Libraries as Distributors of Geospatial Data: Data Management Policies as Tools for Managing Partnerships

Libraries can bring substantial expertise to bear on the collection, curation, and distribution of digital geospatial information, making them trusted and competent partners for organizations that wish to distribute geospatial data. By developing a well-thought-out data management and distribution policy, libraries can defi ne the parameters of a data distribution partnership and reinforce a data provider’s confi dence in the library’s role as a data custodian and distributor. In developing a policy, data distributors are advised to consider such issues as intellectual property rights, liability issues, distribution methods and services, data and metadata management practices, security risks posed by geospatial data, and user limitations. This article describes the most common elements of data sharing and distribution agreements and describes the development of a data management policy for the Cornell University Geospatial Information Repository (CUGIR). Introduction Although libraries are generally not producers of geospatial data, they are effective institutions to serve as distributors of geospatial data within larger spatial data infrastructures (SDIs). The process of managing distribution partnerships with data providers touches on virtually every aspect of managing and distributing digital data. This article will present a brief overview of some of the issues infl uencing organizations’ decisions to share data and distribute data, the strengths libraries bring to data distribution, and an overview of issues that a library, acting as a data distributor, should LIBRARY TRENDS, Vol. 55, No. 2, Fall 2006 (“Geographic Information Systems and Libraries,” edited by Jaime Stoltenberg and Abraham Parrish), pp. 264–284 © 2006 The Board of Trustees, University of Illinois consider when formulating data management policies or agreements. The article concludes with a description of the process of developing a data management policy for the Cornell University Geospatial Information Repository (CUGIR). Evolution of Attitudes Toward Data Sharing and Distribution Born digital, geospatial data lends itself to distribution via the Internet. It is easily reused, well-developed standards for metadata exist, and while there are multiple proprietary formats for geospatial data, some are cross-platform and many applications are capable of reading or importing multiple formats. Initiatives at local, state, and national levels and beyond encourage, or at times require, producers of geospatial data to share or distribute data publicly. Systems such as the National Spatial Data Infrastructure gateways and Geospatial One-Stop (in the United States) exist to facilitate discovery of and access to geospatial data from multiple providers. The benefi ts of sharing for providers and users of geospatial data are generally well recognized. Specifi c benefi ts to a data provider depend on its mission and mandates, data needs, and the type of sharing or distribution arrangements the organization enters into. Some of the benefi ts of sharing or distributing data may include • enhancing interorganization activities by sharing information • enabling the reuse of geospatial data by other organizations and resulting cost savings • improving and correcting errors in data in response to feedback from users • fulfi lling public data distribution requirements • developing competencies in and promoting data and metadata standards. When a data provider enters into a partnership with a data distributor, additional benefi ts may accrue: the data provider may receive support or consulting services for metadata development; the distributor’s services may make the data discoverable by new or additional means; and the distributor may take responsibility for being the fi rst point of contact for data users. Early development of data-sharing arrangements and SDIs was sometimes characterized by reluctance on the part of data producers to share data. Where the direction and management of the relationship was perceived as top-down and remote, there may have been resistance to participation. Issues related to the potential loss of local control were the main reason for resistance to data sharing; and some of these issues included meeting local requirements for data management and access, standards requirements (particularly for metadata), time requirements, management of data updates, and cost (Meredith, 1995). 265 steinhart/data management policies