JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for HERFORUM Archives


HERFORUM Archives

HERFORUM Archives


HERFORUM@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

HERFORUM Home

HERFORUM Home

HERFORUM  May 2012

HERFORUM May 2012

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: MIDAS Heritage and Mandatory recording of Admin area

From:

"CARLISLE, Philip" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Issues related to Historic Environment Records <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 23 May 2012 16:17:42 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (263 lines)

 
Dear all,

I have spent a lot of time over the last 2 years looking into this issue. With the development of the NHLE and the switch from textual recording of admin location to GIS-derived data, we (EH) had to reconcile two large datasets UDS (which powers NHLE) and AMIE (which powers Pastscape).

UDS was developed from scratch, to incorporate data from the old RSM, LBS and Parks and Gardens and Battlefields datasets all of which recorded textual info based on EH's interpretation of ONS data with the inclusion of EH's NPA list. 

Very early on in the development of UDS it was realised that it made sense to use GIS as the underlying data for this and as such when the data was migrated from legacy systems only NGRs and address data were migrated. Admin Area data was populated via GIS.

With Pastscape data the admin locations were updated at the same time to reflect the current admin data derived from ONS/OS boundary line data. This involved removing districts from the new unitary authority counties (eg. Durham, Northumberland and Cornwall) and removing the counties from Metropolitan districts (eg. Merseyside, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire etc.).

At the same time we looked at removing the old labels for the NPAs (NCPs). This was done in AMIE/Pastscape for the London Boroughs but retained for all the other districts/unitary authorities.

So, in essence it is still possible to find buildings/sites in Loughborough and Margate etc.through Pastscape but not through NHLE but not in Hammersmith.

We all agree that standardizing on OS Boundary Line is sensible however at the moment there is an issue in that you cannot search the majority of urban data as these fall within Non-Parished Areas  (NPAs or Non-Civil Parishes (NCPs)) so typing Loughborough or Margate into a free text field (for the NHLE/Gateway) will not only retrieve buildings/sites that fall within the said area but also road/building names etc..

Thus an advanced search on the where panel (admin location) for Loughborough in the Place/Site Name/Street Name on the HG returns the following:

NHLE: 73 results (split between Leicestershire, Nottinghamsire and Greater London - Loughborough Road/Loughborough Park being the non-Leics culprits)
Pastscape: 151 results (mainly in Leics as Pastscape/AMIE still retains NPA textual info in the Parish field)
NMR excavation Index: 65 results (as for Pastscape)
Devon and Dartmoor: 2 results
Leicestershire and Rutland HER: 351 results
Greater London HER: 7 result
Tyne and Wear HER (sitelines): 12350 results (this would appear to be an error!)
Images of England: 106 (as Pastscape)
Viewfinder: 147 (as Pastscape)

Doing the same search on the map function (using Loughborough within 2km) gives

NHLE: 75
EH Pastscape: 109
NMR excavation index:45
Leicestershire and Rutland HER:217
Images of England: 83

Obviously these results are better, but still don't accurately reflect the 'hole' in the boundary line data.

As to Mike et al's original point. The OS boundary line data records cities as City of.......

Yes, to all of us who come from this rather select band (why City of Nottingham* but just York?) it is baffling and it is, possibly, the only downside to standardizing.

As Paul points out using the newly released linked data from the OS would help but it still doesn't give that most discerning of people (Mr and Mrs Jo Public) the ability to type into a Google-style box and get back exactly what they want without lots of 'Did you mean........'

Yes there may well come a day when we can all use touch screens (NCIS: Los Angeles-styleeee) to define the boundary precisely as we have it but at the moment I'd say we're still some way away.

And until the OS add labels to the 'holes' that are NPAs/NCPs I fear we may always have to rely on storing textual location information.

Anyway this is my, very personal, twopenn'orth.

Phil


*the Blessed Realm

Phil Carlisle

Data Standards Supervisor

Data Standards Unit, Designations Department

English Heritage

The Engine House

Fire Fly Avenue

Swindon

SN2 2EH

Tel: +44 (0)1793 414824

 

http://thesaurus.english-heritage.org.uk/ 

The information contained within this e-mail is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee only. If you have received the e-mail in error, please inform the sender and delete it from your system. The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed to anyone else or copied without the sender's consent.

Any views and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of English Heritage. English Heritage will not take any responsibility for the views of the author. 

P Please do not print this e-mail unless you really need to


-----Original Message-----
From: Technical advisory panel to the Forum on Information Standards in Heritage. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Crispin Flower
Sent: 23 May 2012 14:33
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [FISH-TECHNICAL] MIDAS Heritage and Mandatory recording of Admin area

Hi All
MIDAS Heritage is correct to have this mandatory, but that can include deriving it on-the-fly from spatial coincidence (for quering or exporting purposes). MIDAS Heritage does not dictate the methods of storage.
If MIDAS Heritage made this optional, then it would become ligitimate to have a heritage inventory that could not be queried by administrative areas at all, which is clearly undesirable.
cheers
Crispin

________________________________

From: Technical advisory panel to the Forum on Information Standards in Heritage. on behalf of Alison Bennett at Place Services
Sent: Wed 23/05/2012 14:16
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [FISH-TECHNICAL] MIDAS Heritage and Mandatory recording of Admin area


Hi,
Just a thought, but here in Essex I use the database to compile district based stats in relation to a set period of time, and have a hard enough time already persuading people to enter the Admin areas. I'm not sure if I'd get the same level of detail from the GIS attribute data. I also realise that this is a local recording issue but having a Mandatory field has been a useful back-up for me.
 
Best wishes,
 

Alison Bennett

Consultant Historic Environment

Place Services

Essex County Council

tel. 01245 437637

e-mail: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> 

www: http:// <http://unlockingessex.essexcc.gov.uk/> unlockingessex.essexcc.gov.uk <http://unlockingessex.essexcc.gov.uk/> 

 

EssexWorks 

For a better quality of life
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail


________________________________

From: Technical advisory panel to the Forum on Information Standards in Heritage. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nick Boldrini
Sent: 23 May 2012 11:12
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [FISH-TECHNICAL] MIDAS Heritage and Mandatory recording of Admin area



Hi FISH-ies

 

there has been a  bit of discussion on HER Forum about recording of Admin areas, prompted by issues relating to searching by Parishes etc on the Heritage Gateway.

 

It was suggested to me that I re-post some of my comments on here to see what FISHers think of a suggestion.

 

Essentially, my suggestion is that MIDAS Heritage should not have the recording of an Admin Area as a Mandatory field, but an optional one.

 

The train of thought broadly goes like this. Originally, MIDAS had admin areas in because GIS was an emerging technology, so recording Admin areas in text databases was useful to allow retrieval.

 

However, now GIS is more commonly used, it is usually possible to search/query data using the GIS to manage the Admin area aspect.

 

Coming at this from an HER perspective, the above method would mean that we would not need to re-code records when admin area change (as for example they have in Durham with the abolition of the Districts) but could still search on the old district boundaries if wanted. It also deals with the issue of Non Parish Areas (ie parish like areas with no official name)

 

It would also be possible to search on any admin area type (eg old parishes, etc) if the data were held in the GIS

 

Obviously, looking more widely, not everyone may have GIS, but then an Optional field would allow them to record the data if they felt it necessary.

 

That's a brief summary of the idea

 

comments welcomed

 

best wishes

 

Nick Boldrini

 

Historic Environment Record Officer

Archaeology Section

Design and Historic Environment Team

Planning Service

Regeneration and Economic Development

Durham County Council

Rivergreen Centre

Aykley Heads

Durham

DH1 5TS

Tel: 0191 3708840

Fax: 0191 3708897

[log in to unmask] 

 

 

NOTE: Durham County Council Archaeology Service is moving on 20th June 2012 and the HER will be shut from 18th - 22nd June.

 

2012 edition of "Archaeology: County Durham" is now available.

 

**Now available ** Order your copy of "Faverdale, Darlington: excavations at a major settlement in the northern frontier zone of Roman Britain" by Jennifer Proctor. 

Both these publications and more are available direct from the Archaeology Section (Archaeology publications for sale - Durham County Council <http://www.durham.gov.uk/Pages/Service.aspx?ServiceId=7905> )

 

 

Web: www.durham.gov.uk

Follow us on Twitter @durhamcouncil

Like us at facebook.com/durhamcouncil

 


________________________________



Help protect our environment by only printing this email if absolutely necessary. The information it contains and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are only intended for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may be unlawful for you to use, share or copy the information, if you are not authorised to do so. If you receive this email by mistake, please inform the person who sent it at the above address and then delete the email from your system. Durham County Council takes reasonable precautions to ensure that its emails are virus free. However, we do not accept responsibility for any losses incurred as a result of viruses we might transmit and recommend that you should use your own virus checking procedures.




Click here <https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/WS46vhlqcefTndxI!oX7UhRB+CUevtsBsVTzKJOa35T5MLqiGJWAVkRVSK2LjD!MNAjdtRoTpmSdye7!a4hOmw==>  to report this email as spam.

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of English Heritage unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system and notify the sender immediately. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it. Any information sent to English Heritage may become publicly available.

Portico: your gateway to information on sites in the National Heritage Collection; have a look and tell us what you think. http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/archives-and-collections/portico/

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JISCMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager