Good afternoon everyone,

The Forum on Information Standards in Heritage, and its predecessors have
focussed over the last couple of years on the development of two sorts of
standards: data content (MIDAS) and indexing terminology (INSCRIPTION).

Content standards such as MIDAS set out what sort of information should be
recorded. In other contexts these might be referred to as metadata
standards. 'Monument Type' for example is a defined unit of information or
basic fact that should be recorded in an inventory of monuments. Terminology
standards such as INSCRIPTION (see also authority lists, thesauri,
word-lists, semantic networks etc) control the actual values that can be
used to record a particular unit of information. Different sorts of
terminology standards allow for different retrieval functions from a
database.

There is more to it than that though. Two additional areas of work
contribute towards the overall goal of easy exchange and re-use of digital
information. These might be described as 'recording practice' and 'software
functionality' standards. A consideration of GIS as an issue may perhaps
lead FISH away from its familiar reefs and into these deeper waters.

By recording practice standards I mean the guidelines provided to staff who
are entering data on a database, or, in this context, digitising geo-spatial
features. These might typically cover topics such as 'what sort of sites do
we record', 'what level of detail do we record to'. Shared standards in this
area ensure that two organisations with similar intentions will collect the
same sort of data , making it easier to exchange or search across the two
data sets.

By software functionality I mean the range of things that a particular piece
of software - be it a database or a GIS system' allows you to do. This might
include, for example, 'can data entered into this field be controlled by a
list of terms or is it free text', 'can I enter just a single term, or can I
use several different terms', 'what formats can I export data from this
system in'.

I've put a diagram to summarise these in .gif format in the list archive -
you can download it by sending the following to [log in to unmask]

get fish\GISStandardsIssues.gif
--

In an ideal world these four areas of standardisation would all work
harmoniously together and respond to change. As an example from recent years
consider the need to record historic hedgerows (not my specialist area, so
forgive any naivety here):-

i) To record hedgerows consistently might prompt a change to current
recording practice (i.e. 'use these sources to create hedgerow records in
these circumstances' - 'only hedgerows of a certain type will be recorded'
etc).

ii) Some additional type of information that hasn't been recorded previously
may be required (ie a change to the content standards in MIDAS - for example
'soil type').

iii) This in turn may suggest that a new terminology standard is needed to
cover different soil types (or better still adoption of an existing
standard).

iv) Finally, the software used to support the community of heritage
inventories needs to have a 'soil type' field added to it, and perhaps
appropriate updates to search and reporting functions to allow the records
to be retrieved and displayed.

Unfortunately these four areas - content, terminology, recording practice,
and software functionality are all affected by factors quite apart from the
drive towards easy exchange of data. Changes in the demands placed on
heritage data records rarely wait for appropriate national standards to be
put in place, while technological changes are more likely to be driven by
the IT industry than the heritage sector.

So how do we navigate these uncharted and turbulent waters? Well - that's
what we're here for (wherever we are - if you see what I mean). To what
extent are the standards for recording practice across the heritage
community already in place? What existing or emerging standards from the GIS
industry are appropriate to our needs?

I look forward to hearing from everyone.

Edmund Lee
FISH Co-ordinator