Edmund
Thank you for your response to my query. I hadn't really thought of data
standards with regard to highly interpretative data other than that every
comment must be sourced (as it should be in the SMR any way) and
the standards that go with mapping scales etc. I think we
need to consult the people who have been undertaking the Historic
Landscape Characterisations and we are certainly going to be
drawing on that methodology in Worcestershire.
Victoria
Date sent: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 09:27:40 +0100
Send reply to: SMRforum is for the circulation of information and general discussion of is <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Lee, Edmund" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Area character - (was A possible future development - advice want
ed)
To: [log in to unmask]
Dear Edmund
.
Hello all,
Victoria's proposed distinction between 'hard' SMR data and
interpretative layers is an interesting one from the DSU Standards
point of view. Traditional applications of standards such as MIDAS
have focussed on the 'hard' factual side of data recording and
retrieval standards. Increasingly however (as Victorias posting
mentions) other sources and approaches are coming to the fore in
terms
of data collection - e.g. landscape characterisation. This is an area
of work that is stressed in the recent Power of Place report from
EH.
My interest as someone from the standards side of the fence is in
assessing what information needs to be recorded to allow for e.g.
'area' characterisation over and above the traditional
characterisation of 'monuments' (however loosely or broadly
defined)?
Any thoughts? Is this an area that FISH should be looking at? Are
any
de facto standards for this sort of information already emerging?
Edmund Lee
Data Services Unit Standards team
English Heritage
Victoria Bryant
Information and Records Officer
Worcestershire Archaeological Service
Woodbury Hall
University College Worcester, WR2 6AJ
Tel: 01905 855494
Fax 01905 855035
|