GOONS-L Archives

Archiver > GOONS > 2005-12 > 1133654217


From: "Jean-Baptiste Piggin \(1839\)" <>
Subject: Re: [G] Another Guild collaborative project - the Wiki
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 00:56:57 +0100
References: <014101c5f850$cd9f79e0$6401a8c0@DELL>


Dear Peter,

I hope we haven't been talking at cross purposes. There was certainly no
intention of negating or ignoring the Guild policy on data collection for
registered studies. I'm sure it will appear throughout the Knowledge Base.

What I was simply suggesting was that when someone comes inquiring about
one-name studies, the initial examples of indexes that we give should be
universal ones. The IGI covers many countries, phone and address directories
are found in most countries, the world wide web contains material from many
countries. So we should explain that first.

The censuses and civil registration on the other hand are treasures that
make one-naming in Britain a joy, but they are not available in most
countries. In Australia the censuses were burned and are gone. In Germany,
civil registration data is effectively a state secret.

Because of the censuses and civil registration, British one-name studies
will always be the gold standard, and the Guild defines that standard. We
can say that non-British studies would most likely not be able to qualify
for Cat A/B, but in the context of a knowledge base, surely we should
highlight what everyone *can* do (that is, the universal searches), rather
than beginning with descriptions of index searches that many of our internet
visitors cannot do.

Jean-Baptiste

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Walker" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 10:30 PM
Subject: RE: [G] Another Guild collaborative project - the Wiki


> Dick Chandler wrote:
> > Ouch. I do NOT feel that the Guild's policy is wrong - I don't think
> > I implied that - and I HAVE recently re-read the Guild's
> > recommendations. I had read "I'm bound to comment that your structure
> > seems to remove the Guild Guidance on what to collect (ie
> > what Cat A/B
> > is supposed to be about)." in response to Jean-Baptiste's
> > re-structuring suggestion (which seemed sensible to me)and was merely
> > trying to suggest a way to avoid giving that impression. Nothing
> > more.
> >
> > Dick Chandler
>
> Dick,
>
> Of course, 'ouch' was not intended. I have no problem with a structured
> approach to describing data, as Jean-Baptist suggests, merely that the
Guild
> policy on data collection for registered studies should be included
> somewhere in the topic.
>
> In fact, I deliberately left the data collection subject with plenty of
> scope for additions. At present, I merely refer out to the Members' Room
> useful URLs, but rather like the IGI and FreeBMD, each one deserves a
short
> page. Did you not notice my reference in the introduction notes to Access
to
> Archives? - an attempt to point out just one source that merits further
> description.
>
> What I am keen on, is for folks such as yourself to give us the benefit of
> what you know about sources in your part of the world. But please, let's
not
> have the wiki ignore the Guild policy.
>
> Peter Walker
> Chairman
> Guild of One-Name Studies
> www.one-name.org
>
>
>
> ==== GOONS Mailing List ====
> >>Use "Reply All" to send replies to the list, otherwise use "Reply" to
send to the sender alone.<<
>
>

This thread: