I think your suggestion for a application is great
Paul Gilman wrote
"As to costs being shunted onto users, well my own feeling is that this
should be shared amongst all concerned, so it need not be great. In any
case, if users are implementing standards, especially new ones, there is
of course a cost in any case in terms of staff time,"
I am worried about that
the development of standards and their implimentation is a key area ... i
am worried that the less well funded SMR's will not be able to fund this
thus will not impliment the new standard ... i am not sure anything is just
a "one of development or cost" standards develop and thus the
application would have to develop as it gets more complicated the cost
could grow for the application ... i think we need to see the scope and
content of any such application ... will be be designed just for updating
the events fields?
Putting on FISH hat shouldn't we be advocating development of an
application or term mapping for other platforms?
also the question has to be asked will it be a one off cost for the
application across the profession or a one off cost to each SMR?
Indeed you are right there is staff time to mapping terms and updating the
system and indeed on staff time basis it could be more expensive not to..
however some may just choose not to bother - i am not just saying that
Now i FULLY support the implimentation and development of standards it
is very important and will make all our jobs alot easier in the long run ...
which is why we have found it difficult to exchange data everyone out
there is using lots of different standards.
I agree an automated update would be better however I think we must be
very clear what this will mean as this is not just a 1 off cost other
standards are in development.
The implimention of standards is a core element and users should be
involved with development of new terminologies... but their involvement
should not mean they must pay for their systems to be updated.
Charging at the user end could be counter productive ...
the whole business case of having a national accepted system is that
standards and the developement of standards are apart of the system
not an add cost.
sorry Paul to be a little negative on this, I agree that it would make things
easier .... but the cost of this worries me .. not necessarily for ourselves
we could probably absorb costs .. but i think their is a very dodgy area
here it would be a setting a principle that no one has explored before ...
The whole issue of how we impliment standards and terminology is a
burning issue. I do not think users should have to pay for standards to be
Also putting on FISH HAT what about those users that are not using
exergesis ... some use Oracle etc
Are we running the risk that we are placing FISH into a position of
favouring one system or platform.
I am not discounting this development but we must be very clear about
the issues that may arise from this as it may set a precedent in policy. It
is worth airing some of those issues now so we are all clear as to what
In some ways i would rather see FISH pay for implimentation of
standards ... but as a virtual body i'm not sure that is possible as yet
I think we cannot say yeah until we have fullly seen the scope of what is
being proposed in principle it sounds very sensible. Automation to
standards is probably the only way we can update standards. Cost and
how we do it are perhaps the stops.
I'm not sure we could justify paying anything for a programe as we have
the technology and understanding to do it ourselves if someone provides
the mapping to our terms. How many SMR's can do that? possibly lots
which could mean a small user base for such an application ...
now if the users are willing to pay for such applications thats a different
so the question is (probably for exegesis users it seems at present)
what will be the scope of the application... will it just be for events?)
are users willing to pay for development of such applications bearing in
mind other terminologies will develop over time and indeed some
developments may mean changes to the structure of how we record our
Maybe our EH buddies would like to come in here ...
Noting also that the standards that FISH develops cross country
coundaries and so EH might not be able to fund them ...
grief its 5.30 ....
>>> Paul Gilman AAG Manager ES <[log in to unmask]>
4/February/2002 03:48pm >>>
If I understood Crispin correctly - the proposed application would flag up
affected records in the validation field to help identify which records
revisiting. As to the cost, hopefully English Heritage might be able to
help, and also if an application could be made generic it ought to be a
one-off cost to develop it. As to costs being shunted onto uers, well my
feeling is that this should be shared amongst all concerned, so it need
be great. In any case, if users are implementing standards, especially
ones, there is of course a cost in any case in terms of staff time, if
nothing else, and the proposal I am making ought to enable savings to be
made in this area,
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.