F R I D A Y , M A R C H 3 1 , 2 0 0 6 A g e n d a
use for hard copy
posting & distribution
NEIGHBORHOOD KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Feasibility of Sharing Data Among Multiple Sources
There is a growing demand for integrating and mapping multiple databases maintained by government, non-profits, and different private sector organizations. Such collaborative efforts are initiated by a number of US communities to further the development and use of neighborhood-level information systems in local policy making, community building, decision-making, and obviously for homeland security. There is a great need for localized, neighborhood-level information as a critical factor in community development and planning. A number of projects intend to provide direct access to detailed community-level datasets from thousands of local, state, federal, and commercial data sources.
A few examples of Community Building/Knowledge Management:
National Neighborhood Indicators Project http://www.urban.org/nnip
NNIP partners Baltimore http://www.bnia.org
Indianapolis http://www.savi.org
California http://www.nkca.ucla.edu
National Infrastructure for Community Statistics http://www.brookings.edu/metro/umi/20051215_accra.htm
Q u e s t i o n s to the Panel (the first draft):
1. We all agree that the value, or usefulness, of information maintained in digital databases increases with its completeness, diversity, and the way the databases are integral to basic business processes of data owners; and of course with an assumption that the databases are up-to-date, and maintain with adequate spatio-temporal integrity of the data content. Can we define the basic (minimum criteria) for assessing practicality of using information from multiple sources for neighborhood knowledge repositories?
2. To assemble and maintain neighborhood knowledge management systems from multiple databases, however, an adequate metadata should be provided on continuos basis by those diverse sources. Please assess the current status of metadata standards and metadata content available from government and private sector.
3. Assuming that all technological solutions for sharing and integrating neighborhood-level databases are in place, what minimum institutional arrangements are necessary to accomplish working neighborhood knowledge management systems?
4. Do you believe that the current law as well as institutions we use to govern ourselves would allow for effective realization of neighborhood knowledge management systems? Please refer to the September 30, 2005 session of the OGETA FORUM on disruptive technologies and the evolution of the law: http://www.himotion.us/innovation/2005/126.html