Neil et al
Could you please specify which candidate terms you submitted "in respect of
parks and gardens and local terminology" and to whom you submitted them. As
Parks and Gardens fall under Monument Types they should have come to myself
either through a candidate term form (available to photocopy in the
published version) or using the candidate term form on the website which
comes straight to me via email.
With many candidate terms there is no need for them to be reviewed by the
appropriate working party as the rule of precedence often applies. Examples
of this include factories dealing in specific processes or different house
plans etc. These are normally included automatically and the submitter
notified. If the term is deemed appropriate for inclusion it actually only
takes a minute for me to discuss with my colleagues whether we feel it is
suitable or not.
If the term has no precedent in the thesaurus or we cannot agree whether it
should be included then it goes to the appropriate group. For monuments this
is FISH and for Objects the mda Archaeological Objects Thesaurus Working
Group. In this situation the turnaround time will vary as both FISH and the
AOWG only meet twice a year.
As David Thomas has pointed out the advisory groups may be able to speed
this up.
I'm sorry if this has already been said by someone on the SMRFORUM or other
list but I've been on my sickbed for the last couple of days and having read
the emails relating to this I just thought I'd better explain the situation.
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: Neil Campling [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 15 May 2002 09:07
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [FISH] Updating Word Lists
Dear All,
Nigel has said "the ALGAO lists are agreed. The lists are usually the
property of those who compiled them and it is up to the list owners to
handle their management".
And Paul has said "these lists were compiled over a period of time (partly
my fault for delays) but they did involve two rounds of consultation, and
they were formally agreed by the ALGAO SMR committee on behalf of ALGAO as
the 'owners' of the lists. However, this was envisaged as only the first
stage, to get a core list out that could then be modified ... candidate
terms ought to be submitted to the ALGAO SMR committee - I can't recall this
happening yet (perhaps we need to explain the Inscription procedures a bit
more clearly?) but it is clear there are some terms out there, so why not
send them in via Nigel as list maintainer, and we can get things moving
properly and in a more orderly way".
This is the nub of the problem. The procedures for introducing new terms or
updating scope notes, etc are unclear and not inclusive. The list
maintainers haven't set out their stall properly.
When I was consulted on the ALGAO - Inscription lists, I made a number of
comments and suggestions. Nobody came back to me with a formal published
document to show the final list and scope notes, to show me how my
suggestions had been incorporated or not. The ALGAO SMR committee approved
the word lists without circulating a final ALGAO document. The procedures
for a bringing a candidate term into the final list are unclear. What's the
difference between candidate terms, auxiliary lists, and the standard list
?? How long do terms have to be candidates or auxiliaries before they
become standard ? I made a number of suggestions for candidate terms in
respect of parks and gardens and local terminology, but I haven't a clue if
anybody has taken these on board. A little feedback, including a hard copy
manual on the topic, to list members might just go down a treat. If the
process of list creation and maintenance isn't transparent and formalised,
how do you expect members to get enthused and involved in the process ?
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.
|