 |
 |
I agree that GIS is the best way to define areas of protection status, however, an agreed list of terms for describing these is essential, especially for data exchange. This point is admirably demonstrated in forthcoming article by Jason which will appear in the next issue of SMR News. Martin -----Original Message----- From: Wardle, Chris (DSD) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: 14 December 2001 15:47 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Peer Review Opening Message Protection Grad e/Status I state the case as I see it as an SMRO. Those SMRs that don't have GIS will need to get it sooner or later. The amenity societies should also consider it. -My considered view is that text based systems alone are not adequate for identifying Grade/Status. > -----Original Message----- > From: Carlisle, Philip [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: 14 December 2001 15:35 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Peer Review Opening Message Protection Grad e/Status > > What about those SMR's or amenity societies who haven't got GIS > capability? > > Phil > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wardle, Chris (DSD) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: 14 December 2001 15:34 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Peer Review Opening Message Protection Grad e/Status > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Leonard Will [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] > > Sent: 14 December 2001 15:07 > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: Re: Peer Review Opening Message Protection Grad e/Status > > > > In message > > <[log in to unmask]> > > on Fri, 14 Dec 2001, "Wardle, Chris (DSD)" > > <[log in to unmask]> wrote > > > > >I would wish to make the > > >comment that I don't believe that text based data is any longer the > best > > way > > >of dealing with the Grade/Status of Monuments. > > > > . . . > > > > >So take an historic settlement recorded on an SMR: Some of it might be > a > > >Conservation Area, other bits (possibly overlapping) might be an > Register > > >Park, an SSSI and the bits round the church might be in ecclesiastical > > use. > > >There might be 3 separate scheduled monuments. There might be 50 listed > > >buildings, 1 of which might be Grade I, perhaps 4 might be Grade II* > and > > the > > >rest Grade II. There is no point in trying to sum up all this in a text > > >database. It is much better to show this complexity as separate layers > on > > a > > >GIS. And it is this that we should be creating standards for. > > > > Is it not the case, though, that for each bit or layer, however you > > decide to divide them up, you have to have some way of specifying its > > properties? A GIS may well be the best way of separating out the various > > components, and you can apply indexing terms at various levels of > > granularity - either to the site as a whole, to sub-divisions, or to > > individual elements. These terms can be expressed in textual form or as > > symbols on a graphical representation - though you still need a textual > > legend to explain what the symbols mean. > [Wardle, Chris (DSD)] Firstly; we need boundaries not symbols. > Secondly no text based approach, matches what you get from a > mapped/graphical one. > > Nothing in what you say seems to reduce the need for a controlled and > > standardised list of indexing terms. > > [Wardle, Chris (DSD)] So, yes standards are needed; but there's little > > point in developing complex text based ones when we should be thinking > of > > what's needed for GIS. > > > > Leonard Will > > -- > > Willpower Information (Partners: Dr Leonard D Will, Sheena E Will) > > Information Management Consultants Tel: +44 (0)20 8372 0092 > > 27 Calshot Way, Enfield, Middlesex EN2 7BQ, UK. Fax: +44 (0)20 8372 0094 > > [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask] > > ---------------- <URL:http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/> -----------------