Matthew,
As you point out this is such an important aspect of this process,
which is why I would advocate a simple rather than complex system. This
is perhaps even more important in this information age. Particularly
when opinions vary about the nature of the data. You can't argue about
finds that exhibit use of copper, bronze, iron, etc. and you can't argue
about dating (provided dating has been conducted on reliable materials,
i.e
carbonized wood etc.)
On 1/12/2000 4:27 PM Matthew Stiff writes:
>
>
>Sorry for having missed the discussion so far- I am catching up on all the
>contributions as fast as I can....
>
>I would like to add to Ed's list another issue that will need to be
>addressed: namely the users of this period terminology. It is vital that
>target audiences are identified. If this terminology is going to be used for
>resource discovery we must consider the vocabulary (and thinking) of the
>end-users. Although it is often difficult to pin down periods to precise
>dates and/or places, the broader public will often have no knowledge of the
>philosophical debates raging in the archaeological and historical
>communities. If we are to address their needs (are we?) then we will have to
>allow for their possible misconceptions.
>
>Dr Matthew Stiff
>Head of Standards
>mda, 19 Riverside Road, Oxford, OX2 0HT
>Tel: +44 (0)1865 200561
>Fax: +44 (0)870 054 7783
>Mobile: +44 (0)7939 151510
>
>e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>URL: www.mda.org.uk
>24 Hour Museum: www.24hourmuseum.org.uk
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [log in to unmask]
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Lee, Edmund
>> Sent: 10 January 2000 16:52
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: End of Day One...
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
Beatrice Hopkinson 73071,327@compuserve
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|