Lee, Edmund wrote:
>I agree. As far as I am aware there is no widely used standardised way of
>capturing this data. There *is* in my experience a lot of commonality
>between e.g. context recording systems used in different units, but when you
>get down to the detail I suspect there is a lot of work needed to produce a
>nationally accepted standard.
>
>
I would agree, but given that a) by-and-large they are collecting the
same sort of data, and b) the recording process is well structured and
documented I certainly think we're starting from an advantageous position.
One thing worth considering would be a series of 'compliance levels,'
based on the commonality of the data, and/or a series of public and
private spaces within the data to record common and proprietry
attributes respectively. The public space would be things which are
identified as common to all recording systems, the private space for
things such as environmental analysis which potentially vary widely
between recording systems.
Andrew Larcombe
|