Dear All,

Sorry to come in on this discussion so late (it has meant a lot of 
catching up!) but this goes to the heart of what HERs are about and the 
ways in which we should go about documenting the historic environment. 
When I first went to work for the NMR I was dismayed by the discussions 
that used to take place on this list regarding whether or not desk-based 
research does or does not constitute an "Event". Life is too short. If 
an HER needs to document desk-based research (and why shouldn't it?) 
then either "Event" should include this type of activity or the model is 
deficient. In fact, I feel that we moved beyond the 
Monument/Event/Archive model a long time ago and I would be very sad if 
MIDAS II did not recognise the need of HERs to be able to record a wide 
range of events and activities. To do this we need to step back from 
what we have been doing up to now and consider what is really meant by 
an event (and its relationship to activities, or for that matter, 
periods). We also need to draw a distinction between the way in which we 
model our information and the way we implement it in information systems 
and software. This is an area where the CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model 
(my thanks to Phil for drawing attention to it) can play a useful role 
as it has examined these core concepts of documentation in great detail, 
with a huge amount of input from the archaeological community. The CRM 
is particularly important to this discussion because it is an 
event-centric data model - It recognises the central importance of 
events to the modelling of information in our domain of discourse. MIDAS 
was mapped to the CRM and the CRM adjusted accordingly to ensure that it 
covered all MIDAS concepts. There are many concepts in the CRM that are 
likely to be needed by HERs that are not covered by MIDAS.

As I understand it, this discussion kicked off with Sheena Payne's 
question on how to record fires. Fires are useful in demonstrating the 
distinction between an activity and an event. In terms of the CRM it is 
a question of intent. The CRM defines an activity as follows:

"This class comprises actions intentionally carried out by instances of 
E39 Actor that result in changes of state in the cultural, social, or 
physical systems documented.
This notion includes complex, composite and long-lasting actions such as 
the building of a settlement or a war, as well as simple, short-lived 
actions such as the opening of a door."

If Sheena's fire was the result of arson then it would be fair to 
describe it as an activity. If it was the result of dry grass igniting 
due to the concentration of the sun's rays through a piece of broken 
glass then clearly it is not. In terms of the CRM an activity is a 
sub-class of Event (along with "Beginning of Existence" and "End of 
Existence").

Phil (with the help of Freddie - see posting 19/07) makes a number of 
good points in saying that our use of the term Event in the 
monument/event/archive model is too restrictive. I sent a contribution 
to Tanja Sundstrom some time ago on this subject expressing concern 
about a proliferation in MIDAS II of different event/activity types (and 
I share the blame for this by not thinking this through properly when we 
first started to scope MIDAS II). We need to be careful about extending 
the standard in a way that is too rigid and inflexible. What do we do 
when we come across new types of event or activity that don't fall 
within the definitions of our new information schemes?  I came to the 
same conclusion as Phil that it would be better to use a typing 
mechanism (relying on an Event/Activity thesaurus in Inscription). In 
this way we have an easy mechanism for allowing MIDAS to anticipate new 
needs. It would also allow multiple indexing (not that I want to reopen 
that debate.....!). Phil is right that many archaeological events and 
activities become historical over the course of time. Also, an 
event/activity associated with the management of a monument may (and 
frequently does) result in the discovery of more information about that 
monument. Our information models need to be capable of implementation in 
information systems. But we don't want the limitations of existing 
information systems to dictate the way in which we model our 
information. The two need to evolve in tandem: hence the importance of 
engaging software vendors in standards development so that they have 
advance warning of the changing needs of their market.

I agree with Tom Evans - we could do with a a good discussion about all 
this, possibly in the form of a conference. We shouldn't be afraid of 
this issue - It doesn't invalidate what has been documented up to now. 
It merely recognises that there is more out there for us to be taking 
into account. For the sake of interoperability we should agree on a core 
of information that should be contained in an SMR/HER. But like Nick I 
believe that there is no reason for an HER to be constrained by this.

Oh well! Back to the natural environment!

Best wishes,

Matthew
> Hi Guys
>
> I have stayed out of this discussion, but think Mr Evans has hit the
> point here - the danger of using in a jargon sense a word that has an
> everyday meaning which is less specific - in this case Event. Part of
> the confusion in this discussion has been because people have tried to
> use the normal meaning to explain the jargon meaning, which doesn't
> actually help.
>
> In that sense, it is worth noting that in HBSMR the relevant module is
> called Events and Site Activities.
>
> If Midas II is going to deal with all the different types of events,
> then the sensible lesson to learn would be to try and call them
> different things (eg Historical Happening(?!), Archaeological
> Intervention/Investigation/Activity, whatever) - with thought given to
> making them distinguishable in Jargon terms easily, but also making
> sense in normal language to stop this sort of confusion in the future
> (so that would mean not using the same word to mean more than one thing
> if possible).
>
> This may mean the whole EMA model needs renaming/recasting (but in
> effect don't many people call the archive bit Sources anyway?).
>
> And this should also apply to Monuments bit - having a discussion about
> HBSMR when Monument can mean Record type (eg Building, Findspot or a
> Record type of Monument!), Monument Type (eg Moat etc) or the Module
> used to record all these things get very difficult. I can understand why
> this developed, but recognising this issue and trying to deal with it
> for MIDAS II might be timely. Especially if post MIDAS II there will be
> a push to get more people to adopt the standard.
>
> And before anyone suggests that renaming the EMA to something else may
> cause confusion, I would just say Its too late guys, the worms are
> already all over the shop
>
> and finally, to all of you think this is all just navel gazing, and
> can't be arsed, remember guys, just because you CAN record something,
> doesn't mean you HAVE to... ; )
>
>
> 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] 20/07/2006 14:45:12 >>>
>>>>         
> While this is a good point, to play upon what both Roger and Brian have
> said, while the Great Fire (meaning the burning episode of London) was
> an Event in the broad sense of the word, it was not an Event in the
> original SMR Jargon sense of the word - an observation, investigation,
> recording event.  
>  
> This is, of course the problem with technical jargon, it is very
> specific, but also changes in a very post-modern sense... as does all
> language (case in point, the use of the word "quite" in Britain.  It has
> the definition of "very" but the frequent sarcastic use of the word has
> given it the opposite connotation).
>  
> What is more, the Great Fire of London could be seen as a Recording
> Event (thus it's entry in the Event Table)... it is tied to both a large
> number of monuments (most identified sites of London), it also begs the
> question as to whether or not "London" is defined as a monument?  
>  
> This may seem a silly point, but is tied to the nature of Landscape
> investigations... where does the concept of region, general area and
> specific site begin and end... 
>  
> Are the different elements of the construction of the National Trust
> property of White Horse Hill (Oxon) single events (not recording events)
> within a unified site (obviously the landscape is related) or are they
> individual sites tied together in a landscape?
>  
> Regardless, we still remain at a problem which is that many of us seem
> to WANT to record Historic Events in the SMR, but that the present
> tables structure does not have a proper field for it.... unless we
> REDEFINE what the Event tables are meant to be...  
>  
> Something that, from this discussion seems to be going on anyways since
> there is a very strong disagreement of the use of Events to mean Rec
> Events, vs. the continuing argument that it should just be used as an
> Event.
>  
> I still think we should add a separate category for Historic or
> Interpretational Episodes...  but I suppose it begs the question of what
> an SMR is for... where are the limits?  
>  
> Is it a full interpretational record of archaeological happenings, or
> is it a simple gazetteer? 
>  
> What meaning does the SMR have without context of known historical
> episodes (like the Great Fire)... how meaningful are the records if this
> level of interpretation is not included? 
>  
> If I was researching the Great Fire of London, how would I query the
> data to be able to find the archaeological records related to it?  
>  
> In contrast, if a single burning episode in a site is
> interpretationally tied to the Great Fire, how much of a risk do we run
> of that becoming a piece of defacto fact vs. its simple hypothetical
> origins?
>  
> Personally, I feelt this ties deep to the heart of what HERs are all
> about and probably needs to have an actual... dare I say it...
> collective decision made regarding it, either at a Conference or
> elsewhere....
>
> 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.
>