On Wednesday 10 Sep 2003 10:47 am, Nick Boldrini wrote:
> not sure where you picked this up, unless you mean its implicit in the =
> idea of developing a generic, model database which is MIDAS compliant for =
> people to use. If so, I can see your reservations, but think its not too =
> much of a problem, as long as it is clear that a model MIDAS database is =
> not the same as MIDAS, but an example of it in action
>
><snip>
>
> However, there is also the issue that higher level definitions are (I =
> suspect) preventing the wider use of the standard outside the LA - =
> HER/NMR/National Trust etc community
><snip>
> I suspect that these groups don't use
> MIDAS (and this = is based on personal experience of liaison with various
> groups) because = they are interested in archaeology, and not necessarily
> data standards, = database design, etc.
>
><snip>
>
> dealing with various Community Archaeology Projects and trying to design a
> = database for them to meet our needs and theirs, as well as future time to
> = deal with importing the databases they have created which are not MIDAS =
> compliant, but will arrive in our HER over the coming years.
For the record, if nothing else, I agree wholeheartedly with the points in
Nick's last message, especially that about the uptake of MIDAS standard data
in the wider community, eg those groups who don't have the personnel or
resources to produce their own database system.
A free, off-the-shelf application would 'commoditise' the application but add
value to the overall historic environment resource. Presently the situation
appears to be that the value resides in the database applications, and only
to a lesser extent the data that is created by them.
Andrew
|