I agree with Liz and Rachel’s earlier comments. Option 3 would be better, but I am afraid I would have very little or no time at all to look at and enhance the records. Without some identified resource to employ a dedicated person to do the work the data won’t be entered, however much I think it would be useful (and I do think this project is!). We were able to take part in SHINE, but only because there was an identified pot of money to bid for which we could employ someone to do the work.

 

We undertook a data exchange with the National Trust in 2008 where the data was ‘dumped’ into the HER (some reconciliation was done beforehand). I’m afraid that most of these records still require ‘cleaning’ and linking to events and sources and I can’t see it being done until I get a pot of money/student/volunteer to sort it out.

 

Eleanor

 

 

 

Having done a bit of reconciliation, I don’t think that the cross referencing was a great deal of help. I didn’t use it at all as I was doing a 10% sample and just went through the records in order. Perhaps as part of a bigger project it would make sense to look at the cross referenced sites as you might be able to eliminate records that are identical quickly. Otherwise, mapping (in the cartographic sense) is the way to go.

 

 

 

I would agree with that.

 

Another question regarding option 3 (sorry if someone's already asked/answered) - would the proposed website for the NRHE data have a map based element? This would make it much easier to cross reference records.

 

Rachel

Rachel Grahame
Archaeologist (HER)

Tees Archaeology, Sir William Gray House, Clarence Road, Hartlepool, TS24 8BT

Email [log in to unmask] | Tel 01429 523457 | www.teesarchaeology.com

*Please note I normally work Monday-Thursday*

 

From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sam Mellonie
Sent: 20 November 2014 12:39
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HERFORUM] [MASSMAIL] Re: E Conference Day 4 - If this goes ahead, What is the most efficient method?

I haven’t done any test reconciliations, and have no idea of the scale of data we would be looking at for us, but I would have thought that cross referencing first would largely be a duplication of effort!  If going down the process of cross referencing, you may as well just update the HER record at the same time?

 

Sam Mellonie

Technical Officer

Historic Environment Record/Building Control

Regeneration and Business Directorate

 

Central Bedfordshire Council Priory House, Monks Walk, Chicksands, Shefford, Bedfordshire, SG17 5TQ

Direct dial: 0300 300 6038  |  Internal: 76038 |  Email: [log in to unmask]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Central Bedfordshire - A great place to live and work - www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk

 

 

Information security classification* of this email: Not protected

 

*Information security definitions:

Restricted - Sensitive Data only to be sent via secure email

Protected - Contains personal data covered by the Data Protection Act

Not Protected - General Data 

 

 

 

 

Following on from this Nick and definitely project related! -

 

Did those of you who have been undertaking some test reconciliation of records (yourself, Chris, Graham and Ben) find it easier or quicker if records already had been cross referenced with NRHE? Or did it make no difference? Would cross referencing need to be undertaken by HERs in advance of  a solution like option 3 to make the project easier?

 

all the best

 

Sarah

Sarah MacLean

Heritage Information Partnerships Supervisor

English Heritage

 

 

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

Hartlepool Council
On the Web www.hartlepool.gov.uk
On Facebook www.facebook.com/hartlepoolcouncil
On Twitter www.twitter.com/HpoolCouncil

**********************************************************************************************
This document is strictly confidential and is intended only for the use by the addressee.
If you are not the intended recipent, any disclosure, copying, distribution or other action taken in reliance of the information contained in this email is strictly prohibited.
Any view expressed by the sender of this message are not necessarily those of Hartlepool Borough Council.
If you have received this transmission in error, please use the reply function to tell us and then permanently delete what you have received.

Please note: Incoming and outgoing e-mail messages are routinely monitored for compliance with our policy on the use of electronic communications.
**********************************************************************************************

 This email, and any attachments is intended solely for the individual to whom

 it is addressed. It may contain personal and / or sensitive material and should

 be handled according to the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998. If this

 email carries a protective marking of PROTECT or RESTRICTED in the

 header it should be handled according to HMG guidelines, if not protectively

 marked it can be regarded as UNCLASSIFIED. 

 If this Email has been misdirected, please notify the author immediately. If you

 are not the intended recipient you must not disclose, distribute, copy, print or

 rely on any of the information contained in it or attached, and all copies must

 be deleted immediately.  

 Whilst we take reasonable steps to try to identify any software viruses, any

 attachments to this email may nevertheless contain viruses which our anti

-virus software has failed to identify.  You should therefore carry out your own

 anti-virus checks before opening any documents.  Somerset County Council

 will not accept any liability for damage caused by computer viruses

 emanating from any attachment or other document supplied with this email. 

 All GCSx traffic may be subject to recording and / or monitoring in accordance

 with relevant legislation.