Parent child relationships are relational database terms rather than HBSMR terms. I probably misuse the tree but still find the hierarchical spread very useful; 75 chest tombs linked to a churchyard under one record. press the space bar and read the details.
Thank you
David Evans
Environment and Conservation
>>> [log in to unmask] 04/03/2002 15:42:28 >>>
Dear Ed,
You say the term/ relationship "Parent-Child" is "hierarchical". Does this term describe a developmental or evolutionary process, where the child may be the same or different from the parent but associated by a developmental process in time? Or does it describe a componential or agglomerative association, where the child can only be a component of a larger parent. To use your associated monuments example, I may have a series of monument records the same in space but just different interpretations of the same evidence, or I might have a series of monuments that form different non-disputed components of a larger entity such as Roman city. How does your system cope with these subtleties ?
Cheers,
Neil
>>> [log in to unmask] 04/03/2002 12:07:50 >>>
Hello Mike,
My contribution is that the hierarchical relationships are an ExeGesIS
specific application of the broader principle set out in the MIDAS data
standard for monument inventories.
Where two similar records are linked (i.e. a monument linked to another
monument - as opposed to a monument linked to an event record) MIDAS
recommends the use of the 'Internal Cross-reference Qualifier' unit of
information. The explaination of this unit is online at
http://www.rchme.gov.uk/midas/dictionary/index.html
<http://www.rchme.gov.uk/midas/dictionary/index.html> or on page 84 of the
printed manual. In essence the qualifier indicates whether the relationship
between the two records is hierarchical (giving the example qualifiers 'Part
Of' and 'Consists Of') or simply relational ('Related To'). For the
INSCRIPTION terminology standard lists (developed after the implementation
of exeGesIS), a slightly re-worded standard list was recommended in 1998
using 'includes' , 'is part of', 'is related to' (see
http://www.mda.org.uk/fish/i_icq.htm <http://www.mda.org.uk/fish/i_icq.htm>
) .
The list of categories given by exGesIS complies to this recommendation in
its use of the 'Parent-Child' (ie hierachical) and 'Peer-Peer' (ie Related
to) indications in the list, but goes further in qualifying the basis on
which the association is made (e.g chronological, functional etc). Perhaps
technically this is a breach of the standard, as it combines into one
database field what are in effect separate units of information, but fully
MIDAS and INSCRIPTION compliant information could be derived from this set
up using the Peer-Peer and Parent-Child labels, so its not a major problem.
I'll be interested to hear how many exeGesIS using SMRs make use of the
categories, and if the INSCRIPTION List might in fact be a better (clearer)
list of options?
Edmund Lee
English Heritage
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Shaw [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 10:50 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: exeGesIS hierarchical relationships
Does anyone out there understand the exeGesIS hierarchical relationships?
Or know of an explanation of them anywhere - SMR News, perhaps? I have
tried the HBSMR user guide and Informing the Future of the Past but neither
give much detail, and I did try exeGesIs but they are unsure themselves.
Presumably all is lost in the mists of setting up HBSMR. Anyway it was
suggested that I set up a debate on the forum on the present relationships,
what they mean, whether they are adequate, what is needed etc, so here
goes...
Categories in my look up table are:
0 All Groups (Peer-Peer)
1 Geographical (Parent-Child)
2 Chronological (Peer-Peer)
3 Functional Associaion (Peer-Peer)
4 Cultural (Peer-Peer)
5 Interpretational Group (Peer-Peer)
6 Contemporary Complex (Peer-Peer)
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.
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it from South
Gloucestershire Council are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
notify the South Gloucestershire Postmaster at the following
address [log in to unmask]
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
**********************************************************************
|