RESEARCH PAPER - IA de Investigación especializada en el MIT

TRABAJO DE INVESTIGACIÓN

FAIR data and metadata: GNSS precise positioning
user perspective

Ivana Ivánová1†, Ryan Keenan2, Christopher Marshall3, Lori Mancell4, Eldar Rubinov3,
Ryan Ruddick4, Nicholas Brown4, Graeme Kernich3

1Spatial Sciences, School of Earth and Planetary Science, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, 6102, Australia

2Positioning Insights, Carlton North, Victoria, 3054, Australia

3FrontierSI, Cnr Village St and Fishplate Ln, Docklands, Victoria, 3008, Australia

4Geoscience A ustralia, Cnr Jerrabomberra Ave and Hindmarsh Drive, Symonston, Australian Capital Territory, 2609, Australia

Palabras clave: FAIR; Metadata; Standards; Profile; Precise positioning; GNSS users; Spatial data infrastructure

Citación: Ivánová, I., Keenan, r., marshall, C., et al.: FAIR data and metadata: GNSS precise positioning user perspective. Datos

Inteligencia 5(1), 43-74 (2023). doi: 10.1162/dint_a_00185

Recibió: Marzo 22, 2022; Revised: Agosto 1, 2022; Aceptado: Agosto 15, 2022

ABSTRACTO

The FAIR principles of Wilkinson et al. [1] are finding their way from research into application domains,
one of which is the precise positioning with global satellite navigation systems (GNSS). Current GNSS users
demand that data and services are findable online, accessible via open protocols (by both, machines and
humanos), interoperable with their legacy systems and reusable in various settings. Comprehensive metadata
are essential in seamless communication between GNSS data and service providers and their users, y, para
décadas, geodetic and geospatial standards are efficiently implemented to support this. Sin embargo, GNSS user
community is transforming from precise positioning by highly specialised use by geodetic professionals
to every-day precise positioning by autonomous vehicles or wellness obsessed citizens. Además, rapid
technological developments allow alternative ways of offering data and services to their users. Estos
transforming circumstances warrant a review whether metadata defined in generic geospatial and geodetic
standards in use still support FAIR use of modern GNSS data and services across its novel user spectrum. Este
paper reports the results of current GNSS users’ requirements in various application sectors on the way data,
metadata and services are provided. We engaged with GNSS stakeholders to validate our findings and to gain
understanding on their perception of the FAIR principles. Our results confirm that offering FAIR GNSS data
and services is fundamental, but for a confident use of these, there is a need to review the way metadata are
offered to the community. Defining standard compliant GNSS community metadata profile and providing

†

Autor correspondiente: Ivana Ivánová (Correo electrónico: ivana.ivanova@curtin.edu.au; ORCID: 0000-0001-6836-3463).

© 2022 Academia China de Ciencias. Publicado bajo una atribución Creative Commons 4.0 Internacional (CC POR 4.0)
licencia.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
norte

t
/

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
4
3
2
0
7
4
2
5
4
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

FAIR data and metadata: GNSS precise positioning user perspective

relevant metadata with data on-demand, the approach outlined in this paper, is a way to manage current
GNSS users’ expectations and the way to improve FAIR GNSS data and service delivery for both humans and
the machines.

1. INTRODUCCIÓN

The Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR) guiding principles [1] are reflected by the
key characteristics of the data and services offered via a Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) [2, 3]. An SDI is
a collection of technologies, standards, políticas, and institutional arrangements that facilitate the availability
of and access to spatial data, providing a basis for spatial data and service discovery, and their subsequent
evaluation by users and service providers across all levels of government for application in the commercial
sector, the non-profit sector, academia, and by citizens in general [4, 5, 6]. Through use of an SDI, Global
Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) enable existing and emerging industries to use real-time precise
positioning data, allowing them to improve productivity, eficiencia, and safety, while supporting a wide
range of decision-making processes. In order to effectively service current and future GNSS users’ demands
in a robust way, geodetic data and their associated metadata, which are the main vehicle of any functional
SDI, need to be FAIR [7]. And to support FAIR data reuse by both humans and machines, metadata related
to GNSS data also need to be encoded in a machine-readable way [8].

The range of current GNSS data users now extend significantly beyond the ‘traditional’ user segments.
While traditional GNSS users, typically geodesists, geophysicists and surveyors, are trained to understand the
specific jargon and data encoding used by SDIs, these ‘new’ users come from various application domains
where GNSS receivers (many of which are low-cost and widely available) are increasingly used for many
data collection, monitoring and navigation applications. General requirements for the use of GNSS in various
traditionally recognized application domains, such as surveying, agricultura, aerial (drone), camino, rail or maritime
operations are readily available in most GNSS textbooks (p.ej. [9]). Además, specification of requirements
to suit emerging user applications is becoming increasingly present in research [10, 11, 12, 13, 14].
Sin embargo, to date there has not been work done to investigate how both traditional and emerging GNSS
user sectors understand and perceive the FAIRness of provided precise positioning data and metadata.
Understanding users’ perspective on FAIR is essential for GNSS data and service providers as this will help
to reveal the potential challenges users face when interacting with these resources.

Standards play a crucial role when integrating GNSS and geodetic data with data from other domains
in a FAIR manner. Current standards for geographic information that are relevant in the GNSS domain, semejante
as the ISO 19100 series developed by the International Organisation for Standardisation and its Technical
Committee for geographic information (ISO/TC211)(cid:99) or standards for geodata encoding and catalogue web
services developed by the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)(cid:100), support the FAIR principles reasonably

(cid:99) https://committee.iso.org/home/tc211
(cid:100) https://www.ogc.org/docs/is

Data Intelligence

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
norte

t
/

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
4
3
2
0
7
4
2
5
4
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

FAIR data and metadata: GNSS precise positioning user perspective

Bueno [7]. Although ISO and OGC standards are developed for a generic ‘geographic information’ many of
them are relevant in the GNSS domain as well. Sin embargo, to increase the FAIRness of GNSS data and
services, the use of domain specific standards in addition to generic standards is essential. Además, ISO
and OGC standards are developed with a strong producer-centric focus and do not adequately serve the
needs of current and emerging GNSS users [15, 16].

This paper aims to summarise what for current precise positioning users constitutes data and metadata
that comply with the FAIR principles. We also summarize the level of support for FAIR in existing international
standards for geodetic data and explore whether, through standard compliant data interfaces and
infrastructures current GNSS users receive what they expect. In conclusion we outline the approach towards
fulfilling these requirements with improved machine-actionable precise positioning metadata model.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: en la sección 2 we discuss the meaning of metadata
in SDI, followed in section 3 with an examination of how they are currently used to deliver precise
positioning data to their users across GNSS value chain. Secciones 4 y 5 contain the design and results
of a GNSS stakeholder engagement, in which respondents were asked about their requirements for GNSS
metadata and their views on the meaning of FAIR. In Se ction 6 we review how well current SDIs support
GNSS users’ requirements, and in Section 7 we outline a potential approach in improving the current status
towards delivering GNSS data and services fully compliant with the FAIR principles.

2. METAD ATA—A CRUCIAL ELEMENT IN A FAIR SDI

The g eoscience community champions the FAIR cause by creating and contributing to data repositories,
which are an online open access research repository to store research outputs and artefacts. Por ejemplo,
the domain specific resource dedicated to register marine and climate scientific data accessible via
the Australian Ocean Data Network Portal(cid:101), or generalist repositories like Figshare, Zenodo, Dryad or
Mendeley [17]. There are also activities that upskill geoscientists in FAIR practice (p.ej. via webinars on FAIR
or tools for FAIRness improvement such as those offered by DataONE(cid:102))—these are paramount to improve
insufficient compliance with the FAIR principles [18]. Además, several scientific journals, such as
Nature and Scientific Data, only accept FAIR supplementary material related to their publications, y solo
when these are submitted to a FAIR data repository [19]. Sin embargo, it is only recently that non-scientific
communities and organisations have started producing and offering a bulk of geoscientific content (incluido
GNSS data and services) and are subsequently starting to embrace FAIR and begin to invest resources to
improve their compliance with the FAIR principles.

Metadata are crucial for ensuring FAIRness of digital resources [20], and whether intrinsic or user-
defined, they are the essential information exchange vehicle between users and providers of spatial data,
information and services within an SDI. Intrinsic metadata is created automatically during data capture (p.ej.

(cid:101) https://portal.aodn.org.au/
(cid:102) https://www.dataone.org/fair/

Data Intelligence

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
norte

t
/

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
4
3
2
0
7
4
2
5
4
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

FAIR data and metadata: GNSS precise positioning user perspective

time-stamps of a data record, or an automatic label of data production software) and user-defined metadata
is subsequently added to provide context for understanding the creation of a digital object [21].

Geospatial metadata are often stored and maintained separately from the resource itself—ideally, ellos
should be stored in the SDI and its catalogue of resources. Sin embargo, it should be noted that SDIs typically
provide only indirect access to a spatial resource described by the metadata stored in the catalogue.
To fully comply with the FAIR princ iples (especially principle F1, which requires that metadata and data
are assigned globally unique and persistent identifiers [1]), the metadata need to either be embedded in
the data (for example through data encoding formats, such as netCDF(cid:103) or HDF5(cid:104)) or linked to the data
itself using unique persistent and resolvable identifiers.

2.1 What FAIR guiding principles mean for geodetic resources in an SDI

Many Australian national geodetic resources are advertised through Geoscience Australia (Georgia) corporate SDI
metadata catalogue which is compliant with GA Community Metadata Profile of ISO 19115-1:2014 [22, 23].
In this section we review the application of FAIR principles [1] in GA Data and product catalogue (Georgia
Catalogue(cid:105)). We reviewed the FAIRness on an example resource called ‘Geodesy—Continuously Operating’.
This resource contains metadata about data collected from the Australian Regional GNSS Network, Auscope
network and other GNSS observatories located around the world over the last 15 años. We used a
FAIRisFAIR(cid:106) [26] Research Data Object Assessment Service (F-UJI)(cid:107) to derive the FAIRness score of our
example resource. F-UJI is a web service which programmatically assesses research data objects (datos,
metadata or other documentation) based on the FAIRisFAIR Data Object Assessment Metrics [24, 25, 26]
fully compliant with the FAIR principles as defined in [1]. The result of the FAIRness assessment of
‘Geodesy—Continuously Operating’ resource available at http://dx.doi.org/10.4225/25/552B5AAD0C34A
is summarized in Figure 1.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
norte

t
/

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
4
3
2
0
7
4
2
5
4
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
5
pag
d

According to the results illustrated in Figure 1 the overall FAIRness score of our example resource is 45%
indicating an initial level of FAIRness maturity, with breakdown on each component as follows: F—86%,
A—33%, I—25%, R—30%.(cid:108) F-UJI scores each component based on metrics, fully compliant with the FAIR
principios [1].11

Resources are findable when they are sufficiently described by their metadata and, when they are
registered and indexed in a searchable resource that is known and accessible to potential users [1, 27].

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

(cid:103) https://www.unidata.ucar.edu/software/netcdf/
(cid:104) https://www.hdfgroup.org/solutions/hdf5/
(cid:105) https://ecat.ga.gov.au/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/home
(cid:106) https://www.fairsfair.eu
(cid:107) https://www.f-uji.net
(cid:108) Full report with partial results included is available here: https://www.f-uji.net/view/154
11 Full explanation of metrics and tests applied by F-UJI is available here: https://www.f-uji.net/index.php?action=methods

Data Intelligence

FAIR data and metadata: GNSS precise positioning user perspective

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
norte

t
/

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
4
3
2
0
7
4
2
5
4
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Cifra 1. FAIRness score of ‘Geodesy—Continuously Operating’ GNSS resource available in GA Catalogue as
scored by F-UJI assessment tool [24].

Our example GNSS resource called ‘Geodesy—Continuously Operating’, which is registered in and
advertised through GA Catalogue, can be considered findable for number of reasons, a saber:

• The metadata are assigned a globally unique and persistent identifier.12
• The resource is described with rich human- and machine-readable metadata.13
• The metadata clearly and explicitly include the identifier of the resource it describes.
•

The metadata are registered or indexed in searchable resource (GA Catalogue is a web-based metadata
catalogue).

Tal como, the ‘Geodesy—Continuously Operating’ resource complies with the F1, F2 and F4 principles
described in [1], but according to the results from F-UJI, not with F3 (see ‘findability’ score being only
86%). This is because, although the metadata point to a website14 with various downloadable content, el
pointers are not resolving to a data object itself.

12 http://dx.doi.org/10.4225/25/552B5AAD0C34A and http://pid.geoscience.gov.au/dataset/ga/74501
13 https://ecat.ga.gov.au/geonetwork/srv/api/records/c692fb4b-4d67-719d-e044-00144fdd4fa6/formatters/xml?approved=true
14 https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/positioning-navigation/geodesy/gnss-networks/data-and-site-logs

Data Intelligence

FAIR data and metadata: GNSS precise positioning user perspective

Digital resources are accessible, when anyone (human or machine) with access to the Internet understands
exactly how to access the digital resource and what are the conditions on its reuse [1, 27]. A common
misinterpretation of this concept is the expectation that accessible (and hence FAIR) digital objects should
be ‘open’ and/or ‘free’. This is not what FAIR guiding principles define. The only condition for FAIR digital
objects is that there is both clarity and transparency on the conditions of access, usar, and reuse of these
objects [21]. For exam ple, those resources registered in GA Catalogue that have a Digital Object Identifier
(DOI) can be considered accessible because their metadata are retrievable by their identifier using a
standardized free, open and universally implementable communication protocol, which allows for an
authentication and authorisation procedure (such as HTTPS), and the associated metadata are accessible,
even when the data are no longer available. ‘Geodesy—Continuously Operating’ resource from the GA
Catalogue scored 33% on ‘accessibility’ having metadata accessible through open protocol. The missing
components are information on how and through which protocol to access the data themselves (A1.1 and
A1.2 as in [1]).

Referring to the semantic interoperability of digital resources, these are interoperable when they use a
“normative and community recognised specifications, vocabularies and standards that determine the precise
meaning of concepts and qualities that the data represent” [27, p.9]. Acc ording to [1], to be interoperable,
metadata and data have to use vocabularies that are FAIR, p.ej. in a format compatible with semantic
web [21, 28]. Even if not fully compliant with the FAIR principles defined in [1], use of a well-defined
community profile (p.ej. [22]) and providing metadata in a machine-readable format (p.ej. XML) definitely
increases interoperability of a resource. Some resources, including the example resource assessed in this
sección, registered in GA Catalogue are described by metadata in compliance with the GA Profile of the
ISO 19115-1:2014 standard15, which is a formal, accessible, shared, and broadly applicable language for
metadata [7, 23]. Además, (meta)data include qualified references to other metadata (ISO 19115-1:2014
metadata standard inherently refers to ISO 19157 [29], which is the standard for data quality metadata).
Sin embargo, the vocabulary of this profile is not machine-accessible at a persistent identifier accessible via
the Web, which is required by I2 as in [1]. También, cross-references between data and related entities which
would enrich the data resource’s context (I3 as in [1]) are missing as well. This explains the low (25%)
‘interoperability’ score for our example resource.

License information and the description of the provenance are the two crucial factors determining
the reuse of a digital resource [27]. Además, both humans and machines should be able to reuse the
digital resources [21], which requires that the description of the license and provenance information
need to be provided in a suitable format (p.ej. XML or RDF). ‘Geodesy—Continuously Operating’ resource
in GA Catalogue is described with metadata that are released with a clear and accessible data usage license
(CC BY 4.0). Sin embargo, this description is only human-readable and not machine-readable as demanded
by R 1.1 as defined in [1]. Metadata of our example resources are associated with data provenance (lineage
attribute in GA profile of ISO 19115-1:2014 is a mandatory element), but this information, de nuevo, is not

15 http://dx.doi.org/10.11636/Record.2018.026

Data Intelligence

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
norte

t
/

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
4
3
2
0
7
4
2
5
4
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

FAIR data and metadata: GNSS precise positioning user perspective

machine-readable, as the format of ‘lineage’ as in GA profile of ISO 19115-1:2014 is free text [22, 23].
And because our example resource meets the domain relevant community standards (ISO 19115-1:2014
is a community standard for describing geographic information), the resulting ‘reusability’ score is 30%.

These results confirm that current way of providing generic metadata resource in GA Catalogue still needs
improvement to comply with the FAIR principles, despite GA’s profile of the ISO 19115-1:2014 being much
stricter in that it mandates producers to report than its source (ISO 19115-1:2014) [22]. It is noteworthy
that GA’s profile of the ISO 19115-1:2014 is still a generic profile for geographic information metadata
which does not ensure a full compliance with FAIRness requirements as in [1]—for example, there is a
need to increase performance on ‘reusability’ by mandating machine-readable record of provenance.
Además, to address R1.3 in particular [1], the metadata profile needs to include domain specific metadata
attributes—in Section 7.1 we outline a potential approach of addressing this issue.

2.2 Current Precis e Positioning Data and Metadata Delivery in an SDI

Standards are one of the three pillars of any SDI, alongside organisational and technical rules, cual
collectively serve users from the current high-end precise positioning sectors. Internationally, several groups
are working on defining standards for geospatial and geophysical metadata, and the enhancement of their
interoperability. ISO/TC211 and the OGC are the two main organisations involved with defining standards
for geographic information and its exchange. In the geodetic community, the International GNSS Service
(IGS) is the main organisation developing standards for GNSS message interchange. Several well-defined
standards are already in use in the precise positioning domain, such as independent exchange format
standards for the GNSS receiver data (Receiver-Independent Exchange Format—RINEX16), ionosphere maps
(Ionosphere Map Exchange Format—IONEX17) and processing solutions (Solution independent Exchange
Format—SINEX18). These standards for GNSS message encoding and exchange are well known to many
geodesists and surveyors. Curiosamente, all the above standardisation organisations deal with spatial
information interchange, and yet there remains a surprising divide between the users of ISO and OGC
standards, and users of IGS standards. Leveraging ISO and OGC standards in the GNSS domain has the
potential to enable cross-domain integration of geodetic datasets with other spatial datasets and thus serve
the current GNSS users in more efficient way. Although there is currently no international strategy to ensure
FAIR geodetic data, several efforts, such as the formation of the EarthScope Consortium19 to provide joint
access to geodetic and seismological data and services to the community, or the UN-GGIM’s Global
Geodetic Center of Excellence20 to maintain and improve the Global Geodetic Reference Frame, indicate
the GNSS community’s awareness and contribution FAIR to geodetic data and services. Además, various
initiatives towards controlled and FAIR cross-domain vocabularies are ongoing via several (geo)scientific

16 https://www.igs.org/wg/rinex/
17 https://files.igs.org/pub/data/format/ionex1.pdf
18
19 https://www.earthscope.org
20 https://ggim.un.org/UNGGIM-wg1

https://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/Organization/AnalysisCoordinator/SinexFormat/sinex.html

Data Intelligence

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
norte

t
/

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
4
3
2
0
7
4
2
5
4
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

FAIR data and metadata: GNSS precise positioning user perspective

platforms (p.ej. ESIP21, RDA22 or CODATA23) with one recent example on increasing interoperability of FAIR
vocabularies in Earth Sciences organized under the auspices of CODATA in 202124.

In the past few years FAIR has become increasingly common in most organisations defining standards
and best practice for geodata (such as at ISO/TC211, OGC and IGS) and at most important geospatial events
(p.ej. GEO Week 2019, AGU 2019 Fall meeting, ESIP 2019 Summer and Winter meetings). There have
been some attempts to ‘encode’ FAIR principles into geodata standards and best practice. The most recent,
and one of the first very specific mentions of FAIR is contained in the recently released version 4.0 del
Receiver Independent Exchange Format (RINEX)25, a GNSS data encoding standard, released in December
2021 [30]. If GNSS receiver data is encoded using this version of the standard, observational data files now
may include information such as the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) defined for the file, data usage license,
and an explicit link to the associated metadata about the GNSS station the data file refers to. Con
this information encoded, the geodetic data files support the ‘Findable’ and ‘Reusable’ from the FAIR
principios [1]. Although this is a step forward, a lot more is needed to make geodetic files in RINEX 4.0
format fully compliant with the FAIR principles.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
norte

t
/

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
4
3
2
0
7
4
2
5
4
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Although this emerging trend of attention to FAIR continues to gain traction, implementing the full list
de 15 FAIR principles [1] is not yet common practice within the geospatial and geodetic community. Allá
are numerous standards available for defining and sharing geospatial data (Por ejemplo, at the time of
writing, hay 90 published standards in the ISO 19100 series for geographic information alone) también
as several community profiles and best practices. Sin embargo, in most cases these standards fall short of
ensuring the FAIR distribution of geospatial resources. Sin embargo, the geospatial community’ recognises the
need for FAIR digital resources. Por ejemplo, at the end of 2019, the OGC changed its mission from being
an organisation producing standards for a human- and machine-actionable geospatial web into being an
organisation driven to make geospatial (ubicación) information and services for humans and machines FAIR,
es decir. Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable26. The concept of FAIR is not explicitly referenced by
ISO or in the ISO 19100 set of standards for geographic information, but mechanisms for geographic
information discovery (‘F’), access (‘A’), interoperability (‘I’) and reuse (‘R’) are each available.

Ivánová et al. [7] have investigated current international standards, mostly from the ISO 19100 series
and best practice for geodetic data and metadata and their support for FAIR. The ISO 19100 series was
chosen due to its comprehensiveness in defining various aspects of geospatial metadata and several are
relevant to the provision of information about geodetic resources. Results of standards FAIRness evaluation
showed that current geodetic standards (es decir. standards from the ISO 19100 series directly relevant for the

21 https://www.esipfed.org/
22 https://www.rd-alliance.org/
23 https://codata.org/
24 https://codata.org/initiatives/decadal-programme2/dagstuhl-workshops/dagstuhl-workshops-2021/interoperability-for-cross-

domain-research-fair-vocabularies/
25 https://igs.org/formats-and-standards/
26 https://www.ogc.org/about

Data Intelligence

FAIR data and metadata: GNSS precise positioning user perspective

geodetic domain) do provide support for FAIR inherently as a suite is designed to encompass all aspects of
the data lifecycle and is developed with the view to support SDI principles [7, 31]. Due to the wide-reaching
scope of the ISO 19100 series, the standards do not need to be implemented as a full collection and it is
up to providers to select the appropriate collection of metadata and make sure a FAIR description of their
resources is provided. It is noteworthy that ISO 19100 series provides generic metadata and, however strict
(as in GA’s profile of the ISO 19115-1:2014), these ensure compliance with some of the FAIR principles.
In case of those FAIR principles that require domain standards (p.ej. I and R) these need to be ensured by
standards defined by the specific domain community—for geodetic community these standards should be
developed under the auspices or with strong participation of the International Association of Geodesy of
the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IAG/IUGG)27.

A snippet of the earlier evaluation of existing standards’ FAIRness [7] is illustrated in Figure 2—for

example ISO 19115 suite of standards for metadata of geographic information fully support FAIR.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
norte

t
/

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
4
3
2
0
7
4
2
5
4
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Figu re 2. FAIRness of current ‘geo’ standards: subset of the standard collection with standards on geographic
information metadata highlighted in red rectangle. Full list of standards relevant for precises positioning data
together with their FAIRness evaluation is available in [7].

Howe ver, even if standards for ensuring FAIRness of digital resources are available, like in the example
highlighted in Figure 2, the selection of an appropriate set of standards and the provision of information
beyond the mandated minimum (p.ej. including metadata as required by the user) remains a decision for
the digital resource producer.

27 http://www.iugg.org/associations/

Data Intelligence

FAIR data and metadata: GNSS precise positioning user perspective

As can be observed from the results in Figure 1 y figura 2, standards for geographic information are
moving towards better compliance with FAIR principles. The deficiencies causing low FAIR score are similar
to those indicated by [32] y [21], current data and metadata records miss elements of interoperability
and reusability, which include machine-readable records of the provenance, machine-readable license
información, and links to well-defined and established domain vocabularies of a resource. Alth ough there
is an evolution in ISO/TC211 towards more machine-actionable focus of the ISO 19100 series (see for
example procedures on URI assignment for ISO 19100 concepts28), as stated earlier, this series is dedicated
for providing a generic metadata constructs, which ensure partial compliance with the FAIR principles as
defined in [1]. The reusability aspect of FAIR will only be ensured with community participation—for
ejemplo, through a community profile for metadata as proposed in Section 7.1 and Section 7.2, or a
community standard for domain specific encoding of data with embedded metadata such as next version
of RINEX standard or some new data encoding standard, such as GeodesyML as outlined in Section 7.3).
More work is required to both create a definition of detailed, community-specific requirements for FAIR
and set-up a FAIRness compliance test for geodetic data and metadata records.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

3. UNDE RSTANDING THE CHANGING FACE OF GNSS COMMUNITY

Thanks to the increased availability of GNSS technology and access to low-cost GNSS receivers, the user
landscape has changed in recent years and new, previously undefined (or unnoticed) sub-sectors of users
have emerged [7, 33]. Si, in the past, users of precise positioning data were mostly surveyors, geodesists or
geophysicists [9], the current composition is richer and more expansive, including GNSS users from
unexpected members of society, such as pensioners who use GNSS technology to assure their own health
and safety (p.ej. emergency caller localisation, senior mobility monitoring), or transport passengers, OMS
use GNSS technology to stay updated in real-time during their journey via their smartphones [34].

mi
d
tu
d
norte

t
/

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
4
3
2
0
7
4
2
5
4
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
5
pag
d

3.1 GNSS Value Chain

GNSS consists of three fundamental segments: the space segment (GNSS satellites), the control segment
(satellite monitoring stations) and the user segment (the GNSS receivers in application sectors). Desde
perspective of the GNSS signal workflow, we can view GNSS as a combination of upstream (supervisión
station to satellite) and downstream (monitoring station to user) componentes (see Figure 3). The GNSS
upstream component is comprised of space and control segment that provide a signal to users. The GNSS
downstream component utilizes within their applications and services the infrastructure and signal
provided by the GNSS upstream component. These applications and services encompass the entire value
chain of GNSS-specific components, GNSS receivers, GNSS-enabled systems, GNSS-enabled software and
added-value services. The downstream industry can be classified into the following four categories [34]:

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

28 https://committee.iso.org/sites/tc211/home/resolutions/isotc-211-good-practices/–structure-of-uris-in-isotc-211.html

Data Intelligence

FAIR data and metadata: GNSS precise positioning user perspective

1. Component manufacturers, including manufacturers of GNSS-specific components (p.ej. GNSS
chipsets and antennae), small GNSS receivers and integration-ready GNSS receivers (es decir. supplied to
system integrators).

2. S ystem integrators, integrating GNSS capability into larger systems such as vehicles.
3. Value-added service providers, whose services improve access and use of GNSS, these include
services provided by the International Association of Geodesy (IAG) and other organisations
contributing to enhancement of the GNSS data service (bundled into the Innovation User category
En figura 3).

4. E nd Users: arguably, the most important segment of the GNSS value chain, who consume GNSS
data and services to collect input for their applications (p.ej. the operator of the GNSS unit in control
traffic farming, or autonomous vehicle using GNSS unit for high-accuracy navigation in urban area).

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
norte

t
/

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

Figur e 3. GNSS value chain.

5
1
4
3
2
0
7
4
2
5
4
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
5
pag
d

3.2 GNSS Users

Today’s GNSS user sector (humans and machines) are well-conversant in the GNSS domain and expect
active participation in selection of the best positioning information to suit their needs [34]. Along with
location information, users request information about the quality of their precise positioning and other
relevant metadata [7, 33]. Accuracy, availability and integrity of the GNSS data, last data/service update
and provenance of the GNSS site, are a few examples of such GNSS quality metadata [7, 35]. Depending
on the sector, the relevance of metadata information vary. Por ejemplo, users from sectors that operate on
larger spatio-temporal extent (such as the agriculture, maritime and rail sectors) demand information on
coverage, whereas for other sectors such information might not be relevant. Similarmente, the importance of
different metadata elements varies per sector—for example, in surveying, positioning accuracy is paramount,
whereas in sectors that have inherent safety components to them such as rail, road and aviation (incluido
safety-of-life services), information authentication and integrity are significantly more important [7, 9, 33].

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Data Intelligence

FAIR data and metadata: GNSS precise positioning user perspective

4. GNSS USER REQUIREMENTS ELICITATION: METHOD

The primary objective of the GNSS user requirements elicitation conducted by GA in 2021 was to identify
precisely what users expect to receive with the data and services they subscribe to. En otras palabras, cual
are the metadata that ensure users are able to find, access and use geodetic data and services. The GNSS
user requirements elicitation consisted of two parts, Desk-based research, and Stakeholder consultation.

4.1 Desk- Based Research Design

The first phase of user requirement elicitation consisted of a thorough review of existing scientific
literature as well as the grey literature (organizational technical reports, white papers, analiza, websites
and discussion fora) on the topic. Reports and literature used are included are detailed in [7], y
organizations and societies consulted during the desk-based research in addition to the existing literature
are listed below:

ANZLIC ICSM’s Permanent Committee on Geodesy29
Geoscience Australia’s Positioning and Navigation domain30
European GNSS Agency31
Eurogeographics’ Positioning Knowledge Exchange Network32
International GNSS Society33
International GNSS Service34
US government’s official resource on GPS and related topics35
FrontierSI SBAS testbed36

The objective was to identify which metadata are essential in recognized emerging GNSS user communities
(p.ej. agricultura, rail or road sector). Results of the GNSS user requirements identified through the desk-
based research are summarized in Section 5.1.

4.2 Stake holder Consultation Design

It is worth noting that most documents and reports consulted in the desk-based GNSS user requirements
elicitation focus on the ‘End User’ part of the GNSS value chain defined in Section 3.1. The objective of
our stakeholder consultation was not only presenting end users with the result of the desk-based research,
but also to ensure their appropriate representation within the GNSS value chain (Cifra 3).

29 https://www.icsm.gov.au/what-we-do/permanent-committee-geodesy
30 https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/positioning-navigation
31 https://www.gsa.europa.eu
32 https://eurogeographics.org/knowledge-exchange/posken
33 http://www.ignss.org
34 http://www.igs.org
35 https://www.gps.gov
36 https://frontiersi.com.au/project/satellite-based-augmentation-system-test-bed

Data Intelligence

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
norte

t
/

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
4
3
2
0
7
4
2
5
4
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

FAIR data and metadata: GNSS precise positioning user perspective

Identification of participants in the stakeholder consultation was non-probabilistic, having been identified

and selected through a combination of a haphazard, purposive and snowball sampling [36].

The following methods were used to engage with industry, in order to obtain survey participants and to

reach the broadest spectrum of users:

•

Targeted and direct engagement with known users of GNSS technology using Geoscience Australia’s
existing subscriber mailing list and AusCORS37 user lists.
Targeted, but indirect engagement via publicly available contact details of large-scale entities who
are known to be users of precise positioning found via publicly listed company data.
Non-targeted engagement via social media platforms, calls for respondents via both the Geoscience
Australia and FrontierSI social media pages (LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook).
Promotional events managed by Geoscience Australia and FrontierSI were also used to cross promote
the survey.

The survey was sent to entities in each section of the GNSS value chain, and a diverse sector of industries
were represented (ver figura 3). 952 direct requests were sent to enable participation in the survey with
active social media campaign on platforms with over 5000 followers. We received 106 responses by the
end of the campaign.

All respondents who elected to receive the results of the survey were sent a summary of the results,
contributing to an improved awareness of FAIR data, the GNSS value stream and the role of metadata across
the GNSS value stream.

The stakeholder consultation was conducted in accordance with Geoscience Australia’s Privacy Policy38,
including the completion of a Privacy Impact Assessment39. This process ensured that any possible impacts
on the privacy of individual’s personal information were identified and mitigated. Each response was
anonymised, removing all identifiable information about the respondent, retaining only the segment of the
GNSS value chain and the answers to each question, before being compiled for subsequent review and
analysis by the project team. Each anonymous response was then reviewed to clarify any ambiguity, nota
any unexpected findings, and to gauge the relevant frequency of common responses. At the end of the
stakeholder consultation process each respondent was contacted and individually provided a high-level
summary of the findings to which they contributed.

The survey used in the stakeholder engagement has been conducted in two sessions and included

following sections:

37 https://www.auscors.ga.gov.au/
38 https://www.ga.gov.au/privacy
39

https://www.ga.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/104508/Privacy-Impact-Assessment-Industry-Engagement-on-the-
Adoption-of-Precise-Positioning-Information-Endorsed.pdf

Data Intelligence

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
norte

t
/

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
4
3
2
0
7
4
2
5
4
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

FAIR data and metadata: GNSS precise positioning user perspective

1. Definition of the GNSS user sector—requesting details about the participants and their organisation,
and which of the GNSS sectors, as well as which role from the GNSS value chain identified during
desk-based research they represent.

2. Insight to the use of Precise Positioning Information—asking about how they use precise positioning,
incluido: where they access data, what technology and software they use to access the information,
and which are the standards and protocols involved in this activity.

3. Validation of identified metadata elements, their values and units—asking for participants’ feedback
on relevance, importance and correctness of identified metadata for a chosen application or a range
of these in their industry sector.

4. Elicitation of participants’ view and perception of FAIR—asking for which of the FAIR principles
defined by [1] do GNSS users find essential for information to be findable, accessible, interoperable
and reusable.

5. Identification of current and emerging technology, standards and protocols for the use of GNSS data
and services—asking participants to identify which technology, standards and protocols they currently
use and, which are of their interest as potentially more efficient.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

Questions were exposed as a combination of multiple choice, multiple answer and short answer
respuestas. An example of two questions are illustrated in Figure 4. As illustrated in Figure 4, we first asked
participants to report in free-text any issues they might have had with accessing data (pregunta 2.5.3 en
Cifra 4), and then we requested them to identify from the list of FAIR principles on resources’ accessiblity [1]
what they consider as the essential conditions for accessibility of GNSS data.

mi
d
tu
d
norte

t
/

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
4
3
2
0
7
4
2
5
4
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Cifra 4. Exampl e from the questionnaire used during the Stakeholder consultation with a question on ‘A’ from
the FAIR principles.

Cifra 4 shows an example of a question on FAIR with examples tailored to the GNSS users. Por ejemplo,
the answer B in the multiple-choice list in Figure 4 refers to principle A1.1 as described by [1]—with
example including protocols typically used in GNSS data and service transmission.

Data Intelligence

FAIR data and metadata: GNSS precise positioning user perspective

The table in Fi gure 5 contains metadata and their potential values (magnitudes) of associated with a
GNSS application as expected in a GNSS user sector. Por ejemplo, in the Agriculture GNSS user sector,
for an application ‘Farm Machinery Guidance’ 10–30cm accuracy is sufficient, whereas for an ‘Automatic
Steering’ application, the accuracy needs to be within 2.5cm. Some values are provided in the spectrum
of ‘low-medium-high’—to clarify these to our stakeholders, we showed our respondents an explanation as
En figura 6. During stakeholder engagement, participants with expertise in particular industry sectors were
asked to examine these values and identify any values for any application and metadata elements that did
not match their requirements and suggest alternative values for each.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
norte

t
/

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
4
3
2
0
7
4
2
5
4
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Cifra 5. Part of the stakeholder engagement soliciting feedback on identiﬁ ed metadata elements, their values for
a chosen GNSS sector and application(s)—example is from the Agriculture sector and Precision Livestock Tracking
application (or sub-applications therein).

Further details on the results of the stakeholder engagement are reported in Section 5.2.

5. GNSS USER REQUIRE MENTS ELICITATION: RESULTADOS

In this section we summarize the results of both, desk-based research and the stakeholder consultation.
En la sección 5.1 we review the GNSS user requirements as reported in the literature and in Section 5.2 nosotros
report views, observations and comments of GNSS users in Australia and New Zealand when confronted
with the requirements gathered from the literature.

5.1 Desk-Based Resear ch: Resultados

Desk-based resear ch was part of an earlier work reported in detail in [7]. Here we refer to the summary
informing out stakeholder engagement design. Mesa 1 contains the summary of metadata requirements per
user sector as identified during the desk-based research.

Data Intelligence

FAIR data and metadata: GNSS precise positioning user perspective

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
norte

t
/

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
4
3
2
0
7
4
2
5
4
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Cifra 6. Explan at ion of metadata elements, units and potential values included in metadata tables (as in
Cifra 5) used for interaction during the stakeholder engagement.

Mesa 1. Summary o f GNSS end user metadata requirements as identiﬁ ed during the desk-based research per each
GNSS sector (de [7]).

Agriculture

Rail

Road

Maritime

Aviation

Consumer

Metadata Accuracy

Accuracy

Availability Availability
Integrity
Integrity
Coverage
Coverage
Reliability Reliability
Robustez
Continuity
Authentication

Accuracy

Accuracy
Accuracy
Availability Availability
Availability
Integrity
Integrity
Coverage
Continuity
Reliability
Reliability
Authentication Coverage
Interoperability

Integrity
Continuity

Accuracy
Availability
Integrity
Authentication

Surveying &
Espacial

Accuracy
Availability

As reported in Table 1, emerging GNSS users in all identified user sectors request information about the
exactitud, availability and integrity of GNSS data, and depending on the sector there is a demand for
additional details. Por ejemplo, sectors that need GNSS support in real-time, such as rail, road and consumer,
demand information about service ‘authentication’, which is not so relevant to the agriculture sector where
coverage and reliability take precedence. This is confirmed with the expected ‘low’ authentication value
across various applications in the Agriculture GNSS sector as illustrated in Figure 5. Findings in Table 1
indicate that there is a need for customized metadata within each sector, which is not yet part of current
metadata practice in GNSS community. Metadata requirements as presented in Table 1 further illustrate that

Data Intelligence

FAIR data and metadata: GNSS precise positioning user perspective

current GNSS users are interested to understand the quality of the precise positioning data they are receiving.
Not all of this information is currently present with data encoded in current standard formats, such as
NMEA40 and RINEX, or in the associated metadata file which is transmitted to the users. The information
about GNSS data quality, such as accuracy, integrity, coverage can however be encoded in additional
metadata (p.ej. using standards such as the ISO 19100 series or extending other geodetic standards, semejante
as those defined by the IGS). Metadata requirements gathered during the desk-based research have been
incorporated into the questionnaire used during the stakeholder consultation, and the results of this process
are presented in the following section.

5.2 Stakeholder Consultation: Resultados

The survey used during the stakeholder consultation was available for four months and as a result,
we received 106 responses from participants all along the GNSS value chain, including component
manufacturers, service providers, innovators, integrators and end users. Summary of key findings are
provided in line of the survey design principles explained in Section 4.2.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
norte

t
/

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
4
3
2
0
7
4
2
5
4
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

5.2.1 Definition of the GNSS User Sector

Precise positioning data and services are accessed primarily by GNSS receiver manufacturers, custom
GNSS solution integrators, GNSS services value added resellers, and end users with strong background in
surveying and/or geodesy. This is unsurprising as the above are traditional GNSS users historically. El
breakdown from each role in the GNSS Value Chain (see Figure 3) was as follows: End-Users—38.3%,
Service Providers—16%, System Integrators—13.6%, Innovation users—12%, Component Manufacturers—
7.4%, IAG/IGC Service providers—3.7%, y solo 0.02% (2 out of 106 respondents) identified as GNSS
upstream providers. This imbalanced breakdown across the GNSS value chain can be attributed to the
sampling method used in the stakeholder consultation design (see explained in Section 4.2). A targeted
direct engagement is planned as a follow-up to these first results to compensate for the missing representation
of roles across GNSS value chain. Sin embargo, results also confirm a changing GNSS end user community by
our respondents indicating they are using GNSS in applications such as recreational aviation with general
public operating a GNSS equipped drones, smart farming with GNSS devices being used for automated
tractor navigation, or personnel tracking (p.ej. offenders on parole, lone workers in remote areas or lost
pensioners).

5.2.2 Insights to the Use of Precise Positioning Information

The majority of respondents confirmed the usage of precise positioning data and services through current,
traditional GNSS protocols, such as NTRIP41, commonly using RTCM42 and NMEA43 standard formats. Alguno

40 https://www.nmea.org/content/STANDARDS/NMEA_2000
41 https://kb.unavco.org/kb/article/what-is-ntrip-291.html
42 https://www.rtcm.org/
43 https://www.nmea.org/

Data Intelligence

FAIR data and metadata: GNSS precise positioning user perspective

participants in the resources, rail, road and government sectors have implemented MQTT44 or JSON-RPC45
based solutions, which confirm the community’s trend towards adoption of novel approaches to precise
positioning data and service transmission.

There was higher than expected response from users of satellite-delivered corrections rather than users
of traditional, radio-based systems. This can be attributed to increasing familiarity of GNSS users with
Satellite-Based Augmentation System (SBAS) recently tested in the Australia/New Zealand region delivering
precise positioning data through satellites [37].

Respondents reported wide variety of software (desktop or mobile) in use, with many GNSS users still

relying on offline processing rather than live use of GNSS data and services.

As reported during the consultation, international standards, such as those published by ISO and OGC,
as well as regional and national standards (mostly adopted from ISO and OGC) are well-known within the
user community. Sin embargo, respondents felt that current data standards were not fit for purpose. The primary
reasons given were scalability issues, lack of provided metadata including missing details on quality
assurance and control related to provided data.

When asked about limitations to achieving the required performance for demanding positioning applications,
responses featured mostly technical limitation with common issues including maintaining connectivity
inside and outside of mobile coverage, coverage and quality of GNSS observations in environments with
poor sky-view (such as forest canopy), or high subscription costs to GNSS data and services.

5.2.3 Validation of Identified Metadata Elements, Their Values and Units

We exposed our participants’ metadata as identified for a chosen application per industry sector during
the desk-based research. Participants were asked for feedback on relevance, importance and correctness of
values and format used to express these metadata. There was overwhelming agreement with identified
metadata, their format and values with few participants requiring more metadata (p.ej. information related
to expected power consumption when using GNSS or information about quality evaluation procedure used
to determine values for quality metadata). Participants from few sectors identified additional requirements
on metadata elements—an example of a detailed response on missing metadata from Spatial and Surveying
sector is illustrated in Figure 7.

During our engagement we discovered that many participants subscribe to the GNSS services in real-
tiempo. This means that they need to be receiving identified metadata elements together with the data, cual,
as explained in [14] is currently not the case.

44 https://mqtt.org/
45 https://www.jsonrpc.org/

Data Intelligence

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
norte

t
/

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
4
3
2
0
7
4
2
5
4
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

FAIR data and metadata: GNSS precise positioning user perspective

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
norte

t
/

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
4
3
2
0
7
4
2
5
4
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

F igure 7. Snipped from the stakeholder engagement summary report—example illustrates missing metadata as
identiﬁ ed by the GNSS users from the Spatial and Surveying sector.

5.2.4 Elicitation of Participants’ View and Perception of FAIR

Respondents from different stages of the GNSS value chain had different understandings of what FAIR
meant for their organisation, but results across sectors and roles within the GNSS value chain demonstrated
similar agreement with the importance of individual FAIR principles as selected from the multiple-choice
list in the questionnaire (ver figura 4). Example of GNSS users’ response on ‘findability’ of precise positioning
data and services is illustrated in Figure 8. I n this example, it might be a little surprising to see that GNSS
users were not interested in finding their resources on the web using search engines (with only 34.6%
respondents indicating this was important). This is because rather than searching for data and services on
the web using search engines, GNSS users typically visit a known data portal (p.ej. GA Catalogue) o
subscribe to a known service provider and receive data to their GNSS receivers directly.

Another interesting observation is that in average around 20% respondents did not provide an answer
on their understanding of FAIR principles—this might indicate the need for continuous education on what
these principles mean or simply a choice to ignore this part of the survey as irrelevant for them. Ho wever,
that fact that the FAIR principles as defined by [1] are not as relevant in the GNSS end-user community,
does not mean that GNSS data and services provision will not benefit from the being compliant with these.
This was also confirmed by the widespread agreement among our respondents that being a beginner to
precise positioning is difficult, and that all aspects of FAIR, if improved in provided data and metadata, son
essential to ensure proper use of data and services, and to avoid their misuse. Se veral participants require

Data Intelligence

FAIR data and metadata: GNSS precise positioning user perspective

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
norte

t
/

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

Fi gure 8. Requirements for ﬁ ndability of GNSS data and services as identiﬁ ed during stakeholder consultation.

access to more metadata quality information, including the most recent updates and downtime of CORS,
and they reported (de nuevo, in widespread agreement) the importance of data quality and useful metadata as
fundamental to ensure FAIRness (especially of ‘R’ in FAIR as defined by [1]) of GNSS data and services.

5.2.5 Identification of Current and Emerging Technology, Standards and Protocols for the Use of Gnss Data
and Service

On the topic of upcoming trends or key technology, the most common responses indicated expectations
from the improved regional precise positioning framework and technology (es decir., SBAS), increased adoption
of Free and Open-Source Software, and modern transmission protocols (such as Message Queue Telemetry
Transport46) which allow subscription to the user-defined portion of data instead of receiving anything
disponible.

Cifra 9 contains an example of compiled response of positioned assets, used communication technology,
standards and protocols—example in Figure 8 illustrates responses by participants from the ‘Spatial &
Surveying’ sector across GNSS value chain. As can be noted in Figure 9, some compartments (Upstream
Providers and IAG Services in the figure) are empty—this is because we did not receive responses from
these roles in the sector. Follow-up interviews are planned in the future to complete the requirements
analysis in these roles.

46 https://mqtt.org/

Data Intelligence

5
1
4
3
2
0
7
4
2
5
4
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

FAIR data and metadata: GNSS precise positioning user perspective

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
norte

t
/

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
4
3
2
0
7
4
2
5
4
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Fig ure 9. Example from stakeholder engagement summary in a GNSS user sector: example from the Spatial &
Surveying GNSS user sector. Requirements were derived from identiﬁ ed positioned assets and communication
tecnología, software, and standards and protocols in use.

Data Intelligence

FAIR data and metadata: GNSS precise positioning user perspective

6. ARE GNSS USERS GETTING DATA AND METADATA THEY EXPECT?

As discussed in Section 2.2, an SDI via its catalogue of resources, provides metadata of geospatial
resources, including those related to GNSS positioning. Sin embargo, the search for spatial resources is not
always a smooth process and typically happens in at least three steps [6, 14]:

1) Users (human or machine) access the SDI catalogue and retrieve metadata of interest.
2) Users parse the metadata and compare values in crucial fields (p.ej. spatial and temporal extent, tiempo

of last update, lineage etc.) with acceptable values.

3) Users follow the links (not necessarily online web links) to the spatial resource.

A crucial part of the data and metadata search process explained above is step 2, when the user is
deciding on data resources fitness for use in their application. This decision is expected to be made using
metadata, more specifically, the values as specified in expected metadata elements. We illustrate a common
problem with this step in most SDIs and over most resources [39, 40].

According to the findings presented in Section 4 y Sección 5, current GNSS user expect to be provided
with metadata describing this product in terms of elements such as those defined in Table 1. Desafortunadamente,
as illustrated in Figure 10, this is not the case. None of the metadata elements are currently present in its
metadata.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
norte

t
/

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
4
3
2
0
7
4
2
5
4
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Figu re 10. Missing identiﬁ cation of resources related to ‘Geodesy—Continuously Operating’ product.

Data Intelligence

FAIR data and metadata: GNSS precise positioning user perspective

The reason for this is simply that according to the current standard used for metadata provision in this
example catalogue does not mandate provision of metadata containing information about quality as
expected within a specific domain of use. The absence of required metadata limits the use of the example
GNSS resource to specialists with detailed knowledge of the product and its lineage (es decir. how it was
produced).

Data discovery and access is still a very challenging, and at times close to an impossible exercise even
if comprehensive metadata are provided in a standard-complaint way. From our stakeholder engagement,
the main reason for this appears to be that understanding of even most comprehensive standard metadata
(p.ej. compliant with ISO 19115-1:2014) can be problematic for users from non-geodesy domains (p.ej.
agricultura, maritime or defence). As confirmed during our stakeholder engagement, users find the language
too technical with a lack of explanation regarding how the reported quality of positioning data will affect
their use for a particular application.

Alth ough from a different scientific domain, GNSS users’ perception of FAIR is similar as reported by
Alharbi et al. [38], in which participants confirm FAIR data and metadata contribute to efficient and
confident data reuse. Data and metadata FAIRification needs to commence at the source [41]—for GNSS
datos, services and metadata this means, that most improvements need to happen to the way metadata is
provided with the data and services. In the next section we outline our approach to this.

7. MANA GING USER EXPECTATIONS WITH FAIR GNSS DATA AND SERVICES

Duri ng our engagement with GNSS user sectors who operated across the GNSS value chain, we worked
to understand user requirements and ensure that GNSS data and services that are compliant with the FAIR
principios [1] could be delivered to each sector. We propose the following improvements to current data
and metadata delivery: extending the metadata model currently in use, defining a specific metadata profile
for GNSS community, and ensure metadata related to data instances are delivered with data.

7.1 Exte nding Metadata in a Standard Compliant Way

ISO 19115-1:2014, the standard currently used for providing metadata in the geospatial domain is
intentionally generic [23, 31]. This might create a problem when implemented in specific disciplines. Para
instancia, as our research presented in this paper confirms, current metadata standard does not deliver the
necessary information to the GNSS community: there are missing metadata elements (see Section 5). A
overcome this limitation, ISO/TC211 allowed the creation of metadata extensions, and these are the
permitted types of extensions in the current metadata standard [23]:

1. adding a new metadata package
2. creating new metadata codelists to replace the domain of an existing metadata element that has ‘free

text’ listed as its domain value

3. creating new metadata codelist elements (expanding a codelist)

Data Intelligence

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
norte

t
/

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
4
3
2
0
7
4
2
5
4
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

FAIR data and metadata: GNSS precise positioning user perspective

4. adding new metadata elements
5. adding new metadata classes
6. imposing a more stringent obligation on an existing metadata element
7. imposing a more restrictive domain on an existing metadata element

In the case of accommodating GNSS user requirements as identified during requirement elicitation, cuando
new data quality elements are to be defined, the extensions listed in items 3, 4 y 5 above would be
applicable. The work on extended metadata applicable to GNSS products us currently underway as part of
the implementation of our survey’s results.

7.2 Ensu ring User Sector Relevant Metadata Exposure in Data Interchange

Other standard compliant mechanism for ensuring access to community specific metadata is a ‘community
profile’ [23]. A community profile serves as a metadata extension mechanism in cases when information
to be added to the standard set is extensive and specific to a discipline or application, and/or requires
coordination of the proposed extension via specific user groups.

An example of a functional community profile is the GA Metadata Profile of ISO 19115-1: 2014 [22]
mentioned in Section 2. With this profile, a community (Georgia) mandates their providers to deliver more
comprehensive metadata to the users of GA’s data and services than the recommended minimum in (el
more generic) ISO 19115-1:2014 [23].

ISO/ TC211 also specifies clear rules for creating metadata community profile in ISO 19115-1:2014 [23],
where it specifies allowed extensions, and in ISO 19106:2004 [39], where it defines types of community
profiles and rules for their development. Further best-practice community guidelines are available to ensure
such profile is compliant with current best practices for data exchange [28]. For GNSS user community, a
‘precise positioning data’ community profile seems reasonable for the description of metadata relevant
across high-use sectors. A challenge in this type of community profile is to ensure that only the most relevant
subset of metadata of interest is exposed to the end user sector. For human users, this can be achieved
through careful design of the user interface, p.ej. through the creation of user profiles that are used for
restricting the display of metadata elements to only those relevant to their end user type. For machine users,
the identification of the category of end user sector is perhaps a bit more challenging, however not
impossible. Development of a ‘precise positioning community profile’ is underway as part of follow-up
work to the stakeholder engagement presented in this paper. The profile will be developed as ISO 19115-1
compliant metadata profile including metadata about quality, as identified during the stakeholder
engagement. This profile will then be adapted to extend the GA ISO 19115-1 compliant profile, y, en un
prototype implementation, the current metadata template of GA Catalogue will be extended, and the result
will be tested with GNSS users participating in the stakeholder engagement. The GNSS metadata profile
will be proposed for a wider review within geodetic community and under auspices of the IAG/IUGG.

Data Intelligence

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
norte

t
/

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
4
3
2
0
7
4
2
5
4
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

FAIR data and metadata: GNSS precise positioning user perspective

7.3 Ensu ring GNSS Users Subscribing to Data and Services Receive Required Metadata with the Data

increase

interoperability of geodetic data/information, Australian and New Zealand’s
Intergovernmental Commission on Surveying and Mapping (ICSM) promotes GeodesyML47 as a standard to
encode geodetic data and metadata [43]. GeodesyML is an application schema of OGC’s Geography
Mark-up Language48 and serves for transfer of geodetic information currently encoded in XML, which is
both machine and human-readable and allows custom requests (es decir. parts of the whole dataset—something,
which is increasingly popular among the subscribers to GNSS data and services). Current version of
GeodesyML allows encoding of the GNSS permanent station information, which is requested by GNSS
users to process their own measurements. The snippet of the site encoding is illustrated in Figure 11.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
norte

t
/

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
4
3
2
0
7
4
2
5
4
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
5
pag
d

Figur e 11. GNSS Site log information encoded with GeodesnyML v 0.5.

The current version of GeodesyML also allows encoding some quality related metadata elements with
data—see an example in Figure 12 with accuracy of a surveyed local tie (an essential information about a
GNSS site) highlighted in the red oval.

To ser ve the requirements of GNSS users as identified in our stakeholder engagement, extension to
GeodesyML’s information model will need to be made. Moreov er, to address the limitations of the XML
format (p.ej. the scalability issues) alternative formats to XML (such as JSON-LD) need to be considered in
GeodesyML’s further developments.

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

47 http://geodesyml.org/
48 https://www.ogc.org/standards/gml

Data Intelligence

FAIR data and metadata: GNSS precise positioning user perspective

Cifra 12. Quality metadata element encoded together with the site log information encoded in GeodesyML v0.5.

Extend ed metadata encoded in or with GNSS data products will help users who subscribe to data services
directly without first browsing the metadata catalogue. This will be ensured by improved subscription
service offering the best possible product (determined from comparison of expected quality requirement
and metadata stored with the product) for an application identified by the subscriber.

This i s currently underway as part of follow-up work to the stakeholder engagement presented in this
paper. We expect that this work and continued discussions within the geodetic community at IAG/IUGG
and within the standardisation communities at ISO/TC211 and OGC will be instrumental in defining the
GNSS community standard, and thus providing FAIR data and metadata to the GNSS users.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
norte

t
/

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
4
3
2
0
7
4
2
5
4
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
5
pag
d

8. CONCLUSIÓN

In this paper we reported on GNSS users’ views on what constitutes FAIR data and metadata in their
respective sectors. We also reviewed support for FAIR in existing precise positioning and other related
international standards, and investigated whether current standards have potential to address expectations
of GNSS users in various sectors. Our results confirm that offering FAIR GNSS data and services is
fundamental, but for a confident use of these, detailed and relevant metadata need to be offered to the
GNSS community. We outlined the approach towards fulfilling these expectations with standard compliant
GNSS community metadata profile and providing relevant metadata with data on-demand through machine-
actionable information model for FAIR GNSS data and service.

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors acknowledge the P1008—Positioning Australia: Accelerating Industry Adoption project

supported by Geoscience Australia, FrontierSI, Curtin University and Positioning Insights.

Data Intelligence

FAIR data and metadata: GNSS precise positioning user perspective

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION

Ivánová, Ivana (ivana.ivanova@curtin.edu.au) initiated the effort, conceived and wrote the first draft of
the paper. II, Keenan, ryan (ryan.keenan@me.com), marshall, Christopher (cmarshall@frontiersi.com.au)
and Mancell, Lori (Lori.Mancell@ga.gov.au) collected and analysed the data, and contributed content to
first draft. Rubinov, Eldar (erubinov@frontiersi.com.au), Ruddick, ryan (Ryan.Ruddick@ga.gov.au), Marrón,
Nicholas (Nicholas.Brown@ga.gov.au) and Kernich, Graeme (gkernich@frontiersi.com.au) provided research
ideas and critical feedback that helped shaping the manuscript. All authors contributed to reviewing and
editing of the final version of the article.

REFERENCIAS

[1] Wilkinson, METRO., et al.: The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

3, 160018 (2016)
Coetzee, S, et al.: Open Geospatial Software and Data: A Review of the Current State and A Perspective into
the Future. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 9(2), 90 (2020)
Kotsev, A., et al.: From Spatial Data Infrastructures to Data Spaces—A Technological Perspective on the
Evolution of European SDIs. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 9(3), 176 (2020)
GSDI Technical Working Group.: The GSDI Cookbook, GSDI-Technical Working Group. Disponible en: http://
gsdiassociation.org/images/publications/cookbooks/SDI_Cookbook_from_Wiki_2012_update.pdf. Accedido
28 Febrero 2022
arnold, l., et al.: Knowledge-On-demand: A Function of the Future Spatial Knowledge Infrastructure, Diario
of Spatial Sciences 66(3), 365–382 (2019)
Ivánová, I., et al.: From spatial data to spatial knowledge infrastructure: A proposed architecture. Transactions
in GIS. 2020; 24, 1526–1558 (2020)
Iv ánová, I., et al.: FAIR and standard access to spatial data as the means of achieving Sustainable Development,
Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci. XLII-4/W20, 33–39 (2019)

[8] Grot h, PAG., Cousijn, h., clark, T., Goble, C.: FAIR Data Reuse—the Path through Data Citation. Data Intelligence

2(1–2), 78–86 (2020)

[9] Teun issen, PAG., Montenbruck, oh. (editores.): Springer Handbook of Global Navigation Satellite Systems. Saltador

International Publishing, cham (2017)

[10] Vela ga, N.R., Pangbourne, K.: Achieving genuinely dynamic road user charging: issues with a GNSS-based

acercarse, Journal of Transport Geography 34, 243–253 (2014)

[11] El-M owafy, A., Cheung, NORTE., mi. Rubinov, MI.: First results of using the second generation SBAS in Australian

urban and suburban road environments, Journal of Spatial Science 65(1), 99–121 (2019)

[12] Teng ku, r., Kealy, A.: End User Awareness Towards GNSS Positioning Performance and Testing. En: Actas

from the 3rd Research@Locate Conference, páginas. 7–12 (2016)

[13] Kolo mijeca, S., Lopez-Salcedo, J.A.. Lohan, MI., Seco-Granados, GRAMO.: GNSS applications: Personal safety
concerns, En: Proceedings from the International Conference on Localization and GNSS (ICL-GNSS), páginas. 1–5
(2016)

[14] Iván ová, et al.: Ensuring FAIR access to precise positioning by improving geodetic data interchange standards
(2020). Available at: https://frontiersi.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/P1003-Geodetic-Standards-Final-
Report.pdf. Accedido 28 Febrero 2022

Data Intelligence

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
norte

t
/

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
4
3
2
0
7
4
2
5
4
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

FAIR data and metadata: GNSS precise positioning user perspective

[15] Elger, K., et al.: News from the GGOS DOI Working Group, EGU General Assembly, en línea, 19–30 Apr 2021,

EGU21-15081 (2021)

[16] Reguzz oni, METRO., et al.: Open access to regional geoid models: the International Service for the Geoid, Earth

Syst. Sci. Datos 13, 1653–1666 (2021)

[17] Stall , S. et al.: Generalist Repository Comparison Chart. Zenodo. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5281/

zenodo.3946720 (2020)

[18] Hahne l, METRO.: A Decade of Open Data in Research—Real Change or Slow Moving Compliance?, Disponible en:
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2022/03/30/guest-post-a-decade-of-open-data-in-research-real-change-
or-slow-moving-compliance/?informz=1

[19] Stall, S., et al.: Make scientific data FAIR, Naturaleza 570, 27–29 (2019)
[20] Brodeu r, J., et al.: Geographic Information Metadata—An outlook from the international standardization

perspectiva. International Journal of Geo-Information 8(6), 280 (2019)

[21] Mons, B., et al.: Cloudy, increasigly FAIR; revisiting the FAIR Data guiding principles for the European Open

Science Cloud. Information Services & Use 37(1), 49–56 (2017)

[22] Bastr akova, I.V. 2018. Geoscience Australia Community Metadata Profile of ISO 19115-1:2014. Record
2018/26. Geoscience Australia, Canberra. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.11636/Record.2018.026.
[23] Intern ational Organisation for Standardisation (ISO): ISO 19115-1:2014 Geographic information—Metadata–

Parte 1: Fundamentals, ISO, Geneva (2014)

[24] Devara ju, A., Huber, r.: F-UJI—An Automated FAIR Data Assessment Tool (v1.0.0). Zenodo. Disponible en:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4063720 (2020)

[25] Devara ju, A., et al.: FAIRsFAIR Data Object Assessment Metrics (0.5). Zenodo. Available at: https://doi.

org/10.5281/zenodo.6461229 (2020)

[26] Devara ju, A., et al.: From Conceptualization to Implementation: FAIR Assessment of Research Data Objects.

Data Science Journal 20(1), p.4. Disponible en: http://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2021-004 (2021)

[27] Europe an Commission, 2018. Turning FAIR into reality—Final Report and Action Plan from the European
Commission Expert Group on FAIR data. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.2777/1524. Accedido: 28 Febrero
2022

[28] van de n Brink, l., et al.: Best practices for publishing, retrieving and using spatial data on the web. Semántico

Web 10(1), 95–114 (2019)

[29] ISO: I SO 19157:2013 Geographic information—Data Quality, ISO, Geneva (2014)
[30] Intern ational GNSS Service (IGS): The Receiver Independent Exchange Format version 4.0, (2021) IGS,
Pasadena. Disponible en: https://files.igs.org/pub/data/format/rinex_4.00.pdf. Accedido: 28 Febrero 2022

[31] Kresse , w., Faidaie, K.: ISO Standards for Geographic Information, Editorial Springer, Berlina, 2004
[32] jones, M.B., Sacrificio, PAG., Habermann, T.: Quantifying FAIR: automated metadata improvement and
guidance in the DataONE repository network (2019). Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3408466.
Accedido: 28 Febrero 2022

[33] Europe an Union Agency for Space Program (EUSPA): User needs and consultation. Disponible en: https://www.
euspa.europa.eu/euspace-applications/euspace-users/user-needs-and-requirements. Accedido: 28 Febrero
2022

[34] EUSPA: EO and GNSS market report. Disponible en: https://www.euspa.europa.eu/european-space/euspace-

market/gnss-market/eo-gnss-market-report. Accedido: 28 Febrero 2022

[35] Donnel ly, NORTE., et al.: GeodesyML—A GML application schema for geodetic data transfer in Australia and New

Zealand, En: Proceedings of the Spatial Sciences and Surveying Conference (2013)

Data Intelligence

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
norte

t
/

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
4
3
2
0
7
4
2
5
4
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

FAIR data and metadata: GNSS precise positioning user perspective

[36] Gobo, GRAMO.: Sampling, representativeness and generalizability. In Seale, C., Gobo, GRAMO., Gubrium, J.F., &
Silverman, D. (Editores.), Qualitative research practice (páginas. 405–426). SAGE Publications Ltd, 2004. https://www.
doi.org/10.4135/9781848608191

[37] Ernst & Joven: SBAS Test-bed Demonstrator Trial—Economic benefits report, FrontierSI, Melbourne (2019)
Available at: https://frontiersi.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/SBAS-Economic-Benefits-Report.pdf.
Accedido 28 Febrero 2022

[38] Alharb i, MI., Skeva, r., Juty, NORTE., Jay, C., Goble, C.: Exploring the current practices, costs and benefits of FAIR
implementation in pharmaceutical research and development: a qualitative interview study. Data Intelligence
3(4), 507–527 (2021). doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/dint_a_00109

[39] Boin, A.T., Cazador, G.J.: What communicates quality to the spatial data consumer? En: piedra, A., Bijker, w.,

Shi, W.. (editores.): Quality aspects in spatial data mining, páginas. 285–296 CRC Press, Boca Raton (2009)

[40] I. Ivá nová, et al.: Searching for spatial data resources by fitness for use. Journal of Spatial Science 58(1),

15–28 (2013)

[41] Rocca-Se rra, PAG., Sansone, SA.: Experiment design driven FAIRification of omics data matrices, an exemplar.

Sci Data 6, 271 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0286-0

[42] ISO: ISO 19106:2004 Geographic information—Profiles, ISO, Geneva (2004)
[43] PCG/ICSM (2015) The Use of GeodesyML to Encode IGS Site Log Data. Available at: https://lists.igs.org/

pipermail/igs-dcwg/attachments/20150604/e32d991f/attachment.pdf. Accedido 28 Febrero 2022

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
norte

t
/

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
4
3
2
0
7
4
2
5
4
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Data Intelligence

FAIR data and metadata: GNSS precise positioning user perspective

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY

Ivana Ivánová is a Senior Lecturer in Spatial Sciences and FrontierSI Research
Fellow in Spatial Information Infrastructures. Her research interests and
expertise are in spatial data quality spatial resources and spatial information
infrastructures. She has extensive experience in standardisation of geographic
información, currently leading development of standards for geospatial data
quality.
ORCID: 0000-0001-6836-3463

Ryan Keenan is a Principal GNSS Consultant at Positioning Insights with
specific focus on high-precision applications for the survey, geodesy, machine
control, agriculture and mining sectors.

Christopher Marshall is a Positioning Engineer and Project Manager at
FrontierSI supporting positioning and geodesy research and development for
Australia and New Zealand in collaboration with Geoscience Australia and
Land Information New Zealand.

Data Intelligence

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
norte

t
/

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

5
1
4
3
2
0
7
4
2
5
4
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

FAIR data and metadata: GNSS precise positioning user perspective

Lori Mancell is a Team Lead for Engagement and Evaluation at Geoscience
Australia. She works closely with industry and government stakeholders, a
encourage user adoption of precise positioning technology and collaborates
with industry to support Australian industry to capitalise on the benefit of the
national scale investment in science infrastructure, data and software platforms
delivered by Geoscience Australia.

Eldar Rubinov is Positioning and Geodesy Technical Lead supporting
positioning and geodesy research and development for Australia and New
Zealand in collaboration with Geoscience Australia and Land Information
New Zealand.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
norte

t
/

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

Ryan Ruddick is a Director of GNSS Infrastructure and Informatics at
Geoscience Australia, leading the expansion, enhancement and modernisation
of Australia’s national GNSS network.

5
1
4
3
2
0
7
4
2
5
4
d
norte
_
a
_
0
0
1
8
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Data Intelligence

FAIR data and metadata: GNSS precise positioning user perspective

Nicholas Brown is a Director of National Geodesy at Geoscience Australia
responsible for the development and refinement of the Australian Geospatial
Reference System; the collection of datums, geoid models, transformación
tools and standards required for 4D positioning.
ORCID: 0000-0001-9476-974X

Graeme Kernich is Chief Executive Officer at FrontierS driving large-scale
initiatives for better decision-making with spatial data.

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
norte

t
/

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d