Mary Ellin D'Agostino wrote:
>
> At 11:35 AM 6/7/97 -0400, you wrote:
> >This brings up a real problem as everyone gets onto the computerized
> >database bandwagon. The ability to share and apply the information that is
> >out there being tediously entered into these systems.
> >
> >Hopefully, before things get to advanced, we can develop metadata
> >standards to assure that information can be compatible with the many
> >systems out there.
>
> This should not be too hard since there IS an industry standard.  As long as
> your database is ODBC (Open/object Data Base Connectivity) compatible or the
> database has an ODBC Driver (i.e., a program that can translate the database
> into the ODBC format), the information should be transferable between
> systems. The key issue will be to make the data in the fields obvious (i.e.,
> no weird codes instead of text).  Since space is no longer a big issue, this
> shouldn't be a problem. Obviously, it would be nice if everyone agreed on
> what the fields will be called and what order they should be in...
> Mary Ellin D'Agostino
> [log in to unmask]
 
Obviously, there is some interest out there--at least among the GIS
mavens--in the possibility of creating compatible GIS databases, an
effort requiring some standardization. Any chance of you folks putting
together a session at the SHA Conference in Atlanta to address issues of
theory and method? The deadline for submissions rapidly approaches.
 
Jim Gibb
The Lost Towns Project
Annapolis, MD