glad to hear that 90% of the issues have been addressed thats great ..
as for the last exegesis group meetings indeed i was there.

I think we as users maybe didn't show much interest until it was getting
on our agendas (i certainly do not remember any update to the mapping
links being suggested in the meeting prior the May 1 meeting as we were
still dealing with the version 2 update).

I seem to remember the last 2 meetings

first of which that only amanda was there (looking at my diary it was
May 1 meeting 2001) and it was stated that Exegesis was going to
update the mapping link. It was then decided at that meeting we needed
to have a GIS sub group that would help with the scoping of the
development.

the sub group subsequently met on 8/june/2001 in birmingham at the EH
office:

The group included:
was headed by Peter Isles and included Victoria Bryant, me
and a number of other SMR people (sorry need to look through the
minutes).

Before the sub group met Amanda noted to me that Exegesis had already
begun to develop the map link as it was associated with other products
and was just a universal link. But our comments would be taken into
consideration and gratefully recieved .. Amanda did not indicate how far
the development had undergone ...... and indeed i am glad to see the
groups comments were addressed. I infact spoke to Martin Newman and
the group about this and said we need to get a move on to get our
comments in before development was finished or too far underway.

To my knowlege Tony the first time we actually saw the new map link
was during the last meeting in preston . I was actually relatively
impressed with what you showed it looked alot better obviously the
layers is/are still an issue.

I will check through the minutes but i am 90% thats the process that took
place.

cheers
jason
>>> Tony Pettitt <[log in to unmask]> 31/January/2002 01:14pm >>>
Jason

Your statement in your last email (reproduced below) is certainly not a
fair
summary of events!

"The exegesis sub group was formed to provide concentrated thinking
for
the exegesis GIS link development .... which i think was a chance lost ...
given that we later found out that development of the GIS link had already
begun before we met... I hope our Exegesis collueges have since
managed to see the document that the group produced????"

I'm not sure where you were at the last 3 software user group meetings!
 At
the first meeting we stated that we were upgrading the GIS module, at
the
second we listed the proposed changes (and it was decided to setup a
GIS sub
group), at the third we demoed the modifications made so far and we ran
through the GIS group report - 90% of the requests had been included
and we
then explained how we would tackle the other remaining issues, one by
one.

Regards

Tony Pettitt

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Siddall [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 10:29
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Digitising monument polygons on GIS -Reply


Hi

hmm
actually just to pick you up there Tony the "TABs" or as you rightly say
Tables it is not my solution Nick Bolidini suggested that might be away
around the issue.

I just commented thats what many people have done. I cannot do that as
our requirements in the trust is an integrated resource. That Integrates
Mapping, Images and text database

The GIS will be at the Heart of the system. I agree with John Wood (but
not that we will no longer need to record area status) that we are
moving toward more visual types of systems.

Just to pick up Sarah I never said we just omit the technology people and
system designers ...they are VERY Important ....

however at present it seems to me Technology is driving the
development and use of GIS ....

if it cannot be done now then just work around it ... my users turn to me
when i say that and say "no ... change it" and rightly so

Users should have a clearer idea of what they wish to do..... i.e we
have now pretty much developed our view on GIS and have pretty much
decided how we will seek to use the IT that is available now and in the
future ... using users comments feedback from test beds and the internal
IT mechanisms.

Just to note this is by no means a IT bashing excercise but as my users
and myself have often come across

"ah the technology cannot do that yet sorry"

It is exactly that problem that I am suggesting we try to get around ...
this
was ONE of the approaches that the sub group tried in looking at the
FUTURE development.

My answer and indeed those of my (30 or so which doesn't count non
archaeology NT staff who all now want our data) users has always
been well "OK if technology cannot presently do it lets look how we can
either get it to DO WHAT WE/OUR USERS WANT or lets look at new
design."

for instance i refer to Tony's suggestion we just use colours to
distinguish between monument record types ... evidently that is within
current technology

However why not  scope requirement and re-design to fit users needs

I think the answer that i am increasingly coming to is that

Current Technology is only current because someone hasn't thought of
something better

I am just saying that we need to think forward not at present technology
... as technology moves quickly. Increasingly as we move toward more
integrated systems (Maps,archives,images,Text databases).

This has meant we need to think forward and yes accept there may be
limitations at present, however in the future a new generation of
systems (SMR, GIS etc) will quite possibly do this.

For instance I have begun to develop our forward plan for the next 10
years - in effect our vision for the NTSMR. This has taken over 6 months
to do and includes where we technologicly wish to go to .. what we
want the NTSMR to do.... and what we need to achieve in terms of users
needs ....

now i am assuming that technology will develop .. so I have within that
plan recognised that some things are not possible at present levels of
technology but have rated the developments we need. I recognise that
such things may never be possible however the users asks for
something so it gets into the plan if it is sensible and adds functionality.

This means when we develop the NTSMR we have a decent starting
block as a requirement spec. It does mean we will have a very clear idea
what we want the system to do.

At present we all seem to be doing things in isolation and in a adhoc
manner which probably means the Technology developers are not
included anyway.... wouldn't it be easier to concentrate thinking??

The exegesis sub group was formed to provide concentrated thinking for
the exegesis GIS link development .... which i think was a chance lost ...
given that we later found out that development of the GIS link had already
begun before we met... I hope our Exegesis collueges have since
managed to see the document that the group produced????

Don't get me wrong I think the Exegesis SMR is a great system and is
doing a fantastic job in begining the process to integrate resources
(mapping, text and archives etc).

But the fly in the ointment for me is the GIS link just isn't going to do
what
me or my users want .. this is why i just cannot buy it yet. I hope the
new version is more functional rather than just a digital version of a map
that just has hot links. From what Tony suggest the new mapping module
will be a leap up !!!!!

CHEERS
jason
>>> Tony Pettitt <[log in to unmask]> 30/January/2002 06:27pm >>>
Ingrid

The new mapping module functionality will allow you to show just your
find
spot polygons if you so wish.  This is exactly the effect you will get with
Jasons 'tabs' solution.  Can we please not use the term 'tabs' - they are
tables, tabs are the things you get on the HBSMR data entry forms.

Regards

Tony

-----Original Message-----
From: Peckham, Ingrid [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 04:02
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Digitising monument polygons on GIS


Dear all

I suppose the main problem for us in Southampton is findspots.  A lot of
these are very inaccurately located on the ground; the original
information
attached to the find often refers only to a road, park, or former village
(now subsumed within the city boundary).  Also, being an urban area,
we have
a lot of them over a relatively small area.  So, if I plot findspots as
polygons, I end up with a lot of large overlying/overlapping polygons.

It would be useful to have findspot information plotted on the map layer
as
polygons, but it really does get in the way of other monument types - no
matter what colours or symbols are used.  If I held the polygons on a
separate layer, at least I could easily turn that layer off to see the more
exactly located monuments.  But ....

I'd be interested to hear more about the tabs solution, although would
prefer to keep the link with the exeGesIS database functional.

Ingrid Peckham,
SMR Assistant,  Heritage Conservation Unit,
Cultural Services,
Southampton City Council,
Civic Centre,
Southampton.
SO14 7LP.
Tel: 023 8083 2850
Fax: 023 8033 7593
Email: [log in to unmask]