thank you martin
indeed their is a problem with the terminology being applied here ...
obvisously it may be easier to depart from the legal terminology
(accompanied by good scope notes may help in that case)
Jason
-----Original Message-----
From: Newman, Martin [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 10:33 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Peer Review: Applying terminology A discussion piece
I have two comments on this:
The 1986 protection of military remains act does not purely reply to
maritime it also covers crashed military aircraft on land.
There is a problem of semantics with "protected Places" a scheduled monument
or listed building is a place that has been protected. A more descriptive
term is required such as "protected military remains"
Martin
-----Original Message-----
From: Siddall, Jason [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 19 December 2001 10:23
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Peer Review: Applying terminology A discussion piece
hi everyone
During this project a number of issues were raised that are worth
considering as I promised I will be e-mailing around a number of issues that
are worth considering .... Both during this e-mail open forum and while you
are looking through the peer review packs.
You will note in the Protection Grade / Status list is a term
War Graves and
Protected places
Now these terms are based on Maritime status based on 1986 "protection of
military remains act"
There is a real problem here
As a lookup term or on a printout from a system Protected Places etc means
very little (it is not very clear)
Now this begs a fundamental question in terms of how we develop our
terminology
Do we opt for accepted terms that may be difficult to understand for users
of our systems - which risks mistakes in the indexing of a records or do we
depart from the legal terminology so we can ensure that we do not have
instances of mis-understanding?
what do you think
Jason?
|