Historic Environment Information Resources Network

HEIRNET

Minutes of the third meeting, held on 4 May 1999 in York

Apologies for absence: Mr B Ayers/Mr J Walker (SCAUM), Mr P Badcock (IHBC), Ms J Elsworth (Cadw), Mr T James (RCHAMW) & Mr M Stiff (MDA).

Mr D Baker, Ms G Chitty, Ms C Paynton, Dr J Richards & Mr D Robinson were in attendance.

The formal meeting was preceded by a presentation from Dr R Bland and Ms C Paynton on the Portable Antiquities scheme and associated database. Further details of the project are available from their web site at http://www.finds.org.uk.

1 Introductions

Professor Harding welcomed everyone to the meeting, especially Ms Paynton who was attending with Dr Bland as a representative of the Portable Antiquities scheme, and Mr Robinson from the ADS.

2 Minutes of the second meeting, held on 26 October 1998

The minutes were AGREED.

3 Forum on Information Standards in Heritage (England) – FISHEN

Mr Clubb reported that there had been a very positive response from Scotland and Wales to the proposals for UK collaboration on information standards. Mrs Murray noted that RCAHMS had undertaken a matching exercise to compare their monument type wordlist against that put together by RCHME & EH for England. As a result it was hoped to develop a joint thesaurus in the near future.

4 HEIRNET membership

Dr Heyworth reported that the Institute for Historic Building Conservation and the Institute of Field Archaeologists had joined the Network since the last meeting. IHBC would be represented by Mr Peter Badcock, and IFA would be represented by Mrs Murray. Following the merger between English Heritage and RCHME, Mr Clubb would now be representing `new' EH.

A decision on membership was awaited from the Association of County Archivists and the Scottish Cultural Resource Access Network.

It was AGREED that Manx National Heritage and Duchas (the Irish Heritage Service) should be invited to join the Network. Prof Harding noted that HEIRNET was not intended to be an exclusive organisation and others would be welcome to join if they wished.

5 Project reports

Mr Dawson (MGC) reported that the MGC had recently launched an online register of designated museums collections through the Cornucopia web site at http://www.cornucopia.org.uk. The 24 hour museum web site would be launched on 14 May at http://www.24hourmuseum.org.uk and the two databases will be linked in later phases. A museum-sector report to the Government on the benefits of new technology would be launched on 14 June.

Mr Clubb (EH) reported that the Heritage Spatial Information Service would come on stream later in the year, including information on Scheduled Ancient Monuments. In due course it would contain all the spatial datasets that were held by EH. Other projects currently underway or about to start included NEWSYS to re-engineer the MONARCH database, and Images of England which was the result of a successful bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF). Information on listed buildings in England is also to be made available on the Internet, together with indexes of aerial photographs and other EH data sets. EH is the UK's representative on the European Heritage Net which is to provide access to constitutional information and grants, etc. Mr Clubb noted that EH is also a major holder of museum collections.

Dr Barrett (ALGAO) reported that the framework for SMR bids to the HLF had been finalised. It was hoped that the HLF would be publishing this as a guidance note to applicants in the near future. David Baker's report to ALGAO on English SMRs was now available and ALGAO was now working with EH to commission a manual for SMRs. An ALGAO web site is also in prospect.

Dr Bland (DCMS) reported that the web site for the Portable Antiquities scheme had been launched at http://www.finds.org.uk and the scheme's first annual report had been published. A new version of the computer program developed by the scheme to record finds would shortly be available free of charge.

Dr Richards (ADS) reported that a major enhancement of the ADS catalogue had been completed and over 200,000 records were now accessible, including a number of national and local datasets. He also reported that ADS, together with the CBA, the CTI Centre for History & Archaeology (CTICH), and the Archaeological Resource Guide for Europe (ARGE), were setting up a subject gateway for archaeology which would catalogue archaeological web sites. The metadata would be entered into the ADS catalogue and would also be made available as part of the subject gateway hub for arts and humanities being developed at Oxford University.

Mr Ashmore (HS) reported that HS were contributing to a major new Scottish Office intranet project, and were continuing to fund external projects, as well as contributing to SCRAN. Staff responsibilities for information technology within HS were being reorganised and a new representative on HEIRNET may be nominated in due course.

Mr Shepherd (ARIA) reported that ARIA had been working with RCAHMS and ADS on the Accessing Scotland's Past project to provide access to SMR information over the Internet. ARIA members had also been contributing to David Baker's report to RCAHMS on Scottish SMRs.

Mrs Murray (RCAHMS) reported that RCAHMS were continuing to contribute to SCRAN and other projects, such as the thesaurus pilot for Scottish cultural heritage which was being developed in conjunction with the ADS, ARIA, FISHEN and others. CANMORE was also being developed further to add more information on catalogued resources and collections. RCAHMS had funded David Baker's report on Scottish SMRs which would be finalised in the near future, and as part of the Accessing Scotland's Past pilot project data from CANMORE and Scottish SMRs were being delivered over the web. A bid to the HLF would be submitted shortly to improve access to the NMRS and Scottish SMRs.

Dr Heyworth said that the CBA had deposited digital versions of its Implement Petrology database and radiocarbon index with the ADS. The BIAB database was also now online through the ADS with access to some 90,000 bibliographic records covering publications from 1695-1991. The digitisation of the CBA research reports and occasional publications was continuing slowly, but it was hoped to make some of the volumes available on the Internet in the near future.

Prof Harding suggested that it would be useful to publicise the broad range of projects that were underway, together with details of HEIRNET. Dr Heyworth proposed a series of articles in archaeological publications such as British Archaeology, The Archaeologist and Antiquity. Mr Clubb suggested that it might be best to await the outcome of the mapping consultancy work and tie in any publicity for HEIRNET with its results.

It was AGREED that Prof Harding and Dr Heyworth would discuss the most appropriate arrangements, including timing, and circulate a proposal to HEIRNET members.

6 Archaeology in the National Grid for Learning

Dr Heyworth reported that the National Grid for Learning only contained details of one archaeological resource: the English National Monuments Record. This was in marked contrast to other subjects, notably history, which were very active in pushing their datasets forward for educational use. There were a small number of museum web sites listed, but there were many obvious gaps.

Mr Dawson noted that the 24 hour museum to be launched later in May would be the Gateway for museums on the Grid, and Mrs Murray noted that in Scotland SCRAN were taking the lead in preparing material for educational use. She did not believe that the Scottish NMR was appropriate for the educational market in its present form. Mr Clubb reported that EH was working with Research Machines to provide resources for the Living Library project, but despite the apparent hunger for local heritage information he suggested that most available archaeological resources required considerable interpretation before they could be used by the public.

Mr Dawson reported that the National Grid for Learning was being coordinated by the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA) and covered the whole of the UK. He had been surprised that archaeology did not feature at the main resource level, but details of archaeological resources could be entered in the Learning Resource Index and these did not have to be available online.

It was AGREED that, where appropriate, it was important for archaeological resources to be linked in to key educational initiatives, but in many cases an extra layer of interpretation was required to make the resource comprehensible to non-professionals.

7 Statutory status for Sites & Monuments Records

Dr Heyworth reported that the CBA had launched a campaign in support of local government archaeological services in the face of several threats to services in England and Scotland in recent months. It was possible that legislation would be introduced later in the current parliamentary session, or early in the next, to support the various changes that had been made following the DCMS comprehensive spending review and this might provide an opportunity to push for inclusion of a clause to give statutory status to SMRs. He suggested that this was a complex area, but might be an appropriate issue on which HEIRNET could come to a joint view which could be represented to Government. This would be a powerful coordinated voice and would attract attention from DCMS in the same way that the Standing Conference on Portable Antiquities had represented the views of the archaeological community on the proposals to change the Treasure Trove legislation.

Mr Baker reported that he had considered this issue in writing his reports on SMRs in England and Scotland, and had actually come to rather different conclusions in each report. In England, where SMR coverage is complete and their status is recognised by the General Development Order (GDO), it was less easy to argue the need for statutory establishment as to do so might confuse the situation. There are considerable problems of definition, such as whether statutory status was needed for the system or the people/associated advice and whether this should be considered to be part of a comprehensive service. In Scotland, despite statements in NPPG5 and the Scottish GDO, there was not complete SMR coverage so a statutory position may be more useful – although he noted that the scope of the record was not as wide in Scotland as coverage of listed buildings was less significant than in England.

Mr Baker suggested that the recent threats to local government archaeological services were mostly due to ongoing local cutbacks and the fallout from the last local government reorganisation. Mr Shepherd noted that in Scotland the structure was in place but had been stopped in the developmental phase. He acknowledged that this might be an appropriate issue for legislation in the new Scottish Parliament. In this context Mrs Murray argued that it might be damaging for a UK body such as HEIRNET to be leading any campaign.

Mr Clubb noted that RCHME had supported statutory status for English SMRs, but this had to be linked to appropriate definitions. `New' English Heritage would be addressing this issue in the coming weeks and would be considering whether it would be most appropriate to define an SMR or the quality of advice given to local authorities. He recognised that this was a complex issue which needed to be addressed by the appropriate organisations.

Dr Barrett reported that ALGAO also supported statutory status for English SMRs and agreed that it was an important issue that needed further debate.

Dr Heyworth reiterated his point that issues relating to statutory status for SMRs needed to be considered urgently and Prof Harding suggested that it should be revisited at the next HEIRNET meeting for further discussion. This was AGREED, though it was understood that the matter should be dealt with through the appropriate government contacts and national organisations.

8 Consultancy work to `map' information systems

Dr Heyworth reported that following the last meeting of HEIRNET the costed design brief for the consultancy work had been submitted to EH on 30 October 1998. Funding was also promised from RCAHMS, RCHME, RCAHMW and SCAUM, but EH had agreed to provide the bulk of the funding. Unfortunately it had taken several months to reach agreement with EH on the contract associated with the consultancy and this had delayed the start of the work by the consultants until early March 1999. The work was now underway and the first output, an operational framework for HEIRs, had been circulated to HEIRNET members in April.

Mr Baker noted that the consultants had only received a small number of comments on the operational framework from HEIRNET members, and he hoped that it was accepted as a basis for the proceeding work. It was AGREED that the framework was a helpful document.

Ms Chitty reported that it was hoped to circulate a draft final report from the consultancy by the end of June and have the report finalised by the end of July. The data collection phase was now underway, based on desk-based studies of the scope, policies and practice of individual record systems, and detailed telephone interviews.

Ms Chitty tabled a list of organisations which managed key information systems and a draft questionnaire which would be used to profile the scope of their systems. Representatives of about 50 organisations would be interviewed, with some visits to individual countries. It was AGREED that comments on the list of organisations and questionnaire should be sent to Dr Richards at the ADS (email jdr1@york.ac.uk) by 14 May.

Mr Ashmore asked whether the questionnaire should be addressed to original suppliers of information or intermediaries. Mrs Murray suggested that it was important to map initiatives to avoid duplication and that this should cover the ways of distributing information that take or use information from core information systems. Dr Richards suggested that the organisational contexts for all the various initiatives was covered within the circulated list of organisations, and individual projects would be covered within the interviews. Mr Clubb suggested that this would require careful framing of questions to ensure that information was provided about datasets and not just information systems. Ms Chitty promised that within the interviews the consultants would try to explore less easily defined initiatives. However, she did not believe it would be possible to cover all organisations comprehensively and many, such as commercial archaeological units or individual museums, would have to be covered through their projects with national bodies such as SCAUM, the ADS or the MGC.

Dr Richards then gave a short presentation offering a draft technical vision which took into account a disparate user community and links to outside systems. He suggested that the costs and benefits of HEIRs had to be considered, as well as their perceived and actual roles. He did not believe it was desirable to impose a single UK `system', and instead proposed a distributed model with interoperability to allow searches across diverse resources. This would require communication profiles (eg Z39.50), metadata (eg Dublin Core) and terminology control (eg the EH/RCHME thesaurus of monuments types). He envisaged three levels of access: served, brokered and linked data, which maintained maximum flexibility and functionality and offered a non-hierarchical approach so that organisations could join the network at any level.

Mr Baker reported that a strategic vision would be developed following the mapping exercise. He noted that national, regional and local issues would have to be considered, as well as the influence of organisations such as the Heritage Lottery Fund.

Prof Harding thanked the consultants for their presentations and reminded HEIRNET members that comments on the draft list of organisations and questionnaire should be sent to Dr Richards by 14 May. It was AGREED that the draft report should be circulated by the end of June and HEIRNET members would have one month to make comments. The final report would be delivered to the CBA by 20 August.

Mr Clubb asked for a financial statement relating to the consultancy to be circulated with the minutes of the meeting.

9 Date of next meeting

It was AGREED that the next meeting would take place on 29 September 1999 in Edinburgh.

Document last revised: 26 May 1999 by Mike Heyworth

HEIRNET index page