I'm inclined to agree with Andrew, a standard data structure will go a long
way toward resolving the display issue, particularly for heritage managers.
It is perfectly feasible to create a standard set of symbols that is mapped
to a standard set of terms. As long as the contractors create digital
datasets that conform to the database schema (correct attributes, feature
geometries) you can drop them into your database and represent them with the
correct symbols.

There are some challenges in the database design process - notably, how to
render features with ambiguous geometries, or at different scales. Is a
triumphal arch a point feature or an area feature? Is a long narrow shell
midden a line, an area, or a point? What if the midden was recorded in 1940
as a circle on a map of the coastline?

It will be easier to implement a standard symbol set for routine
visualization of limited numbers of well defined classes of features than
for exploratory visualization of many diverse types of features. I'd say the
prospects are brighter for such a project in a resource management context
than in a research context.

-Bob

Bob Booth
ESRI Software Documentation
Archaeology User Interest Group Coordinator
http://www.esri.com/industries/archaeology/index.html

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Millard [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2001 10:14 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Standard symbologies


Neil and all the other FISHers

On Tue, 2 Oct 2001, Neil Campling wrote:

> I can't disagree, but you are looking at things from the perspective of
> a researcher or creator of visualisation.  I'm not.  When a dozen or
> more contractors begin to send digital spatial data to the SMR for
> inclusion on the SMR, I don't want to have to convert every one to a
> standard SMR format each time a report comes in.  We get reports in at a
> rate of about one every two days.  I want to be able to immediately load
> up the data and hot-link into the SMR GIS.  I don't want one contractor
> with pink dots for SAMs and another with green splodges, and another
> with red hachures.  SAMs at the very least should have a standard way of
> being visualised across applications.

But if the underlying data structure/terminology is correct then these
things shouldn't matter.  You load the data into the SMR.  Minutes, days
or years later you retrieve data from the SMR.  In retrieving data for
whatever purpose you have to make choices about which data to retrieve and
which visualisation to use (perhaps you only ever use one - no problem).
The visualisation should be independent of the data source providing the
data was properly structured to start with.

We may want standard visualisations for certain purposes, but a proper
data structure will allow you and me to view the same data just as each of
us want, without having to agree on a visualisation in order to exchange
data.  I'm writing/viewing this message in Pine, other list members will
be using all sorts of software with different fonts etc, but because there
is an agreed data structure, the presentation is separated from the
content.  At which point it must be time to call in the XML experts.....

Andrew

 =========================================================================
 Dr. Andrew Millard                              [log in to unmask]
 Department of Archaeology, University of Durham,   Tel: +44 191 374 4757
 South Road, Durham. DH1 3LE. United Kingdom.       Fax: +44 191 374 3619
                     http://www.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/
 =========================================================================