Spud - a broader definition of "survey data"?

[Julian Todd]

>> In my view the actual format that the survey data is archived is
>> not of importance, just as long as it is digital and it is theoretically
>> straightforward to get at the data or text.
>
>I disagree. There is a difference between archiving data as
>a backup in case of data loss over significant periods of
>time and making data accessable so that people can easily
>search, retrieve and organise it. The Sydney University
>Speleological Society publishes all the raw data (Survex
>format of course) in its SUSS Bulls as that way the data is
>** ON PAPER **

If I had used the word "Form", as in paper form, 32 inch disk form, etc,
your point would be correct.  However, I used the word "Format",
to suggest that a long-running discussion about which file-format to design
and force everyone to use was going to be pointless since it is
in practice trivial to write scripts to convert from one to another
when you need to.

Yes, putting things into human readable form on paper sounds sensible
by all means, if you assume that humans won't become obsolete
sooner than a generally evolving net archive.  The problem of eight
inch disks in the past was that you frequently had a computer with
one type of media device only, so it was inherently difficult for the
data to migrate.  If there was ever a period when computers had
both 8 inch drives and CD writers at the same time, you'd have been
sorted.

All I was suggesting was that the academic community in geology,
psychology, physics, and so forth have exactly the same problem of
painstaking experimental data and written reports which need
permanent archiving and making available for people to search
as you do with cave data.  It would seem sensible to an outside
observer that whatever solutions they offer would apply to us.
And, even better, if you used their work you could get it for free.

Julian T.