeneous set of
databases out there, but always provided a user with a starting point.
In the geospatial data realm, we have required that Clearinghouse
services (also using Z39.50) all register in a central registry (there
are now 85 compatible servers with similar searchable attributes
and formatted responses. The result of this is that Web-to-Z39.50
gateways are provided with an updated list of all the searchable
servers so that a single query may be made in parallel, through the
commercial BlueAngel MetaStar Gateway, to many systems at the
same time. Without this facility, the information access across
the geospatial community would be inhibited and little better than
maintaining lists of random searchable websites. We are planning
to load the registry entries themselves into a Z39.50 service so that
one can perform advised searches of servers based on server-
level metadata.
I'd suggest a similar approach for GILS, perhaps focused on subsets
of the government information community (e.g. US fed, US nonfed,
Australia, etc.) that would foster coordinated single-point search of
many kindred information services. Singular GILS servers to known
GILS clients don't very effectively flesh-out the broader information
space. In conclusion, a GILS server-of-servers (in GILS of course)
or selective Gateways would do the most to overcome this localized
inability to see the wider GILS community as "one."
Doug Nebert
FGDC
<ddnebert@fgdclearhs.er.usgs.gov>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a16 : Tue Mar 23 1999 - 03:55:43 EST