 |
 |
cheers hmm on item 2 yeah i think that might be sensible presumably we might be able to use development time or something ... I would not support extra cost being shunted onto the users for the implimentation of standards. For a number of reasons .... 1. Standards develop over time and do not remain static (nor should they) 2. Standards are a core backbone and the whole bussiness case for using exegesis and such systems if users have to pay every time a standard is developed it may well restrict take up of the standard. Indeed many people that responded to my project said they felt locked into old practices and standards. but an application auto mapping would be easier on everyone. Also it would mean that if you are on Exegesis their is real bussiness benefit in terms of the updating of standards and practices. A general mapping should be done of terms being used .. for both exegesis and other systems - we should not restrict mapping to just one system. know the DSU are considering providing such a service .. but i would not like to speak for them. I would for one welcome their help in mapping to existing terms. jason >>> Paul Gilman AAG Manager ES <[log in to unmask]> 4/February/2002 02:44pm >>> Jason, Here is my original e-mail again - you responded to item 1 but not to item 2, Dear all, Further to the recent emails from Nigel Pratt regarding these lists, and one earlier from Veronica Fiorato about consultation types, we have been asking whether these can be built into the forthcoming release of Exegesis. However, although this can be done for new installations, it cannot be done so easily for existing installations as these are likely to be using their own lists already and these SMRs would have to implement the lists manually if they wanted to use them. I discussed the issue with Crispin Flower who suggests it might be possible for Exegesis to create a tool to help users in the mapping of terms in old lists to those in new lists, and enable much of the work to be done automatically. This would be potentially of great value if it could be made generic and help us to implement agreed standards. It strikes me there are two issues: 1) Is the user community willing to run with the ALGAO lists as currently drafted or is more work needed to ensure they meet user needs; 2) Is there interest in asking Exegesis to consider developing a generic application to help users migration their systems to agreed data standards - there would be a cost implication here but perhaps English Heritage might consider helping here, as this would clearly be of benefit in implementing standards, Paul This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. It may contain confidential or privileged information and should not be read, copied or otherwise used by any other person unless express permission is given. If you are not a named recipient, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail from your system. It is the recipient's responsibility to ensure that appropriate measures are in place to check for software viruses.