There
are some interesting observations covering some of the issues we have been
discussing in van der Veen et al (2007) with regard to
archaeobotanical work.
Below
their remarks on report quality
'There are too
many publications and reports where the data are not placed in clear two-way
tables
with each column representing a sample and listing the context
number, context type, sample
volume, and dating evidence/phase. In some cases, we are told,
this information is edited out of
the report at the publication stage, to avoid duplication within
the volume or to save on space.
While such information may be held at the archive of the site, it
is rarely feasible to collect such
information from archives when a large number of sites is being
studied, as for this synthesis. In
our opinion it is essential that these core data are published
with the archaeobotanical data.
I might
also add that the botanical nomenclature used in the report and the reference
collection(s) consulted are also essential.
While
this may seem too specialised for inclusion in a standard, this kind of
information is also needed for other types of remains
studied.
Reference:
van der
Veen, M, Livarda, A, and Hill A 2007 'The Archaeobotany of Roman Britain:
current State and Identification of Research Priorities' Britannia
38, 181-210
Best
wishes
Gill
From: The Forum for Information
Standards in Heritage (FISH) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
LEE, Edmund
Sent: 19 August 2010 10:35
To:
[log in to unmask]
Subject: [FISH] HEGEL - what a standard might look
like
Hello
all,
This morning I wanted to
direct your thoughts if I may to a slightly more pragmatic issue: what should
actually be included in any such standard. As a starter, my list would beas
follows:-
- At the core of it would
be the standard setting out what headings of information should appear (e.g.
taken from the analysis of existing standards). I suggest this needs to go
beyond the usual list of suggested headings (e.g. 'Introduction'; 'Aims and
Objectives'; 'Site Location' etc etc) and define or expand upon what it is
agreed that, for example, an Introduction should contain.
- Some headings would be a
mandatory requirement, others would be mandatory only in certain circumstances,
so the level of obligation in each case needs to be clearly set
out.
- Examples of each heading
(possibly as a separate document, as that could be quite lebgthy), and notes on
use, content etc.
So that part of it would in
many ways look much like the structure of the MIDAS Heritage standard 'Units of
Information' dictionary (Crispin made the point yesterday that much
of what is included in grey literature reports already exists as unitis of
information in MIDAS, so the approach seems sensible).
A standard would also need
an Introduction, to set out clearly:
- when it was to be used
(i.e. who it was a standard for)
- how it should be applied
(with a variety of examples)
- model or example ways of
using the standard in different context (e.g. model paragraphs for use in
briefs, or for refering to it in other standards or guidelines
documents).
It would also need a
mechnism for review and update, which should be described.
Anything
else?
Best wishes
Ed
Standards and Guidelines manager
English Heritage