JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for HERFORUM Archives


HERFORUM Archives

HERFORUM Archives


HERFORUM@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

HERFORUM Home

HERFORUM Home

HERFORUM  October 2004

HERFORUM October 2004

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Evidence Thesaurus (Long)

From:

Nick Boldrini <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Issues related to Sites & Monuments Records <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 7 Oct 2004 10:01:32 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (202 lines)

Hi Phil

My thoughts are as follows:

General Points

Some of the terms seem to have significantly changed their meaning - eg Sub Surface deposit, and I am not sure how good an idea this is, as it will mean in our case a lot of recoding. And the reason for their meaning change does not seem good to me.

For example - Sub Surface Deposit used to cover Geophysical evidence , but this has now been separated out. But I don't think is necessary. A term to distinguish between detected and excavated deposits is useful, but a simpler solution might be to add the term Excavated Feature.

The whole evidence by Technique strikes me as overlapping a bit too much with Events, so I don't like it much.

Also (and I am comparing the on line list with the V3 HBSMR list, not sure where that derives) some of the terms seem to link into condition. Hence the removal of various types of building makes sense to some degree, but if we were to use this Thes we would want the condition aspect of the building saved somehow. In this sense I can see why Destroyed monument, Levelled earthwork have gone too

below are my comments term by term, where I felt I could usefully  comment. Blanks mean I don't know, and can't justify the time to research.

I do not think we should consider using this in HBSMR until a lot more consultation has been carried out, as using this new Thesaurus will involve a lot of recasting work, which will have to be done manually in some cases (eg separating out which SUBSURFACE deposits are still that and which were from geophysics). The consultation should make clear not only the new terms, but terms whose definitions have changed.


*       EVIDENCE <BY FORM> 
o       ARCHITECTURAL COMPONENT - ok
o       CROPMARK ok
o       EARTHWORK 
o       FIND - what happened to artefact scatter - this can be evidence for a monument
     STRATIFIED FIND ok
     UNSTRATIFIED FIND ok 
o       MODIFIED LANDSCAPE
     BOTANICAL FEATURE 
     ENHANCED NATURAL FEATURE 
     MODIFIED SURFACE - is this supposed to cover carved rocks? The scope note needs clarification
o       STRUCTURE 
     BUILDING 
     SUBMERGED STRUCTURE 
     VESSEL STRUCTURE 
     SUBTERRANEAN STRUCTURE 
o       SUB SURFACE DEPOSIT 
*       EVIDENCE <BY IMPLICATION>  I like this section, pretty useful I would say
o       CONJECTURAL EVIDENCE 
o       DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 
     CARTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE 
o       ORAL HISTORY EVIDENCE 
o       PLACE NAME EVIDENCE 
*       EVIDENCE <BY METHOD>  not comfortable with this, as it overlaps with events, in my view. If it is used then doesn't some sort of excavated feature need to be included, or surveyed feature for an earthwork need to be added? Earthwork might describe the physical banks/ditches etc, but if the Monument interpretation is based on a field survey then that needs to be indexable??
o       GEOPHYSICAL EVIDENCE 
     MARINE GEOPHYSICAL EVIDENCE 
     ECHOSOUNDER TRACE 
     MARINE MAGNETOMETER READING 
     SONAR CONTACT 
     SIDE SCAN SONAR CONTACT 
     TERRESTRIAL GEOPHYSICAL EVIDENCE 
     RESISTIVITY EVIDENCE 
     TERRESTRIAL MAGNETOMETER READING 
o       PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE
     AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE - am not sure I like this - you should be able to tell if its an earthwork or cropmark in most cases, so not sure it would get used much. If this term is to be used for all AP's, then surely, logically, we only need one term of Documentary evidence as most HER information will come from a documentary source? Surely this is more about source than type of evidence?
     INFRA RED PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE 
*       UNCERTAIN EVIDENCE 

Does the term wreckage for undersea vessels not seem useful, for scattered wrecks, unless artefact scatter would cover it?

More questions than answers, I'm afraid, hope that helps though


best wishes

Nick Boldrini
Historic Environment Record Officer
Heritage Section
Countryside Service
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.

>>> [log in to unmask] 05/10/2004 13:58:45 >>>
Hi Sarah et al

Just to clarify. When I suggested 'aerial photographic evidence' I was looking at the NMR thesauri online.

The version of the evidence thesaurus online is different to that in use in HBSMR and indeed the evidence thesaurus in EH databases.

I hadn't realized that this was the case. 

The online version was an attempt to improve on the old version and arose from discussion on this list (or its predecessor) or the FISH list I can't remember which. Anyway in our database it's called NHRDS EVIDENCE. Which if I remember rightly standards for National Heritage Reference Data Sets.

Why the online version points at NHRDS and not standard Evidence I don't know but will look into it.

Anyway maybe now would be a good time to suggest that NHRDS Evidence replace Evidence

Please look at the web version on
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/thesaurus/evidence/default.htm 

Any comments as to whether this is better/worse/the same as the old one would be welcome.

Obviously if there is general agreement that it's better then we'll look at getting it incorporated into HBSMR asap

Phil

P.S. Sorry for any misunderstanding

-----Original Message-----
From: Poppy Sarah [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: 05 October 2004 13:32
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: Evidence Thesaurus

Phil
As an aside, the thesaurus we use in HBSMR, and which is supplied as
download from the DSU does not have "aerial photographic evidence" as an
option - only "cropmark".  Are the Evidence thesauri used within EH and
elsewhere the same?

Best wishes
Sarah

-----Original Message-----
From: CARLISLE, Phil [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: 05 October 2004 13:14
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: Evidence Thesaurus


Hi all
Sorry forgot to say if you've identified them from aerial photos!

Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: HEGARTY, Cain
Sent: 05 October 2004 12:22
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: Evidence Thesaurus

Agreed - we have mapped dozens of quarries, extractive pits etc and have
used 'earthwork', which is not entirely satisfactory, although it is
accurate.  Similarly, and ideas for bombcraters?

Cain Hegarty
Aerial Photograph Interpreter
01793 414813

-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Boldrini [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: 05 October 2004 12:11
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Evidence Thesaurus

Hello Folks

when indexing a quarry against an evidence type, what would people use
for its physical remains? Its not quite a modified surface, enhanced
natural feature, or earthwork. Any ideas? TIme for a new term - Human
ALtered area? Or something?

Assuming any of you think about such things...

thanks

best wishes

Nick Boldrini
Historic Environment Record Officer
Heritage Section
Countryside Service
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.

WARNING

This E-mail and any attachments may contain information that is
confidential or privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the
named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken is
prohibited and may be unlawful.

Any opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily the
view of the Council.

North Yorkshire County Council.
***************************************************************************
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. If you receive this email by
mistake please notify the sender and delete it immediately. Opinions
expressed are those of the individual and do not necessarily represent the
opinion of Cambridgeshire County Council. All sent and received email from
Cambridgeshire County Council is automatically scanned for the presence of
computer viruses and security issues.
***************************************************************************
WARNING

This E-mail and any attachments may contain information that is confidential or privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken is prohibited and may be unlawful.

Any opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily the view of the Council.

North Yorkshire County Council.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager