 |
 |
I would agree with Crispin that there is a need for an indexed grey-literature archive. We find it very beneficial that there is a mechanism in place to ensure that archaeological reports can be made available on the ADS grey-literature library, and are suitably digitally archived. However (for grey-literature derived from the planning process) the only way to ensure that this is done is by my archaeological development-management colleagues enforcing that an OASIS entry (with a digitised report) will be completed in briefs that they write and in written schemes of investigation that are approved. I would also agree that cross-referencing OASIS records (or child-of-OASIS) to HER Event records will become increasingly important, and making HER Events available on Heritage Gateway would be a good way of making Events accessible. cheers, Graham -- Graham Tait Archaeologist Historic Environment Service Devon County Council Matford Offices County Hall Topsham Road Exeter EX2 4QW Telephone: 01392 382214 Email: [log in to unmask] Web: http://www.devon.gov.uk/historicenvironment Disclaimer: http://www.devon.gov.uk/email -----Original Message----- From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Crispin Flower Sent: 04 October 2011 10:13 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [HERFORUM] Review of OASIS Given the Heritage Gateway is well-established as a national portal for distributed HE datasets, how about extending this to publish Events from the HERs. Reinforce the requirements on HERs for data standards in the recording of the Events, and reinforce the need for non-planning fieldwork to inform the HER, and this should come easily. There's still a need for an indexed grey literature archive, and this could usefully be delivered by child-of-OASIS, but it could be a much simpler thing (cross-referencing the HER Event record) and focused on this task instead of duplicating data and effort. Just my 2p, Crispin From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of GRUBB, Tim Sent: 04 October 2011 10:01 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Review of OASIS Hi Adrian In Glos I took the view from the start that the OASIS process was a duplication of the work of the HER and as a result we have never signed up to it. Like Chris, I see no point in duplicating the process of adding new information to the HER. Cheers Tim Tim Grubb - HER Officer Gloucestershire County Council Archaeology Service Environment Directorate Gloucestershire County Council Shire Hall, Westgate Street, Gloucester. GL1 2TH Tel - 01452 425705 Email - [log in to unmask] Web - www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/archaeology HER Enquiries. www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/her Go to www.gloucestershire.gov.uk to find information on any County Council service. It couldn't be easier to find information instantly and in some cases apply for services online. From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris Wardle Sent: 04 October 2011 09:35 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Review of OASIS Dear Adrian, Although as one-man-band, I come tat this from a slightly different angle, I find myself in almost total agreement with Sarah. Currently the entire OASIS process places too much emphasis on the HER verifying the entry. -At best the archaeological service itself gains no benefit from the OASIS process. The HER ought to receive the report in paper or digital form, whether or not the recording was generated by the planning process. And invariably time has to be spent correcting information such as monument types. -At worst the archaeological service is asked to verify detailed information that is beyond it knowledge (In my case this would be details of what is in the archive!). This might have been fine when there was free time and resources within the archaeological service, but this is increasingly not the case. Even if checking OASIS entries was then the lowest priority it was still a priority. I envisage a time when the time and resources within LA resources just will not be there and OASIS will then fall off the lorry. So if the bodies funding OASIS want it to continue, they will have to find the resources for all this verification centrally, or find some other way of verification. Chris Sarah Orr <[log in to unmask]> 27/09/2011 15:56 >>> Dear Adrian I'll use the same format as Nick in replying - How does OASIS currently fit with your current work processes? Like Nick, this is just pretty low down on my To Do list. One of the main failings of OASIS (and hence perhaps a reason for log jams in the system) is that it is of very little benefit to HERs, and hence cannot be a high priority for us. By the time most archaeological work is put into an OASIS record, we generally already know about it either through liaison with the Development Management process or because the report has been deposited with the HER. The primary advantage of OASIS notifications to HERs is that we get to hear about work that has taken place outside Planning, eg Diocesan/ local community work, but this isn't very often. It also seems to be a mistake to ask HER staff to assess the grey literature report and accept/decline it - at this point in the development management process, the report will have been passed by planning archaeologists and the contractors aren't going to change it if the HER declines it. All the HER staff can do is correct any glaring mistakes in the OASIS record itself - and I also add in the HER event number under associated project reference codes. - In what ways does OASIS contribute to improved standards and consistency of event recording, Don't know about this - does OASIS use the new Events thesaurus? One advantage of contractors using OASIS whilst also writing the reports though is that it does help focus the mind on the essential Event fields which HERs will need when creating their own database records (and what should be the MIDAS Heritage Investigative Activity mandatory units). Some contractors now are putting info from their initial OASIS forms into the Summary at the start of their grey literature reports. This strikes me as a good use of collected information - ie why duplicate work by writing one thing for a Summary page and something else for OASIS. - In what ways does OASIS contribute to efficiency of information flows? Probably not very much bearing in mind the answer to the first question, but could be a time saver for contractors with regards to my second answer. - What are the specific issues and challenges? What should be the priorities and why? Going back to what is stated to be the overall aim of the project - 'to provide an online index to the mass of archaeological grey literature that has been produced as a result of the advent of large-scale developer funded fieldwork and a similar increase in fieldwork undertaken by volunteers', then obviously this hasn't been achieved very successfully. One of the main surprises to me recently was how little of the OASIS entered data is actually currently available to non-users. Where would a member of the public look for that online index if the report ISN'T in the grey literature library on ADS? - What improvements could be made to the OASIS form and why? Don't think it should get much longer or more complicated as this adds to the time taken to fill it in or check it. - Should OASIS be expanded to incorporate a wider range of heritage assets and event types? If so, what? Event types - may be using thesaurus. Heritage assets - what exactly? If the assets described aren't in the Monument type thesaurus, then this needs expanding surely, not a different set of terminology being used. - What wider range of heritage assets and event types should an expanded OASIS incorporate? As above - What other opportunities are there to improve or enhance OASIS? I recently liaised with Museum colleagues on the subject of archaeological archive deposition and content, and was very disappointed to realise that although many contractors enter details in OASIS about archives (ie Museum accession ID, and what the physical, digital and paper archive contains), this information isn't available to the museums in question. Similarly, the museum accession numbers aren't displaying properly in the Excavations Index entry on ADS (No individual museum identifier prefixes, hence meaningless). In fact if the EH Excavations Index is the only place where OASIS entered data ends up, this is a poor reflection of the original entries - eg the short description of the project isn't the same, the HER event number is referred to as an SMR number, the monument types appear to be different to the fields Period/subjects in OASIS. But perhaps this is a different issue, ie what the template is that the NMR uses. Also there doesn't appear to be a way to search on ADS ArchSearch for the OASIS number - I have raised this separately with ADS and I gather it may come as a future development. Other opportunities - going back to the aim of OASIS, is it meant to be a searchable index of sources (ie the reports) or Events (or even monuments...)? Currently I don't think many HERs have their Event records online - and certainly Heritage Gateway doesn't allow for this at the moment (ie only HER monument records are indexed). If we want to join things up more, may be OASIS data should have a higher presence on HG, but with better linkages to the HER event ref numbers, museum accession numbers and the grey literature reports, etc. I fully support the concept of ADS hosting the unpublished fieldwork reports on http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/greylit/ but currently there isn't any even link between the bibliographic references in the Excavation Index records on ArchSearch http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archsearch/ and these reports. (Again I believe ADS are working on this). As others have said in this discussion thread, we want to ensure these kind of links exist, to and from national/local datasets and resources. Best wishes Sarah Orr Historic Environment Record Officer Archaeology Service West Berkshire Council West Street House West Street Newbury RG14 1BZ Tel 01635 519805 Fax 01635 519811 [log in to unmask] www.westberks.gov.uk/archaeology ********************************************************************** This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed may not necessarily represent those of West Berkshire Council. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this e-mail in error. All communication sent to or from West Berkshire Council may be subject to recording and or monitoring in accordance with UK legislation, are subject to the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and may therefore be disclosed to a third party on request. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Think before you print - only print this email if absolutely necessary. This email and any attachments are strictly confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named addressee you must not disclose, copy or take any action in reliance of this transmission and you should notify us as soon as possible. This email and any attachments are believed to be free from viruses but it is your responsibility to carry out all necessary virus checks and Gloucestershire County Council accepts no liability in connection therewith.