Dear all

The peer review packs for the Source & Archive and Protection Grade / Status
should have arrived to those of you that have expressed a desire to review
the draft terminology. I am now opening an informal session on the Fish List
as a forum to talk about the issues raised and about the terminology
suggested.

Just a few notes on e-mail discussion:

As its informal I will keep it open until 20 December 2001
*       I am not hi-jacking the FISH list, please continue with normal
traffic.
*       Peer reviewers do not have to send anything on the FISH list (and
this does not replace the paper copies that have been sent to you all) this
is just an opportunity to talk about the draft terminology- if you wish to.
*       I would welcome negative as well as positive comments. However
please keep to e-mail etiquette.
*       Consider this as a round table session (with Jason A. Siddall as
informal chair).
*       I will be sending supporting material and posting a few short items
in the next few weeks for people to discuss or think about while you are
looking at the draft terminology.

In terms of the material that has been sent to peer reviewers

As a very big health warning
It is DRAFT and still very rough
There is a number of errors (please see errata) and some purposely missed
items, scope notes etc

Why are there errors and some missing bits?
I am keen to ensure that peer reviewers do not see this as a done deal.
It is your chance to suggest the content and structure of these two lists.
This includes the content of scope notes which some are quite poor.
I am sure the lists will go through a lot of changes before the end of
January.
The peer review will (I hope) strengthen the content and hopefully develop a
consensus.
Also note if the consensus is that something is not liked then it can be
changed so please do not dismiss the list just because you do not like some
things in it.

So please make suggestions!

ERRATA

1) The scope note for artefact drawing should read:

artefact drawing
Scope Note
A drawn representation of an object that has been made modified or used by
humans.

2) The scope note for architectural survey should read:

architectural survey
Scope Note
Survey of building or standing monument.

3) In the Class List <By Technique>

The term below is missing from the hierarchy, it is however in the scope
notes.

rectified photography

The term lies as a Narrow term of

Image, photography,

Joining FISH and Digital copies of Peer Review Packs
For those that are note members of FISH, you are more than welcome to join:

Follow these steps:

1. send e-mail to [log in to unmask]
2. leave subject and title line blank
3. in the body text type
        join fish followed by name of joiner
        --

e.g.
        join fish jason siddall
        --

4. send e-mail and confirmation will be sent back

For those of you that have expressed a desire for digital versions of the
document or if you wish to be involved in the peer review Edmund Lee has
kindly uploaded the peer review pack onto the FISH list.

There are two ways to access the documents, by email, or on the web. Using
email the documents will be sent to you as attachments. The first three
files are MS-Word documents, the last two are .rtf format.

*Email access
To access the files by email send the following as the only text of a
message to the address [log in to unmask] (NB not the fish address!)

get fish\filename.xxx
--

replacing filename.xxx with the name of the file you want. The files names
are shown in the web-links below (the bit after the last / symbol). NB for
the last two files ensure that spaces in the name are replaced with _
(underscore characters).

e.g. to get the monument status peer review document send the message to
[log in to unmask]

gets fish\PRDocsMonumentStatus.doc
--

*Web access
To access the files on the web, look at the following addresses (NB ensure
that you have the full url - if it has wrapped over more than one line you
may need to type it in by hand into your browser)

1) Peer review on Monument Status terms
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/files/FISH/PRDocsMonumentStatus.doc

2) Peer review on Archive / Source terminology
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/files/FISH/PRDocsSource&Archive.doc

3) Peer review covering letter and list of participants
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/files/FISH/PRPeerReviewLetter.doc

4) Description of the project, objectives, methods etc
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/files/FISH/PRProject_BriefTerminologies_for_SMR_s.
rtf

5) Results of research into the issues.
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/files/FISH/PRResearchResultsTerminologies_for_SMR_
s.rtf

That's about it for now,
I hope that those involved in the peer review will find this a positive
experience I value your feedback and I hope that by the end of this process
we will have two strong terminology lists that can used in our systems.

Thank you for your involvement

Jason A. Siddall
NTSMR Officer