on item 2
yeah i think that might be sensible presumably we might be able to use
development time or something ...
I would not support extra cost being shunted onto the users for the
implimentation of standards. For a number of reasons ....
1. Standards develop over time and do not remain static (nor should
2. Standards are a core backbone and the whole bussiness case for
using exegesis and such systems if users have to pay every time a
standard is developed it may well restrict take up of the standard. Indeed
many people that responded to my project said they felt locked into old
practices and standards.
but an application auto mapping would be easier on everyone. Also it
would mean that if you are on Exegesis their is real bussiness benefit in
terms of the updating of standards and practices.
A general mapping should be done of terms being used .. for both
exegesis and other systems - we should not restrict mapping to just one
system. know the DSU are considering providing such a service .. but i
would not like to speak for them. I would for one welcome their help in
mapping to existing terms.
>>> Paul Gilman AAG Manager ES <[log in to unmask]>
4/February/2002 02:44pm >>>
Jason, Here is my original e-mail again - you responded to item 1 but not
Further to the recent emails from Nigel Pratt regarding these lists, and
earlier from Veronica Fiorato about consultation types, we have been
whether these can be built into the forthcoming release of Exegesis.
However, although this can be done for new installations, it cannot be
so easily for existing installations as these are likely to be using their
own lists already and these SMRs would have to implement the lists
if they wanted to use them. I discussed the issue with Crispin Flower
suggests it might be possible for Exegesis to create a tool to help users
the mapping of terms in old lists to those in new lists, and enable much of
the work to be done automatically. This would be potentially of great
if it could be made generic and help us to implement agreed standards. It
strikes me there are two issues:
1) Is the user community willing to run with the ALGAO lists as currently
drafted or is more work needed to ensure they meet user needs;
2) Is there interest in asking Exegesis to consider developing a generic
application to help users migration their systems to agreed data
there would be a cost implication here but perhaps English Heritage might
consider helping here, as this would clearly be of benefit in implementing
This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended only for the
recipient(s) named above. It may contain confidential or privileged
information and should not be read, copied or otherwise used by any
person unless express permission is given. If you are not a named
recipient, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail from your
It is the recipient's responsibility to ensure that appropriate measures are
in place to check for software viruses.