Hello Neil,
Thanks for your comments. You wrote...
> I don't think MIDAS should be expanded much at all. Right
> now it is nicely focussed and is relevant to HER work.
Certainly that would make things a lot simpler for FISH! but I think there
is a need for HER work to develop (for example the need to record historic
landscapes as well as monuments) that is not currently well covered by
MIDAS. Anyone else got any thoughts on this.
> Admittedly, it needs a section on digital imagery, but I
> don't think it should try to be all things to all Records
> centres.
What would be the issues here? File formats, optimum file sizes or
resolutions? Is MIDAS the place for that sort of thing, or should this
belong in other heritage sector sources of advice (e.g. the ADS Guides to
Good Practice series)?
> Right now, a significant issue for most HERs is how to store,
> index and hold the metadata for historic mapping, plans,
> Tithe maps, slides, prints and aerial photographs, ranging in
> size from A0 to A6 or so. Some practical guidance on this
> would most useful.
I agree. More on the use of metadata for archive items (of all sorts) would
be a good thing. So far the idea would be to divide up some of the units of
information (e.g. to separate archive Format from Archive Type - they are
currently lumped together). The rather unlovely 'Bibliography, Documentary
Archive and Objects' information scheme will also be retitled 'Resources' to
reflect the wider range.
That said I don't think it should be the role of MIDAS to duplicate the
standards covered more appropriately by e.g. ISADG or Encoded Archival
Description. But perhaps we need enough detail so that HERs and similar
bodies could make use of (and provide) data on theor specialist archive
holdings to archival record holders.
Edmund Lee
English Heritage Data Standards Unit
|