Thank you ed

hmm that sounds a step in the right direction

Essentially i think what is proposed seems sensible...  it does set down
an ability to look at broader technical and content issues.

I would say that the content of the files is what i think FISH can really get
its teeth into in terms of the heritage sector.

Technical
being file formats (yes i am sure ADS can really help with that - and
probably have much of that well tied up in their guidance notes but it
maybe a cataylist to promolgate such standards wider? ADS??? what
do you feel about that???). Yes Neil is right its another important facet to
this issue.

Content
being layers, symbols etc (which is at present what both Paul  and I
have been noting as being a key area to resolve)

i.e. I know it sounds stupid (but its gonna be real key to being able to
exchange and look at one another information and data) but how do you
depict a site on a map .... symbols or what should you be braking a CAD
survey into in terms of layers etc there ofcause needs to be some level
of flexibility but a base line can be generated a level of content standard
can and must be achieved especially with GIS (we are already
exchanging layers with external organisations).

essentially what you are suggesting Ed sounds fine.... maybe though we
can be very clear and add a line noting that we will look to develop with
partners base line standards of layers, symbology etc used in CAD, GIS
to enable us to read one anothers digital data where ever we are.... or
who ever we are.

indeed i think content standards are a burning issue in Historic
Landscape Characterisation circles as they have realised that they are
using widely different terminology that they are basing their areas on.
So they are not able to link their results together or provide a common
terminology for non heritage users.

I do understand the reservations but i think it is a key issue that needs
some good concentrated thought and liasion. If we don't we are begging
problems for the future.

Ed I agree that it may be worth considering terms of reference for the
new FISH.

hmm thats my penny's worth on this

I'm away tommorrow so will not be able to answer further to this
excellant discussion til monday.

cheers (have a good weekend everyone)

Jason A. Siddall
NTSMR Officer
>>> "Lee, Edmund" <[log in to unmask]> 14/June/2001
03:19pm >>>
Jason, Paul,

Thanks for your comments about GIS (and also Neil about images)- I
guess my
reservations about getting into this technical area need to be
reconsidered.
Can I suggest that the following 3-part model for FISH future work is
emerging from discussion:-

1. *Content* standards for text-based heritage information (databases,
metadata resource descriptions etc). This is currently covered by
MIDAS, but
needs expanding (and integration with other existing standards)to cover
additional areas including (but not limited to):-
i)what information should be recorded about historic 'areas' as opposed
to
individual site-base 'monuments' to support Jaosn National Trust
landscape
assessments, and EH Power of Place assessments;
ii)what should we record about amenity / visitor access and facilities etc;
iii)expanding bibliographic, documentary archive and objects type
information to the wider remit of 'resources' with an emphsis on
educational
materials description - c.f. the Metadata in Education Group.

2. *Terminology* standards, again to assist text-based heritage
applications
covering MIDAS and new areas identified above, particularly to assist
retrieval. INSCRIPTION provides a framework for this programme, but
needs
filling out. Areas to consider might be:-
i) Development of new terminologies to cover new areas of content
noted
above.
ii) Development of mappings between existing terminologies to support
searching across different data sets.
iii) resolving issues such as joint management of terminology resources
(e.g. using 'bits' of one thesaurus in another).

3. (the new area) *Technical* standards. This might cover:-
i)heritage sector specific recommendations for the use of propietary file
formats etc for data interchange between heritage organisations (ESRI
shape
files for GIS, JPEGs etc)
ii)development of XML DTDs to support interchange and searching
across
various resources.
iii) development of interchange protocols - a sort of 'Bath Profile' for the
historic environment  (see http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/interop-focus/bath/).

This is in effect the agenda that UKOLN has for the Libraries sector, and
that mda currently provides for museums. Taking this on may mean we
have to
widen our membership from its current base of data providers to IT
providers
and consultants, and look for more resources than we currently have,
as a
purely informal gathering of interested organisations and individuals.

Perhaps the moral is that our agenda needs to include not only future
work,
but future constitution as well...

Any thoughts?

Edmund
FISH Co-ordinator