Dear Adrian,
On the whole, I agree with the comments made by Sarah and Nick. I also have a few additional comments, as follows:
Herefordshire SMR is staffed by one FTE post, run on a job-share basis. Given the number of tasks we have to deal with, validating OASIS records is not a priority as it largely duplicates the work we do in creating our own Event records. When I do validate OASIS records, I don't spend a great deal of time on it. We require contractors who are working under planning application conditions to supply the SMR with a hard copy of the resulting report (and a digital copy if they so wish), and I have a policy of not validating the OASIS record until the hard copy is in our possession. I don't think it is acceptable for the contractors to expect us to print and bind a copy at our expense. (We still find it useful to have a hard copy for the use of visitors to our office, which is why it is still a condition.)
We do make some of our Event records available online via our website, but these are only the Events that are linked to a Monument record. The Monument record details include a list of linked Events, and the user can click on the name of each event to see further details. We don't have a separate Events search facility, so it isn't possible to access records of events that had a negative outcome and are not linked to a Monument record.
I have noticed that the volume of new OASIS records has dropped off in recent months. I think this is partly due to a drop in the amount of work available to the contractors and partly because one local contractor, a regular user of OASIS, is no longer trading. The result is that I am spending less time on OASIS anyway, but obviously for the contractors' sake I don't want to see this situation continue.
Like Sarah, I do sometimes find that a request for OASIS validation is the first I have heard of the project. We ask that contractors obtain an Event number from us before starting work (or at the very least before they write the report) so that it can be included in their report. Most do, but some do not - English Heritage's Research Department are particularly guilty of this, in my experience. I frequently have to add the associated project reference codes, including the related HER numbers (such as Monument record numbers) and scheduled monument (SM) numbers. When these numbers are added by contractors, there often seems to be confusion about what the terms mean - for example, saying a number is an SM number when it is really a related HER number.
Nick mentioned that the data vanishes from OASIS once it has been signed off, but this isn't the case. When signed in to OASIS, I can access all our completed records and clicking on the Printable Version button in a record lets you see the details. Digital reports can be accessed from the Archives section of the ADS website by using the Grey Literature search facility.
There seems to be some confusion among users about what projects should and should not be entered on OASIS. The OASIS form states that it is intended for projects currently in the planning process and that backlog projects should not be entered. But some contractors have created records for projects carried out in Herefordshire before OASIS was set up, and for projects not related to the planning process (for example, English Heritage research projects).
Herefordshire Archaeology is hosting an OASIS training session later this month, with Mark Barratt of English Heritage providing the training. We have some contractor staff members attending, and I hope that this will help to iron out some of the inconsistencies in data entry and make the process more efficient for all of us working in Herefordshire.
I hope these comments are of some help.
Kind regards,
Melissa
Melissa A Seddon
SMR Officer
Herefordshire Archaeology
Environment, Planning and Waste
Herefordshire Council
PO Box 230
Blueschool House
Blueschool Street
HEREFORD
HR1 2ZB
Tel: 01432 260130
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Website: www.herefordshire.gov.uk/htt
"Any opinion expessed in this e-mail or any attached files are those of the individual and not necessarily those of Herefordshire Council, Herefordshire Primary Care Trust or 2gether NHS Foundation Trust. You should be aware that Herefordshire Council, Herefordshire Primary Care Trust and 2gether NHS Foundation Trust monitors its e-mail service. This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the addressee. This communication may contain material protected by law from being passed on. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this e-mail in error, you are advised that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of it. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail."
-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sarah Orr
Sent: 27 September 2011 15:56
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Review of OASIS
Dear Adrian
I'll use the same format as Nick in replying
- How does OASIS currently fit with your current work processes?
Like Nick, this is just pretty low down on my To Do list. One of the main failings of OASIS (and hence perhaps a reason for log jams in the
system) is that it is of very little benefit to HERs, and hence cannot be a high priority for us. By the time most archaeological work is put into an OASIS record, we generally already know about it either through liaison with the Development Management process or because the report has been deposited with the HER. The primary advantage of OASIS notifications to HERs is that we get to hear about work that has taken place outside Planning, eg Diocesan/ local community work, but this isn't very often.
It also seems to be a mistake to ask HER staff to assess the grey literature report and accept/decline it - at this point in the development management process, the report will have been passed by planning archaeologists and the contractors aren't going to change it if the HER declines it. All the HER staff can do is correct any glaring mistakes in the OASIS record itself - and I also add in the HER event number under associated project reference codes.
- In what ways does OASIS contribute to improved standards and consistency of event recording, Don't know about this - does OASIS use the new Events thesaurus?
One advantage of contractors using OASIS whilst also writing the reports though is that it does help focus the mind on the essential Event fields which HERs will need when creating their own database records (and what should be the MIDAS Heritage Investigative Activity mandatory units).
Some contractors now are putting info from their initial OASIS forms into the Summary at the start of their grey literature reports. This strikes me as a good use of collected information - ie why duplicate work by writing one thing for a Summary page and something else for OASIS.
- In what ways does OASIS contribute to efficiency of information flows?
Probably not very much bearing in mind the answer to the first question, but could be a time saver for contractors with regards to my second answer.
- What are the specific issues and challenges? What should be the priorities and why?
Going back to what is stated to be the overall aim of the project - 'to provide an online index to the mass of archaeological grey literature that has been produced as a result of the advent of large-scale developer funded fieldwork and a similar increase in fieldwork undertaken by volunteers', then obviously this hasn't been achieved very successfully. One of the main surprises to me recently was how little of the OASIS entered data is actually currently available to non-users.
Where would a member of the public look for that online index if the report ISN'T in the grey literature library on ADS?
- What improvements could be made to the OASIS form and why?
Don't think it should get much longer or more complicated as this adds to the time taken to fill it in or check it.
- Should OASIS be expanded to incorporate a wider range of heritage assets and event types? If so, what?
Event types - may be using thesaurus. Heritage assets - what exactly?
If the assets described aren't in the Monument type thesaurus, then this needs expanding surely, not a different set of terminology being used.
- What wider range of heritage assets and event types should an expanded OASIS incorporate?
As above
- What other opportunities are there to improve or enhance OASIS?
I recently liaised with Museum colleagues on the subject of archaeological archive deposition and content, and was very disappointed to realise that although many contractors enter details in OASIS about archives (ie Museum accession ID, and what the physical, digital and paper archive contains), this information isn't available to the museums in question. Similarly, the museum accession numbers aren't displaying properly in the Excavations Index entry on ADS (No individual museum identifier prefixes, hence meaningless). In fact if the EH Excavations Index is the only place where OASIS entered data ends up, this is a poor reflection of the original entries - eg the short description of the project isn't the same, the HER event number is referred to as an SMR number, the monument types appear to be different to the fields Period/subjects in OASIS. But perhaps this is a different issue, ie what the template is that the NMR uses. Also there doesn't appear to be a way to search on ADS ArchSearch for the OASIS number - I have raised this separately with ADS and I gather it may come as a future development.
Other opportunities - going back to the aim of OASIS, is it meant to be a searchable index of sources (ie the reports) or Events (or even monuments...)? Currently I don't think many HERs have their Event records online - and certainly Heritage Gateway doesn't allow for this at the moment (ie only HER monument records are indexed). If we want to join things up more, may be OASIS data should have a higher presence on HG, but with better linkages to the HER event ref numbers, museum accession numbers and the grey literature reports, etc. I fully support the concept of ADS hosting the unpublished fieldwork reports on http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/greylit/ but currently there isn't any even link between the bibliographic references in the Excavation Index records on ArchSearch http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archsearch/ and these reports.
(Again I believe ADS are working on this). As others have said in this discussion thread, we want to ensure these kind of links exist, to and from national/local datasets and resources.
Best wishes
Sarah Orr
Historic Environment Record Officer
Archaeology Service
West Berkshire Council
West Street House
West Street
Newbury
RG14 1BZ
Tel 01635 519805
Fax 01635 519811
[log in to unmask]
www.westberks.gov.uk/archaeology
**********************************************************************
This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed may not necessarily represent those of West Berkshire Council.
If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this e-mail in error.
All communication sent to or from West Berkshire Council may be subject to recording and or monitoring in accordance with UK legislation, are subject to the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and may therefore be disclosed to a third party on request.
“Any opinion expressed in this e-mail or any attached files are those of the individual and not necessarily those of Herefordshire Council, Herefordshire Primary Care Trust or 2gether NHS Foundation Trust. You should be aware that Herefordshire Council, Herefordshire Primary Care Trust & 2gether NHS Foundation Trust monitors its email service. This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the addressee. This communication may contain material protected by law from being passed on. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this e-mail in error, you are advised that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of it. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.”
|
