in response to ed's comments i think the relationship is great however
indeed there is a minor problem in terms of the current MIDAS however
the users like the idea of flexible relationships to monuments. The idea of
functional (peer-peer)
Chronological (peer-peer)
Contemporary Complex (peer-peer)
Cultural (peer-peer)
All Groups (peer-peer)
Interpretational Group (peer-peer)
geographical (parent -child)
is quite useful. I wonder if some of them are surplus to requirements i.e
Chronological is useful as the period field will do that for you...
always wondered if the actual parent - child relationship should lie with
the Contemporary Complex or Functional as a site may well be within the
same geoprahical area however not associated whereas a complex may
more likely be functionally or contemporary with other monuments that
may well be further away.
we use the above two alot in terms of relationships ....
Mike Shaw if you wish my predessor NIgel Pratt wrote a good little
document on this and all about monument relationships. We have since
added bits to this to make it into a NTSMR guidance note. I am happy to
send a copy to you if you wish.
cheers
Jason
>>> "Lee, Edmund" <[log in to unmask]> 4/March/2002
12:07pm >>>
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)
|