Archaeology Data Service

Metadata Example: Geophysics

This sample metadata record broadly follows the guidelines presented in the ADS Draft Resource Discovery Workshop report. Places where this record deviates from the guidelines proposed in this report are highlighted and italicised.

One issue which needs to be defined for geophysics data in particular is the recommended level of data for which metadata records should be created. This example is metadata about a site report located in the English Heritage Geophysical Survey Database. Beneath this site report are a series of data files and images files which contain processed data, processed images, and intepretations for both the magnetometer and resistivity surveys which were conducted. The English Heritage Geophysical Survey Database is structured in such a way that these more detailed data and images files and hierarchically arranged below the site report. Are their other existing practices in the organisation of geophysical survey data that differ from this hierarchical arrangement, or is this a standard strategy?

If you have general comments or suggestions about metadata in archaeology or the Resource Discovery Workshop, please submit them to Paul Miller. If you have suggestions or comments about metadata for geophysics records specifically, please submit them to Alicia Wise.

DC.Element.TYPE SCHEME Value
DC.title.main   Holly House Farm, Scaftworth, Nottinghamshire
DC.title.subtitle   Report on Geophysical Survey, October 1995
DC.creator.name.1   Payne A
DC.creator.name.2   Cole M
DC.creator.name.3   Linford, Paul
DC.creator.name.4   Wise, Alicia
DC.creator.affiliation.1   Ancient Monuments Laboratory
DC.creator.affiliation.2   Ancient Monuments Laboratory
DC.creator.affiliation.3   Ancient Monuments Laboratory
DC.creator.affiliation.4   Archaeology Data Service
DC.creator.role.1   Surveyor
DC.creator.role.2   Surveyor, Author
DC.creator.role.3   Contact
DC.creator.role.4   Metadata
DC.creator.email.3   paul@eng-h.gov.uk
DC.creator.postal.1   English Heritage, 23 Savile Row
DC.creator.postal.2   English Heritage, 23 Savile Row
DC.creator.postal.3   English Heritage, 23 Savile Row
DC.creator.postal.4   University of York, King's Manor
DC.creator.town.1   London
DC.creator.town.2   London
DC.creator.town.3   London
DC.creator.town.4   York
DC.creator.postcode.1   W1X 1AB
DC.creator.postcode.2   W1X 1AB
DC.creator.postcode.3   W1X 1AB
DC.creator.postcode.4   YO1 2EP
DC.creator.phone.1   (0171) 973 3000
DC.creator.phone.2   (0171) 973 3000
DC.creator.phone.3   (0171) 973 3000
DC.creator.phone.4   (01904) 433 954
DC.creator.fax.1   (0171) 973 3001
DC.creator.fax.2   (0171) 973 3001
DC.creator.fax.3   (0171) 973 3001
DC.creator.fax.4   (01904) 433 939
DC.subject TMT Ditched Enclosure, Roman
DC.description   Geophysical survey was undertaken over a square triple-ditched enclosure (SAM Notts 56) at Holly House Farm, Scaftworth, near Bawtry, Notts, in response to a request from the Humber Wetlands Project. Resistivity and magnetometer surveys were carried out in an attempt to map the locations of the enclosure ditches (evident as crop marks on APs), locate any entrances and identify any internal features. The site conditions were particularly well suited to resistivity survey which clearly detected the main ditches and provided some evidence of internal structures. Additionally, the magnetometer survey detected some signs of activity within the enclosure as well as mapping a possible annex to the south. Unfortunately, no firm conclusions can be drawn on the basis of either survey as to the function of the enclosure.

DC.publisher   Ancient Monuments Laboratory
DC.date.projectstart ISO31 1995-10-02
DC.date.projectend ISO31 1995-10-04
DC.date.report ISO31 1995-10-17
This date.report is not one of the DATE types suggested in the Draft Resource Discovery report, nor is date.metadata which follows. I've include these types to distinguish between the date the report was written and the date the metadata record itself was created. These two types could be further modified to indicate modification dates (e.g. date.report.modification = 1997-01-01 scheme=ISO31).
DC.date.metadata ISO31 1997-05-29
DC.type ADS 5
DC.format IMT text/html
DC.format.filesize SI 15
DC.format.hardcopylength   4
Note: it may not be necessary to include format.filesize and format.hardcopylength when the file is quite small. The ADS may consider only requiring these qualifiers when the filesize is greater than 100 kb.
DC.identifier ADS 1
DC.identifier EHGSD 644
I've added this scheme, which stands for the "English Heritage Geophysical Survey Database". 644 is the record number within the database.
DC.identifier URL >http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/reports/scaftworth
DC.identifier   SK 69 SE 14
DC.source AML 47/95
I've also added this scheme, which stands for the "Ancient Monuments Laboratory report series. This geophysics report is the 47th produced by the AML in 1995.
DC.language ISO639 EN
DC.language.country ISO3166 GBR
I've had to guess at this code because I can not find the ISO3166 scheme online at the moment.
DC.relation.IsParentOf   raw magnetometer data
The report to which this metadata record refers is held in the English Heritage Geophysical Survey Database. This relational database is arranged so that the site report is the main access point to related information like the data and image files. If this hierarchy is mapped using the .IsParentOf qualifier to RELATION it should be unnecessary to create metadata records for each of the individual data and image files.
DC.relation.IsParentOf   processed magnetometer data
DC.relation.IsParentOf   magnetometer survey interpretation
DC.relation.IsParentOf   raw resistivity data
DC.relation.IsParentOf   resistivity processed data
DC.relation.IsParentOf   resistivity survey interpretation
DC.relation.IsChildOf   ADS Draft Resource Discovery Workshop report
DC.relation.IsSiblingOf   Van de Noort, R and S Ellis, editors, 1997, Wetland Heritage of the Humberhead Levels: An Archaeological Survey, Humber Wetlands Project, University of Hull, Hull.
DC.coverage.PlaceName   Holly House Farm, Scaftworth, Bawtry Bridge
These placename terms somehow need to be linked to real world coordinates. Would a single grid reference for each placename provide enough detail? Would it provide too much detail? How many placenames should we include in metadata records? Workshop discussion focussed on the use of placenames at a particular scale, for example drawn from 1:50,000 maps. These are all issues which need to be clarified.
DC.coverage.point NGR SK 69 SE 14
These coordinates need to be represented as a 12 figure numeric grid reference broken into northing and easting components. This information is not readily available so, dear reader, hopefully you can forgive a fudge.
DC.coverage.PeriodName AAT Roman
This period name needs to be linked to real dates (e.g. 'Roman' in Britain = AD 50 - AD 500).
DC.rights AHDS free
The entry 'free' should be hotlinked to a webpage which actually tells a user what 'free' means. As this is not written yet...