Would one way of dealing with the potentially immense size of this period
thesaurus be for each SMR to define its own local
cultural/political/historical terms, relevant to the local
historical/cultural/political ambience, and then relate them to two very,
very basic 'central sequences' including only a sequence of centuries, and a
list of ages (eg stone, bronze, iron, middle, modern - note no Roman or
Anglo-Saxon)?

Then you could start locally and run a search on, say, 'Pictish', pulling up
everything in the local database between 4th & 9th C. AD (in the late iron
age).  That material could be compared nationally with material entered in
other localities under either or both 4th-9th C. AD and iron age.

This may sound complex, but it seems to me that it would give us a workable
situation where a common series of very (extremely) basic terms fitting into
the 'cultural' class, and a new 'century' class could be
nationally/internationally defined, and yet the (politically sensitive)
classes of 'historic', 'artistic/stylistic', & 'political dates' could be
locally defined in response to local needs.  These local terms could be
linked to the national terms at their time of definition, but the links
(time &c) would also be locally defined.  This would overcome the problem
that, say, the Norse period in the Western Isles is c. 300 years shorter
than that in Shetland.

Also, as the local terms could be 'preferred terms' in their own area, there
would be no need to get in to the potentially contentious use of
'non-preferred' for events of crucial local or national importance.  Given
political sensitivities and the public use of SMRs, this is probably best
avoided!

M

Dr Mary MacLeod
Regional Archaeologist
Arts and Leisure Services
Comhairle nan Eilean Siar
[log in to unmask]
(01851) 703242
-----Original Message-----
From: Given, Annie <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 09 February 2000 14:27
Subject: RE: Period Terminology - bias in terminology


>perhaps i tried to be too brief - i do not have problems with the concept
of
>an inclusive thesaurus, but i fear that in seeking to establish an 'all
>things to all persons' approach ,  we have begun to reach a reductio ad
>absurdem ( which i am enjoying greatly) where we cannot agree on some terms
>because they cannot be made common-specific in any meaningful way.
>
>surely there is a difference in facilitating access by means of a thesaurus
>and trying to document terminology which can only be shared by the most
>tortuous correlation - which is where we seem to be going in trying to
tease
>out some historic concepts which are emerging -
>
>i think this is turning into a topic for the bar.....
>
>
>annie given
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lee, Edmund [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: 09 February 2000 12:24
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Period Terminology - bias in terminology
>
>
>Annie,
>
>Thank you for your excellent contribution, and welcome to the debate - can
I
>encourage everyone else out there who wants to comment to please feel free
>to do so. The value of a discussion such as this lies precisely in the
width
>of participation.
>
>To address just one of the points you raise...
>
>You wrote
>
>>
>in seeking
>to address bias in shared terminology, i feel the 'regnal' discussion
neatly
>illustrates our individual sensitivities. this is not just an academic
>point,  it means we must also recognise the same range of sensitivities
will
>exist amongst database users, and that the explanation of agreed standards
>for all users is likely to be the real minefield if it is not to cause
>unwitting offence.
>>
>
>I agree entirely. However what we are trying to build here is as inclusive
a
>standard as possible. The draft so far produced reflects the experience of
>English professionals working in England with English material. However the
>objective for this, and indeed any thesaurus, is to provide a tool for the
>discovery of information relevant to an enquiry, *not* a 'database' of
>accepted terms (and thus by implication excluding those not included). A
>thesaurus structure gives us the flexibility to include *any* term which
can
>usefully identify a distinct time period.
>
>This is the reasoning behind the inclusion as terms of the name / title of
>any historical figure (including but not limited to monarchs) whose
>influence upon contemporary events (however we as individuals or as a
>society view them in retrospect) has been such that for their name / title
>to may be a term that those interested in history are likely to use for
>information retrieval.
>
>We sidestep the minefield by adopting this open-ended approach. Clearly
>there are additional historical / political terms that are needed (as well
>as in the other classes of the thesaurus). But the draft thesaurus is
>intended to give us the *structure* that we need - once agreed in principle
>it can be extended as far as resources allow to provide adequate coverage.
>All participants  - let us have your terms!
>
>Edmund Lee
>FISHEN Coordinator



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