John,
The sort of data I'm meaning is the sort of stuff you would use to decide
whether to read it or not. For example: author, date, coverage (place,
periods, types of site, types of work undertaken), abstract etc - 'metadata'
in the parlance of information management.
Ed
-----Original Message-----
From: John Wood [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 22 January 2001 10:11
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: IFA Standards and guidance revisions
I'm sorry I just don't understand what is meant by 'what data should be
recorded to describe the document'
John
----------------------------------------------------------
John Wood
Senior Archaeologist
Planning and Development Service
The Highland Council
Glenurquhart Road
Inverness IV3 5NX
Tel: 01463 702502 Fax: 01463 702298
Email: [log in to unmask]
Web: <http://www.higharch.demon.co.uk>
This Email (and any attachment) is intended for the exclusive use of the
addressee(s) only. You should not disclose its contents to any other
person. If you receive this message in error, please contact the sender
and delete the message. Thank you
Opinions expressed herein are my own and do not necessarily represent
those of my employer.
-----Original Message-----
From: Lee, Edmund [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 22 January 2001 10:05
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: IFA Standards and guidance revisions
Morning all,
Just to chip in with a couple of comments here:-
First of all, I take Neils original point that the IFA standards are
procedural standards, not the place for data standards. What I feel is
missing from the standards is references to standards. I don't think we
could or should put the actual data standard into the IFA procedural
standard.
Secondly, the use / recommendation of a particular propietary format for the
data is not really what I'm suggesting. I agree that .pdf is a very good
format for document storage and exchange, however, what is needed from us as
a community is a recommendation of what data should be recorded to describe
that document (or database or image file etc), so that it can be retrieved
and correctly attributed in future. This applies equally to a 'one-line'
report to say that nothing was found during a watching brief as it does to a
full scale digital excavation archive.
Ed
|