DOI: 10.1515/gse-2015-0002 9

GeoScience Engineering Volume LX (2014), No.4

http://gse.vsb.cz p. 9-18, ISSN 1802-5420

A FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATION OF MARINE SPATIAL DATA GEOPORTALS USING CASE STUDIES

Marina TAVRA 1, Vlado CETL2, Tea DUPLANČIĆ LEDER1

1 Department of Geodesy and Geoinformatics, Faculty of Civil engineering, Architecture and Geodesy,

University of Split

Matice hrvatske 15, Split, Croatia, tel. (+385) 21 303 333

e-mail mtavra@gradst.hr

2 Chair of Spatial Information Managment, Faculty of Geodesy, University of Zagreb, Kačićeva 26,

Croatia, tel. (+385) 1 463 9222

e-mail vcetl@geof.hr

Abstract

Need for a Marine Spatial Data Infrastructure (MSDI) as a component of a National Spatial Data

Infrastructure (NSDI) is widely recognized. An MSDI is relevant not only for hydrographers and government

planners, but also for many other sectors which takes interest in marine spatial data, whether they are data users,

data providers, or data managers [9]. An MSDI encompasses marine and coastal geographic and business

information. For efficient use of Marine Spatial Data, it is necessary to ensure its valid and accessible

distribution. A geoportal is a specialized web portal for sharing spatial information at different levels over the

Internet. This paper re-examines the implementation of an MSDI and what it means for data custodians and end

users. Several geoportals are reviewed (German and Australian) to determine their web services functionality,

capabilities and the scope to which they support the sharing and reuse of Marine Spatial Data to assist the

development of the Croatian MSDI Geoportal. This framework provides a context for better understanding the

information bases on spatial data standards and a tool for evaluation of MSDI dissemination – Geoportal.

Key words: MSDI, Marine Data, Marine Spatial Data, Geoportal, Evaluation.

1 INTRODUCTION

Coastal zone is recognised as a complex system whose management need to involve various

methodologies and stages to achieve results based on sharing knowledge and expertise between scientists,

authorities and stakeholders [15].

Technology development led to an inadequate and slow traditional approach to spatial data exchange. In

order to establish effective spatial data management, it is necessary to develop a spatial data infrastructure (SDI).

Such SDI provides a basis for spatial data, use and implementation at different levels of society [16].

In order to allow economy and industry to develop more efficiently, a standardization of spatial data,

services, processes and other relationships linked to spatial data is performed to provide important directions of

development [3]. While an SDI can be considered as a collection of technological and non-technological

components and arrangements intended to create such an open environment, the SDI concept also reflects the

increasing importance of interconnectivity in working with geographic information [24].

A geoportal is a key component of an SDI that facilitates accessibility and access to spatial datasets to end user.

In general, a geoportal acts as a gateway to digital spatial data content and services made available within the

concept of an SDI. The geoportal achieves this goal through the linking of geoinformation oriented websites and

databases [10]. Besides the technical components that connect data 'islands' via the Internet, other aspects such as

licensing agreements, data transfer standards, and data access policies must also be put in place to ensure

consistent and reliable access [22].

He et al. (2012) [8] in their study showed the need for evaluation of a geoportal before its development.

They detect a number of weaknesses in designing a geoportal. These weaknesses are related to the breaches of

some general design rules, such as providing an adequate feedback mechanism and making important

components visible.

1.1 Marine Spatial Data Infrastructure

A Marine Spatial Data Infrastructure (MSDI) is a component of an SDI that encompasses marine

geographic and business information in its widest sense. This would typically include seabed topography

(bathymetry), geology, marine infrastructure (e.g. wrecks, offshore installations, pipelines and cables),

administrative and legal boundaries, and areas of conservation, marine habitats and oceanography [13].

UnauthenticatedDownload Date | 10/3/15 9:52 AM

DOI: 10.1515/gse-2015-0002 10

GeoScience Engineering Volume LX (2014), No.4

http://gse.vsb.cz p. 9-18, ISSN 1802-5420

An MSDI is a frame which provides the integrated management of spatial data and information in the

marine (maritime) environment, covering processes such as: technology, policy, standards, data, people, and

organizations [7][17].

An MSDI should be established according to global, regional and national conventions and policies of

each maritime country. There are a large number of MSDI stakeholders that need to be coordinated [4].

1.2 Who is responsible for development of marine components?

Hydrographic Offices (HO) are uniquely placed to play a central role in the development of marine

components of all SDIs. Significant support for all aspects of functioning HOs is provided by the International

Hydrographic Organization (IHO) [18].

The IHO is an intergovernmental consultative and technical organization that was established in 1921 to

support the safety of navigation and the protection of the marine environment [11]. Currently, the IHO comprises

81 Member States. According to Pharaoh (2007) “The Hydrographic Office (HO) is an important part of the

National Geo-Spatial Data Infrastructure and, of course, the IHO has an important role to play in coordinating

the requirements and demands for data collection, interoperability, dissemination, access, standards, security,

pricing policy and possible funding models” [18].

Fig 1. IHO Members [12] (Source: International Hydrographic Organization)

1.3 Croatian MSDI status and development of MSDI Geoportal

In Croatia, the development of an MSDI currently takes place, merging information concerning the

fields such as coastal engineering, hydrography and surveying, protection of the marine environment,

maritime conservation, regional planning and coastal research. This undertaking is embedded in a series of

regulations and developments at many administrative levels, from which specifications and courses of action

derive.

A central role in the development of an MSDI in Croatia is played by the Hydrographic Institute of the

Republic of Croatia (HIRC). To set up a conceptual framework for this MSDI in Croatia, the HIRC with other

providers of marine data and partners need to build a reference model, develop models to support common

workflows in marine applications and evaluate meta-information systems and MSDIs of other countries.

1.4 Methodology

For evaluating how other countries built their MSDI, it is of main importance to learn where obstacles are

and errors are likely to occur. To be able to look at other initiatives from a neutral point of view, it is necessary

to construct a framework for the evaluation of MSDIs and their geoportals [20].

Indicators for evaluating MSDIs and their geoportals will be based on several resources. A base

framework is developed by Rüh et al. (2012) which is explained in their paper “A framework for the evaluation of

marine spatial data infrastructures to assist the development of the marine spatial data infrastructure in Germany

(MDI-DE) – Accompanied by international case-studies” [20]. They developed the framework based on ISO and

OGC standards and used it for two case studies: Canadian and two Australian geoportals (AMSIS and IMOS). In

the thesis by Boris Blagonić “Utility cadastre in local spatial data infrastructure” [1], several useful indicators

can be found for reviewing a geoportal which are added to the framework.

Enclosed MSDI case studies in this paper are: German (GeoSeaPortal) and Australian (AMSIS).

UnauthenticatedDownload Date | 10/3/15 9:52 AM

DOI: 10.1515/gse-2015-0002 11

GeoScience Engineering Volume LX (2014), No.4

http://gse.vsb.cz p. 9-18, ISSN 1802-5420

2 MARINE SPATIAL DATA GEOPORTALS AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORK

2.1 Geoportals

The Internet is the de facto a standard of today’s global communications. It is a host for millions of

corporate and organisational Web sites and Web portals where various types of information services are

provided and accessed. Spatial database vendors and users alike have closely followed the advances of the

Internet to develop and adopt new software tools and solutions that have basically revolutionised the ways, in

which spatial information is processed and used [25].

Important activities of an SDI (and MSDI) involve the distribution and use of geospatial data.

Advancement of technology helped the development of geoportal services. Geoportals are specialized Web

pages used to discover, view and access spatial information and additional geographic services via the Internet.

A geoportal is a gateway to Web-based spatial information and information services [23].

Such geoportal achieves this goal through the linking of spatial information oriented websites and

databases. These websites may be local, regional, national and can be either publicly or privately owned. Within

the context of an SDI, it is propagated that there should be an entry point (a national geoportal) to the following

network of services. The premium version of this national geoportal is expected to serve as a one-stop shop

providing access to geo-information (GI) contents and GI services so that they can be easily shared and reused.

To provide this facility effectively and efficiently, an ideal national geoportal should have access to the majority

if not to all GI portals, GI datasets, and GI services within a nation whether privately or publicly owned [7].

2.2 Compiling the framework – evaluation methodology

Tab. 1 shows possible indicators for evaluating SDIs which Najar et al. according to Rüh et al.[20]

divided by the areas: policy, standards, access, data, people and performance.

Tab. 1: Possible indicators for evaluating SDIs [20]

Area Possible indicators

Policy Level

– Policy

Existence of a government policy for SDI

Handling intellectual property rights, privacy issues, pricing

Objectives for acquisition and use of spatial data

Management Level

– Standards

Standardisation arrangements for data dissemination and access

network

Institutional arrangements of agencies involved in providing spatial data

Organisational arrangements for coordination of spatial data

Definition of core datasets

Data modelling

Interoperability

Management Level

– Access Network

Access pricing

Delivery mechanism and procedure

Access privileges

Value-adding arrangements

Operational Level

– Access Network

Type of network

Data volume

Response time

Operational Level

– Data Data format

Data capture method

Definition of core datasets

Data maintenance

Data quality and accuracy

Other

Influencing

Factors

– People

Number of organisations and people involved

Opportunities for training

Market situation for data providers, data integrators, and end-users

Performance

Assessment Degree of satisfying objectives and strategies

User satisfaction

Diffusion and use of spatial data and information

Turnover and reliability

UnauthenticatedDownload Date | 10/3/15 9:52 AM

DOI: 10.1515/gse-2015-0002 12

GeoScience Engineering Volume LX (2014), No.4

http://gse.vsb.cz p. 9-18, ISSN 1802-5420

Najar (2007) according to Rüh et al. [20] undertakes a similar approach for the assessment of SDIs by

proposing three components (data and metadata, web services, standards) accompanied by several

indicators for each of the components. Since the indicators could have a technical or organizational

meaning, they are further classified by these two factors (see Tab. 2).

Tab. 2: Indicators for comparing SDIs on the basis of web services and data management

Component Indicator

Technical Organizational

Data and

metadata

Data capture process

Definition of core datasets

Data format and conceptual model

Data management

Data quality and accuracy

Common modelling language and tools

Harmonization of data and metadata

Custodianship

Data sharing and partnerships

agreements

Business models

Coordinating arrangements

Web

services

Application profile

Clearinghouse and geoportal

Clearinghouse organization

Standards Interoperability Organizational arrangements for

standardization

The main components of a general SDI and an MSDI are more or less the same so we can assume

that we are able to apply the indicators mentioned in the two beforehand shown papers to the evaluation of

the MSDI [20].

Tab. 3: Indicators for evaluating marine spatial data infrastructures

Area Indicator

Technical Organizational

A – Data Core datasets Degree of involvement of

different agencies/institutions

Coordinate reference systems

B – Metadata Availability of metadata/metadata

catalogue (CSW)

Coordination

Data quality and accuracy

C - Services and

Interfaces

Availability of services Access privileges

Performance (response time, data

management)

Clearinghouse and geoportal

D – Standards Interoperability

E – Modelling

Existence of government policy

for SDI

F- Geoportal

(access to data)

Visibility

Accessibility

User interface functionalities

The first area (A) deals with organizational and technical indicators regarding data. The data is a starting

point for the development of an MSDI. The indicator “core datasets” (A1) show us what basic reference spatial

data is covered by a country’s MSDI. The indicator “coordinate reference systems” ( A2) lists all the

supported CRS of an MSDI, while the last indicator (A3) looks at the degree of involvement of

different agencies or respective institutions by reason that an MSDI has to incorporate various datasets

coming from a wide range of institutions.

UnauthenticatedDownload Date | 10/3/15 9:52 AM

DOI: 10.1515/gse-2015-0002 13

GeoScience Engineering Volume LX (2014), No.4

http://gse.vsb.cz p. 9-18, ISSN 1802-5420

In the second area (B), we can see what is behind available data with regard to metadata (B1); whether it

is searchable and whether there is a CSW (metadata catalogue) .The indicator B3 (coordination) is used as

the metadata should be homogeneous inside an MSDI and it would be good if there is a central

coordination unit dealing with implementing metadata rules.

For interoperability, it is important to be able to get marine-related data into any application of your

choice not to be dependent on a geoportal alone. Thus the indicator C1 (availability of services) lists all the

available services. If you want to work with the data provided by services, it is important that the services

meet certain criteria regarding response time (indicator C2 – performance). Furthermore, the system has

to be able to cope with large data sets and there should be an update cycle with short intervals which

is well documented. An MSDI should have a central entry point to access its data, which is a geoportal

or a clearinghouse (indicator C3). It is important that there is a search functionality and map viewer.

Additionally, the indicator C4 (access privileges/custodianship) asks if there was a focus on a role model

which deals with actors or stakeholders of the system when the MSDI was modelled [20].

The area D analyses which standards are used and checks whether their usage lead to interoperability

or not. Apart from that, it asks whether the stakeholders of the infrastructures are involved in

standardization processes or organizations.

The area E is a modelling area of MSDIs from an organizational viewpoint. It considers the

existence of a government policy for an (M)SDI (indicator E1) and thus answers the question whether the

government backs up its developments or not.

Along with the existing indicator C3 (geoportal), the last area focuses on access to geoportals.

According to the Blagonić‘s thesis [1], the first indicator for evaluating an MSDI portal would be F1 “visibility”

(how can we find the geoportal on the Internet? Are there backlinks to official government web pages?). The

indicator “accessibility” to a level of contents and services (F2) shows whether there is an option for other

languages and whether there is some help for users. The indicator “user interface functionalities” (F3) brings

quality usage of provided data in a map viewer/editor (navigation, zoom, pan, editing tools).

3 EVALUATION OF CASE STUDIES

3.1 German GeoSeaPortal

Germany-Online Geo-Data (Deutschland-Online – Geodaten) started as the Germany-Online

(Deutschland-Online) initiative in 2003 by members who are representatives from ministries, mapping agencies,

communities, and SDI initiatives. Private companies are invited to take part on a project basis. All Germany-

Online Geo-Data projects must comply with the German SDI rules and standards, which are defined by the

German SDI initiative GDI-DE [2].

Fig 2. GeoSeaPortal

Currently in Germany, the development of a marine data infrastructure takes place with the aim to

integrate existing technical developments (NOKIS –a metadata database in Germany –and the spatial data

UnauthenticatedDownload Date | 10/3/15 9:52 AM

DOI: 10.1515/gse-2015-0002 14

GeoScience Engineering Volume LX (2014), No.4

http://gse.vsb.cz p. 9-18, ISSN 1802-5420

infrastructure of the German Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency [GDI-BSH]) as well as merging

information concerning the fields: coastal engineering, hydrography and surveying, protection of the marine

environment, maritime conservation, regional planning and coastal research [19][5].

Tab. 4: Evaluation of German efforts

Area Indicator

Technical Organizational

A 1++ 3++

2++

B 1++ 3++

2++

C 1+/- 4++

2 +

3++

D 1++

E

1++

F 1++

2++

3++

* ++ very good, + good, +/- not appraisable, - not so good, -- bad

GeoSeaPortal with its core datasets (Geological, Navigational, Marine environment, Spatial planning,

Oceanography, Tide Gauge Stations) and a good metadata search engine deserves a very good rating in the part

of core datasets of evaluation (A1). Also, the support for coordinate reference systems is very good.

GeoSeaPortal consists of two components: MapClient [14][21] and GeoSeaPortal [6] (metadata search

application). The metadata search application supports the search for and maintenance of metadata via intuitive

web interfaces, as well as makes locally stored and managed metadata available to users via standardized

interfaces. The system implements the OGC CSW 2.0.2 interface as well as the ISO Metadata Application

Profile V1.0 (ISO19115/19119) and the DE Profile for catalogue services (B1). The area C describes availability

of services; because of lacking services availability and bad web page navigation, the rating +/- not appraisable

was given. German GeoSeaPortal is in accordance with OGC and ISO standards (D1). At the organizational

level, the BSH deserves a very good score based on available documentation about establishment and all

processes related to the topic. There is only one objection, some of documents as parts of Web pages are only in

German.

Access to GeoSeaPortal is very good in all of three technical segments – visibility (F1), accessibility (F2)

and user interface function (F3). On the BSH official web page there is a link to GeoSeaPortal in several places;

we also can find it in other governance web places. There is a very well-organized help content for users in the

MapClient User Guide. On the user interface functionalities side, GeoSeaPortal allows users to:

Navigate through map area part of the window (pan, zoom in and out)

Measure (distance or area)

Draw (point, polyline, area, text or activate coordinates on click)

Change spatial reference system,

Change scale

Save and load their own project

Send map via e-mail

Add data and services (WMS, WFS, ArcIMS, AGS, GeoRSS, Inspire View Services, SOS)

Print.

3.2 Australian Marine Spatial Information System (AMSIS)

The Australian Spatial Data Infrastructure (ASDI) has been coordinated by the Australia New Zealand

Land Information Council (ANZLIC) since 1986, with the aim of making Australia’s spatially referenced data,

products, and services accessible to everyone.

In Australia, we mainly find two approaches with the aim to tie in with the ASDI. One of them – the

Australian Marine Spatial Information System (AMSIS) focuses primarily on “framework” data (boundaries,

UnauthenticatedDownload Date | 10/3/15 9:52 AM

DOI: 10.1515/gse-2015-0002 15

GeoScience Engineering Volume LX (2014), No.4

http://gse.vsb.cz p. 9-18, ISSN 1802-5420

cadastre, infrastructure etc.), while the other – the Integrated Marine Observing System (IMOS) Ocean Portal

offers a variety of data mostly from scientific research, e.g. biological and climate data [20].

The AMSIS was developed and is maintained by the government agency Geoscience Australia, and as a

web-based interactive mapping and decision-support tool it offers access to over 80 layers of information in the

Australian marine jurisdiction, including maritime boundaries, bathymetry, physical and environmental

information, legal interests, fisheries and shipping.

Fig 3. AMSIS

The AMSIS offers core datasets in the categories:

Administrative boundaries (maritime limits, territorial sea baselines and basepoints, etc.)

Framework data (shoreline, state borders, etc.)

Bathymetry (bathymetric image, isobaths)

Coastal and offshore gazetteer (cultural locations, land features, marine features)

Anthropogenic features (historic shipwrecks, ocean disposal sites)

Transport (ship reporting locations, derived shipping lanes, ferry routes)

Infrastructure (petroleum wells, platforms, pipelines, submarine cables, navigational aids)

Geology (seafloor features, sedimentary basins, tectonic elements)

Environmental management (bioregions, marine planning regions) [20].

Tab. 5:Evaluation of Australian efforts

Area Indicator

Technical Organizational

A 1 ++ 3 ++

2 +

B 1 ++ 3 ++

2 +

C 1 ++ 4 +/-

2 +

3 ++

D 1 +

E

1 ++

F 1+/-

2+

3+

* ++ very good, + good, +/- not appraisable, - not so good, -- bad

UnauthenticatedDownload Date | 10/3/15 9:52 AM

DOI: 10.1515/gse-2015-0002 16

GeoScience Engineering Volume LX (2014), No.4

http://gse.vsb.cz p. 9-18, ISSN 1802-5420

Core datasets provide the AMISIS the score “very good” in the first field (A1) of the evaluation table.

There is no much information about a coordinate reference system in the geoportal. The core datasets provide

documentation about a coordinate reference system where we can see that the WGS84 datum is used in the

AMISIS. The AMSIS contains data from agencies and industry sources like the Australian Fisheries

Management Authority (AFMA), the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA), the Australian

Hydrographic Service (AHS), the Department of Environment and Conservation, and many others. Thus, it

can be concluded that the datasets are coming from a wide range of agencies/institutions and thus giving

the indicator A3 the very good score, too [20].

In the area B, the Australian AMSIS deserves the score “very good” for the indicators 1 and 3. There

is neither a central metadata catalog nor a CSW for the AMSIS, but you can find all the layers provided

in the AMSIS through the Australian Spatial Data Directory (ASDD), however, this provides many more

datasets through a number of directory systems where each data directory is called a node. The metadata

guidelines of the ANZLIC include five metadata elements regarding data quality in the core metadata

fields: lineage, positional accuracy, attribute accuracy, logical consistency and completeness.

For instance, when looking for a WMS in the theme “CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research

Data”, a web map service could be found and probably many more could be found as well, which means

the score “very good” for the indicator C1[20].

The AMSIS offer a geoportal which include everything that an average geoportal offers – from a search

engine to a map viewer and so on, leading to the score “very good” for the indicator C3.

The area D means standards which we can refer to B3 regarding metadata standards for the AMSIS

and to C1 as for standards for services. According to the information found in the AMSIS portal, the

AMSIS is strongly connected to the Australian Ocean Governance and related legislation (e.g. Coral Sea Act,

The Fisheries Management Act, etc.) and is developed and hosted by Geoscience Australia which is an

agency of the Australian federal government.

The last area focuses on access to geoportals. The first indicator for the evaluation of an MSDI portal is

F1 (visibility). There is a link for the AMSIS on government official web pages, but in a bad place (navigation),

and there is no defined path in the web page address. The indicator “accessibility” to a level of contents and

services (F2) show if there is an option for other languages and help for users. There is no other language option

(only English), but there is a well-indexed help function. The indicator “AMSIS user interface functionalities”

(F3) brings beside usual options (navigation, zoom, pan and editing tools) also special ones like Distance to

Boundary, Legal Interests, Advanced Find, etc.

4 CONCLUSIONS

Anyone involved in hydrography has long understood the importance of managing such data efficiently

and making it usefully available to end-users, whether they are mariners, oil companies or the scientific

community. An MSDI is relevant not only to hydrographers and government planners, but also for many other

sectors which takes interest in marine spatial data, whether they are data users, data providers, or data managers

[9]. A framework for evaluation of an MSDI and geoportals can be first step in a challenging task – establishing

an MSDI and a geoportal as its component. The German case study showed a good side of the use of the

framework referring to Rüh et al. (2012) [20], though the AMSIS is not much behind. This framework provides a

context for better understanding the information bases on international spatial data standards. A central role in

the development of the MSDI in Croatia is played by the Hydrographic Institute of the Republic of Croatia

(HIRC). To set up a conceptual framework for this MSDI in Croatia, the HIRC with other providers of marine

data and partners need to build a reference model, develop models to support common workflows in marine

applications, and evaluate meta-information systems and MSDIs of other countries. The research is focused on

the development of the evaluation framework with special emphasis on the implementation of the MSDI

geoportal in the Republic of Croatia. International experience in MSDI development, the existing standards for

spatial data (OGC, ISO, etc.), standards of the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO), the INSPIRE

directive and act on the National Spatial Data Infrastructure are also considered as part of the research and

framework model. An intention is to develop a unique MSDI model that fits users and producers of such data

using analysis tools for the evaluation of best practices. The framework for evaluation can be used to avoid a

number of weaknesses in designing a specific MSDI geoportal.

UnauthenticatedDownload Date | 10/3/15 9:52 AM

DOI: 10.1515/gse-2015-0002 17

GeoScience Engineering Volume LX (2014), No.4

http://gse.vsb.cz p. 9-18, ISSN 1802-5420

REFERENCES

[1] Blagonić, B. (2012): Utility cadastre in local spatial data infrastructure, thesis, Faculty of Geodesy

University of Zagreb, Croatia.

[2] Brüggenmann, H. (2009): Public-private SDI challenges in Germany, GSDI 11 15-19 June 2009,

Rotterdam.

[3] Croatian National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI): http://www.nipp.hr, 12.12.2014.

[4] Duplančić Leder, T., Leder, N., Tavra, M. (2014): Geospatial Data in Marine SDI Services, 6th

International Maritime Science Conference / Vidan, Pero ; Twrdy, Elen ; Leder, Nenad ; Mulić, Rosanda

(ur.). Split: Faculty of Maritime Studies Split, 465-469.

[5] Geoportal.de, http://www.geoportal.de 26. 04. 2014.

[6] GeoSeaPortal, http://gdi.bsh.de/terraCatalog/Start.do 26. 04. 2014.

[7] Giff G., van Loenen, B., Crompvoets, J., Zevenbergen, J. (2008): Geoportals in Selected European

States: A Non-Technical Comparative Analysis, GSDI 10, Feb 2008, Trininad.

[8] He, X., Persson, H., & Östman, A. (2012): Geoportal usability evaluation. Int. J. Spat. Data Infrastruct.

Res, 7, 88-106.

[9] Heaps, W. (2011): Marine Spatial Data Infrastructure as Backbone for Coastal Mapping, Hydro

International, Volume 15, Number 1.

[10] Huet, M. (2007): Marine Spatial Data Infrastructure, An IHO Perspective: Data, products, standards and

policies, International Hydrographic Bureau, Monaco, February 2009.

http://www.iho.int/mtg_docs/com_wg/MSDIWG/MSDIWG_Misc/Marine_SDI_Seminar_Havana_2009/

MH_MSDI_IHO_Perspective.pdf 20. 04. 2014.

[11] International Hydrographic Organisation: About IHO,

http://www.iho.int/srv1/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=298&Itemid=297 20. 04.

2014.

[12] International Hydrographic Organisation Members, http://www.iho.int, 24.4.2014.

[13] International Hydrographic Organization (2009): Spatial Data Infrastructures „The Marine Dimension“

– Guidance for Hydrographic Offices, Edition 1.0., Published by the International Hydrographic Bureau,

Monaco.

[14] MapClient User Guide, version 3.0, http://gdi.bsh.de/mapClient/help/en/help-en-mapClient.pdf 10. 4.

2014.

[15] Malvárez, G.C., Pintado, E., G., Navas, f., Giordano, A. (2013): Coastal spatial data infrastructure: So

far so good?, Proceedings of the 10th Global Congress on ICM: Lessons Learned to Address New

Challenges, EMECS 2013 - MEDCOAST 2013 Joint Conference, Volume 1, 695-706.

[16] Masser, I. (2005): GIS worlds: creating spatial data infrastructures (Vol. 338). Redlands, CA: ESRI

press.

[17] Pepper, J. (2009): The role of IHO in SDI MSDIWG findings, IHO SDI Seminar 9. 2. 2009., Havana.

[18] Pharaoh, A. (2007): IHO Perspective on a Marine Spatial Data Infrastructure, EuroSDR Land & Marine

Information Workshop, Malahide, 21-23 March 2007.

http://www.eurosdr.net/km_pub/no52/workshops_docs/ws1/ws1_3.pdf 23.07. 2013.

[19] Rüh C., Bill, R. (2012): Concepts, Models and Implementation of the Marine Spatial Data Infrastructure

in Germany (MDI-DE), Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information

Sciences, [Volume I-4, 2012 XXII ISPRS Congress, 25 August – 01 September 2012, Melbourne,

Australia.

[20] Rüh C., Korduan, P. ,Bill, R. (2012): A framework for the evaluation of marine spatial data infrastructures

to assist the development of the marine spatial data infrastructure in Germany (MDI-DE)- Accompanied

by international case-studies, GSDI World Conference 2012, , 14 – 17 May 2012, Québec City, Canada.

http://www.gsdi.org/gsdiconf/gsdi13/papers/113.pdf 29.4.2014.

[21] SeaPortal MapClient, http://gdi.bsh.de/mapClient/initParams.do, 10.4.2014.

[22] Steiniger, S., Hunter, A. J. (2012): Free and open source GIS software for building a spatial data

infrastructure. In Geospatial free and open source software in the 21st century, Springer Berlin

Heidelberg, 247-261.

UnauthenticatedDownload Date | 10/3/15 9:52 AM

DOI: 10.1515/gse-2015-0002 18

GeoScience Engineering Volume LX (2014), No.4

http://gse.vsb.cz p. 9-18, ISSN 1802-5420

[23] Tavra, M., Cetl, V.(2013): MSDI and Geoportals in Selected European States: A Comparative Analysis,

Proceedings of SDI days 2013, State Geodetic Administration, 2013. 92-97

[24] Vancauwenberghe, G. (2013). SDI development to lower the impedance of the data exchange network,

The 16th AGILE conference, Leuven, Belgium.

[25] Yeung, A. K., Hall, G. B. (2007): Web-Enabled Spatial Database Systems, In Spatial Database Systems,

Springer Netherlands, 367-407.

UnauthenticatedDownload Date | 10/3/15 9:52 AM