Hello world of FISH

     Re Provision of digital spatial info by archaeological contractors.
     Very rare (but we don't specify it yet) and even more rarely
     successful. But not hard in principle and would be extremely
     beneficial. We regularly (OK, sometimes) exchange big datasets with
     engineering contractors, water authority etc. but then they usually
     have teams of CAD techies who do nothing else.
     Main problems: a) geo-referencing (depends on the systems and
     knowledge at the provider end) and b) classification of features
     (depends on good practice and common sense at provider end since
     there is no standard).

     Leading on to...development of a standard for depiction of
     archaeological features (Neil's point?)
     I think the depiction issue is of importance not because of the
     need for similar depictions per se, but because it requires the
     data to be classified into *agreed feature types*.
     This would appear to require a new Terminology Standard for Spatial
     Feature Type, that could be part of Inscription (e.g. excavation
     edge, feature/context edge, OS control(referencing DNF unique ID?),
     top of slope, hard monument edge, fuzzy monument edge, centreline
     of linear feature - hey I'm making these up as I go along!). These
     would overlap with the types used in common excavation/survey
     planning but would also have to cover features from AP
     rectifications, fieldwalking, geophys, etc.). There might be two
     lists, one for Events, one for Monuments/Finds?

     Once such terminology standards exist it would be relatively
     straightforward to develop a variety of symbol sets for use in the
     main proprietory GIS/CAD packages. This in turn would really help
     contractors see the value in adopting these technologies, by making
     it easier to produce publication standard illustration.

     Re the points from Tim and Andrew who use fringe GIS products ;-)
     the develop of feature type standards (and all the other standards
     in MIDAS/INSCRPTION) are fairly unrelated to the software you use,
     except insofar as to adopt them you have to be able to have enough
     control over your user interface to allow pick-lists to be changed
     etc. (and I think they do assume use of relational databases, and
     the spatial ones would have to assume that a system can store
     vector point, line and polygon features with related attributes).
     Of the issues above, only the development of symbol sets that
     derive from such standards (e.g. so that you can make your
     findspots look like the ones in Essex's system), is tied to the
     proprietory system you use - i.e. if there are only three
     archaeologists using HappyMapper GIS then it will be harder to get
     someone to produce the HappyMapper symbol sets.

     Surely someone's going to bring up XML (or even better, GML) and
     get us all really baffled?

     Crispin Flower
     WoSAS


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
This message is intended only for use of the addressee. If this message
was sent to you in error, please notify the sender and delete this message.
Glasgow City Council cannot accept responsibility for viruses, so please
scan attachments. Views expressed in this message do not necessarily reflect
those of the Council who will not necessarily be bound by its contents.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------