[Crm-sig] Character area concept
steads at paveprime.org
Sat Mar 24 20:11:49 EET 2007
I think that each is an E27 Site with a P53 link to E53 Place.
Tel +44 20 8668 3075
Mob +44 7802 755 013
E-mail steads at paveprime.com
From: crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr [mailto:crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr] On
Behalf Of LEE, Edmund
Sent: 19 December 2006 15:40
To: crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
Subject: [Crm-sig] Character area concept
Dear CRM SIG,
I am currently managing a project to update the UK MIDAS standard - the data
standard for documentation of the historic environment. I am having
difficulty in describing one particular aspect that needs documentation, and
wondered if CRM thinking might assist.
The issue is projects that characterise (describe) the landscape. The
intention is to provide researchers, planners and developers with some
indication of the likely historic environment issues that need to be
addressed when working in a particular area. The professionals involved
contrast this work with the documentation of specific sites / archaeological
monuments / historic buildings that are the focus of most historic
environment documentation at present, but which leave 'gaps' in between
where the historic environment advisor has no information to offer.
The technique is still evolving, but generally consists of dividing the
complete surface of the contemporary landscape (and sea-bed) into polygons
based either on arbitrary spatial reference systems (e.g. grid lines) or a
combination of natural and man-made physical and administrative boundaries.
Each area is described in terms of the character of historical development
or use of the area and the factors affecting this.
Reviews of the technique as used at English Heritage are available at
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.1293 See the document
'Taking stock of the method'.
What I am interested in is what the status of the polygons defined by
characterisation technique is in CRM terms. They are not physical, like for
example a building is physical, and so do not fit neatly into the 'heritage
asset' theme, in which I currently have them along with 'monuments' (in
which I include large scale relict landscape features such as hedgerows or
abandoned field systems) and 'artefacts'. Yet they have attributes which are
similar - for example they are characterised by settlement pattern, date /
origin of boundaries etc. There may be some subtle conceptual modelling that
I am missing. Any thoughts from the CRM would therefore be most welcome!
MIDAS project manager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Crm-sig