1st March 2013, 09:46 AM
I can but agree. - being one of the co creators of the ( never made it past beta... as nobody wanted to fund it, as OASIS was so good, and they were about to do this anyway - still waiting! not bitter) Open Archive.
The data needs to have an access interface that works. and I also hate duplicate data. ie a postcode a county a town a lat long a coord... -- this can all be derived from a single drag and drop map interface. even for an area project.
ahem...
see here. http://www.openarchive.co.uk
anyway... back to the topic. I actually agree very much with Stuart that how many are worth taking to full publication.
others however, could be... and they can be flagged as such. I also agree about the quality and editing. often poor or non existant. recently read one where the report could have been a sythesis of what was happening in the area... but no... it was dull trench measurements.. and no discussion... other than to say... " sod it... nufink worth bovering about... dig away my hearties"
Quality counts. -- or should.
The data needs to have an access interface that works. and I also hate duplicate data. ie a postcode a county a town a lat long a coord... -- this can all be derived from a single drag and drop map interface. even for an area project.
ahem...
see here. http://www.openarchive.co.uk
anyway... back to the topic. I actually agree very much with Stuart that how many are worth taking to full publication.
others however, could be... and they can be flagged as such. I also agree about the quality and editing. often poor or non existant. recently read one where the report could have been a sythesis of what was happening in the area... but no... it was dull trench measurements.. and no discussion... other than to say... " sod it... nufink worth bovering about... dig away my hearties"
Quality counts. -- or should.