Peter Hendy-Ibbs wrote: > > Like many contributors I am disappointed by the ONS request, though > understand the FreeBMD stance in respecting their wishes and fostering > good relationships. However their is little justification for the ONS > request for exactly the reasons already stated: > 1) the information is in the public domain > 2) the information is widely available in libraries and FHCs > 3) the ONS have already encompassed 'modern' media by selling data on CDROMs > 4) the '100 year' limitation can hardly apply to deaths It is worth adding that the Project Leadership is rather disappointed as well, and I largely concur with your arguments. The ONS would of course point out that none of the other ways in which this info is available are nearly as easy to get at as FreeBMD. > But one further, compelling issue is that the ONS is itself embarking on > an ambitious and expensive project to digitise all BMD records and make > them more readily available. The restriction on FreeBMD is therefore at > odds with this philosophy and suggests double standards. There is much rumour and little hard fact about the ONS project, but I suspect that there too there will be a 100 year cut off. > There may be some concern about the demands that our online service may > create for the ONS at Southport. The are themselves preparing to make > online ordering with credit card payment available in the near future. > If they want some idea of how much demand is generated by FreeBMD it > would be better that they agree to a link being established with FreeBMD > so that online ordering, or a downloaded order form, is available on the > FreeBMD site. Otherwise it will be quite impossible to get any idea of > the numbers of certificates ordered on the basis of FreeBMD searches > since most searchers will copy the on-screen information and then order > certificates separately. Perhaps it would be a much more positive step > for the ONS to help set up such a service and establish the links than > to restrict FreeBMD. One of the points I made in my original mail is that we do have a working relationship with the ONS. Maintaining that relationship *should* ensure that we get the specs for the on-line service and can implement a direct link to their on-line systems from day one. > As someone who processes a significant amount of post-1900 data for > FreeBMD am concerned that contributors, especially one-namers, may no > longer submit data if it is not to be made available. It is a risk, but we have to weigh up our priorities. post-1900 data amounts to 100,000 records out of over 21 Million, about half of one percent of our data. The vast majority of the information post-1900 is information that was already transcribed as personal research, rather than done specially for FreeBMD. > Finally, may I also suggest that it would have been helpful to have been > informed of the change throguh these lists before its introduction > rather than to discover it afterwards. The purpose of the Discussion > list in particular is for a two way exchange. It could very well have been a disaster! If we said "all the post-1900 records are being removed in 5 days" what would have happened? My bet is that we would have had a massive increase in searches, which would have killed the server. I hope that in due course, we will be able to restore at least part of the data. -- Dave Mayall