The sites in question will be scheduled under the 1986 Protection of
Military Remains Act by the Ministry of Defence. It is not a question of
whether they should be scheduled but how Data Standards classify them so no
confusion occurs.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Siddall, Jason [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 19 December 2001 11:34
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Peer Review: Applying terminology A discussion piece
david
thanks
i cannot think of a more horrifying thought than all war graves being
Scheduled Monuments... i think it would be not only impractical (in land
ownership means) ... but have some major ramifications for Scheduled
Monuments as a whole (it would quite possibly weaken the designation of
Scheduled Monuments) ... just noting that the MPP seems to be very careful
about what it schedules and the extent of scheduling.
also i'm not so sure that all such sites will become Scheduled Monuments
.... i'm do not think its on the cards.
maybe some of our EH friends could add more to this?
jason
-----Original Message-----
From: David Evans [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 10:52 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Peer Review: Applying terminology A discussion piece
Is this a short term (sic) problem which could be solved when EH take over
responsibility for maritime archaeology, and then all "war graves and
protected sites" would become SAMs?
Thank you
David Evans
Environment and Conservation
>>> [log in to unmask] 19/12/2001 10:23:02 >>>
hi everyone
During this project a number of issues were raised that are worth
considering as I promised I will be e-mailing around a number of issues that
are worth considering .... Both during this e-mail open forum and while you
are looking through the peer review packs.
You will note in the Protection Grade / Status list is a term
War Graves and
Protected places
Now these terms are based on Maritime status based on 1986 "protection of
military remains act"
There is a real problem here
As a lookup term or on a printout from a system Protected Places etc means
very little (it is not very clear)
Now this begs a fundamental question in terms of how we develop our
terminology
Do we opt for accepted terms that may be difficult to understand for users
of our systems - which risks mistakes in the indexing of a records or do we
depart from the legal terminology so we can ensure that we do not have
instances of mis-understanding?
what do you think
Jason?
**********************************************************************
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it from South
Gloucestershire Council are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error
please notify the South Gloucestershire Council postmaster
at the address below.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has
been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
[log in to unmask]
**********************************************************************
|