14th November 2005, 06:17 PM
Quote:quote:Separation of the descriptive and interpretive parts is done as a matter of course. (It is specified in the brief for one region in which I work)
Shouldn't all curator's insist on this? If it is important (which I agree it is).
Quote:quote:If it is an evaluation report, then it is principally aimed at the curator, to help them advise the planning authority on how to treat a planning application. However, clients or their consultants and scheme designers will also have a genuine interest in the content, particularly if it is part of an Environmental Impact Assessment project, as they may need to take it into account in some of their decision-making. In addition, it will eventually appear as a public document in the SMR.
If is is the report on a piece of mitigation work (i.e. following a planning condition or equivalent), but is not to be published, then the curator will indeed use it to check that the work has been done properly. However, that is not its primary purpose - what it is meant for is to put the information into the public domain through availability in the SMR.
If it is a publication report, then its principal audience is all the subscribers to the journal or library users. The journal editor will presumably have their own ideas about what should be in appendices etc.
I agree with all of this, however almost all of my work these days is evaluation work, usually followed by a watching brief mitigation. Usually with negligible results, so hardly worth putting into the public domain.
The last evaluation I did that led to an excavation was in London, where the mitigation strategies seemed very different. The evil concept of preservation in-situ is rampant where I now ply my trade.
(Sadly publications to my name remain nil)
PS. Sorry for dragging this off topic.