serendipityoucity

In earlier posts, i stated that i would discuss what infrastructures are.  I still do not know.  The best i can do right now is re-iterate that they are large socio technical systems.  Gee! That does not say much does it!  Michael Lenczner discusses

Things can fade in and out of properly being called
"infrastructure".  But there is no quality of "infrastructureness" -
because it is an amalgamation of several qualities. 

I like the idea of states of infrastructureness, and if i understand him correctly, he relates state changes with use and usage.  Michael considers use and usage as key elements of something being an infrastructure.  And I agree that they are an amalgamation of several qualities. But what are those qualities? Is there a check list of qualities and if you have x number of these then the system can be called an infrastructure?  Are there a few that are absolute must have qualities for it even to qualify as an infrastructure? As these are complex socio technical artifacts, the definition has to be fluid since infrastructure-s-ness are/is dynamically changing? Alison suggests in a response to Michael that

infrastructures is an assemblage.  But I am also beginning to think of infrastructures as models: models that are invented by people and then built, and then remodeled again. The kinds of mental models we have or invent for building infrastructure before we begin are ultimately an important part of its assemblage (along with, of course, all the bits that the assemblage is built of).

I have not had a conversation with Alison, but it reminds me of Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson, where a nation is but a reflection of the multiplicities of imaginations of a people.  More formally, 

that a nation is socially constructed and ultimately imagined by the people who perceive themselves as part of that group.

Alison’s mental model is what triggered this connection, however, the physicality of infrastructures are important, and nations contain/have physical artifacts that support its imagined form - monuments, constitutions, institutions, etc.  But these cannot be called the nation per se, nation is not a physical state it is a construction.  I think what Alison is suggesting is, that imagination / design matters, and that can be reflected in the norms and values embedded in the collective mindset of the group of individuals who are building them, and this will be residual throughout the various permutations of the infrastructure itself. Organizational theory/organizational behaviour is a superb lens to understand this. Michael has been talking about this for quite some time under myriad themes, the ones i recall the most are: geek values, technofeminism, hacktivism and embedded values of technology.  Also, her comment i think reflects what Michael was saying in terms of change, mutability and as he says states of infrastructureness.

I was once an Infrastructure Geographer, I was part of the first team that helped build the first phase of the Canadian Geospatial Data Infrastructure (CGDI) and wrote a Master’s thesis on GDIs in a development and reconstruction context, and you would think i would know something by now! Well i don’t - my understanding is at best a work in progress - and as soon as i seem to be getting close to a some sort of comprehension - michael messes up what i thought i knew! Like Marcel Marceau’ comical Bip, i get back up, dust off my clothes and i try again with the same de rigueur i started with.  But you know what, these GDIists, have something going that is of use in this discussion (below are bits from my Master’s Thesis).  Geospatial Data Infrastructures (GDIs)

are the institutions, policies, technologies, processes, standards, and framework data (figure 1.2), that direct the who, how, what and why geospatial data on myriad subjects and at various scales are collected, stored,  manipulated, analysed, transformed and shared.  GDIs, like physical infrastructures (e.g., utilities, transportation, etc.) provide "the underlying structure of services and amenities needed to facilitate directly productive activity" (Johnston, Gregory & Smith, 1994:288) they are "labour intensive, indivisible, open of access and have economy wide effects"  (Johnston, Gregory & Smith, 1994:288) and they are institutionally and technologically complex. 

GDIs are somewhat different from transportation networks, utilities, and community facilities since they are transparent to their users and encompass "the networked geospatial database and data handling facilities, the complex of institutional, organizational, technological, human and economic resources which interact with one another to underpin the design, implementation, and maintenance of mechanisms facilitating the sharing, access to, and responsible use of geospatial data at an affordable cost for a specific application domain or enterprise" (Groot & McLaughlin, 2000:5). 

They are characterized by an interdependent stakeholder community including amongst others professional associations, standards communities, data suppliers, government departments, and international cartographic bodies.  GDIs exemplify decentralized, modular types of structures characterized by cooperation and indirect leadership whereby participation and work is organized among all participants in a knowledge value creating process such as subject-directed working groups, committees and task forces (Wingard, 1997).  Furthermore, GDIs assist with the resolution of complex socio-economic and environmental problems which, in and of themselves, require cross-disciplinary cooperation.  Additionally, they reflect differing cultural and social values (Edwards, 1998). 

All GDIs have the same components, including geospatial data, framework data, a data clearinghouse, standards, supportive policies, institutions, enabling technology, and human resources.  Each GDI coordinates these components differently.  Additionally, each GDI has a unique organizational structure and these vary according to mandates, the availability of resources, social structures, operational environments and organizational culture.  These, in turn, are a factor of jurisdiction, organizational form and history. 

The above definitions of GDIs however do not include users nor usage, not directly anyway, and GDIs remain very exclusive entities/artefacts designed to serve the need of specialist audiences. None of those definitions include the words civic or public good. While Ezigbalike, Selebalo, Faiz and Zhou (2000) in their paper on the South Africa GDI get close since they

consider GDIs to be more than data, technology, institutions, policies and standards; they consider them as the foundation and fabric for all activities and services of society and community. 

and

the people including user, provider and value adder who are interested at a certain level of area that starts at a local level and proceeds through state, national and regional levels to global level (FIG, 1999).

I am still not there yet and I have many more definitions, debates and discussions to go before i can find a definition i think i will be happy with.  What got me going tonight though was the concept of the anatomy of an infrastructure from the Developers’ Guide to the CGDI, normally i use the terms components or elements of an infrastructure and Michael calls them layers - neither of us used the term anatomy. 

To understand the architecture of the CGDI, it is useful to consider the anatomy of another common infrastructure: electricity. Any electrical power infrastructure has three main components:

1. Suppliers: Those who supply electrical power to the infrastructure.
   
   
2. Users: Those who consume electrical power. Users consume electrical power for a variety of different purposes, many of which were not conceived when the infrastructure was created.
   
   
3. Interconnection Medium (link): The connections between the suppliers and users. Suppliers generate electricity in a variety of manners (e.g. nuclear, hydroelectric), and users consume electricity for different purposes. What allows all parties to work together successfully are the standards embodied in the interconnection medium. Of course, for the infrastructure to be successful, some initial investments must be made in building the link.

The general description of any electrical power infrastructure does not focus on specific suppliers or users of electricity, given the diversity of both, but rather on the standards and interconnection mechanisms that allow them to interoperate. This is a general feature of all infrastructure

Spatial data infrastructures have many similarities to electrical power infrastructures. Users and suppliers exchange the infrastructure’s "currency"; in the case of spatial data infrastructures, the currency is geospatial information. Like power infrastructures, the architecture of a spatial data infrastructure is best described in terms of the standards and interconnection mechanism and not the details of particular applications of its currency.

A spatial data infrastructure facilitates the flow of geospatial information between suppliers and users. Suppliers make data available through standard services, and users use the data and services to build applications. The infrastructure includes these services and applications, but the core architectural components are the standards and interconnection mechanisms that make the interoperability possible.

Ok! this helps me deconstruct some parts a little, there is the architecture, the social structure/organizations/institutions, users and contributors - services and applications.  Michael would i think be satisfied as users and usage are integral.  Change is also implied, users use data then create applications to use that data and services and applications would have to evolve with use. But what is the currency of a community communication infrastructure (CCI)? Freedom? Civicness?  Community? Alternative means of delivering content? Separateness from the state or corporate delivery mechanisms?  Free as in no cost? The values embedded into the infrastructure itself makes it unique? Is that any different from any other infrastructure?  Is it the explicitness of certain values that make them different?

The components of the CGDI are data - services - applications - users

Similarly, the core of the CGDI is the link that enables users to build applications from geospatial data and services made available by its numerous suppliers. With electricity, a network of electrical power lines connects suppliers and users; for its part, the CGDI relies on the Internet to interconnect its suppliers and users.

Both infrastructures, however, require standards of use. The electrical network in North America, for example, uses standards that allow anyone to safely plug a toaster into any outlet, knowing that it will deliver electricity at 110V 60Hz. However, different standards are used in Europe and North American toasters do not work there without adapters. In the same way, the CGDI uses standards that enable geospatial data to be easily exchanged over the Internet from suppliers to users. 

Which in this case are framework data and a variety of interoperability standards.  So, the Internet is what enables community communication infrastructures (CCIs) to interconnect the community? Wireless standards are its  core component?  Open source? Community & volunteer engagement?  … I dunno right now!

Then as i perused the Guidelines’s TOC and discovered the following

The vision of the CGDI is:

The following principles are guiding the CGDI in both its evolution and application:

• Open: The CGDI will be based on open and shared specifications for operational transactions and information exchange. "Open and shared" in this context means that the specifications are available for the world to take, to use, and to modify for other purposes. These specifications will be based on national and international standards where available.
  
  
• Transparent: The CGDI will allow users to access data and services seamlessly in a manner that removes the complexities of the underlying technology and information infrastructure. "Seamless" data access refers to the elimination or hiding of artificial spatial boundaries introduced by jurisdictional organization structure or by technical artefacts such as scale or quality of information.
  
  
• Cooperative: The CGDI will facilitate the cooperation and interoperability of participating organizations.
  
  
• Evolving: The network of participating organizations will continue to encompass new requirements and business applications for information and service delivery to their respective users. The CGDI will evolve to meet these changing requirements.
  
  
• Self-organizing: The CGDI will enable various levels of participating organizations to contribute geospatial information, metadata, services and applications without the requirement for centralized administration, access and warehousing. Organizations are responsible for their own content.
  
  
• Sustainable: The CGDI will ensure its long-term sustainability through its relevance to the needs of the participating agencies and users.
  
  
• Timely: The CGDI will define and recommend technologies and services that will support real-time and timely response in support of distributed access to information and location-based services. The CGDI may define minimum levels of service that must be met by participants in order to offer a service to the infrastructure.

I now need to get back at what I was doing - oh yeah archiving and an ogWiFi handout!