A rider to my earlier posting, (and at risk of talking to myself :-).
Well, O.K. MIDAS *is* mentioned in the 'Strategies' document, on page 79
(and in the bibliography). The refererence, however, is a potentially
misleading one. It ranks MIDAS alongside the RCHME Thesaurus of Monument
Types as a source to 'promote consistent use of terms'.
MIDAS is *not* about terms - it's about *content*. The distinction is more
than mere pedantry I think. We need to get into the habit of distinguishing
between content and terminology standards, as they are applicable in
different contexts. The ideal, of course, is to use MIDAS for content and
INSCRIPTION for terminology (at least in Monument level inventories).
However the link between content and terms was specifically found to be a
problem with the 1993 predecessor to MIDAS and INSCRIPTION, 'Recording
England's Past' (RCHME 1993). The vision as I see it is parallel standards
for content and terminology, allowing adoption of, say, MIDAS for content in
a context where the available terminology in INSCRIPTION is not relevant
(Sri Lanka, for example).
MIDAS is the national application of the ICOM standard, and should be
referred to in this context, rather than alongside the Thesaurus.
Edmund
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|