In message
<[log in to unmask]>
on Fri, 14 Dec 2001, "Wardle, Chris (DSD)"
<[log in to unmask]> wrote
>I would wish to make the
>comment that I don't believe that text based data is any longer the best way
>of dealing with the Grade/Status of Monuments.
. . .
>So take an historic settlement recorded on an SMR: Some of it might be a
>Conservation Area, other bits (possibly overlapping) might be an Register
>Park, an SSSI and the bits round the church might be in ecclesiastical use.
>There might be 3 separate scheduled monuments. There might be 50 listed
>buildings, 1 of which might be Grade I, perhaps 4 might be Grade II* and the
>rest Grade II. There is no point in trying to sum up all this in a text
>database. It is much better to show this complexity as separate layers on a
>GIS. And it is this that we should be creating standards for.
Is it not the case, though, that for each bit or layer, however you
decide to divide them up, you have to have some way of specifying its
properties? A GIS may well be the best way of separating out the various
components, and you can apply indexing terms at various levels of
granularity - either to the site as a whole, to sub-divisions, or to
individual elements. These terms can be expressed in textual form or as
symbols on a graphical representation - though you still need a textual
legend to explain what the symbols mean.
Nothing in what you say seems to reduce the need for a controlled and
standardised list of indexing terms.
Leonard Will
--
Willpower Information (Partners: Dr Leonard D Will, Sheena E Will)
Information Management Consultants Tel: +44 (0)20 8372 0092
27 Calshot Way, Enfield, Middlesex EN2 7BQ, UK. Fax: +44 (0)20 8372 0094
[log in to unmask] [log in to unmask]
---------------- <URL:http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/> -----------------
|