--------------------------------------------------
The following is Posted on behalf of Jason Siddall (email
[log in to unmask] )with apologies for cross-posting
**NB if you wish to comment, please can I suggest that you do so on the
[log in to unmask] list - thanks**

Edmund Lee
---------------------------------------------------

Dear all,

I hope this e-mail finds you well.

This e-mail is a short precis of the results of the peer review for Sources
& Archive and Monument Status Terminology. A full detailed report is being
written this week. All peer reviewers will receive a copy with a formal
letter of thanks for their participation. Also the new standards will be
posted onto the Internet under the FISH website http://www.mda.org.uk/fish/.

I would first like to thank all of you who were involved in the peer review
and the e-mail discussion hosted on FISH the archive of which can be found
at http://www.mda.org.uk/fish/ follow the link at the bottom of the page to
the e-mail discussion list.

I would like to also thank the staff at the DSU for all of their support and
advice without which this project could not have taken place.

There is a number of things that are still to do that lie outside the scope
of the project....

1. Write Project Report
Split into 3 sections
1. Results
2. How the project was undertaken
3. Project implications, lessons learned (include recommendations for MIDAS
change, Methodology for developing terminologies)

2. Project Archive to be indexed and recorded with CD and paper copies
(Lodge with DSU at EH)
3. Amend Midas Units of information
4. Amend Standard Terminology Descriptions
5. New Terminology Lists to be mapped to current Inscription standard
6. A presentation of results:
FISH meeting on 23/April/2002
ExeGesIS User Group
7. Write compliance Guidance for the new terminology's

In terms of the results a number of issues came out. I have written out a
number (by no means all of the issues or results) of questions or comments
and tried to answer them. As I noted above the results will be written out
in full in a report.....

Feel free to comment




*Comment 1*
There was some confusion between how the thesaurus will work ... for the
Sources and Archive Thesaurus with the three class lists. Also some of the
scope notes were wrong or missing.


Answer
The scope note and description of the class lists has been amended so it is
clearer. The Compliance Guidance will describe the list in detail. Many of
the scope notes for the terminologies have been rewritten and should now be
clearer. Also the three class lists has been dropped in preference for

Class List 1: Resource Format and Material (being is it Floppy Disk, a
Colour Print etc)

Class List 2: Resource Type (being is it a Plan)

The Thesaurus is called THReD (Stands for "THesaurus of Resource
Description")

This allows us to say

We have a plan that is both on a Colour Print, a Floppy Disk and/or Drafting
Film.

Obviously we will need to double index on Class List 1: Resource Format and
Material. We feel this best reflects the needs of recording archives in
terms of finding out what is it, where it will be etc. This broadens the
scope wider, extending it to resources that we might use in indexing
monuments (such as books, photos, plans, web pages, teachers resource packs
etc). It has also been mapped to the current Dublin Core.

*Comment 2*
Why don't you use AAT (Art and Architecture Thesaurus)?

Answer
We are not recommending AAT as it is not under UK heritage sector control.
The list generated is under UK heritage control it is inline with Current
DUBLIN CORE and is reflective of the new e-government Metadata Standards.
The AAT has a number of uncertainties for instance:
1. The responsiveness to candidate terms.
2. Could be too large and too expensive to adopt for small SMR's.
3. It has American phrases as preferred terms which may confuse.

*Comment 3*
The Technique Class List overlaps with events.

Answer
Yes it does but there is a relationship between events and sources. However
we took the comments on board and have removed that class list from the
standard.

*Comment 4*
The Protection/Grade Status Terminology list mixes what are essentially 3
separate things:

Status (whether Statutory or not);
Land Ownership (Which may or may not confer some special status to a site)
Grades (which are a separate MIDAS Unit of Information. I am not sure if it
is appropriate for these to all be within the same wordlist - I would
seriously consider splitting this list into three parts.

Answer
We have received many comments to this effect. It is an interesting issue
indeed if you check MIDAS the units of information break down as such:

        External Cross Reference Other Inventory Reference Number (i.e
SAM1112 or CU111)  - separate in MIDAS (linked to External Cross Reference
Other Inventory) Occurs in Names and References

        External Cross Reference Other Inventory  (i.e SAM)  - separate in
MIDAS (linked to External Cross Reference Other Inventory Reference Number)
Occurs in Names and References

        Protection Grade (as in grade assigned i.e. LB II*) - separate in
MIDAS (linked to Protection Status) Occurs in Monument Management

        Protection Status (as in Monument Protection Status i.e SAM) -
separate in MIDAS (linked to Protection Grade) Occurs in Monument Management

Indeed they are separate in the current MIDAS I think you are correct they
are and should be separate. We are looking into this. The Current MIDAS
units need to be made clearer and amended slightly. Also I think we need to
amend the tables so they are split into the 3 different types.

Maybe something like ....
Land Ownership (National Trust land, Common Land, Forestry Commission Land,
Crown Land)
Area Status (SSSI, SAC Habitats Directive, RSPB Reserve, Sites of Importance
to Nature Conservation)
Monument Status (SAM, LB, Building at Risk etc)

I would be very interested in what YOU ALL THINK ON THIS.

*Comment 5*
Source and Archive List is too detailed.

Answer
Some people need lots of detail, others don't ... to deal with the concepts
behind this list and to fulfil as wider audiences needs as possible it needs
to be comprehensive. In fact we have received comments that are the opposite
that the list is not detailed enough. If it is too detailed index to a top
term you will still be within the terminology national standards. If it is
not detailed enough send you suggestions with a scope note and they will be
considered.

*Comment 6*
Once the list is done is that it? can we add things?. What about local terms
the Protection Grade Status does not have local terms.

Answer
YES INDEED PLEASE DO!!! No standard remains static and terminologies are a
base line. We have developed a "Base Line Standard" which I think is better
than current Inscription lists. You know what your local needs are... add
your local terms as you see fit ... If it is a national term or something
you think others might want then contact us and we'll consider it either way
add what you wish. All I would say is do not change or edit existing terms
they are there for a reason. If you don't use them someone might do, and if
one day you exchange data with them (such as the National Trust SMR or the
DOB) you will automatically see their data in all its glory.

*Comment 7*
We do not need Terminology lets just use GIS.

Answer
Ok that's a answer. However it will not be the full answer even to record a
protection status we need to be able to agree the term that we call it. Also
we need to be able to map to other numbering sequences such as old County
SAMs and MPP numbers or even the Listed Buildings. You would be surprised
but there is currently over 15 different terminologies being applied to
record a Scheduled Monument.