geohistory-géohistoire canada: developing a partnership for historical gis and mapping in canada

Geohistory-Géohistoire Canada:

Developing a partnership for

historical GIS and mapping in

Canada

October 20, 2016 NACIS conference

Byron MoldofskyGIS and Cartography Office, Department of Geography

Project Manager

With contributions from

Marcel Fortin

Map and Data Library

Prinicipal Investigator

University of Toronto

Kevin Roy, RA, University of Toronto

Haydi Wong, RA, University of Toronto

James Clifford, collaborator, University of Saskatchewan

Glenn Brauen, collaborator, University of Toronto at Scarborough

Why a Canadian Historical GIS Partnership?

INFRASTRUCTURE, COMMUNITY, COLLABORATION

Especially for Historians, Librarians, Private researchers

without access to or a lot of expertise in GIS

• Work to establish research infrastructure

• Work to enable research collaboration

• Work to enable research communication

(between researchers and with the public)

• Work to share Canadian HGIS resources

(avoid duplication / “re-digitizing the wheel”)

Examples of Other National HGIS Agencies or

Projects

Share Data discovery tools – possibly tying in

existing systems (also meta-data, standards …)

Share data from previous projects – especially

“orphan data” – also in data creation …

Share experiences visualizing historical GIS data -

existing tools and need for new

Submitted November 2014

Canadian Historical Geographic Information Systems

Partnership

Development grant – so only modest funding, for

building the partnership and pilot projects

Partners and Collaborators from across the country and

across disciplines

Results of competition announced Aug 2015 –

2-yr Time frame to September 2017

SSHRC Partnership Development Grant

Proposal

The Canadian HGIS Partnership will work towards its goals

by achieving the following objectives over the course of

a two year period:

1. Build and expand a network of Canadian researchers and

community members engaged in Historical GIS (Year 1)

2. Produce and disseminate a series of White Papers on HGIS

methods (Year 1)

3. Develop HGIS-specific implementation standards for Geospatial

data structure and for Research Data

4. Build a pilot version of an open, accessible

Historical GIS data portal.

5. Build a pilot version of an open, accessible interactive mapping

website.

Mid-project conference was June 20, 2016 to share results AND

gather feedback and input for next year’s development

Objectives of proposed project

The Canadian HGIS Partnership - Year 1: White Papers

1. Evolution of Historical GIS development in Canada

2. Survey/inventory/catalogue of Canadian HGIS datasets

3. Standards for historical Geospatial data, focusing on

those for Research Data Management and Preservation

4. Historical GIS visualization methods: Existing and

emerging, concentrating on web-mapping

5. Historical GIS Geoportal Development

6. Historical GIS Educational Impacts: HGIS in the

Community and Classroom

White Papers on Historical GIS methods (Year 1)

1. Brief overview of HGIS web-geovisualization landscape.Brief review of literature, discussion of best practices, few selected

example websites

2. Classification of current web geo-visualization technologies

Types of technologies, and which are more or less suitable to different

HGIS needs

3. Evaluation of selected technologies through three methods:

a) Standardized descriptive comparison of different methods

b) Competitive analysis study rating different technologies for

functionality and ease of use

c) Users needs assessment survey made available online for HGIS web-

mapping users, designers and developers

4. Results of Canadian Historical Web-mapping User Needs Survey

5. Developing principles of practice for Canadian HGIS web-mapping

activities, and plan to implement these in our Partnership

development pilot

Whitepaper: Historical GIS visualization/web-mapping

Conceptual model: Figure 3. Roth's re-working of MacEachren’s “Cartography cube” (Roth 2013)

2. Classification of web geo-visualization technologiesTypes of technologies, and which are more or less suitable to different

HGIS needs

Primarily

presentation

Primarily

interaction

Roth, R. E. (2013). Interactive maps: What we know and what we need to know. Journal of Spatial Information Science, (6), 59-115.

Draft version

Classification

of web

geo-visualization

technologies more

or less suitable

for HGIS

a) Standardized descriptive comparison of different methods

Evaluation of selected technologies through three methods:

Classification: According to classification system outlined above in Figure 4 (Classification scheme)

Description: Short textual description and analysis of the experience using technology.

Base Platform or Application:User interface:Programming language(s):Base map source(s):Level of expertise for Programming:Level of expertise for GIS:License/restrictions:Cost:

This format has much in common with the work of the "GeoDirt" folks - the Geohumanities Special Interest Group of the Association of Digital Humanities Organizations (http://geohumanities.org/geodirt.) We are exploring collaboration opportunities.

b) Competitive analysis study rating different technologies for functionality

and ease of use


Roth et al. 2014REPRESENTATION and INTERACTION techniques

Results of Rating of each technique for each candidate technology

Effective visual representation? Still useful as model?

Developed adapted version of this for Historical GIS web-mapping; Currently on hold

Roth, R.; Donohue, R.; Sack, C.; Wallace, T.; & Buckingham, T. (2014). A process for keeping pace with evolving web mapping technologies. Cartographic Perspectives, 78, 25-52.

List of candidate

web-mapping

technologies

included in

User Needs

Assessment Survey

Classification

of web

geo-visualization

technologies more

or less suitable

for HGIS

Data-Visualization Linked to Map

Quadrigram www.quadrigram.com

Palladio hdlab.stanford.edu/projects/palladio

Tableau tableau.com

Viewshare viewshare.org

Dynamic Map-Centered Presentations

ESRI Storymaps storymaps.arcgis.com

StoryMapJS storymap.knightlab.com

Kartograph www.kartograph.org

Time-Enabled Map-Mounting Services

Mapstory mapstory.org

Google Earth API (Timeslider) developers.google.com/earth/documentation/time (deprecated) replaced by developers.google.com/kml/documentation/time

TimeMapper timemapper.okfnlabs.org

Timemap.js code.google.com/p/timemap (Google map version of Simile timeline http://www.simile-widgets.org/timeline/

Neatline neatline.org

Heurist heuristnetwork.org/

APIs: Exposing a Subset of Functionality for Web Map Mashups (generally built on open libraries)

Google Maps API developers.google.com/maps

Bing Maps API www.bingmapsportal.com

Open Libraries: Supporting Client-Side Map Rendering

Openlayers openlayers.org

Leaflet leafletjs.com

D3 d3js.org

Frameworks: Providing a full stack of Client- and Server-Side Technologies

MapBox www.mapbox.com

Boundless (OpenGeo) boundlessgeo.com

CartoDB cartodb.com

MapServer mapserver.org

Geomoose geomoose.org

ESRI ArcGIS Online www.arcgis.com/home

Technology category Web-mapping technology URL

c) Needs assessment survey made available online for HGIS web-mapping

users, designers and developers – or interested in doing it in future

(Survey mounted online on May 2, 2016, and closed to responses on June 15, 2016)


Survey adapted from:Roth, R.; Donohue, R.; Sack, C.; Wallace, T.; & Buckingham, T. (2014). A process for keeping pace with evolving web mapping technologies. Cartographic Perspectives, 78, 25-52.




Preliminary results: Descriptive analysis of responses

Section 2 Part 1: Needs and Desires: Design/Functionality

Multiscale: How important is it that the display of thematic map content responds seamlessly

to change in map scale (i.e. zooming in to show more detail on content layers)?

Interactivity: How important is it that the technology allows change in the map display to

respond to user requests (egs. layer controls, pop-ups)?

Exploreability: * How important is the ability of the technology to allow user exploration i.e.

“drilling down” into map data by means of query-based selection, reclassification, etc. ?

Timeline: * How important is it that the technology easily incorporates time-line or time slider

controls to the map display?

Animation: How important is it that there is dynamic movement of features or objects on the

map?

Cartographic design: How important is it that the technology allows the designer to customize

the symbolization and look and feel of the map itself?

Interface design: How important is it that the technology allows the designer to customize the

interaction and look and feel of the user interface to the map?



Evaluation of selected technologies through three methods: N

um

ber

of

resp

ondents

Preliminary results: Descriptive analysis of responses, frequency distribution

Expectations: All “important”

Goal: Look at unexpected

“Not”s or “Extremely”s and

use them to help understand

our stakeholders

* *Rating of

Characteristic

*

n = 50

Professor/teacher (12)

Student (7)

Librarian (13)

Researcher/analyst (14)

Commercial (4)




Preliminary results: Descriptive analysis of responses, categorized by user group

* **




Preliminary results: Descriptive analysis of responses, frequency distribution

*





*




Preliminary results: Descriptive analysis of responses, frequencies

* *





* *

c) Needs assessment survey Section 3: Experience using web-mapping

technologies: Descriptive analysis of responses, sorted by level of engagement

**

*

c) Needs assessment survey Section 3: Experience using web-mapping technologies:

Descriptive analysis of responses, sorted by level of engagement AND user group

*

*

*

c) Needs assessment survey Section 4: Future considerations for

historical web-mapping

Analysis

(informal)

of optional,

open ended

textual

questions,

looking for

insights and

trends

c) Needs assessment survey Section 4: Future considerations for historical web-

mapping

Analysis (informal) of open ended textual questions, looking for insights and trends

Examples: Summary by K. Roy and H. Wong

We are considering creating a "Historical web-mapping technology profiles" section on our project website, where different technologies would be described and reviewed, and users would be able to comment based on their own experience and make recommendations about usefulness or suggestions for improvements. Is this something that would interest you and to which you might contribute based on your own experience?

Response Rate (30/50) Is this something that would interest you and to which you might contribute..? Most respondents said yes and would find it useful/insightful (25) Some said maybe or that they would read but not contribute. (4) One user said it was not necessary/appropriate for this project, more important to focus on specific technologies/tools (1)

Selected interesting comments "I believe so. It is often that I find that I have never heard of a technology/tool that would have made my work better and easier. Having a place where I can browse and read about existing mapping technologies sounds great!"

"This would be useful. It might also be interesting to backwards engineer existing websites. "How did they do that" kind of posts."

"It would be useful to have a compiled list of various web-mapping technologies available to better understand their applications."

*

5. Next steps: Developing principles of practice and for Canadian

HGIS web-mapping activities, and plan to implement these in

our Partnership development pilot website

(Proposed) Principles of practice for Canadian HGIS Partnership

web-mapping activities

1. Support long-term sustainability and sharing of data and mapping

2. Support of visualization for both presentation purposes and data

exploration and analysis

3. Support transparency of the web-mapping process, through good

meta-data and documentation

4. Support of multiple platforms, both technical (OS, browsers) and

mapping (including proprietary and FOSS4G technologies)

5. Working collaboratively to avoid duplication of effort and

competition among current collaborators and potential partners


*

5. Next steps: Developing principles of practice and for Canadian



(Proposed) CHGIS Partnership development web-mapping pilot

website activities

a. Analytical evaluation framework: A set of questions to consider

and evaluate in deciding on historical web-mapping approach and

technology - a checklist that will constitute a "visualization needs

analysis" for a specific historical GIS data set and use scenario

b. Historical web-mapping technology profiles: Standardized

descriptive comparison of technologies, incorporating "reviews“

c. Comparative examples of web-mapping approaches: Examples of

historical web-mapping projects using the same data and citing the

same goals but using contrasting technologies


Next steps: Developing principles of practice and for Canadian



a. Analytical evaluation framework: A set of questions to consider

and evaluate in deciding on historical web-mapping approach and

technology - a checklist that will constitute a "visualization needs

analysis" for a specific historical GIS data set

The questionnaire or checklist would try to ascertain the following:

1. What are the stated communication goals for the webmap?

2. What is the target audience for the webmap?

3. What are the range of interaction options required for the webmap?

4. Given the above, what are the appropriate data to include for the webmap?

5. Given the above, what is the range of representation options for the webmaps?

6. Given all these, what is the range of technological options for the webmaps?

7. Can we come up with a list of “recommended” technology options?






b. Historical web-mapping technology profiles: Standardized

descriptive comparison of technologies, incorporating "reviews”

• The “Standardized descriptive comparison” of web-mapping technologies used to generate a set of historical web-mapping technology profiles

• Collaborators and partners who have expertise in many of these technologies, will help in completing these descriptions

• We also suggest a “technologies review” section, where people could post reviews, or comment on others’ opinions about technologies.

• This format has much in common with the work of the "GeoDirt" folks - the Geohumanities Special Interest Group of the Association of Digital Humanities Organizations (http://geohumanities.org/geodirt.) We have been in contact with them recently to see what collaboration can be established, and what resources shared





historical webmapping projects using the same data and citing the


i.e. take some "typical" sample sets of historical GIS project data,

enunciate specific goals for each of these in terms of the web-

mapping priorities we learned about in our users' needs survey, run

these through the analytical evaluation framework outlined above

(by way of illustrating that process) and then develop web-maps

and mount them online using several different technologies which

have been identified as likely candidates



historical webmapping projects using the same data and citing the



eg: Historical Atlas of

Canada Online

Learning Project

Map of population

Density by CD,

Time-Series data,

Growth of population

Using (for eg.):

• ArcGIS Online

• CartoDB

• Openlayers

• Others?

END

Geohistory-Géohistoire Canada:

Developing a partnership for

historical GIS and mapping in

Canada

October 20, 2016 NACIS conference

Byron Moldofsky

[email protected]

http://geohist.ca

mailto:[email protected]