M. Wilbertz
(Hannover, Germany)

As a consequence of the increasing use of electronic media for exchange of archaeological contents, archaeologists are confronted with the necessity to question the concepts which they have become accustomed.
The first priority is to determine which data-objects should be used, how they are to be defined, their qualities and their relation to each other. Only thereafter should lists of allowed terms (thesauri) be discussed. The nomenclature of objects (e.g. “Fundstelle” or “Fundplatz” or “site”) however is of less importance as long as they are related in a homogeneous markup language.
In connection with the development of a web-based monument information system in Lower Saxony and some other federal states of the Federal Republic of Germany, a working group of the Monuments Service of Lower Saxony has started to make proposals. Members of the group are excavating archaeologists as well as museum archaeologists and specialists for the preservation of monuments.
Some provisional results: on a higher level three classes of objects have been differentiated: Monument-objects with (known or unknown) geographical position (sites, finds). Activity-objects (e.g. survey, excavation, restoration). These refer to monument-objects with geographical position.
Document-objects (e.g. photographs, drawings, reports). They contain results of activity-objects or descriptions of monument-objects.
Among the monument-objects with geographical position are archaeological objects (e.g. sites and finds), architectural and art objects and other objects.
The next step is to study sites (or whatever you call them) in regard to their qualities: which qualities are obligatory for them to be a site, which qualities may they have and which qualities do not fit to a site?
These and further results of the working group will be submitted to the round table.