 |
 |
Well, as it has all gone a bit quiet today this might be a good time to attempt to summarise some of the main points from the discussion so far. At the beginning of the week I stated that there were three basic questions I thought we should address. Firstly, do we need data standards? I think there is certainly some support for data standards for presentation (symbology - this was certainly a new word for me) and perhaps even greater support for data structure standards which (as I understand it) are more likely to affect interoperability. I also feel that guidelines on how to approach "fuzzy" problems, such as sites with four figure (or no) NGRs would be of use. There was certainly much valuable discussion on polygons and I found the debate concerning probabilistic data particularly interesting as this would take GIS applications in SMRs beyond the level of simple digitised maps.. As far as the issue as to whether we should be developing GIS standards is concerned, this seems to be more problematic. At this point it seems to me that we, as archaeologists, need to take care of this, although that is not to say that we can't adopt elements such as OS symbologies if required. If we do not directly tackle this issue we may well be repeating this discussion in two years time - when some of the problems highlighted this week, especially regarding data exchange with contractors, may be more acute. This leads into the third question of how a set of usable and relevant data standards can be formulated for GIS applications for heritage record sets. This might best be addressed at the end of the conference but, at present, I feel that guidance on how to use GIS within SMRs might be taken care of in the EH/ALGAO "SMR Manual". The data standards themselves need to arise out of a consensus amongst SMR curators, which I feel we have gone some way towards this week. Once this is achieved a way forward can be mapped (no pun intended!). Apologies, if I have misrepresented anyone or missed the point - it is Friday afternoon after all. There will be plenty of time for any comments on the above, or responses to what we have talked about so far, next week before session 2 starts. Best wishes Nigel. This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain confidential or privileged information and should not be read, copied or otherwise used by any other person unless express permission is given. If you are not a named recipient, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail from your system. It is the recipient's responsibility to ensure that appropriate measures are in place to check for software viruses.