Hi folks
this seems to have cross fertilised back onto HER forum, but I think it should continue on the FISH list.
Crispin has a good point, and I hadn't thought of that angle, but what Chris suggests seems to be the ideal solution. I suppose what it comes down to is thinking of the MIDAS Heritage as applying across the GIS and text database aspects of the HER in a bit more of a joined up way and creatively.
This is all quite timely as well - just had a call from IT about our bid for HER work. One thing to sort was updating the parish list, which does not match the GIS parishes. I might just tell them not to bother and we'll query it through the GIS (Might being a very important word here, for lots of reasons).
If we accepted Chris's idea, the question would be is this MIDAS Compliant? Or to put it another way, what does the system need to be able to do to be MIDAS compliant?
I assume its two things 1) be able to retrieve records based on admin area criteria and 2) send selected data out to people including the admin area information, even if that is generated at the time of export.
Is that right?
best wishes
Nick Boldrini
Historic Environment Record Officer
Durham County Council
Tel: 0191 3708840
Fax: 0191 3708897
[log in to unmask]
VPN 7777 8840
NOTE: Durham County Council Archaeology Service is moving on 20th June 2012 and the HER will be shut from 18th - 22nd June.
2012 edition of "Archaeology: County Durham" is now available.
**Now available ** Order your copy of "Faverdale, Darlington: excavations at a major settlement in the northern frontier zone of Roman Britain" by Jennifer Proctor.
Both these publications and more are available direct from the Archaeology Section (Archaeology publications for sale - Durham County Council)
Web: www.durham.gov.uk
Follow us on Twitter @durhamcouncil
Like us at facebook.com/durhamcouncil
-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris Wardle
Sent: 24 May 2012 08:50
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: MIDAS Heritage and Mandatory recording of Admin area
Hi Phil,
Yes, I understand and appreciate that there are problems with using GIS data to define administrative boundaries.
However, there are also problems with text based systems.
When I was in Staffs. one parish Hoar Cross in East Staffs was either created or abolished (I can't not recall which) which meant that there were scores of records where the text did not correspond to the then current reality. So I was somewhat relieved when I arrived in Leicester to find that we had no parishes at all. The relief was short lived as the HER (or SMR as it was then) stored data on wards., and of course all the wards had been recast and most of the textual data on the wards was out of date.
As I see it would be preferable for there to be a system whereby the up to data names of wards, parishes, districts, unitaries and counties were held within a GIS, so that whenever they are recast or redrawn the GIS updates all the records accordingly. I accept that this is technically difficult but it must be worth trying rather than having a load of legacy data in the system.
Though I concede that folk, especially those unfamiliar with local government, will take a long while to come to terms with current reality. There were, and presumably still are, many members of the what became the Staffs Archaeological and Historical Society (most of who were well into retirement) who still referred to the Black Country as 'Staffordshire' whereas it had not been a part of the county in any real sense for at least 50 years.
Chris
Chris Wardle
City Archaeologist
Planning & Economic Development
A11, New Walk Centre
Leicester. LE1 6ZG
-----Original Message-----
From: Issues related to Historic Environment Records [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of CARLISLE, Philip
Sent: 23 May 2012 16:18
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: MIDAS Heritage and Mandatory recording of Admin area
Dear all,
I have spent a lot of time over the last 2 years looking into this issue. With the development of the NHLE and the switch from textual recording of admin location to GIS-derived data, we (EH) had to reconcile two large datasets UDS (which powers NHLE) and AMIE (which powers Pastscape).
UDS was developed from scratch, to incorporate data from the old RSM, LBS and Parks and Gardens and Battlefields datasets all of which recorded textual info based on EH's interpretation of ONS data with the inclusion of EH's NPA list.
Very early on in the development of UDS it was realised that it made sense to use GIS as the underlying data for this and as such when the data was migrated from legacy systems only NGRs and address data were migrated. Admin Area data was populated via GIS.
With Pastscape data the admin locations were updated at the same time to reflect the current admin data derived from ONS/OS boundary line data. This involved removing districts from the new unitary authority counties (eg. Durham, Northumberland and Cornwall) and removing the counties from Metropolitan districts (eg. Merseyside, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire etc.).
At the same time we looked at removing the old labels for the NPAs (NCPs). This was done in AMIE/Pastscape for the London Boroughs but retained for all the other districts/unitary authorities.
So, in essence it is still possible to find buildings/sites in Loughborough and Margate etc.through Pastscape but not through NHLE but not in Hammersmith.
We all agree that standardizing on OS Boundary Line is sensible however at the moment there is an issue in that you cannot search the majority of urban data as these fall within Non-Parished Areas (NPAs or Non-Civil Parishes (NCPs)) so typing Loughborough or Margate into a free text field (for the NHLE/Gateway) will not only retrieve buildings/sites that fall within the said area but also road/building names etc..
Thus an advanced search on the where panel (admin location) for Loughborough in the Place/Site Name/Street Name on the HG returns the following:
NHLE: 73 results (split between Leicestershire, Nottinghamsire and Greater London - Loughborough Road/Loughborough Park being the non-Leics culprits)
Pastscape: 151 results (mainly in Leics as Pastscape/AMIE still retains NPA textual info in the Parish field) NMR excavation Index: 65 results (as for Pastscape) Devon and Dartmoor: 2 results Leicestershire and Rutland HER: 351 results Greater London HER: 7 result Tyne and Wear HER (sitelines): 12350 results (this would appear to be an error!) Images of England: 106 (as Pastscape)
Viewfinder: 147 (as Pastscape)
Doing the same search on the map function (using Loughborough within 2km) gives
NHLE: 75
EH Pastscape: 109
NMR excavation index:45
Leicestershire and Rutland HER:217
Images of England: 83
Obviously these results are better, but still don't accurately reflect the 'hole' in the boundary line data.
As to Mike et al's original point. The OS boundary line data records cities as City of.......
Yes, to all of us who come from this rather select band (why City of Nottingham* but just York?) it is baffling and it is, possibly, the only downside to standardizing.
As Paul points out using the newly released linked data from the OS would help but it still doesn't give that most discerning of people (Mr and Mrs Jo Public) the ability to type into a Google-style box and get back exactly what they want without lots of 'Did you mean........'
Yes there may well come a day when we can all use touch screens (NCIS: Los Angeles-styleeee) to define the boundary precisely as we have it but at the moment I'd say we're still some way away.
And until the OS add labels to the 'holes' that are NPAs/NCPs I fear we may always have to rely on storing textual location information.
Anyway this is my, very personal, twopenn'orth.
Phil
*the Blessed Realm
Phil Carlisle
Data Standards Supervisor
Data Standards Unit, Designations Department
English Heritage
The Engine House
Fire Fly Avenue
Swindon
SN2 2EH
Tel: +44 (0)1793 414824
http://thesaurus.english-heritage.org.uk/
The information contained within this e-mail is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee only. If you have received the e-mail in error, please inform the sender and delete it from your system. The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed to anyone else or copied without the sender's consent.
Any views and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of English Heritage. English Heritage will not take any responsibility for the views of the author.
P Please do not print this e-mail unless you really need to
-----Original Message-----
From: Technical advisory panel to the Forum on Information Standards in Heritage. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Crispin Flower
Sent: 23 May 2012 14:33
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [FISH-TECHNICAL] MIDAS Heritage and Mandatory recording of Admin area
Hi All
MIDAS Heritage is correct to have this mandatory, but that can include deriving it on-the-fly from spatial coincidence (for quering or exporting purposes). MIDAS Heritage does not dictate the methods of storage.
If MIDAS Heritage made this optional, then it would become ligitimate to have a heritage inventory that could not be queried by administrative areas at all, which is clearly undesirable.
cheers
Crispin
________________________________
From: Technical advisory panel to the Forum on Information Standards in Heritage. on behalf of Alison Bennett at Place Services
Sent: Wed 23/05/2012 14:16
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [FISH-TECHNICAL] MIDAS Heritage and Mandatory recording of Admin area
Hi,
Just a thought, but here in Essex I use the database to compile district based stats in relation to a set period of time, and have a hard enough time already persuading people to enter the Admin areas. I'm not sure if I'd get the same level of detail from the GIS attribute data. I also realise that this is a local recording issue but having a Mandatory field has been a useful back-up for me.
Best wishes,
Alison Bennett
Consultant Historic Environment
Place Services
Essex County Council
tel. 01245 437637
e-mail: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
www: http:// <http://unlockingessex.essexcc.gov.uk/> unlockingessex.essexcc.gov.uk <http://unlockingessex.essexcc.gov.uk/>
EssexWorks
For a better quality of life
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
________________________________
From: Technical advisory panel to the Forum on Information Standards in Heritage. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nick Boldrini
Sent: 23 May 2012 11:12
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [FISH-TECHNICAL] MIDAS Heritage and Mandatory recording of Admin area
Hi FISH-ies
there has been a bit of discussion on HER Forum about recording of Admin areas, prompted by issues relating to searching by Parishes etc on the Heritage Gateway.
It was suggested to me that I re-post some of my comments on here to see what FISHers think of a suggestion.
Essentially, my suggestion is that MIDAS Heritage should not have the recording of an Admin Area as a Mandatory field, but an optional one.
The train of thought broadly goes like this. Originally, MIDAS had admin areas in because GIS was an emerging technology, so recording Admin areas in text databases was useful to allow retrieval.
However, now GIS is more commonly used, it is usually possible to search/query data using the GIS to manage the Admin area aspect.
Coming at this from an HER perspective, the above method would mean that we would not need to re-code records when admin area change (as for example they have in Durham with the abolition of the Districts) but could still search on the old district boundaries if wanted. It also deals with the issue of Non Parish Areas (ie parish like areas with no official name)
It would also be possible to search on any admin area type (eg old parishes, etc) if the data were held in the GIS
Obviously, looking more widely, not everyone may have GIS, but then an Optional field would allow them to record the data if they felt it necessary.
That's a brief summary of the idea
comments welcomed
best wishes
Nick Boldrini
Historic Environment Record Officer
Archaeology Section
Design and Historic Environment Team
Planning Service
Regeneration and Economic Development
Durham County Council
Rivergreen Centre
Aykley Heads
Durham
DH1 5TS
Tel: 0191 3708840
Fax: 0191 3708897
[log in to unmask]
NOTE: Durham County Council Archaeology Service is moving on 20th June 2012 and the HER will be shut from 18th - 22nd June.
2012 edition of "Archaeology: County Durham" is now available.
**Now available ** Order your copy of "Faverdale, Darlington: excavations at a major settlement in the northern frontier zone of Roman Britain" by Jennifer Proctor.
Both these publications and more are available direct from the Archaeology Section (Archaeology publications for sale - Durham County Council <http://www.durham.gov.uk/Pages/Service.aspx?ServiceId=7905> )
Web: www.durham.gov.uk
Follow us on Twitter @durhamcouncil
Like us at facebook.com/durhamcouncil
________________________________
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.
Click here <https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/WS46vhlqcefTndxI!oX7UhRB+CUevtsBsVTzKJOa35T5MLqiGJWAVkRVSK2LjD!MNAjdtRoTpmSdye7!a4hOmw==> to report this email as spam.
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of English Heritage unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system and notify the sender immediately. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it. Any information sent to English Heritage may become publicly available.
Portico: your gateway to information on sites in the National Heritage Collection; have a look and tell us what you think. http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/archives-and-collections/portico/
________________________________
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.
|
