Dear All
Further to the message about 'nautical' information, I think that any new
standard should be focussed directly on 'boats/ships' or 'vessels' rather
than a more general term such as 'nautical' or maritime', as all of the
outstanding problems relate solely to sites that are vessels or possible
vessels.
As far as the concept list is concerned, 'Manner of Loss' does not coincide
exactly with 'burnt down' or 'ploughed out' as the manner of loss concerns
the way in which the vessel first entered the archaeological record, not how
it has degraded subsequently. It is usefulto know that a vessel 'stranded'
or 'went aground' rather than 'sank', for example, because a stranded vessel
could have been refloated leaving no permanent trace in the archaeological
record.
Port of Destination/Registration and 'Associated Location' . I think it
would be preferable to retain separate Port of Destination/Registration
fields as they provide immediate access to the analysis of shipping patterns
(relevant, for example, if trying to establish the maritime cultural
landscape of a region), and they also direct the searcher to the possible
location of documentary sources (i.e. port registers).
Casualty/Other could be subsumed satisfactorily under Evidence.
Vessel Types can be added to the list of Monument Types, plus 'Obstruction'
and 'Anomaly' for possible wrecks noted by trawlers and marine geophysical
surveys respectively.
Presumably Height aOD can be recorded with a negative prefix, i.e. -20m aOD.
Though NB, water depths are often in metres below Chart Datum, and there is
no general way of translating mOD into mCD.
When recording Lat and Long it may be necessary to record 'Projection' as
well as hemisphere, as some charts and marine GPS users operate on a non-OS
projection.
Named Location could be subsumed satisfactorily under Locality.
I hope that this helps!
Antony Firth
Wessex Archaeology
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|