Dear All
Just to reply to some of Neil's points.
I also feel strongly about the standards issues raised here.
However I am probably coming from an equal but opposite direction.
I don't think we should be too prohibitive and proscriptive about detailed
standards, procedures or symbology.
I know this is probably a strange thing for an EH employee to say. But I
firmly believe we should be concerned with what we are populating a GIS
with, the metadata standards that enable this - with due reference to
current available stands eg BSI and ADS and developing ones eg OS and
MasterMap. We need metadata standards that facilitate transfer between
diverse systems and methods. Attempting to make all systems think alike
rather than simply communicate with each other is not, I think, the way
forward.
Cheers
BRIAN
-----Original Message-----
From: Neil Campling [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2001 1:32 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: GIS Standards
Dear All,
I'm just about to go into a meeting so will not be back on 'til later, but I
feel strongly that a GIS iconic thesaurus should be created. This should
provide standardised, inter-subjective, icons and representations of
historic environment information on MapInfo, ArcView and CAD systems. There
should be standard 'lock-on' grid point conventions for inclusion in .dxf
files to make them always translatable by the universal translators of
MapInfo & ArcView. Icons should be developed for events, sources, and
monuments. Line thickness and colour conventions should be specified for
monument polygons. This would enable contractors to provide digital
information to SMRs in a standard way, and enable them to more precisely
cost the work of digitising. If FISH has to do this in conjunction with the
OS and the GIS software companies, then so be it.
Cheers,
Neil
|