200 likes | 287 Views
Installation Management Agency Korea Region Office KOROGIS CADD/GIS Interoperability. Presented By: Anna Austin, GISP Spatial Engineering, Inc. Overview. Background History Issues Objectives Approach Initial – Without Oracle Spatial Revised – With Oracle Spatial Current Configuration
E N D
Installation Management AgencyKorea Region OfficeKOROGIS CADD/GIS Interoperability Presented By: Anna Austin, GISP Spatial Engineering, Inc. Spatial Engineering, Inc.
Overview • Background • History • Issues • Objectives • Approach • Initial – Without Oracle Spatial • Revised – With Oracle Spatial • Current Configuration • Overall Data Flow • Interoperability Data Flow • Conclusions Spatial Engineering, Inc.
History • 1997 Camp Humphreys and Camp Carroll ~ $700k • MGE/Oracle • Data Maintenance Other Duties • 1999 Camp Casey Enclave (6 sites) ~$550k • GeoGraphics/Access • Data maintenance personnel, no equipment • 1999 Yongsan Garrison ~$3M • GeoGraphics/Oracle FME ArcIMS • Data maintenance by Contract • Over $4M spent…….. Spatial Engineering, Inc.
Issues • HQ KORO Observed: • Limited access/use • High $$$, few (1-2) people able to use • Inconsistent products from installations to HQ • Irregular Data Maintenance • Other duties as assigned • Planimetrics & utilities maintained in MicroStation DGN. (EN/PN) • Environmental & Training maintained in ArcView SHP. (ITAM/EV) • Multiple versions (“Who has the latest?”) • System/data compatibility questioned • Why is data from locations different? • Why is data from Directorates (DPW, ITAM) different? • Installation specific development and functionality Spatial Engineering, Inc.
Objectives • A “Common Installation Picture (CIP)” for all sites. • Easy access to all authorized KORO users (US and KN) • Support all geospatial platforms used • MicroStation CADD • ArcGIS GIS • Standarddata structure (SDSFIE) all sites. • Up-to-date consistentdata all sites. • Standard tools for all users/sites. Spatial Engineering, Inc.
Overview • Background • History • Issues • Objectives • Approach • Initial – No Oracle Spatial • Revised – Oracle Spatial • Current Configuration • Overall Data Flow • Interoperability Data Flow • Conclusion Spatial Engineering, Inc.
Initial Approach 2002 KOROGIS Enterprise Implementation Plan • Provide On-site Support Personnel (Michael Baker, Jr., Inc.) • GIS Manager/DBA (GDBA) • Area Support Managers (ASM) for Area I, II, III, and IV • Knowledgeable of CADD and GIS • Software • MicroStation GeoGraphics/Access (Geospatial CADD) • ArcGIS 8.3 (GIS) • ArcSDE/Oracle 9i (ArcSDE_Binary RDBMS) • ArcIMS (Web Publisher) • Goal • Support Geospatial Data (CADD (MicroStation) and GIS (ArcGIS)) • Secure multi-level web access to over 80 camps, 1000+ routine users • Maintain single corporate spatial database. Eliminate multiple copies. • Use Standard data schema. (SDSFIE) Spatial Engineering, Inc.
Locations Area II ASM (Yongsan) Area I ASM (Camp Casey) GIS DBA (Yongsan) GIS Server 1 (Yongsan) Area IV ASM (Camp Henry) Area III ASM (Camp Humphreys) ASM – (Area Support Manager) responsible data maintenance within assigned area GIS DBA – Manages overall system. GIS Server – Redundant servers replicate to ensure reliability GIS Server 2 (Camp Henry) Spatial Engineering, Inc.
Initial Data Workflow • Pros • Data maintained at DPW by ASM. • CADD access at DPW. • Central spatial database supports GIS and WEB access. • Controlled data input. (by ASM) • One common map. Spatial Engineering, Inc.
Initial Data Workflow • Cons • Convert data (DGN SHP SDE_Binary) • Conversion problems • Multiple data type • Enterprise spatial database does not support CADD • Difficult finding knowledgeable support in CADD AND GIS. Users know dialog boxes! Spatial Engineering, Inc.
Revised Approach • 2003 Migration Plan - Enterprise Oracle Spatial • SDSFIE Adjustments • Match CADD Feature to GIS Feature Class • Match CADD Category to GIS Feature Data Set • Data Maintenance adjustments • Extend MicroStation GeoGraphics (DBQue) • Define update procedures per application (Do’s and Don’ts) • Capture updates to the central server nightly • Train support staff on one data format (SDO_Geometry) Spatial Engineering, Inc.
Our Goal Spatial Engineering, Inc.
Oracle Spatial Workflow • Pros • Data maintained in CADD (GeoGraphics) at DPW • Central spatial database supports CADD and GIS. • Single common data type (SDO). No Conversion. • Oracle procedures automate/support QC/QA process. Spatial Engineering, Inc.
Oracle Spatial Workflow • Cons • Oracle Spatial Cost ($2,500/CPU on ITL BPA). • Train support personnel on new workflow. (This is minor since a total spatial solution requires training.) • Adjustments required to accommodate vendor requirement/deficiencies. (“IOP”) Spatial Engineering, Inc.
Overview • Background • History • Issues • Objectives • Approach • Initial – No Oracle Spatial • Revised – Oracle Spatial • Current Configuration • Overall Data Flow • Interoperability Data Flow • Conclusion Spatial Engineering, Inc.
Overall Data Flow Spatial Engineering, Inc.
Implementing Oracle Spatial • PROS • CADD GIS WEB GIS CADD • Stores element geometry in the SDO_GEOMETRY (SDO) data type. • Data can be accessed using standard SQL procedures and commands. • Bentley and ESRI support the Oracle Spatial SDO format. • No Conversion of geometry. Accuracy and content are maintained. • Enterprise spatial database supports CADD, GIS and WEB applications. • Oracle Spatial provides additional data validation tools. • Data stored in Oracle through its life-cycle. • Simple geometry makes edits simple. • CONS • Must understand vendor requirements and limitations. • Geometry must be simple polygon, line, and point elements for interoperability. • Must have data maintenance procedures to account for vendor limitations. • Additional cost for Oracle Spatial. Spatial Engineering, Inc.
Conclusion • Collect and edit data once, use by many (users & applications) • Manage a single data format (SDO) to support CADD and GIS. • NO conversion, minimize pre/post-process time. • Data maintenance procedures critical. • Use CADD/GIS technology that best satisfies the specific need. • Engineers use CADD (MicroStation) • Planners use GIS (ArcGIS) • Leverage current investment in technology, personnel and data development. • Paradigm change - • CADD and GIS are tools or the engine! • Data is the fuel! • You would not buy a KIA Sorento that ONLY used KIA fuel!!! Spatial Engineering, Inc.
Conclusion KORO owns the data. The cost to convert to CADD or GIS: $ZERO Spatial Engineering, Inc.
Questions KOROGIS CADD/GIS Interoperability By: Anna Austin, GISP aaustin@spateng.com Spatial Engineering, Inc.