Hi
having listened to all that has been said on this matter there seems to be a
few items of note
thanks to you all ... keep the discussion going
GIS does have some potential
It however has some limitations
1) Even with mapping we will never get away from having to have
common terms and their meanings. Even if they are on a map or in
a text database, we must know what we mean by
Listed Building or how we refer to it i.e is it LB, Listed
Building, LIBU etc (as Martin just noted see an article I have
just written concerning this very issue it will be in the next SMR news
and is based on research conducted by The National Trust research
Assistant).
2) Searching within records with or without Mapping will still
require us to tag our records with the designation - i.e show
me on this map all the listed buidlings etc
3) Mapping is still a luxury it is not something everyone can use
(however much we would like to). In a cash strapped
council/organisation it may not be possible to buy lots of software,
input, ammend data etc
4) Although we can use maps on the internet (ADS website is a good
example) we seem to be along way away from being able to use it as we
would a GIS on our systems.
5) GIS is a great way to define areas but a poor way to maintain
common terminology standards.
In fact much of the lists and terminology you are seeing are base line
standards the idea of compliance comes in here and the guidance for
compliance (i am just writing a short article to explain my thoughts on this
matter - this will be available on tuesday 18/12/2001). The terms indeed are
equally applicable to text databases as to a GIS layer. So we will always
need base line terminology standards even if we are using GIS solely (which
i think may happen but is many years away for SMR's).
as for there being no point in developing complex text based terminology and
opting for a GIS standard ... I wonder if that is not putting the cart
before the horse ...
We need FUNDAMENTAL BASE LINE TERMINOLOGY for our lists these can be applied
to a whole host of applications not just a text lookup (although thats what
most people use them for).
without which you will have a case of one person in one county calls a
Scheduled Monument a SAM another may well call it SM its pure chaos. It will
confuse the general public, fellow non archaeologist collueges - who
increasingly want and need to look at our information. We need a base line
accepted terminology so we all know what we mean when we say LB or Scheduled
Monument without having to provide 60+ different mapping scopes to numerous
terms. It is no longer enough that we in our little world of archaeology
understand things ..as statutory status looms we must ensure we are being
very clear about what we mean in our standards.
this is why we need terminology standards.
thats my penny's worth
cheers
Jason
-----Original Message-----
From: Newman, Martin [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 4:05 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Peer Review Opening Message Protection Grad e/Status
I agree that GIS is the best way to define areas of protection status,
however, an agreed list of terms for describing these is essential,
especially for data exchange. This point is admirably demonstrated in
forthcoming article by Jason which will appear in the next issue of SMR
News.
Martin
-----Original Message-----
From: Wardle, Chris (DSD) [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 14 December 2001 15:47
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Peer Review Opening Message Protection Grad e/Status
I state the case as I see it as an SMRO. Those SMRs that don't have GIS will
need to get it sooner or later. The amenity societies should also consider
it.
-My considered view is that text based systems alone are not adequate for
identifying Grade/Status.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlisle, Philip [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 14 December 2001 15:35
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Peer Review Opening Message Protection Grad e/Status
>
> 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/> -----------------
|
