Dear David,
The desk manual project aims to provide practical support for professionals
working in this area. It seeks to provide an accessible introduction to the
policy framework, standards, systems and procedures making reference to case
studies and other more detailed literature. Its purpose is to document
current best practice with the overall aim of promoting consistency.
Section 1 of the manual aims to provide an introduction to the history,
development, policy framework and the services offered. There is a place in
this section for a look towards future trends but the focus is on existing
arrangements. These are very varied and it is difficult to phrase the
introduction in a way that is inclusive. In fact the very sentence that you
were so concerned about has already been edited.
The manual refers to Sites and Monuments Records because it is documenting
current arrangements. Very few services, archaeological or combined, call
themselves anything other than SMRs largely because the title is referred to
in the PPGs. Some have changed their title to HER to reflect extended
coverage and this is a developing trend that should be reflected in the
manual.
The manual's purpose is not to lobby for change but to provide a good
foundation for development. As HERs become established it will need to be
updated.
Working drafts of the desk manual are being circulated for peer review and
the project team value all contributions, suggestions and comments.
With best wishes,
Kate Fernie
-----Original Message-----
From: David Baker [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 11 October 1999 08:40
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: LEIMS; SMR Manual draft
Dear Bob
The basic answer to your question is that it's up to you, but see the
general comment below on the Manual draft. LEIMS is a framework concept
than a re-brander. As a generic class they are / ought to be here with us,
whether you call them that or something else. All the government / EH advice
about environmental management and the documentation of significance -
biological, cultural, aesthetic etc - points that way. It's hardly an
original idea.
Thus your SMR is a LEIMS, whether or not it includes historic buildings and
supports their conservation in the same way as the archaeology, and whether
or not it is one element in a multi-layered internally networked total
environment system (which would be THE LEIMS for your Council area). You
should encourage your masters, if they require encouraging, to recognise (a)
the need for LEIMS generally and (b) that they already have one in your SMR.
Dear Forum at large
Which brings me to the SMR Desk Manual Section 1 Introduction Draft, (with
apologies for the delay in responding to the invitation to comment).
Paragraphs 1 & 2 are confused. You must decide what you want this manual to
do: is it a vehicle for an inturned fudging of current difficulties or an
outward looking at how things need to move forward ? Symptomatically, the
nearest you get to the big contextual idea of LEIMS is a throw-away comment
under the heading 'natural environment'. If you work through the logic of
LEIMS, it might clear a few things up.
Much of the difficulty is in the sentence: "Today, they (SMRs) cover all
aspects of the historic environment for their areas". A few may do, but
generally they don't. Now is the time and the opportunity to move away from
the outmoded title SMR, which reflects neither the archaeological content of
the historic environment nor modern data structures. Those systems which by
choice or necessity are 'purely' archaeological should be called something
like 'Local Archaeological Records' (LAR). Those covering all aspects of
the historic environment, including its built elements, and servicing their
conservation / understanding (going beyond some token buildings archaeology
and having the list entries on board), should be something like 'Historic
Environment Records' (HER). Generically, of course, both LARs and HERs are
LEIMS. Yet if we are clear which are LARs and which are HERs, it should be
easier to argue, where appropriate, for proper conversion from LAR to HER.
It should also be easier to help historic buildings colleagues argue that
they should kit themselves up in parallel with their own LEIMS (an HBR
rather than a LBR, please), or for LARs to get proper inter-operable local
networking arrangements into place with whatever they already have. But a
LAR should not pretend to be a HER (which the above-quoted sentence implies)
unless it really is, in terms of content and functional linkages. To do so
will let some people off the hook and confuse or antagonise others.
In the section 'Who manages them ?', tiers and topics have got rather
confused. It reads as though "all (Councils) maintain SMRs and Listed
Building Records", but then it says something different below.
The sub-section on 'staff' is limp. On the basis that managers will read at
least this part of the Manual, you need to bring out how in record areas of
any size / density / pressure the planning role tends to squeeze out
information management (and with it the scope for public access and
outreach), unless you have two posts.
Apologies for what I believe is called a 'rant', and all the best to
everyone.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Sydes <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 07 October 1999 10:09
Subject: LEIMS
> Dear all
>
> Firstly, many thanks to all those who responded to my query about
> reports.
>
> In David Baker's report, An Assessment of English Sites and Monuments
> Record, he refers to Local Environment Information Management Systems
> (pg 2) and I am at the moment working on ways to take our own systems
> forward and to get the right spin sorted. So, the question: Is
LEIMS
> a current buzz concept or a one off phrase?
>
> Thanks
>
> Bob
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|