I had assumed that once an OASIS record is validated the grey literature becomes available on ADS? Is this not the case? If it is not is it then available anywhere? One reason I had supported it was that I saw it as a way of grey literature being made widely available for my area as I did not have the resources to do this - and given the experience of others in the Black Country national HER coverage can no longer be taken as a given in any case.
Mike
Mike Shaw
City Archaeologist
Wolverhampton City Council
Civic Centre
Wolverhampton
WV1 1RP
e-mail [log in to unmask]
Tel: 01902 555493
-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adrian Smith
Sent: 27 September 2011 11:22
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Review of OASIS
Hello Nick
That's great - thanks for your detailed feedback and comments.
Adrian
Adrian Smith
Senior Research Executive
Pye Tait Consulting
Specialists in: Business Services, Learning & Skills and Marketing.
Tel: 01423 509433
Fax: 01423 509502
Email: [log in to unmask]
Website: www.pyetait.com
Pye Tait Consulting
Royal House, 110 Station Parade
Harrogate,
North Yorkshire
HG1 1EP
This message is for the named person's use only and is copyright Pye Tait Limited © All Rights Reserved.
Pye Tait Limited (www.pyetait.com), trading as Pye Tait Consulting, is registered in England, Company No: 4001365. Registered office: Royal House, 110 Station Parade, Harrogate, North Yorkshire, HG1 1EP.
-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nick Boldrini
Sent: 27 September 2011 11:15
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Review of OASIS
Hi Adrian
To answer your questions:
- How does OASIS currently fit with your current work processes? - it doesn't really, except for being on my "to do" list as a not very high priority. Its something I will probably get volunteers to sort out at some point in the future - ie catching up on our validation backlog.
- In what ways does OASIS contribute to improved standards and consistency of event recording - I am not sure it does for HER's, though I assume it helps the NMR. It records things we don't and also seems to conflate Heritage Assets, Events and Source information into one record, which doesn't seem in line with MIDAS. However, as it is not entirely clear to me what happens to the data once it is signed off (it vanishes from OASIS, but I am not clear where it appears in the NMR) then that may not be an issue.
- In what ways does OASIS contribute to efficiency of information flows? - Again, for HER's I don't think it does. If you are recording Event information in the HER, then it is a duplicate data entry system which is not linked to the HER, is entered by different people and therefore there are discrepancies between them, leading to potential confusion by users. As the OASIS data is for someone elses system, theres not a huge incentive for HER's to spend time validating and editing the records - if my Event records are ok, OASIS is an SEP. Often, by the time records are on OASIS, we already have them in the HER, so there is no time saving for us if we downloaded them, just another task (validating them) for no appreciable gain (except a broadly generic one of sharing information) - hence its low priority.
- What are the specific issues and challenges? What should be the priorities and why? - The answer to the next few questions all very much depend on what the purpose of OASIS is. My understanding of it was that it is/was meant to be THE way for the NMR to gather information. Yet AIP is still continuing, and the Geophysics database is still separate I believe, so whats that about? I also understood it was meant to be a way of giving access to Grey Literature, but figures suggest this is only happening for some of the records, and there are also "competing" or parallel systems in operation (eg ADS, Heritage Gateway, individual HER's). If you are doing research you don't want to search different systems to find that most of the records are the same, but at the moment that is what I tell people to do, as there is also a chance that the different systems might have additional records.. So what is it for? Once you have that defined, then the issues and challenges should define themselves. One specific issue though, is to try and get this adopted as a sectorial solution to whatever the problem is. At the moment not all HER's have signed up, of those that have, not all are validating, so the system is not being supported to its full potential. There are many reasons for this, but working out what they are and then overcoming them will be a significant issue. Another issue is to develop data compatibility/export functionality for Non-HBSMR using HER's. Another question to ask - why does the NMR need to update the Excavation Index at all, when this is largely duplicating what HER's do?
- What improvements could be made to the OASIS form and why? - Allow HER's to populate it with their Event data is one possibility, so then there is more involvement, less duplication of data entry and less work for Contractors to do, which might improve work flows.
- Should OASIS be expanded to incorporate a wider range of heritage assets and event types? If so, what? Again, depends on what the point of OASIS is. The more it incorporates, though, the more this looks like a duplicate parallel system to HER's - and why is that needed?
- What wider range of heritage assets and event types should an expanded OASIS incorporate? - see above
- What other opportunities are there to improve or enhance OASIS? - quite a few. I am greatly in favour of data sharing, and streamlined working ie capture data once, use many times. OASIS currently isn't doing that though. What is needed is a strategic assessment of what it is intended to achieve, and then see if it is still the best way to achieve it.
I also sent comments to a meeting about HERALD a while back giving some more thoughts about OASIS, if you don't have a copy of that, I can re-send them off list.
best wishes
Nick Boldrini
Historic Environment Record Officer
Durham County Council
Tel: 0191 3708840
Fax: 0191 3708897
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adrian Smith
Sent: 26 September 2011 15:53
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Review of OASIS
Dear Forum members
Our organisation, Pye Tait Consulting, has been contracted by English Heritage to carry out an independent review of the OASIS system, including the preparation of an updated strategy in line with Heritage Protection Reform. The final report will be used to help inform future developments of OASIS.
We are currently conducting telephone interviews with a sample of HER representatives, contractors and other users of OASIS. To broaden the opportunity for other HERs to prodvie their input, we would like to invite you to share your views and discuss OASIS here on this forum. Your feedback will be invaluable to enriching the research and all views shared on this thread will be treated anonymously as part of our analysis and reporting.
We’ve posed some questions below as a ‘starter for ten’ but would be interested in any views you have.
Thank you very much.
Adrian Smith (Pye Tait)
- How does OASIS currently fit with your current work processes?
- In what ways does OASIS contribute to improved standards and consistency of event recording,
- In what ways does OASIS contribute to efficiency of information flows?
- What are the specific issues and challenges? What should be the priorities and why?
- What improvements could be made to the OASIS form and why?
- Should OASIS be expanded to incorporate a wider range of heritage assets and event types? If so, what?
- What wider range of heritage assets and event types should an expanded OASIS incorporate?
- What other opportunities are there to improve or enhance OASIS?
Help protect our environment by only printing this email if absolutely necessary. The information it contains and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are only intended for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may be unlawful for you to use, share or copy the information, if you are not authorised to do so. If you receive this email by mistake, please inform the person who sent it at the above address and then delete the email from your system. Durham County Council takes reasonable precautions to ensure that its emails are virus free. However, we do not accept responsibility for any losses incurred as a result of viruses we might transmit and recommend that you should use your own virus checking procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: This email and files transmitted are
confidential and are intended solely for the use of the
intended recipient. If you are not the intended
recipient, or the person responsible for delivering it to
the intended recipient, you may not copy, disclose,
distribute or use it in any unauthorised manner. If you
have received this email in error please notify us by
email to [log in to unmask] and then delete
it and any attachments accompanying it. Please note that
Wolverhampton City Council cannot guarantee that this
message or any attachments are virus free or have not been
intercepted and amended.
Any views or opinions expressed within this email are
those of the author and may not necessarily reflect those
of Wolverhampton City Council and no contractual
arrangement is intended to arise from this communication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|