AGAIN: sharing the data

Sebastian Rahtz
Fri Sep 22 18:36:51 CEST 2006

Chris Puttick wrote:
> I would add some possibel controversy to that - the main repository for grant-funded work is at ADS (which is a chargeable service)- contracting units hold far more data, hence our intention to make our own holdings open and others in the UK market seem to be heading in a similar direction.
I should probably know the answer to this, but to what extent are
you obliged to produce the data on demand, if the work is
funded by government money?
>  files are now best in ISO 26300 (Open Document Format) 
one might disagree. holding text in what is simply standardized 
format is not as useful as it might be.
> Metadata is in reality an open question. Dublin core plus some real basics (site location (name/lat,long), relevant historical periods, ?). After that, well, that's a long, heated discussion. 
it is indeed :-} "relevant historical periods" is a nice wrapper for a 
can of worms.
> I think it's important to remember that we preserve for social reasons, not for the specialists now. Bu then I'm not a specialist.
by "social", you mean "political" there?

by why do you collect data if _not_ to preserve?

Sebastian Rahtz      

Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431

OSS Watch: JISC Open Source Advisory Service

More information about the Archaeology mailing list