What about those SMR's or amenity societies who haven't got GIS capability?
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: Wardle, Chris (DSD) [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 14 December 2001 15:34
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Peer Review Opening Message Protection Grad e/Status
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leonard Will [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 14 December 2001 15:07
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Peer Review Opening Message Protection Grad e/Status
>
> 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.
[Wardle, Chris (DSD)] Firstly; we need boundaries not symbols.
Secondly no text based approach, matches what you get from a
mapped/graphical one.
> Nothing in what you say seems to reduce the need for a controlled and
> standardised list of indexing terms.
> [Wardle, Chris (DSD)] So, yes standards are needed; but there's little
> point in developing complex text based ones when we should be thinking of
> what's needed for GIS.
>
> 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/> -----------------
|