Thought you might be interestsed in this post from the Forum for Information
Standards in Heritage web conference.
Dan




Crispin Flower <[log in to unmask]> on 10/03/2001 09:28:29 AM

Please respond to "The Forum for Information Standards in Heritage (FISH)"
      <[log in to unmask]>



 To:      [log in to unmask]

 cc:      (bcc: Dan Page/HullOttawa/PCH/CA)



 Subject: Re Correction to 'the usual'






     Sorry, I realise that in answering John Wood's point I gave
     misleading examples, many of which relate to different entities
     entirely and thus are not part of this problem (e.g. scheduled
     monument area vs. excavation area).

     Where the feature type standard is required is to differentiate
     between diff types of spatial feature relating to the SAME basic
     entities (such as monument or event to use SMR examples), where
     they cannot otherwise be distinguished from the classification of
     the entity itself. (and of course the classification of the
     entities themselves are already covered by existing standards, in
     southerly parts of the UK anyway!)

     Perhaps - continuing on JW's polygon theme - the more useful
     examples were a) 'area within which an site is thought to be
     located' vs  b) 'mapped monument'. I think there is more than just
     a difference in edge confidence level here. Lets say the site in
     question is a newly discovered Pitcarmick-type house measuring 21
     by 8 metres, but its actual location is totally unclear from the
     info available. The type a) polygon for this site might measure 200
     by 300 metres, while the type b) polygon measures 21 by 8m but has
     a low 'locational confidence' level. Both legitimately relate to
     the site, and they must be distinguishable. In the WoSAS SMR system
     such distinctions for diff polygon types are made simply with
     comments in the polygon attributes, but a more structured method
     would be greatly beneficial.

     And much of this is more pressing at the intra-site level, e.g. in
     the surveying of structures/earthworks/excavation trenches.
     Presumably the Royal Commissions have already had to grapple with
     some of this aspect in preparing data for the OS antiquity model?

     Regards
     Crispin


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
This message is intended only for use of the addressee. If this message
was sent to you in error, please notify the sender and delete this message.
Glasgow City Council cannot accept responsibility for viruses, so please
scan attachments. Views expressed in this message do not necessarily reflect
those of the Council who will not necessarily be bound by its contents.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------