 |
 |
Is this a short term (sic) problem which could be solved when EH take over responsibility for maritime archaeology, and then all "war graves and protected sites" would become SAMs? Thank you David Evans Environment and Conservation >>> [log in to unmask] 19/12/2001 10:23:02 >>> hi everyone During this project a number of issues were raised that are worth considering as I promised I will be e-mailing around a number of issues that are worth considering .... Both during this e-mail open forum and while you are looking through the peer review packs. You will note in the Protection Grade / Status list is a term War Graves and Protected places Now these terms are based on Maritime status based on 1986 "protection of military remains act" There is a real problem here As a lookup term or on a printout from a system Protected Places etc means very little (it is not very clear) Now this begs a fundamental question in terms of how we develop our terminology Do we opt for accepted terms that may be difficult to understand for users of our systems - which risks mistakes in the indexing of a records or do we depart from the legal terminology so we can ensure that we do not have instances of mis-understanding? what do you think Jason? ********************************************************************** This e-mail and any files transmitted with it from South Gloucestershire Council are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the South Gloucestershire Council postmaster at the address below. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. [log in to unmask] **********************************************************************