29th May 2015, 12:58 PM
hosty sighing about copyright. sigh
WAX "I suppose "standards" are a bit like context sheets they vary from unit to unit" The point that I have been trying to make very badly is that if there are any standards and I am not sure they exist they rest squarely with the digger, not the unit, not the county, not the ifa, not the context sheet. I think that standards if they exist, exist for the particular act of excavation whether on a watching brief or an evaluation. So that if there is any complaint made to anybody it must be a complaint about the digging done by the digger. Any complaint about a digger not being allowed to dig or stopped from digging is politics and not about the standards of digging.
Thing is if you follow a Valetta convention view of "excavator" by qualification then it could be interpreted that once qualified you can do what you like because what ever you do is the standard. I myself tend to the view that archaeology is owned by the landowner and they can do what they want with it. At best all I can get out of it is .....sigh so to be accused of not getting any sigh out of it presumably is against standards but I am not sure how you would go about proving that sigh had been deliberately forgone.
Gnomeking don't think that the use of "original" code of ifa was not noted. Currently I am interested in the use of ISBN numbers in archaeology, particularly on the internet? (a bit of a sigh subject). Did this original code have a ISBN number?
WAX "I suppose "standards" are a bit like context sheets they vary from unit to unit" The point that I have been trying to make very badly is that if there are any standards and I am not sure they exist they rest squarely with the digger, not the unit, not the county, not the ifa, not the context sheet. I think that standards if they exist, exist for the particular act of excavation whether on a watching brief or an evaluation. So that if there is any complaint made to anybody it must be a complaint about the digging done by the digger. Any complaint about a digger not being allowed to dig or stopped from digging is politics and not about the standards of digging.
Thing is if you follow a Valetta convention view of "excavator" by qualification then it could be interpreted that once qualified you can do what you like because what ever you do is the standard. I myself tend to the view that archaeology is owned by the landowner and they can do what they want with it. At best all I can get out of it is .....sigh so to be accused of not getting any sigh out of it presumably is against standards but I am not sure how you would go about proving that sigh had been deliberately forgone.
Gnomeking don't think that the use of "original" code of ifa was not noted. Currently I am interested in the use of ISBN numbers in archaeology, particularly on the internet? (a bit of a sigh subject). Did this original code have a ISBN number?
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist