Dear all,

Can I add a thought to John's notes?  It seems to me that we don't
actually have to digitise anything, because a lot of the material we are
talking about is "born digital".

As things stand, units or other researchers spend hours on their
keyboards carefully typing up reports on word processors, databases or
the like, which they then print out on paper for delivery it to the
SMR/NMR/museum/archive.  This then sits on a shelf at the
SMR/NMR/museum/archive where the staff spend time typing up the reports
(or important parts of them) for inclusion in their catalogues. We can
do things better than that.

The question is "how can we use the opportunity afforded by the IFA
review of standards to make these sorts of improvements?"

All best wishes,

William

John Wood wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> This is in quick response to Neil Campling's contribution.  I am interested
> in and encouraged by his comments on PDF, but I have to say that I disagree
> with him about the other points he makes.
>
> On the first point, I think we have to be careful to define what we mean by
> a digital archive, and what the implications of that definition are.  An
> archive, as I understand it, can contain any material that has been retained
> for future reference.  It could consist of an unsorted heap of papers, but I
> think the term generallly implies some sort of index or catalogue to enable
> people to retrieve material.  A digital archive is just the same only
> containing digital material.  If you accept this definition, the archive
> should serve the practitioner or user, not the other way round.  I think a
> digital archive should be prepared to take any digital records produced,
> provided the basic technical capability is there - hence the discussion of
> formats. It is helpful for practitioners to use standard recording forms but
> I think people will in practice keep developing new versions to suit their
> perceived needs, and that this is no bad thing as it allows for constant
> innovation.
>
> On the second point, I do not regard information derived from watching
> briefs as 'low grade'. It is not true that "In 100 years time, all that any
> archaeologist will need is a simple presence / absence tick box in most
> cases."  The watching brief should produce much more of potential future
> value than a simple statement of 'presence / absence'.  For example, it
> provides a basic record of the activity watched, and of the conditions and
> circumstances that applied to it.  These could be of intrinsic interest in
> the future, and will also inform and help to explain the results of the
> archaeological observations.  Was the weather bad or light levels low?  What
> type of machinery was in use?  Apart from this, negative ('No archaeology')
> results can be as useful as positive ones. Details of soil conditions,
> hydrology, and so on may also be significant.  I do not accept that watching
> brief reports constitute "a set of information which contains limited
> information or utility."
>
> But why digitise this ??  Well, the information can be accessed and
> disseminated much more easily in digital form.  As I have said before, we
> are now storing such reports within our SMR database as hyperlinked
> documents, and if any researcher requires a copy it is easy to email one.
> There have been plenty of complaints in the past about 'grey literature' and
> its lack of general availability - this is an answer to that.  The hard copy
> documents may be more dimensionally stable and longer lasting than any
> electronic format currently known, but it isn't a case of either / or - why
> not require both.  Or a paper copy can be printed off and stored. And just
> as the paper copy backs up the digital one, the digital copy itself backs up
> the paper one too.
>
> Neil says "We should not be digitally capturing and electronically storing
> information merely for the sake of doing it or because it can be done", but
> this is just a version of an argument that goes back to the beginning of
> SMRs or the RCAHMS Inventories, or the various journals of record, or the
> first archives.  The reason for capturing and storing information, digitally
> or otherwise, is precisely because we think it is going to be useful in the
> future.
>
> If we  are going to exclude watching brief reports from digital archives,
> who decides on what should be included?  Who sets the criteria of
> usefulness, why, when, and how?  No, this is a minefield.  Let's keep out of
> it.
>
> John Wood
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> John Wood
> Inverness
>
> This is a personal, not an official communication, and any opinions
> expressed do not necessarily represent those of my employer.  It is
> confidential and intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s)
> only. You should not disclose its contents to any other person. If you
> are not the intended recipient please notify the sender named above
> immediately.

--


William Kilbride
User Services Manager
Archaeology Data Service

Dept of Archaeology     t 0044 (0)1904 433954
University of York      f 0044 (0)1904 433939
England YO1 7EP, UK     m 0044 (0)7967 128632
http://ads.ahds.ac.uk   e [log in to unmask]
                        e [log in to unmask]