Neil

hi

just to pick up on a point

"Jason in his e-mail points out a number of other procedures he uses."

That is not true these are developments that are under general
consideration and are at the recomendation stage that may well be
applied to all INSCRIPTION lists ... there is a broad agreement that for
information is required ...

Especially about update procedures
Also i do agree list owners must be more pro-active .... to ensure the
standard develops .... meets users growing needs (standards are not
set in stone and will develop) etc

as for
" Page B18 of the SMR Guidelines is not particularly clear. Who or
which working party do we submit candidate terms to ? What feedback
will we get ? How long will the working party take to make a decision ? "

that is why we (being the attending members) are considering the
procedures I listed ... the Data content group will be One Group that will
be involved in approving candidate terms for lists that have no
procedure.

For instance the EH (previously) RCHME Monument Types Thesaurus
has a recognised process for candidate terms etc some lists do not ...
hence that is one of the key things that the data content group needs to
do (As the group manager David Thomas maybe you would like to talk
about how you would envisage this working??)

As or who you submit candiate terms to ... it should have contact details
attached..... and also a section on how to submit candidate terms on that
specific terminology. Which should answer your question.

I should note every INSCRIPTION list must have a description and
hopefully in due course compliance guidance ... as i noted previously we
are looking to re-design the descriptions for terminologies and the results
for the new design and how they were recieved by users were
encouraging ... everyone seemed to like the idea of more information
being available ....

Cheers
Jason A. Siddall
>>> Neil Campling <[log in to unmask]>
15/May/2002 09:43am >>>
Dear Paul & All,

Paul said "you can't please everybody all the time and we all have to
make a few compromises for the common good". We shouldn't be
compromising on the clarity of procedure. Page B18 of the SMR
Guidelines is not particularly clear. Who or which working party do we
submit candidate terms to ? What feedback will we get ? How long will
the working party take to make a decision ? Jason in his e-mail points out
a number of other procedures he uses. How do these relate to Page
B18? It's not that I'm not pleased with the development of standard word
lists, but I want a simple standard procedure with feedback which
allows a clear understanding of how and when terms will get into the
word lists, and a formal acknowledgement of incorporation (or not as the
case may be).

Cheers
Neil




      WARNING

This E-mail and any attachments may contain information
that is confidential or privileged, and is intended solely for
the use of the named recipient. If you are not the intended
recipient, please be aware that any disclosure, copying,
distribution or any action taken is prohibited and may be
unlawful.

Any opinions expressed are those of the author and not
necessarily the view of the Council.

North Yorkshire County Council.