On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 09:49:47 +0100, Newman, Martin <martin.newman@ENGLISH-
HERITAGE.ORG.UK> wrote:
>Catching up some of yesterdays postings I noticed the idea of field names
>lengths etc being floated. This more detailed approach was adopted for
>Recording Englands Past nearly 10 years ago. This as I remember was felt
too
>prescriptive and MIDAS adopted the idea of concepts. A good example of this
>is Min Date which could have an umber of uses within a heritage database
>such as min date of a monument or fieldwork or of a piece of archive. I
>think there is a role for this level of prescription for different types of
>heritage database, I have been looking at this very issue in relation to
HER
>applications. To apply this to MIDAS concepts however I feel could limit
the
>scope of the publication, MIDAS is at present and (I believe in future
>should continue to be) a concept based standard from which more detailed
>standards can be derived for different types of heritage application. Any
>thoughts?
I would agree that we should stick to a more generic approach. An XML
schema would support
limits on field length, etc., if we wanted it to, but I would be happier
with a more abstract
categorization of concepts and their associated content.
Richard Light
|