tation strategy for the OSCAR tools project. The outcome of this project is anti-
characteristics and the fact that they are currently involved in conversion of their
land records from paper-based to digital systems. The approach adopted in these
countries involves more than software development. It seeks to create expertise in
months of the three year project time frame. In addition, a significant component
of the project plans in each country will involve systematic and repetitive training
of government staff within the land administration offices to encourage them to
architecture, underlying data model and implementation, or the precise project
implementation strategy in this chapter. However, it is important to note that the
temporal change as a fundamental design principle. This provides not only the
46
data (both attribute and spatial in terms of the associated parcel fabric), but also
the ability to be agile in responding to changes in workflows that may include
cross jurisdictional differences or the inclusion of additional land-related functions
beyond cadastral survey and land titling.
The proof will, of course, be in the successful realization and use of the OSCAR
approach, and this is yet some way in the distance. However, in the interim the
time is ripe for implementing this FLOSS cadastral project that incorporates a sim-
ple yet robust and highly adaptive approach in software to land records manage-
ment.
References
Albrecht, J., B. Derman, and R. Laxmi (2008). “Geo-ontology tools: the missing link”, Transactions in GIS, 12,
409 – 424.
Christl, A. (2008). “Free software and open-source business models”, in Hall, G. Brent and Michael G. Leahy,
(eds.) Open-source approaches to spatial data handling, Springer, Berlin, 21– 48.
Hall, G. B. and M. G. Leahy (2008). Open-source approaches to spatial data handling, Springer, Berlin.
Hay, G. and G. B. Hall (2009). “Architecture for an open-source land administration application”, Proceedings
FIG Working Week – Surveyors Key Role in Accelerated Development, Eilat, Israel.
Mockus, A. and J. Herbsleb (2002). “Why not improve coordination in distributed software development by
stealing good ideas from open-source”, in ICSE ‚02 Workshop on Open-source Software Engineering,
35 – 37, Orlando, FL.
Österberg, T. (2002). “Designing viable land administration systems”, Proceedings World Bank Seminar on
Land policy, Kampala, Uganda
Pieper, G. (2007). “Open for Change; FAO Scoping Paper on the use of FLOSS in Cadastre and Land Registra-
tion” http://www.fig.net/commission7/news/2007-10-ScopingPaperFinal.pdf
Pieper, G. (2008). “Free and Open-Source Software for Land Administration Systems: A Hidden Treasure?” Pro-
ceedings FIG Working Week 2008, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ramsey, P. (2007). “The State of Open-Source GIS”, Refractions Research Inc.
doc/510902/Survey-on-Open-Source-GIS> last accessed Sept. 22nd, 2009.
Schuurman, N., A. Leszczynski (2006). “Ontology-based metadata”, Transactions in GIS, 10, 709 –726.
Spéry, L., C. Claramunt, T. Libourel (2001). “A spatio-temporal model for the manipulation of lineage meta-
data”, GeoInformatica, Vol. 5, 51–70.
Steiniger, S. and E. Boucher (2009). “An overview on current free and open-source desktop GIS develop-
ments”, International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 23(10), 1345 –1370.
Törhönen, M. P. (2004). “Sustainable land tenure and land registration in developing countries, including a
historical comparison with an industrialised country”, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 28,
545 – 586.
van der Molen, P. (2002). “The dynamic aspect of land administration: an often-forgotten component in sys-
tem design”, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 26, 361– 381.