Terminology
These terms overlap, but they are not interchangeable. Using them precisely makes technical and governance decisions much easier.
| Term | Working meaning in this guide | Important qualification |
|---|---|---|
| Māori data | Data, information or knowledge about, from or connected with Māori, including people, places, culture, organisations and environments | Broader than personal information |
| Māori Data Sovereignty | Māori rights, interests and authority in relation to Māori data | Not a synonym for New Zealand hosting |
| Data governance | Roles, structures, rules and processes used to make and enforce data decisions | Governance is how authority is exercised |
| Rangatiratanga | Māori authority and self-determining decision-making | Do not reduce mechanically to Western ownership |
| Kaitiakitanga | Responsibilities arising from relationships with people, whenua, taonga and knowledge | More than technical stewardship |
| Data residency | Geographic place in which data is stored or processed | Does not by itself determine jurisdiction or sovereignty |
| Data localisation | A requirement or policy that specified data remain in a place | May improve some controls while adding cost or reducing service choice |
| Jurisdiction | Laws and state powers that may apply to an organisation, provider or information | Provider domicile and territorial reach can matter as well as server location |
| Custody | Who physically or technically holds a copy | Custody does not necessarily equal authority |
| Possession | Practical holding and control of data or systems | Particularly emphasised in Canada's First Nations OCAP framework |
| Provenance | Where information came from and the authority and context attached to it | A key GIS control when data have multiple versions |
| Data lineage | The sequence of transformations and derivatives from source to later products | Especially important for public derivatives and analysis |
| Authoritative data | The approved source that the organisation treats as controlling for a defined purpose | Authoritative should state the purpose and authority, not imply universal truth |
| Publication data | A derivative prepared for an external audience | It may deliberately contain less detail than the authoritative record |
| Metadata sovereignty | Authority over descriptive information about data as well as the features themselves | Titles, extents, owners and thumbnails can leak sensitive information |
| Spatial inference | Deriving new information by combining spatial or contextual evidence | The sensitive result may not exist in any source layer |
| Geomasking | Reducing or changing locational precision to lower disclosure risk | Always involves a privacy/utility trade-off |
| CARE | Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility and Ethics | International Indigenous data-governance principles, not a specifically Māori framework |
| FAIR | Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable | Useful for technical reuse but does not by itself resolve authority and benefit |
| OCAP | Ownership, Control, Access and Possession | First Nations framework from Canada; useful comparatively, not to be copied as a Māori model |
Sovereignty, governance and residency
A simple distinction is:
- Sovereignty asks who has authority.
- Governance asks how that authority is exercised.
- Residency asks where data is stored or processed.
- Jurisdiction asks what laws and state powers may apply.
- Custody asks who currently holds a copy or system.
A Māori organisation can have data in a New Zealand data centre but weak practical control if another party owns the tenant, administrator accounts and export process. It can also use an overseas-owned cloud service while retaining stronger day-to-day governance through clear contracts, organisation-owned identity, portable exports and strong access controls. The latter may still carry jurisdictional risks that need assessment.
CARE and FAIR
FAIR is concerned with making data findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable. CARE was developed because technically reusable data can still reproduce inequitable relationships if collective benefit, authority, responsibility and ethics are ignored.
For Māori GIS the useful question is not CARE or FAIR? It is how interoperability and reuse can be designed within appropriate Māori authority.
OCAP and possession
The First Nations Information Governance Centre describes OCAP as Ownership, Control, Access and Possession. The concept of possession is particularly useful for GIS because it asks whether the community has practical control of the data rather than only an abstract claim.
OCAP is specific to First Nations contexts in Canada. It should not be described as a Māori framework.
Ownership needs care
GIS contracts often ask who owns:
- the source data
- derived data
- software
- configuration
- source code
- templates
- imagery
- metadata
Those are legitimate questions. They still do not answer every rangatiratanga question about collection, meaning, permitted use or future disclosure.
Related pages
- Rangatiratanga and Māori data
- Data residency is not data sovereignty
- International Indigenous lessons
Sources
- Te Mana Raraunga — Principles of Māori Data Sovereignty
- Te Kāhui Raraunga — Māori Data Governance Model
- Global Indigenous Data Alliance — CARE Principles
- First Nations Information Governance Centre — OCAP
- NZ Digital Government — Cloud Jurisdictional Risk guidance
Last reviewed: 16 August 2026