YES - neil has hit the nail far better than i was doing
Neil you are correct and what you suggest is very sensible. I agree that
we need to develop the technology along the lines you are suggesting.
Indeed in terms of base line standards this would seem to be very
sensible suggestion. As for it not being for you to decide .. actually in
effect it is ... it is for users to decide what
they want
they need
what standards are appropriate
A base line is gained from a process of active Liason - organisations like
FISH are there to act as a forum to help develop those standards. Indeed
FISH has now begun to split its membership into a number of different
sub groups...
these groups ... content and technical are amongst them ..... allow for
people involved to become involved in setting national standards ... i.e
the development of MIDAS (which effects us all)
Ed would you like to mention more on the new FISH sub groups?? you
can describe them far better than i can.
Indeed it would be nice to see a base line requirement spec and
standards developed but to be honest i really do not see any indication
that is being undertaken.
Personally i agree GIS will be at the very core of what we do ....
whatever organisation work for and a many layered approach will be
required this may help with exchanging data as well ...
as neil suggests
i.e you would have a
NT SMR Data layer
DOB data layer etc
The standards and requirement spec are very important and it will allow
users and Technical people to work together instead of the adhoc
development of standards and application that is taking place at the
moment.
cheers
jason
>>> Neil Lockett <[log in to unmask]> 31/January/2002 08:56am
>>>
Dear List,
I would like to add my support for what John Wood has posted
about the future of GIS in respect to SMR's.
In general it appears, from a perusal of messages from the past
day or so, that the direction in which SMR users and managers
want to head is towards a management / interpretation system by
which records are queried and viewed from digital mapping, rather
than as text records.
In my humble opinion the key to this approach is to establish a
multiple layered system on the GIS. It does not matter too much
how many layers are created: whether it is only one or two, or
hundreds for different categories of events, monuments or sites
with statutory status. They do not have to be displayed all the time,
or even visible on the screen for querying.
In a fully functional GIS, layers would be integrated with databases
for record storage and retreval, with database record creation
derived from adding a new point, polygon or linear theme / object.
Multiple layers appear to be the answer to many problems posed,
such as the integration of Portable Antiquities and records with no
firm location. For these it would be posible to use polygon themes
of Parish (or smaller if possible / applicable) size. To these shapes
database record could be attached so that area or linear searches
could include this data.
From all of this it seems that to acheive such a mapping system
we need to establish a set of data standards for the creation of new
databases and for transferring existing ones. These need to set out
what the minimum requirements are which constitute a record. It is
not for me to decide upon this, and I'm sure that there are others
out there who have their own ideas on this.
Neil Lockett
Neil Lockett,
SMR Archaeologist,
Worcestershire County Council Archaeological Service,
University College Worcester,
Henwick Grove,
Worcester,
WR26AJ
|