I would be inclined to ask 'for whom is the mill and milling date
information intended?'
Do we have (or do we wish to encourage) a large number of researchers who
approach the question of milling history from the dates of the active use of
mills? Would they be satisfied instead with a list of mills whose date
broadly fits within their period of interest, so that they can read summary
text that (as Martin suggests) may contain more specific information about
periods of milling during the life of the building? Is it sufficient to
point them to more detailed sources?
Do we have (or wish to encourage) more users that are interested in the
structural history of mill buildings and all their uses throughout their
lives? The structure of the Listed Building system that Martin describes
obviously is primarily focused towards management/conservation need than
presentation to general interest/basic education users.
Clearly it is possible to index these dates (and a host of other potentially
useful information items) in many ways to satisfy a huge variety of
potential needs, but at what cost to accession time, record management and
general legibility of the record to non-specialist users?
What do our users want? If we don't have the facilities to ask them all the
time, we should at least try to base our recording judgements on some solid
perception of what they may ask for. Who might actually want the mill
information, and what are they likely to want it for?
Any similarity in content between this email and local government 'balanced
scorecard' theory is entirely coincidental!
Cheers,
Ben Robinson
Historic Environment Officer
Peterborough City Council
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Newman, Martin [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 15 April 2004 09:38
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Building Records in SMR's
>
> Nick,
>
> Thanks for a posting that doesn't seek to restart the war of the roses!
>
> When indexing the listed building system we created a separate phase (mon
> type and date for each use of a building or phase of construction. For
> example a mill built in 1700 with alterations in 1750 which went out of
> use
> and became a hose in 1850 would have 3 phases:
>
> MILL 1700
> MILL 1750
> HOUSE 1850
>
> A break in use for milling would not make any difference to the structure
> of
> the monument where as alternative use would so I'd record milling dates in
> the text.
>
> Interestingly there's a large archive of windmill photos (the Symonds
> collection) at the NMR that might be of interest to you in your
> enhancement
> project.
>
> Martin
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Martin Newman
> Heritage Information Partnerships Supervisor
> National Monuments Record
> English Heritage
>
> Phone - 01793 414718
> Fax - 01793 414770
> Email - [log in to unmask]
>
> Join the HELPs email list at www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/helps.html
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nick Boldrini [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 15 April 2004 09:35
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Building Records in SMR's
>
>
> Hello Folks
>
> I have recently imported a load of Mill data into our (HB)SMR. As part
> of the post import clean up I got to thinking (always dangerous..., I'll
> learn to stop doing it one day). What I imported was Windmill and
> Watermill data.
>
> For many of these we have a variety of dates - built date, date stopped
> milling, date demolished etc. Some of these monuments are still extant
> buildings and some of the dates refer to the building as a structure
> whilst other dates relate to its use as a mill.
>
> Is there any view on how these differences should be recorded? For
> example the end date of the milling is about use, but for the extant
> examples there is as yet no end date really as the building still
> exists. Should two Monument types be created to record details of the
> use as opposed to the structure (IE one as building with start and end
> dates as appropriate, and one as watermill with start and end dates of
> it being a mill) but even then this might be the start and end date of
> cereal milling, and the extant structure is still a water mill.
>
> Obviously this has implications for how we record buildings, and can
> think of my own ideas, just wanted to see if anyone else has thought
> about this or are you all too busy with other things?
>
> thanks
>
> best wishes
>
> Nick Boldrini
> SMR Computing Officer
> Heritage Unit
> North Yorkshire County Council
> Direct Dial (01609) 532331
> http://www.northyorks.gov.uk/environment/heritage.shtm#Archaeology
>
> North Yorkshire County Council has the right
> and does inspect E-Government mails sent
> from and to its computer system.
*** Private And Confidential Notice ***
The information contained in this E-MAIL is intended for the named recipients only. It may contain privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any action or reliance on it.
If you have received this E-MAIL in error, please notify the sender immediately by using the E-MAIL address or on +44 (0) 1733 452411
|