Hi Ed
these seem sensible changes to me
best wishes
Nick Boldrini
Historic Environment Record Officer
Heritage Section
Countryside Service
North Yorkshire County Council
Direct Dial (01609) 532331
This email is personal. It is not authorised by or sent on behalf of
North Yorkshire
County Council, however, the Council has the right and does inspect
emails sent from
and to its computer system. This email is the sole responsibility of
the sender
>>> [log in to unmask] 18/02/2005 11:55:54 >>>
Hello all,
As many of you will recall, the DCMS consultation on HERs in 2002
included a draft definition of what data fields should be included in an
HER, covering Monuments, Events and Archive/Source data, based upon the
MIDAS standard. This was issued as a draft as part of the DCMS
consultation paper.
See:-http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/files/HERFORUM/Benchmark1.1Nov_2002.doc
I would now like to open discussion on a proposed change to the Draft
Level 1 Benchmark compliance data standard. This follows on from a
request for clarification from exeGesIS, and I'm grateful to Tobi Tonner
there for bring this issue to my attention. Although the draft
definition has not, to my knowledge, been given a full official approval
(it is not specifically referred to in the DCMS report) it has been out
there as an point of reference for two years, so isn't something that
can be changed without consultation. I'm keen therefore to have your
views.
The issue relates just to the Archive/Source records part of the Draft.
Monument and Event areas are unaffected. There are two related issues:-
1) As set out the Draft *requires* the recording of administrative area
and grid reference against archive/source items.
2) The Draft does not refer to the recording of the MIDAS unit of
information 'Archive/Source Location'. This unit is recommended by
MIDAS, and is defined as recording "the actual location of archive
materials referred to, to assist in future retrieval".
My proposals are that
1) the recording of administrative area and grid reference data be
'downgraded' to optional (indeed it would probably not be in the
benchmark definition at all).
2) Archive Source Location be added as mandatory, both to better
implement the MIDAS recommendation, and to provide for better recording
I would welcome comments on these proposals, on or off list, and also
on how HER folk feel this proposal should be circulated for approval. Is
an email consultation adequate? Would you like a more formal
consultation on the proposed change? Who, ultimately, should 'sign-off'
the draft benchmark?
Best wishes
Edmund Lee
Data Standards Supervisor
Data Standards Unit
English Heritage
National Monuments Record Centre
Kemble Drive
Swindon
SN2 2GZ
United Kingdom
t: +44 (0) 1793 414791
e: [log in to unmask]
f: +44 (0) 1793 414770
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.
|