Hi Sarah, Ingrid,
Bear in mind the current MIDAS standard limits its Recommendation of
'Archive/Source Location' to archive and object recording, so, for
example, publications wouldn't need this. (This would need to be
clarified in any revision of the benchmark).
The intention is that a user of the record can, if they wish, find the
original source of information on which the record is based, if there is
one. If that can be done by other ways in your system, then that's fine.
If it can't, then that may be a worthwhile expenditure of effort.
Otherwise how would you, for example, be able to defend a planning
decision based on the record at appeal?
Ed
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peckham, Ingrid [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 22 February 2005 09:41
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Level 1 Benchmark Basic Compliance Specification for data
>
> Dear All,
>
> Sarah says: "We have lots of sources where details of the sources are
> known and usefully recorded but their location is simply unknown, and
> without a mammoth effort will remain so."
>
> This is also the case in Southampton.
>
> Best wishes,
> Ingrid
>
> Ingrid Peckham
> Sites and Monuments Record Officer
> Southampton City Council
> Tel: 023 8083 2850
> Fax: 023 8083 2153
>
> This e-mail is intended for the addressee only. If you are not the
> intended recipient, please be aware that the unauthorised use or
> disclosure of the information it contains, or the unauthorised copying
> or re-transmission of the e-mail are strictly prohibited. Such action
> may result in legal proceedings. If the e-mail has been sent to you in
> error, please accept our apologies, advise the sender as soon as
> possible and then delete the message. Under the Freedom of Information
> Act 2000 / Data Protection Act 1998, the contents of this e-mail,
> whether it is marked confidential or otherwise, may be disclosed. No
> employee, Councillor or agent is authorised to conclude by e-mail any
> binding agreement with another party on behalf of Southampton City
> Council. The Council does not accept service by e-mail of court
> proceedings, other processes or formal notices of any kind without
> specific prior written agreement. E-mails to and from Southampton City
> Council may be monitored in accordance with the law.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Issues related to Sites & Monuments Records
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Poppy Sarah
> Sent: 21 February 2005 18:07
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Level 1 Benchmark Basic Compliance Specification for data
>
> Hi Ed
> Quite agree with the optional NGR/Admin area for a source.
> As for the mandatory Archive Source location I would hesitate briefly.
> We have lots of sources where details of the sources are known and
> usefully recorded but their location is simply unknown, and without a
> mammoth effort will remain so. Would this mean we would not be
> complying on this small and unresolvable detail?
>
> The whole process for updating/verifying the benchmarks was something
> that was discussed at the ALGAO meeting, and I thought it was
something
> that the ALGAO/EH working party were taking forward - as to whether a
> new working party would need to be set up or whether this could be
> carried out by an existing one. Have their been any developments on
> this?
>
> Sarah
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Issues related to Sites & Monuments Records
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Nick Boldrini
> Sent: 21 February 2005 10:39
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Level 1 Benchmark Basic Compliance Specification for data
>
>
> Hi Ed
>
> these seem sensible changes to me
>
> best wishes
>
> Nick Boldrini
> Historic Environment Record Officer
> Heritage Section
> Countryside Service
> North Yorkshire County Council
> Direct Dial (01609) 532331
>
> This email is personal. It is not authorised by or sent on behalf of
> North Yorkshire
> County Council, however, the Council has the right and does inspect
> emails sent from
> and to its computer system. This email is the sole responsibility of
> the sender
>
> >>> [log in to unmask] 18/02/2005 11:55:54 >>>
> Hello all,
>
> As many of you will recall, the DCMS consultation on HERs in 2002
> included a draft definition of what data fields should be included in
an
> HER, covering Monuments, Events and Archive/Source data, based upon
the
> MIDAS standard. This was issued as a draft as part of the DCMS
> consultation paper.
> See:-http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/files/HERFORUM/Benchmark1.1Nov_2002.doc
>
> I would now like to open discussion on a proposed change to the Draft
> Level 1 Benchmark compliance data standard. This follows on from a
> request for clarification from exeGesIS, and I'm grateful to Tobi
Tonner
> there for bring this issue to my attention. Although the draft
> definition has not, to my knowledge, been given a full official
approval
> (it is not specifically referred to in the DCMS report) it has been
out
> there as an point of reference for two years, so isn't something that
> can be changed without consultation. I'm keen therefore to have your
> views.
>
> The issue relates just to the Archive/Source records part of the
Draft.
> Monument and Event areas are unaffected. There are two related
issues:-
>
> 1) As set out the Draft *requires* the recording of administrative
area
> and grid reference against archive/source items.
> 2) The Draft does not refer to the recording of the MIDAS unit of
> information 'Archive/Source Location'. This unit is recommended by
> MIDAS, and is defined as recording "the actual location of archive
> materials referred to, to assist in future retrieval".
>
> My proposals are that
> 1) the recording of administrative area and grid reference data be
> 'downgraded' to optional (indeed it would probably not be in the
> benchmark definition at all).
> 2) Archive Source Location be added as mandatory, both to better
> implement the MIDAS recommendation, and to provide for better
recording
>
> I would welcome comments on these proposals, on or off list, and also
> on how HER folk feel this proposal should be circulated for approval.
Is
> an email consultation adequate? Would you like a more formal
> consultation on the proposed change? Who, ultimately, should
'sign-off'
> the draft benchmark?
>
> Best wishes
>
>
> Edmund Lee
> Data Standards Supervisor
> Data Standards Unit
> English Heritage
> National Monuments Record Centre
> Kemble Drive
> Swindon
> SN2 2GZ
> United Kingdom
>
> t: +44 (0) 1793 414791
> e: [log in to unmask]
> f: +44 (0) 1793 414770
>
> 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.
|