I state the case as I see it as an SMRO. Those SMRs that don't have GIS will
need to get it sooner or later. The amenity societies should also consider
it.
-My considered view is that text based systems alone are not adequate for
identifying Grade/Status.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlisle, Philip [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 14 December 2001 15:35
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: Peer Review Opening Message Protection Grad e/Status
>
> What about those SMR's or amenity societies who haven't got GIS
> capability?
>
> Phil
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From:   Wardle, Chris (DSD) [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent:   14 December 2001 15:34
> To:     [log in to unmask]
> Subject:        Re: Peer Review Opening Message Protection Grad e/Status
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Leonard Will [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: 14 December 2001 15:07
> > To:   [log in to unmask]
> > Subject:      Re: Peer Review Opening Message Protection Grad e/Status
> >
> > In message
> > <[log in to unmask]>
> > on Fri, 14 Dec 2001, "Wardle, Chris (DSD)"
> > <[log in to unmask]> wrote
> >
> > >I would wish to make the
> > >comment that I don't believe that text based data is any longer the
> best
> > way
> > >of dealing with the  Grade/Status of Monuments.
> >
> > . . .
> >
> > >So take an historic settlement recorded on an SMR: Some of it might be
> a
> > >Conservation Area, other bits (possibly overlapping) might be an
> Register
> > >Park, an SSSI and the bits round the church might be in ecclesiastical
> > use.
> > >There might be 3 separate scheduled monuments. There might be 50 listed
> > >buildings, 1 of which might be Grade I, perhaps 4 might be Grade II*
> and
> > the
> > >rest Grade II. There is no point in trying to sum up all this in a text
> > >database. It is much better to show this complexity as separate layers
> on
> > a
> > >GIS. And it is this that we should be creating standards for.
> >
> > Is it not the case, though, that for each bit or layer, however you
> > decide to divide them up, you have to have some way of specifying its
> > properties? A GIS may well be the best way of separating out the various
> > components, and you can apply indexing terms at various levels of
> > granularity - either to the site as a whole, to sub-divisions, or to
> > individual elements. These terms can be expressed in textual form or as
> > symbols on a graphical representation - though you still need a textual
> > legend to explain what the symbols mean.
>         [Wardle, Chris (DSD)]   Firstly; we need boundaries not symbols.
> Secondly no text based approach, matches what you get from a
> mapped/graphical one.
> > Nothing in what you say seems to reduce the need for a controlled and
> > standardised list of indexing terms.
> >  [Wardle, Chris (DSD)]  So, yes standards are needed; but there's little
> > point in developing complex text based ones when we should be thinking
> of
> > what's needed for GIS.
> >
> > Leonard Will
> > --
> > Willpower Information       (Partners: Dr Leonard D Will, Sheena E Will)
> > Information Management Consultants              Tel: +44 (0)20 8372 0092
> > 27 Calshot Way, Enfield, Middlesex EN2 7BQ, UK. Fax: +44 (0)20 8372 0094
> > [log in to unmask]               [log in to unmask]
> > ---------------- <URL:http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/> -----------------