Hi,
I'm not an HER person, rather a commercial archaeologist who happens to use a fair amount of data provided by HERs in my work, so forgive me if my point is not based on the same familiarity with the subject as the rest of you! I just have a point to make about the slightly broader issue of using this data in GIS packages and for analysis.
I agree with Simon, that a quantity field outside of the free text summary is really useful, if not vital. There are a couple of reasons for this. Firstly, I normally have to strip out the free text field (usually of type "memo") from any database before I can use the data in a GIS because the GIS can't handle that sort of data type properly. Therefore, if important objective data like quantities are in that field they are either lost, or I have to spend a long time copying the information that I need into another field. Secondly, how can you use that sort of data in any kind of analysis if you don't have an idea of quantities in a seperate field?
I agree partially with the argument that a quantity implies certainty, but surely you are recording only what has been found (which should be a certainty), rather than assuming that you know how many monuments/features/finds are actually there (which is a complete unknown)?
Thanks
Jo
-------------------------------------------
Joanne Cook BSc MLitt AIFA
Information Systems Coordinator
Oxford Archaeology North
-------------------------------------------
________________________________
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records on behalf of Simon Walton
Sent: Mon 12/06/2006 15:58
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Multiple Indexing
Hi,
This could run and run. Placing this information in text means it is unobtainable without
printing the full record. Taking pottery as an example I would wish to know whether 1 or
70 examples had been found to provide some quantitative measure on the record and
before looking further. i.e. do I have a chance find or something more substantial. It
could always be qualified with another field e.g. AT LEAST, NO MORE THAN,
EXACTLY.
On a broader sense we don't stop quantifying 'how many roman villas' have been
recorded just in case there might be out there. We have to always assume that
absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence and use the data accordingly.
cheers
Date sent: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:33:46 +0100
Send reply to: Issues related to Historic Environment Records <[log in to unmask]>
From: "CARLISLE, Phil" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Multiple Indexing
To: [log in to unmask]
> Hi Nick et al
> I think I'm right in saying that currently within AMIE the recording guidelines say not to use the quantity field but to note the quantity within both the summary and long text fields.
>
> I think the main reason for this is to do with the argument that was put forward, I think by Chris,
that if you can't say for sure exactly how many burials may still be out there that it would be misleading to add a quantity.
>
> However just because the NMR doesn't use a quantity field, even though we have one, it doesn't mean that MIDAS2 shouldn't include the option.
>
> I think this is something that we as a community need to reach a consensus on and, as with other recommendations, apply as/when we see fit.
>
> This may be something which each HER should have a policy on. Whether it be one of inclusion or exclusion.
>
> I get the feeling this is going to run and run......
>
> Phil
>
>
>
> Phil Carlisle
> Data Standards Supervisor
> National Monuments Record Centre
> Kemble Drive
> Swindon
> SN2 2GZ
> +44 (0)1793 414824
>
>
> The information contained within this e-mail is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee only. If you have received the e-mail in error, please inform the sender and delete it from your system. The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed to anyone else or copied without the sender's consent.
>
> Any views and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of English Heritage. English Heritage will not take any responsibility for the views of the author.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nick Boldrini
> Sent: 12 June 2006 09:02
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Multiple Indexing
>
> Hi Phil
>
> sorry for any confusion I have caused!
>
> Can I just ask if this means there is an assumption at the moment that
> you don't index to quantity?
>
> Is this stated anywhere?
>
> I thought I had read it somewhere but could do with a reference, if
> anyone can think of one
>
> thanks
>
> best wishes
>
> Nick Boldrini
> Historic Environment Record Officer
> Heritage Section
> Countryside Service
> North Yorkshire County Council
> County Hall
> Northallerton
> DL7 8AH
> Direct Dial (01609) 532331
>
> Conserving North Yorkshire's heritage - encouraging sustainable access
> www.northyorks.gov.uk/archaeology
>
> 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] 09/06/2006 09:19:02 >>>
> Hi everyone
> I'd just like to clear up any misunderstanding of what we mean by
> multiple indexing.
>
> I think all the issues have already been covered by both Tanja and
> Crispin but Simon has raised a pertinent point too ie that Monarch used
> to have a quantity field.
>
> This is indeed the case and the field is still retained, although much
> underused, in the current incarnation of the NMRs database AMIE.
>
> The issues relating to multiple indexing are the following.
>
> 1. If there is uncertainty as to what the monument is then both
> monument types should be indexed. Eg. if you have a mound in a field
> which could be a barrow or it could be a windmill mound, then you would
> double index (ie MULTIPLE INDEX) with both BARROW and WINDMILL MOUND.
>
> 2. If you have a monument type which is a non-preferred term which is
> represented in the thesaurus by two terms. Eg. Abbey Gate then you
> double index with ABBEY and GATE
>
> 3. If you have multiple monument types associated with one site eg. a
> BARROW CEMETERY which includes different BARROW types. In this instance
> you could just index as BARROW CEMETERY or you could multiple index
> with, BARROW CEMETERY, ROUND BARROW, DISC BARROW, BOWL BARROW etc.
>
> 4. If you have multiple occurrences of the same Monument Type eg.
> Chris's example of 1300 Inhumations then you (could) double index the
> record with INHUMATION CEMETERY and INHUMATION.
>
> Our suggestion is that we create a MIDAS unit of information called
> EXTENT.
>
> This would apply to monuments in the same way that ARCHIVE EXTENT is
> used.
>
> ARCHIVE EXTENT allows you to say how many items you have in a
> collection. So, for example, you can say in the BEDFORD LEMERE
> collection there are 52 boxes of photos. This means you don't have to
> create individual records for each box as all you are doing is
> signposting the size of the collection.
>
> Thus, Chris's example would appear as something like:
>
> PERIOD MONUMENT TYPE EXTENT/QUANTITY
> ANGLO-SAXON INHUMATION CEMETERY 1
> ANGLO-SAXON INHUMATION 1300
>
> This would allow anyone searching for large inhumation cemeteries with
> high numbers of burials.
>
> For the most part the EXTENT/QUANTITY field could default to 1 with the
> ability to overwrite if/when necessary.
>
> We've only just started thinking about whether this should be included
> and welcome input from the HER community. Any thoughts on whether you
> think the addition of this unit of information would be useful, or not,
> would be greatly appreciated.
>
> I hope I've managed to assuage any fears people had about having to
> reindex millions of records.
>
> Phil
>
> Phil Carlisle
> Data Standards Supervisor
> National Monuments Record Centre
> Kemble Drive
> Swindon
> SN2 2GZ
> +44 (0)1793 414824
>
>
> The information contained within this e-mail is confidential and may be
> privileged. It is intended for the addressee only. If you have received
> the e-mail in error, please inform the sender and delete it from your
> system. The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed to anyone else
> or copied without the sender's consent.
>
> Any views and opinions expressed in this message are those of the
> author and do not necessarily reflect those of English Heritage. English
> Heritage will not take any responsibility for the views of the author.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nicholson, Andrew
> Sent: 08 June 2006 16:34
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Multiple Indexing
>
> > When you revisit this, bear in mind what is reasonable.
> > 1300 inhumations were recently excavated from a single site
> > in the city. This is recorded as a inhimation cemtery. I
> > refuse to create additional 1300 records!
> >
>
> Likewise for 132 small cairns in a cairnfield.
>
> Andy
>
> Andrew Nicholson
> SMR Officer
> Planning and Environment (Archaeology)
> Dumfries and Galloway Council
> Tel: 01387 260154
> Fax: 01387 260149
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> http://www.dumgal.gov.uk
>
> Any email message sent or received by the Council may require to be
> disclosed by the Council under the provisions of the Freedom of
> Information
> (Scotland) Act 2002.
>
>
>
>
> 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.
Simon Walton
Systems Architect,
Project Jupiter, ext 3316
This message has been scanned for viruses by BlackSpider MailControl - www.blackspider.com
|
