Thanks to all who have contributed to the first day of discussion.

At the risk of over-simplifying, I suggest that the key issues we will need
to address are Scope, Format and Structure.

1. The scope of the terms to be included.

Duncan Brown highlighted the range of different 'types' of period
terminology that a time-period terminology could potentially include.
Jeremy's suggestion that specific events could be reflected in the
chronology (e.g. first use of a particular material or monument type) takes
us in yet another new and fascinating direction. Perhaps we'll need more
than one terminology...

2. Format for the list.

A second issue is the format for the terminology standard.

The need for flexibility highlighted by Jason Sidall, the requirement for a
hierarchical structure (Martyn Barber et al), and the requirement for
'built-in' guidance on how to use a particular term (Daphne Charles), all
suggest that the only format that will fit the bill is a thesaurus, (c.f.
the Thesaurus of Monument Types or the mda thesaurus of archaeological
objects (available for browsing online at
http://www.rchme.gov.uk/thesaurus/thes_splash.htm).

Although the methodologically 'best' solution, this would also, inevitably
be the most expensive to develop and maintain.

3. Data structure

The traditional thesaurus format just includes a term and (ideally) a scope
note for each term. What else should we include? Jeremy suggests one
approach in his paper (Appendix 1). I see the list of possible things to
record about each term as follows:-

- The term itself, plus probably a unique identifier number to tie the
data for each term together. This should follow an accepted syntax.
* minimum date for the range covered (and we'll need to agree the
standard calendar to use)
* maximum date for the range covered
* geographic area to which the term is relevant over the date range
given
* scope note giving further information on usage
* relationship to other terms

Possible additions would be a qualifier to suggest whether the date range
given is continuos, intermittent, etc, possibly some indication of the
confidence in the date range, plus an indication of where the dates for the
date range have been derived from, or an authority on which they are based.

I'm sure more ideas will emerge in debate - let the list know what you
think.

Edmund Lee
FISHEN (or should that be 'Term Team'?)






%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%