Thought you might be interestsed in this post from the Forum for Information
Standards in Heritage web conference.
Dan
Crispin Flower <[log in to unmask]> on 10/03/2001 09:28:29 AM
Please respond to "The Forum for Information Standards in Heritage (FISH)"
<[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
cc: (bcc: Dan Page/HullOttawa/PCH/CA)
Subject: Re Correction to 'the usual'
Sorry, I realise that in answering John Wood's point I gave
misleading examples, many of which relate to different entities
entirely and thus are not part of this problem (e.g. scheduled
monument area vs. excavation area).
Where the feature type standard is required is to differentiate
between diff types of spatial feature relating to the SAME basic
entities (such as monument or event to use SMR examples), where
they cannot otherwise be distinguished from the classification of
the entity itself. (and of course the classification of the
entities themselves are already covered by existing standards, in
southerly parts of the UK anyway!)
Perhaps - continuing on JW's polygon theme - the more useful
examples were a) 'area within which an site is thought to be
located' vs b) 'mapped monument'. I think there is more than just
a difference in edge confidence level here. Lets say the site in
question is a newly discovered Pitcarmick-type house measuring 21
by 8 metres, but its actual location is totally unclear from the
info available. The type a) polygon for this site might measure 200
by 300 metres, while the type b) polygon measures 21 by 8m but has
a low 'locational confidence' level. Both legitimately relate to
the site, and they must be distinguishable. In the WoSAS SMR system
such distinctions for diff polygon types are made simply with
comments in the polygon attributes, but a more structured method
would be greatly beneficial.
And much of this is more pressing at the intra-site level, e.g. in
the surveying of structures/earthworks/excavation trenches.
Presumably the Royal Commissions have already had to grapple with
some of this aspect in preparing data for the OS antiquity model?
Regards
Crispin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
This message is intended only for use of the addressee. If this message
was sent to you in error, please notify the sender and delete this message.
Glasgow City Council cannot accept responsibility for viruses, so please
scan attachments. Views expressed in this message do not necessarily reflect
those of the Council who will not necessarily be bound by its contents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
