OSCDAG Meeting - 9/16/98 Discussion

1. MOU Status The initial draft of the MOU was distributed by Hal Gard (ODOT) last month. Minimal comments have been received to date. Additional comments are requested by September 25, 1998, and may be provided to Hal via the OSCDAG listserv. Richard Hanes (BLM) will ask Hal to distribute the revised version by October 1, 1998, to begin securing signatures. Georgia Bosse (BLM) reminded the group that the MOU should be reflective of user needs including the people who will be responsible for entering and maintaining cultural resource data. It was suggested by Richard Hanes that the MOU should include the mission statement developed in July, as well as references to potential deliverables.

2. Action Plan A project plan will be developed over the next month by Kate Kirsh (Foothill Associates), Alissa DeVoney (COHG), Scott Goodman (COHG) and Eric Ingbar (Gnomon, Inc). The purpose of this plan is to provide a description of the Statewide Cultural Resource Database/GIS effort including scope, phases, time frame, participants and cost estimates. The draft project plan will be prepared by Kate and submitted to Alissa, Scott and Eric for revision prior to the next OSCDAG meeting (10/23/98). The project plan needs to address tasks already underway, such as the core data elements work, as well as the set of access issues identified in June, development of a data dictionary, business requirements, user interfaces, geographic extent and a pilot project. 3. Site Form Proposal SHPO has initiated a contract with the University of Oregon to help develop the standard site form for archaeological sites. Le Gilsen (SHPO) will meet with Paul Claessens, Chip Oetting, John Fagan, Isaac Barner and Kate Kirsh to develop the format for a digital version of the site form. The standard site form attributes will then be compared to the current set of core data attributes that will be included in the Internet-accessible Cultural Resource Database/GIS, to make sure that all the core attributes are included in the standard site form.

4. Core Data Elements There was considerable discussion about the difference between the core data attributes and the standard site form attributes. The core data are intended to be a subset of the standard site form data. There may be items collected on the standard site form that do not appear initially on the Internet-accessible Cultural Resource Database/GIS. The rationale behind this approach is to determine the minimum amount of data that needs to be included in the Cultural Resource Database/GIS for it to be useful, in order to simplify the initial development of the project. Additional data items may be included in the future once the application has been developed and usage requirements are better understood.

5. Next Meeting: October 22, 1998, SHPO Office in Salem, 10:00 a.m. – noon.