22 Ocak 2011 Cumartesi

CRM 4.0 Enhancing Picklists presentation layer




Picklists are usually used to provide a short range of predefined options that further describe our data. To make them usable it?s suggestible to keep the number of Picklist options to a minimum. Although a Picklist presentation layer is functional data is not always that boring and deserves a better re-presentation.

I personally think that controls should convey more emotions and strengthen bond between what is showing and how it?s shown. Take for example a simple Picklist that has values 1-5 that describe the account rating or a Picklist of shipping methods with well known company names. No doubt presenting the following control to the user makes more sense than just selecting a number.



The concept used in this example can be developed further to support more advanced scenarios. The nice thing about it is that most of the bits that handle the actual show and hide of the Picklist menu can be reused. So if you find yourself needing to create a more complex Picklist you should center most of your effort by overriding the buildPopup function (see code).

The code exposes most of the styling attributes which means you don?t have to tear it apart if you feel like redecorating ;+).



In order to facilitate the construction of options and their respective images the code uses a simple technique that accepts an Image base URL and utilizes the picklist id to identify specific images folder. The image names represent their index i.e. 0.gif, 1.gif, 2.gif and so on. If need to use option?s value instead you must also change the code that constructs the image URL.


CRMWeb
| -- ISV
|-- IMGPL (this is the ImageBaseUrl)
|-- selected.gif (A small arrow that points to the selected option)
|-- gi_rating (This is the Picklist id)
|-- 0.gif (Empty option X image ? index 0)
|-- 1.gif (first option ? index 1)
|-- 2.gif (second option ? index 2 and so on..,)


Eventually the image URL is http://servername:port/iSV/IMGPL/gi_rating/1.gif
Feel free to comment.



String.prototype.Format = function( args )
{
return this.replace( /\{(\d{1})\}/ig , function match(){return args[arguments[1]];});
}

function ImagePicklist(picklistId)
{
var ipl = this;

if (!(ipl.Picklist = crmForm.all[picklistId]))
return alert("Picklist is missing");

if (ipl.Picklist.Disabled)
return;

ipl.ImageBaseUrl = "/ISV/IMGPL/";
ipl.HoverStyle = {Color: "#FFFFFF",Background: "#000000"}
ipl.HasEmptyOption = true;
ipl.Height = 213;
ipl.BackgroundColor = "#FFFFFF";
ipl.Scroll = true;

ipl.Picklist.ondblclick = function(){show();}
ipl.Picklist.onmousedown = function(){show();}
ipl.Picklist.onfocusout = function()
{
ipl.Picklist.Popup.document.body.innerHTML = "";
ipl.Picklist.Popup.hide();
}

function show()
{
ipl.Picklist.Disabled = true;
buildPopup();
var left = ipl.Picklist.Position.X;
var top = ipl.Picklist.Position.Y;
var width = ipl.Picklist.offsetWidth;
var height = ipl.Height
ipl.Picklist.Popup.show(left ,top ,width ,ipl.Height ,document.body);
setTimeout(function(){ipl.Picklist.Disabled = false;},100);
return false;
}

ipl.MouseOver = function(option)
{
option.style.backgroundColor = ipl.HoverStyle.Background;
option.style.color = ipl.HoverStyle.Color;
}

ipl.MouseOut = function(option)
{
option.style.backgroundColor = ipl.BackgroundColor;
option.style.color = "#000000";
}

ipl.Onclick = function(option)
{
ipl.Picklist.onfocusout();
ipl.Picklist.selectedIndex = option.index
ipl.Picklist.focus();
}

function getPosition(control)
{
var left = 0;
var top = control.offsetHeight;

do {
left += control.offsetLeft;
top += control.offsetTop;
} while (control = control.offsetParent);

return {X:left,Y:top}
}

function buildPopup()
{
ipl.Picklist.Position = getPosition(ipl.Picklist);
ipl.Picklist.Popup.document.body.style.backgroundColor = ipl.BackgroundColor;

var div = document.createElement("DIV");
div.style.cssText = "overflow-y:{0};height:{1}px;".Format([(ipl.Scroll?"scroll":"hidden"),(ipl.Height-13)]);

for (var i=(ipl.HasEmptyOption?0:1);i< ipl.Picklist.options.length;i++)
{
var option = ipl.Picklist.options[i];

var item = document.createElement("DIV");
item.index = i;
item.onmouseover = "document.ImagePicklist.MouseOver(this);";
item.onmouseout = "document.ImagePicklist.MouseOut(this)";
item.onclick = "document.ImagePicklist.Onclick(this)";
item.title = "Value = {0}".Format([option.value]);
item.style.lineHeight = "25px"
item.style.cursor = "hand";

var selItem = null;
if (option.selected)
{
selItem = document.createElement("IMG");
selItem.style.height = "16px";
selItem.style.width = "16px";
selItem.src = "{0}selected.gif".Format([ipl.ImageBaseUrl]);
selItem.align = "middle";
}
else
{
selItem = document.createElement("SPAN");
selItem.innerHTML = " ";
selItem.style.width = "16px";
}

item.appendChild(selItem);
item.appendChild(document.createTextNode(" "));

var img = document.createElement("IMG");
img.src = "{0}{1}/{2}.gif".Format([ipl.ImageBaseUrl,ipl.Picklist.id,i]);

item.appendChild(img);
var optText = null;
if (option.selected)
{
optText = document.createElement("B");
optText.innerText = " {0}".Format([option.innerText]);
}
else
{
optText = document.createTextNode(" {0}".Format([option.innerText]));
}
item.appendChild(optText);
div.appendChild(item);
}

ipl.Picklist.Popup.document.body.innerHTML = div.outerHTML;
}

{ //Initialize

ipl.Picklist.Popup = window.createPopup();
/* A reference from the window popup to ipl */
ipl.Picklist.Popup.document.ImagePicklist = ipl;

var popUpBodyStyle = ipl.Picklist.Popup.document.body.style;
popUpBodyStyle.border = "1px solid gray";
popUpBodyStyle.padding = 0;
popUpBodyStyle.margin = 5;
}
}

function OnCrmPageLoad()
{

window.ctcPicklist = new ImagePicklist("customertypecode");
ctcPicklist.ImageBaseUrl = "/ISV/IMGPL/";
ctcPicklist.HoverStyle = {Color: "gold",Background: "#FF3454"}
ctcPicklist.HasEmptyOption = false;

window.accPicklist = new ImagePicklist("accountcategorycode");
accPicklist.Height = 85;
accPicklist.Scroll = false;
accPicklist.BackgroundColor = "yellow";

window.graPicklist = new ImagePicklist("gi_rating");
graPicklist.Height = 165;
graPicklist.Scroll = false;
graPicklist.HoverStyle = {Color: "navy",Background: "#FFFFFF"}
}

OnCrmPageLoad();



online contact management |ms crm training |superoffice crm |dynamics ax |banking crm |

The choice of long distance Bluetooth Pocket PC.

Building a system which can communicate between Bluetooth enabled PPC and a Bluetooth enabled Server. The system requires a long communicate distance, but can't use WIFI. The server is 100 meters Bluetooth dongle which is long enough. However I haven't see any Pocket PC with 100 meters Bluetooth distance! After research, I found there are two choices to get this aim.

The first, setup a Bluetooth Access Point to extend the PPC's Bluetooth distance. By this way, the PPC and BAP connect via Bluetooth, all the information between PPC and Server will be routered by the BAP. The benefit of this structure is lower cost -Becasue the application will be done by WEB interface. The disadvantage is more response time.

The link here:
http://msmobiles.com/catalog/i.php/563.html


Or

The second, if the PPC supports USB-HOST, then that's a good idea. Many PPC from Toshiba supports USB-HOST, so it may connect a USB cable + 100 meters Bluetooth dongle, that's really cool. Microsoft Mobile 5 can support this USB-HOST as the MS native Bluetooth stack. So it costs more money to buy a latest device with WM5, alternatively upgrade the ROM for HTC Himalaya device is also considerable(http://www.clintonfitch.com/wm5/default.asp). However, the system can be build by WINDOWS interface and faster than the web access.





















These links here:
http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=367986&sid=d29669233fa83304bf99e115c42e588b
http://discussion.brighthand.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=104328
http://www.johncruise.com/pocketpc/howto-usb-bt.php


crm features |erp |small business crm |healthcare crm |crm lead management |

CRM 4.0 : Check current user's security role using JavaScript

It's a common question about how to show/hide fields based on user's security roles.
Ronald Lemmen had a very popular post on his blog about how to use 'RemoteCommand' to achieve that in CRM 3.0. Because 'RemoteCommand' is for internal use and unsupported, it doesn't work in CRM 4.0.
Michael H?hne also had a great post about how to access web service using client-side JavaScript. Since CRM 4.0 web service EndPoint changed, some people get 401 authorization error.

Here's code which works great in CRM 4.0, the function UserHasRole("ROLE_NAME") returns true if the current has the role, returns false if it doesn't. GetCurrentUserRoles() function generated by Michael H?hne's tool with some changes. Thanks for Regan who point out that using GenerateAuthenticationHeader() instead of hard-coding the Organization's Name.



//check if the current user has the 'System Administrator' role
alert(UserHasRole("System Administrator"));

function UserHasRole(roleName)
{
//get Current User Roles, oXml is an object
var oXml = GetCurrentUserRoles();
if(oXml != null)
{
//select the node text
var roles = oXml.selectNodes("//BusinessEntity/q1:name");
if(roles != null)
{
for( i = 0; i < roles.length; i++)
{
if(roles[i].text == roleName)
{
//return true if user has this role
return true;
}
}
}
}
//otherwise return false
return false;
}

function GetCurrentUserRoles()
{
var xml = "" +
"<?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?>" +
"<soap:Envelope xmlns:soap=\"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/\" xmlns:xsi=\"http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance\" xmlns:xsd=\"http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema\">" +
GenerateAuthenticationHeader() +
" <soap:Body>" +
" <RetrieveMultiple xmlns=\"http://schemas.microsoft.com/crm/2007/WebServices\">" +
" <query xmlns:q1=\"http://schemas.microsoft.com/crm/2006/Query\" xsi:type=\"q1:QueryExpression\">" +
" <q1:EntityName>role</q1:EntityName>" +
" <q1:ColumnSet xsi:type=\"q1:ColumnSet\">" +
" <q1:Attributes>" +
" <q1:Attribute>name</q1:Attribute>" +
" </q1:Attributes>" +
" </q1:ColumnSet>" +
" <q1:Distinct>false</q1:Distinct>" +
" <q1:LinkEntities>" +
" <q1:LinkEntity>" +
" <q1:LinkFromAttributeName>roleid</q1:LinkFromAttributeName>" +
" <q1:LinkFromEntityName>role</q1:LinkFromEntityName>" +
" <q1:LinkToEntityName>systemuserroles</q1:LinkToEntityName>" +
" <q1:LinkToAttributeName>roleid</q1:LinkToAttributeName>" +
" <q1:JoinOperator>Inner</q1:JoinOperator>" +
" <q1:LinkEntities>" +
" <q1:LinkEntity>" +
" <q1:LinkFromAttributeName>systemuserid</q1:LinkFromAttributeName>" +
" <q1:LinkFromEntityName>systemuserroles</q1:LinkFromEntityName>" +
" <q1:LinkToEntityName>systemuser</q1:LinkToEntityName>" +
" <q1:LinkToAttributeName>systemuserid</q1:LinkToAttributeName>" +
" <q1:JoinOperator>Inner</q1:JoinOperator>" +
" <q1:LinkCriteria>" +
" <q1:FilterOperator>And</q1:FilterOperator>" +
" <q1:Conditions>" +
" <q1:Condition>" +
" <q1:AttributeName>systemuserid</q1:AttributeName>" +
" <q1:Operator>EqualUserId</q1:Operator>" +
" </q1:Condition>" +
" </q1:Conditions>" +
" </q1:LinkCriteria>" +
" </q1:LinkEntity>" +
" </q1:LinkEntities>" +
" </q1:LinkEntity>" +
" </q1:LinkEntities>" +
" </query>" +
" </RetrieveMultiple>" +
" </soap:Body>" +
"</soap:Envelope>" +
"";

var xmlHttpRequest = new ActiveXObject("Msxml2.XMLHTTP");

xmlHttpRequest.Open("POST", "/mscrmservices/2007/CrmService.asmx", false);
xmlHttpRequest.setRequestHeader("SOAPAction"," http://schemas.microsoft.com/crm/2007/WebServices/RetrieveMultiple");
xmlHttpRequest.setRequestHeader("Content-Type", "text/xml; charset=utf-8");
xmlHttpRequest.setRequestHeader("Content-Length", xml.length);
xmlHttpRequest.send(xml);

var resultXml = xmlHttpRequest.responseXML;
return(resultXml);
}



Due to Bloger's format issue, I have rewrite the code, it should work for everyone now.:)


microsoft crm 3 |small business crm |crm magic quadrant |microsoft business solutions crm |crm tutorial |

A easy way to share files between HOST and VM in Microsoft Virtual Server 2005.

Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 provides the improved performance and functions than Virtual PC. However, for some reasons, it is not easy to share files between HOST and VM in Virtual Server. Generally, we have to setup a VPN access between HOST and VM, but sometimes it's not the best solution.

After some research, I found a easy to share files:
On your HOST, go to "run" "cmd", and type:
"net use X: \\192.168.1.11\C$"
And then login as administrator of VM.

In this case, my HOST IP address is: 192.168.1.2, the VM IP address is: 192.168.1.11, both of them share the same network adaptor and in the same LAN.

After the command, you will found a new "drive X" in your HOST computer.
The drive X is the mapping of the drive C of the VM . Now you may fully control the VM, and share files with it.

Enjoy! ;-)

for more information about Microsoft Virtual Server, please visit: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/default.mspx


business crm software |hosted crm solutions |crm examples |call centre |crm software |

BroadTooth - the Bluetooth broadcasting system!

What is BroadTooth?
BroadTooth is the Bluetooth broadcasting system provided by LondonDev Limited.


What is BroadTooth marketing solution?

This innovative BroadTooth marketing solution uses standard Bluetooth technology with our own message management software. This enables you to send multiple advertisements and messages to passing phones and review the success of the broadcast in real time.

  • BroadTooth technology simply delivers your sales message into the hand of potential customers. Imagine the potential of your sales messages appearing on the phones & PDA's of passers-by who permit transmission by pressing the 'receive' button.

  • BroadTooth is the process of sending information with Bluetooth technology. The BroadTooth Software can send multimedia files, graphic advertisements and animated GIF Files to Bluetooth-enabled mobile Phones and PDA's to anyone up to 30 metres way.

  • BroadTooth offers mobile and fixed location use. This flexibility is most useful in high density audience situations. The software can be installed and run from a lap top computer with a Bluetooth dongle.

  • BroadTooth in high density audiences (e.g. sports and music events or mainline rail terminals) offers the ideal opportunity to send over 1000 messages an hour directly. To improve results further, circulating through the crowd provides an even wider audience for your advertisement to be received.

  • BroadTooth can transmit from any location near a source of potential customers. Retail opportunities for this form of 'proximity marketing' are almost limitless, including sales messages for in store offers, messaging to passing pedestrians and drivers of the 'offer of the day' or the teaser-ad approach to brand building. Other possibilities include catering, offices, transport, public information and all forms of sports & leisure events, concerts, public and trade exhibitions, and strategic corporate and shopping centre applications.

  • BroadTooth from multiple locations can be managed from a single location via a LAN, using different messages and campaign formats and timings, facilitating continuous test-marketing and immediate response to local market factors.

What is BroadTooth supported device?
BroadTooth software can send your customised message to all the Bluetooth-enabled mobile Phones and PDAs. The object system could be all the major mobile systems in the market: Symbian, Microsoft Windows Mobile, Palm, Linux etc. These almost include 95% mobile systems in the market.

What can I do next?
Please contact us for more information.




crm |crm features |microsoft crm partner |sales crm |free crm |

How to allow '&' in email address

CRM 3.0 doesn't allow '&' in email address ,however, it's a requirement to make it possible!
The file you need to change is located in: \_forms\controls\INPUT.text.eml.htc,
The idea is change the regular expression for email field:

/*
Allow '&' in email address
Need to edit htc file(HTML Components)
\_forms\controls\INPUT.text.eml.htc
*/
//var _validEmailRegexp = /^\w([-._'\w]*\w)?@\w([-._\w]*\w)?\.\w+$/;
var _validEmailRegexp = /^\w([&-._'\w]*\w)?@\w([-._\w]*\w)?\.\w+$/;



crm software reviews |crm evaluation |healthcare crm |customer relations |online contact management |

CRM 4.0 upgrade: There is already an object named 'AttributeTypes' in the database.

This week I was helping a customer to upgrade their CRM 3.0 system to CRM 4.0.
The upgrade pre-check looks fine with all passed, no errors, no warnings.
But during the upgrade process, it first alert an error regarding C360, then I fix the problem, click the "Retry" button, it then generates another error:

" Microsoft.Crm.Setup.Server.InstallDatabaseAction failed.
System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException: There is already an object named 'AttributeTypes' in the database. "

That's very strange. But finally I found it's a design lack of upgrade process: The 'Retry' doesn't actually do 'Retry'!
So I had to:
1. Stop the upgrade process and uninstall CRM 4.0;
2. Restore CRM 3.0 databases, then install CRM 3.0 with existing databases;
3. Fix the problem which generated the first error;
4. Re-run the CRM 4.0 upgrade.

I did know there are some complains about C360 add-ons stop the CRM upgrade process, these could be the reasons:
1. The C360 uninstall doesn't do a clean uninstall all the time, so you may still see C360 icons on the CRM form, but no function;
2. Some C360 products create tables inside the CRM database which is not a recommended method, and again once you uninstall the product, the tables are still there.
3. C360 has a cleanup tool which does cleanup the remained infomation in the onLoad, onSave, and isv.cofig.xml etc. However, it doesn't cleanup the database. And the tool is hard to find on C360 website.

C360 provides some great add-ons for MSCRM, but we wish it could be better!


act contact management |crm upgrade |crm software features |crm workflow |crm evaluation |

CRM 4.0 Get attribute value from entity's GUID using JScript

Recently I have been asked many times about how to get attribute value from entity's GUID using JScript?
The following code demonstrate how to get a user's internalemailaddress by giving user's GUID.
*It has been modified to support multi-tenent deployment.


alert(GetAttributeValueFromID("systemuser", "09DF2AB7-E16D-DD11-88F3-0003FF884968", "internalemailaddress", "systemuserid"));

function GetAttributeValueFromID(sEntityName, sGUID, sAttributeName, sID)
{
var xml = "" +
"<?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?>" +
"<soap:Envelope xmlns:soap=\"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/\" xmlns:xsi=\"http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance\" xmlns:xsd=\"http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema\">" +
GenerateAuthenticationHeader() +
" <soap:Body>" +
" <RetrieveMultiple xmlns=\"http://schemas.microsoft.com/crm/2007/WebServices\">" +
" <query xmlns:q1=\"http://schemas.microsoft.com/crm/2006/Query\" xsi:type=\"q1:QueryExpression\">" +
" <q1:EntityName>"+sEntityName+"</q1:EntityName>" +
" <q1:ColumnSet xsi:type=\"q1:ColumnSet\">" +
" <q1:Attributes>" +
" <q1:Attribute>"+sAttributeName+"</q1:Attribute>" +
" </q1:Attributes>" +
" </q1:ColumnSet>" +
" <q1:Distinct>false</q1:Distinct>" +
" <q1:PageInfo>" +
" <q1:PageNumber>1</q1:PageNumber>" +
" <q1:Count>1</q1:Count>" +
" </q1:PageInfo>" +
" <q1:Criteria>" +
" <q1:FilterOperator>And</q1:FilterOperator>" +
" <q1:Conditions>" +
" <q1:Condition>" +
" <q1:AttributeName>"+sID+"</q1:AttributeName>" +
" <q1:Operator>Equal</q1:Operator>" +
" <q1:Values>" +
" <q1:Value xsi:type=\"xsd:string\">"+sGUID+"</q1:Value>" +
" </q1:Values>" +
" </q1:Condition>" +
" </q1:Conditions>" +
" </q1:Criteria>" +
" </query>" +
" </RetrieveMultiple>" +
" </soap:Body>" +
"</soap:Envelope>" +
"";

var xmlHttpRequest = new ActiveXObject("Msxml2.XMLHTTP");

xmlHttpRequest.Open("POST", "/mscrmservices/2007/CrmService.asmx", false);
xmlHttpRequest.setRequestHeader("SOAPAction","http://schemas.microsoft.com/crm/2007/WebServices/RetrieveMultiple");
xmlHttpRequest.setRequestHeader("Content-Type", "text/xml; charset=utf-8");
xmlHttpRequest.setRequestHeader("Content-Length", xml.length);
xmlHttpRequest.send(xml);

// retrieve response and find attribute value
var result = xmlHttpRequest.responseXML.selectSingleNode("//q1:" + sAttributeName);
if (result == null)
return "";
else
return result.text;
}




help desk |erp vendors |personal crm |crm examples |crm software evaluation |

Get Entity/Attribute's Display Name from CRM database


The Display Name for CRM Entity/Attribute is always a special case. In CRM 3.0, the Display Name is saved in the table: OrganizationUIBase, column: FieldXml. To get the Display Name for each attributes isn't an easy job. My approach was transfer the FieldXml column(NVARCHAR) into XML type, then get data from there. Here's the code I'd like to show about how to get the Display Name from CRM 3.0 (I suppose that you only want to see entity Account and Contact):



-- Get the display name from xml field
USE [Contoso_MSCRM]
GO
SELECT CONVERT(XML, REPLACE(CONVERT(NVARCHAR(MAX), O.FieldXml),'' ,'')) AS XmlField
INTO #temp1 FROM OrganizationUIBase O
WHERE NOT EXISTS(SELECT 1 FROM OrganizationUIBase WHERE Version>O.Version AND ObjectTypeCode=O.ObjectTypeCode)
SELECT DISTINCT
t2.x.value('(../../@objecttypecode)[1]','int') AS ObjectTypeCode,
t2.x.value('(../../@name)[1]','nvarchar(100)') AS EntityName,
t2.x.value('@name', 'nvarchar(50)') AS AttributeName,
t2.x.value('(displaynames/displayname/@description)[1]','nvarchar(100)') AS DisplayName
INTO #temp2
FROM #temp1 AS t1 CROSS APPLY t1.XmlField.nodes('/entity/fields/field') AS t2(x)

-- Join the metadata database
USE [Contoso_METABASE]
GO
SELECT
Entity.Name AS EntityName,
Attribute.Name AS AttributeName,
#temp2.DisplayName AS AttributeDisplayName,
FROM Attribute
INNER JOIN Entity ON Attribute.EntityId = Entity.EntityId
INNER JOIN #temp2 ON #temp2.AttributeName = Attribute.Name AND #temp2.ObjectTypeCode = Entity.ObjectTypeCode
WHERE EntityName IN ('Account', 'Contact')
ORDER BY EntityName, AttributeName

DROP TABLE #temp1
DROP TABLE #temp2



In CRM 4.0, because it supports multi languages, so the database has been re-designed: the FieldXml field has been abandoned. Instead, Microsoft uses a new table: LocalizedLabelView to save the Entity/Attribute's Display Name, it's much easy to get the Display Name, same example here (English version, the LanguageId is 1033):



USE Contoso_MSCRM
GO

SELECT EntityView.Name AS EntityName, LocalizedLabelView_1.Label AS EntityDisplayName,
AttributeView.Name AS AttributeName, LocalizedLabelView_2.Label AS AttributeDisplayName
FROM LocalizedLabelView AS LocalizedLabelView_2 INNER JOIN
AttributeView ON LocalizedLabelView_2.ObjectId = AttributeView.AttributeId RIGHT OUTER JOIN
EntityView INNER JOIN
LocalizedLabelView AS LocalizedLabelView_1 ON EntityView.EntityId = LocalizedLabelView_1.ObjectId ON
AttributeView.EntityId = EntityView.EntityId
WHERE LocalizedLabelView_1.ObjectColumnName = 'LocalizedName'
AND LocalizedLabelView_2.ObjectColumnName = 'DisplayName'
AND LocalizedLabelView_1.LanguageId = '1033'
AND LocalizedLabelView_2.LanguageId = '1033'
AND EntityView.Name IN ('Account','Contact')
ORDER BY EntityName, AttributeName




small business software |top crm software |crm implementation |open source crm |crm support |

CRM 4.0 IFrame: Show Entity's Associated View

It's a common requirement to show entity's associated view(1:N, N:N) in IFrame, the below code works for both 1:N and N:N relationship, it also works on both On-Premise and IFD deployment. All you need to do is find out(IE Developer Toolbar) the ID of the associated link.

The 1:N relationship needs these parameters in the request URL: oId, oType, security, tabSet
The N:N relationship needs an extra parameter: roleOrd in the request URL, which has been involved in the code.



var navId = "nav_new_new_myentity_account";

if(document.getElementById(navId) != null)
{
var tmp = document.getElementById(navId).onclick.toString();
tmp = tmp.substring(tmp.indexOf("'")+1, tmp.indexOf(";"));
var loadArea = tmp.substring(0, tmp.indexOf("'"));
var roleOrd = (tmp.indexOf("roleOrd") == -1) ? -1 : tmp.substring( tmp.indexOf("roleOrd"), tmp.lastIndexOf("'")).replace("\\x3d", "=");
crmForm.all.IFRAME_view.src = (roleOrd == -1) ? GetFrameSrc(loadArea) : GetFrameSrc(loadArea) + "&" + roleOrd;

}

function GetFrameSrc(tabSet)
{
if (crmForm.ObjectId != null)
{
var id = crmForm.ObjectId;
var type = crmForm.ObjectTypeCode;
var security = crmFormSubmit.crmFormSubmitSecurity.value;
var path = document.location.pathname.substring(0, document.location.pathname.indexOf("edit.aspx")) + "areas.aspx?";

return (path + "oId=" + id + "&oType=" + type + "&security=" + security + "&tabSet=" + tabSet);
}
else
{
return "about:blank";
}
}



Enjoy it! ;-)


notes crm |erp |crm experience |crm on demand |crm support |

CRM ISV Add-On : The entry 'ScriptModule' has already been added

I tested a CRM 4.0 add-on (ISV-A) last week, the default ASPX page generated an error:

Parser Error Message: The entry 'ScriptModule' has already been added.
<add name="ScriptModule" type="System.Web.Handlers.ScriptModule, System.Web.Extensions, Version=3.5.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31BF3856AD364E35">
</httpmodules>
</SYSTEM.WEB>



The add-on was located under the folder: CRMWeb\ISV\MyAddon
Of cause it inherits settings from CRM's root web.config: in which the ScriptModule has been added by another ISV's (ISV-B) add-on(it shouldn't do it at all).

But if I remove the ScriptModule from ISV-A's web.config, the error changed to:

Unable to cast object of type 'System.Web.Configuration.ScriptingAuthenticationServiceSection' to type 'System.Web.Configuration.ScriptingAuthenticationServiceSection'.

That's because the .Net version of ScriptModule are different between ISV-A and ISV-B's, so we have to stop ScriptModule(ISV-A's) inheriting from CRM's root web.config.

So that what I need to do on ISV-A's web.config:

Just before the ScriptModule, add a <remove> tag, which will remove the inherited setting:

<remove name="ScriptModule">
<add name="ScriptModule" type="System.Web.Handlers.ScriptModule, System.Web.Extensions, Version=3.5.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31BF3856AD364E35">


crm exchange |crm suite |data mining |best open source crm |crm conference |

A thought - the 'xRM Services' for Business Productivity & Collaboration

Microsoft has been very generous in the past few years to enhance functionalities of Windows Servers, i.e.: IIS, Hyper-V, SharePoint Services etc.

I have been thinking for a while and suggested Microsoft the possibility to split the xRM Services from Dynamics CRM; and to make it free, just like the WSS(SharePoint Foundation) and MOSS(SharePoint Server). The xRM Services could be just a 'relational system' base on the entity framework using SQL Express etc.

The major reason for this idea is: Many organisations use the Microsoft Dynamics CRM as a xRM platform, and they are not interested in the classic CRM modules (Sales/Services/Marketing), so they don't want to pay the full license. In my opinion, the "xRM Services" will not only benefit to many organisations, also it will be good for the Dynamics CRM market in long term.

It's just a thought, let's see how it goes.

Happy New Year 2011!




crm market share |legrand crm |business intelligence |ms crm |best cms |

Tom King's CRM Plus

Tom King's CRM Plus

Some Thoughts About Programmatic Agreements
February 4, 2005

I?ve been asked to review a few draft Programmatic Agreements (PAs) lately, proposed for execution under Section 106 and 36 CFR 800.14. They?ve uniformly been pretty dreadful. In case anyone?s interested, I thought I?d share a few observations on one typical example, whose identity I?ve disguised to protect the innocent.

This particular PA was drafted by a State department of transportation (DOT), for signature by itself, FHWA, the SHPO, and an Indian tribe. Once I?d gone through it with a reasonably fine-toothed comb, I could see that it had two modest goals:

1. categorically exclude certain classes of action from standard Section 106 review; and
2. allow the State DOT to represent FHWA in Section 106 consultations with the tribe.

The first thing I want to say is that a PA wasn?t really necessary to achieve either of these goals. With respect to the first, the agency was really saying that it simply didn?t want to communicate in the usual way with the SHPO and tribe about a particular range of action types. This could have been done with some fairly simple exchanges of letters, or a very simple agreement, about how FHWA and the State DOT would initiate consultation under 36 CFR 800.3. By elevating the matter to the level of a PA, they got all balled up, and ironically ended up (as we?ll see) proposing to exclude from review a number of project types that had considerable potential for adverse effect ? just not on resource types that the State DOT figured would be important to the tribe. As for the second goal, it could easily have been achieved (assuming the tribal government found it achievable) through an exchange of letters between FHWA and the tribal government.

But there seems to be a perception abroad in the land that the PA is the only way to structure and adjust relationships among parties in the 106 process, or to clarify how, in the eyes of those parties, the process can be made to work in particular contexts. So in this case as in others, the parties embarked on the PA road, and put their feet in a lot of nasty potholes and piles of poop.

For one thing, they started out by indicating that the agreement was about a lot more than just providing for some exclusions and delegating some responsibilities. It?s title announces that it?s about ?IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FEDERAL-AID TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM IN (THE STATE).? The actual limited purposes of the document are never made clear, except by implication and the absence of stipulations dealing with anything else.

Perhaps in lieu of such stipulations, they stuffed the agreement full of gratuitous promises to obey the law. For example, in the ?Whereas? clauses:

? ?FHWA agrees to coordinate under a government-to-government relationship with federally recognized tribal governments.?

? ?FHWA? wishes to conduct its programs in a manner consistent with 36 CFR 800? (particularly odd since the core purpose of any PA is to allow an agency to conduct a program in a manner inconsistent with the standard process set forth in 36 CFR 800).

And in stipulations:

? ?If the discovery (of Native American cultural items) is located on federal or tribal land, the (State DOT) will submit to the tribe a signed, written Plan of Action in compliance with Sections 10.3 and 10.5(c) of NAGPRA?s regulations.?

Speaking of being gratuitous, they also burdened the document with a number of Statements of Noble Intent (SNI) ? institutional chest-thumps ? such as?

? ?FHWA is committed to the design and construction of transportation systems that achieve a safe and efficient function?.?

Quickly becoming, in the words of Benjamin Disraeli, ?inebriated with the exuberance of (their) own verbosity,? the drafters blew the intent of their PA up to proportions far beyond its actual content:

? ?Now, therefore, (the parties to the PA) aspire to engage in meaningful long term planning for the protection of historic and archaeological properties and, toward that end, desire to (1) develop a comprehensive and efficient process for all Section 106 undertakings; (2) simplify procedural requirements to the maximum extent possible; (3) eliminate unnecessary paperwork; (4) reduce the role of (the tribe?s THPO) to the minimum extent required; (5) devote a larger percentage of time and energies identifying relevant problems threatening historic and archaeological properties; and (6) create innovative programs to address those problems.?

In the face of all this verbiage, the actual two purposes of the agreement ? to exclude certain types of action from what the parties understood to be normal 106 review and to delegate tribal consultation functions ? were virtually buried, and could be ferreted out only with difficulty. At the same time, the high-flying language conveyed the impression that the PA set up a whole new approach to Section 106 review in the state, though it manifestly did not. This is dangerous, because it can mislead people into thinking that given the PA, they need not attend to the regulations, when in fact the regulatory process is hardly affected at all by the PA?s terms.

After two single-spaced pages of generally meaningless circumlocution and SNIs, the PA finally got to one of its major purposes. Oddly, the authors chose a ?Whereas? clause to stipulate that:

? ?(The parties) hereby agree that the transportation undertakings defined in Appendix A have been determined by all parties to have NO EFFECT on cultural resources/traditional cultural properties in (the State) pursuant to 36 CFR 800.?

Never mind what they meant by ?cultural resources/traditional cultural properties,? or how these related to the historic properties whose consideration is the actual subject of 36 CFR 800. The main problem here is that the authors were trying to establish a material fact by executive fiat. It?s kind of like the United States formally declaring in Congress assembled that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Whether there were WMD in Iraq was a factual question, which could be answered only by on-the-ground study. Similarly, whether something will or will not have an effect on historic properties is a factual matter; one can?t make it one way or another by declaring it so. Under the regulations, determinations of ?no historic properties affected? (which probably is what the drafters meant by ?no effect?) are made based on an agency?s identification work, but in this PA they?re based on nothing at all.

Most of the activities listed in Appendix A do look pretty benign, but one certainly can?t guarantee that they will never have any effect on historic properties. One example is ?rest areas repair and maintenance.? Are there no rest areas in the state with, say, archaeological sites buried under their landscaping, that might be affected by landscape maintenance? Or how about ?replacement of bridges on existing alignment, when the bridge to be replaced is less than 50 years old and is not exceptionally significant?? Does one never excavate to effect such replacement? And who decides about ?exceptional significance??

And once again, the authors couldn?t restrain themselves, and seem to have forgotten what they were doing. They proposed to exclude:

? ?Streetscape improvements including benches, decorative lighting, textured crosswalks, transit shelters, and containerized plantings where the contract does not disturb existing subbase in original ground where soil horizons have been removed;?

? ?Transit improvements, bus bays, bus pullouts, and Park and Ride facilities located in urban settings or previously developed areas.?

? ?Rehabilitation of historic structures in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior?s STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION and approved by the SHPO.?

These activities are supposed to have ?no effect? on historic properties? Maybe they aren?t likely to affect places important to the tribe, but can a PA whose title indicates statewide and program-wide scope not apply to the whole state, and the whole Federal-aid transportation system in the state? Are the SHPO and tribe not being asked to agree to the wholesale exclusion from review of actions that may have profound effects on buildings, structures, and districts in urban areas? Are they not being asked to do this on behalf of the people in such areas, who value such properties? Without a shred of participation by such parties in the PA consultation? That?s certainly what the PA?s title, and the absence of statements of limitation, suggest. I wonder how any of the State?s cities would react if they found out.

The other apparent purpose of the PA ? delegation of FHWA?s tribal consultation responsibility ? is also buried in a ?Whereas? clause. In fact, it?s a clause within a clause:

? ?Whereas?. when a proposed project includes FHWA funding, the (State DOT) will initiate Section 106 Native American consultation as FHWA?s agent.?

That?s as explicit as it gets. Thereafter, there are simply references to the State DOT sending things to the THPO and the THPO responding. Then at the end, it?s the THPO who?s got a signature line ? not the Chairman, President, or other representative of the tribal government. Can the THPO agree on behalf of a tribe that a Federal agency can delegate government-to-government consultation responsibilities to a state agency? Not in any tribe I?ve ever encountered. No wonder the tribe hasn?t signed off on this PA ? particularly since, I was told, it had simply been sent to the THPO for signature, with no actual consultation at all.

It?s easy to make fun of this PA, but I?m afraid it represents something of a trend. With the Advisory Council?s effective withdrawal from participation in 106 review, and even more from intellectual engagement in the operation of the process, there?s no one to maintain quality control, and I?m seeing some truly amazing agreements being produced and solemnly executed by agencies, SHPOs, and THPOs. The result is likely to be vast confusion at best, severe erosion of the integrity of Section 106 review and real losses of historic properties at worst.

Another result ? not prospective but actual, here and now ? is a lot of time wasted negotiating agreements that amount to much ado about very, very little. The PA I reviewed, like lots of others I?ve seen, is mostly verbiage and puffery, camouflaging a few substantive if confusing and misleading stipulations. And I?ve seen people spend a lot of time arguing about verbiage and puffery.

Finally, as noted at the outset of this paper, there?s no real reason for FHWA or the State DOT to even develop such a PA. An agreement to allow FHWA to delegate its tribal consultation responsibilities to the State could be effected ? if it can be effected at all ? through an exchange of correspondence between FHWA and the tribal government (but probably not the THPO). If the tribe isn?t willing to respond positively to FHWA?s initiative when cast in the form of a letter, a phone call, a meeting, or some combination of the three, it?s not going to be willing to sign a PA. Though perhaps FHWA could con the THPO into signing it without realizing that he was exceeding his authority ? a bit of chicanery that would be a credit to Andrew Jackson.

As for excluding some project types from review, some of the types listed in the exceptions appendix could arguably be excluded unilaterally by FHWA on the grounds that they have no realistic potential for effect on historic properties. Pavement repairs are an example, and re-striping lines. But it?s apparent that what FHWA was concerned about in this case was not Section 106 review in general, but the specific bureaucratic business of consultation with the SHPO and THPO. You don?t need a PA to exclude things from such consultation. Again, I think all it would take is an exchange of letters, or a simple bilateral agreement, about what FHWA and the State DOT would and would not do in initiating Section 106 review under 36 CFR 800.3.

In the hopes of forestalling some future nonsense PAs, I?ve attached, below, suggested drafts of three model letters designed to accomplish the two purposes of the PA reviewed above.

Tom King
Silver Spring, Maryland
February 5, 2005
Attachment 1: Letter: FHWA to head of tribal government

Dear (Chairman/President) ______________

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is seeking ways to simplify its government-to-government consultation with Indian tribes regarding transportation projects in (State), specifically with respect to potential impacts on historic properties under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Such projects are invariably planned and carried out by the (State) Transportation Department (STD). Since you have established your (Name of Office or Department performing THPO function) as your Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), we believe it would be most efficient for us to authorize the STD to consult directly with your THPO on our behalf regarding all such projects that do not actually affect the fee or trust lands of your tribe. Of course, FHWA will always be available to consult with you on a government-to-government basis upon your request, and will continue to so consult in this manner with respect to projects affecting the fee or trust land of your tribe.

If this arrangement is acceptable to you and your tribal government, I hope you will so advise me by letter. If you would like to meet about this matter, or discuss it on the telephone, I would be happy to do so at your convenience. Please contact me at (phone number) to discuss it or arrange a meeting.

Sincerely


cc: THPO (Note: THPO should already have been consulted about this so it?s not a surprise)

Attachment 2: Letter State Transportation Department to THPO

Dear (THPO)

This is to confirm the outcome of our meeting of (date), at which we identified certain types of transportation project in (State) that are so unlikely to affect historic properties of interest to your tribe that there is no need for us to consult with you under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The project types we identified are listed in the attachment to this letter (Attachment A: ?Project Types on Which Section 106 Consultation With the ______ Tribe Will Not Be Routinely Undertaken?).

If you agree, when we consider initiating the Section 106 review process on a project falling into one of the identified categories under 36 CFR 800.3(e) and (f), we will not routinely contact you and request your participation. We will, however, notify you of any such project that will affect the fee or trust lands of your tribe, and of any project that our internal review suggests may be of interest to you. As you requested in our meeting, we will also advise you of any project that is planned to be conducted in the month of _______ within any of the areas identified on the attached map (Attachment B: ?Areas of Special Cultural Importance to the _________ Tribe?), and seek your assistance in ensuring that such projects do not adversely affect your tribe?s cultural interests. We will also consult with you about any project at your request.

We propose to review the effectiveness of this arrangement with you on an annual basis, and make adjustments to the arrangement as needed.

If you agree with this approach, please sign the concurrence line below and return a copy of this letter to you for our files. If you would like to discuss this matter further, please contact me at (phone number).

Sincerely





.

Attachment 3: Letter FHWA to SHPO

Dear (THPO)

This is to confirm the outcome of our meeting of (date). As you will recall, that meeting was aimed at clarifying what the (State) Department of Transportation (DOT) will do when it initiates review of certain routine project types on our behalf under 36 CFR 800.3, and on what your office, the DOT, and we agree constitutes a ?reasonable and good faith effort? to identify historic properties with respect to such project types under 36 CFR 800.4. The authority for this agreement is found at 36 CFR 800.3(g).

The project types we collectively identified are listed in the attachment to this letter (Attachment A: ?Project Types on Which Section 106 Consultation With the ______ State Historic Preservation Officer Will Not Be Routinely Undertaken?). They are all types of project that have very limited potential for adverse effect on historic properties, and whose mild potential for such effects can, we agreed, be handled by the (State) DOT without your advice and assistance.

We agreed that with respect to the property types listed in Attachment A, we will regard our responsibility to consult with you under 36 CFR 800.3(c) to be fulfilled by the programmatic consultation whose results are documented in this letter, and by the annual consultation proposed below, except in circumstances where the (State) DOT?s internal review and our compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) suggest to us or the (State) DOT that further consultation with your office is appropriate, whereupon the (State) DOT will undertake such consultation in accordance with 36 CFR 800.3(c).

We also agreed under 36 CFR 800.3(e) that with respect to the project types listed in Attachment A, there is no need for public involvement in individual project review beyond that routinely carried out by the (State) DOT as part of its planning and NEPA compliance processes, except that in interacting with the public and with local governments about such projects, the (State) DOT will routinely distribute the handout attached (Attachment B: ?If You Have Concerns About Impacts on Historic Places?), which advises the public about how to make any historic preservation concerns known to the (State) DOT, FHWA, and your office. Should any such concerns be raised, or should the (State) DOT otherwise think it necessary, the (State) DOT will provide for further public involvement, in consultation with your office.

We also addressed the requirement of 36 CFR 800.4(b)(1) that a ?reasonable and good faith effort? be made to identify historic properties subject to effect by a project. We agreed that with respect to the project types listed in Attachment A, the (State) DOT?s routine planning and NEPA compliance processes comprise such a reasonable and good faith effort in the vast preponderance of cases, and that no field survey to identify archaeological sites or other historic properties will ordinarily be carried out. We also agreed, however, that the (State) DOT will consult with your office in any case in which they are uncertain about the need for such a survey, and in any case in which a local government, an Indian tribe, or some other interested party requests such a survey. The (State) DOT pledged that such a survey will be carried out if your office advises that it is needed.

Finally, we agreed to review the effectiveness of this arrangement on an annual basis, and make adjustments as needed.

As we discussed, we are contacting all Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) and Indian Tribes with interests in your State to seek similar arrangements. Nothing in this letter affects our obligations with respect to such tribes and THPOs.

If you agree with this approach, please sign the concurrence line below and return a copy of this letter to you for our files. If you would like to discuss this matter further, please contact me at (phone number).

Sincerely







manufacturing crm |crm evaluation |enterprise crm |siebel crm |crm |

THE KEEPER OF THE NATIONAL REGISTER REDEFINES CULTURE:
A COMMENT ON THE KEEPER?S OPINION
OF THE CAPE COD DUNE SHACKS

Thomas F. King
June 1, 2007

Introduction

On May 24, 2007, Janet Snyder Matthews, the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places, sent a memorandum to the Acting Regional Director of the National Park Service?s (NPS) Northeast Region. The memo provided Ms. Matthews? opinion on whether the ?Dune Shacks of the Peaked Hill Bar Historic District, Barnstable County, Massachusetts? ? a property formally determined eligible for the National Register some 18 years ago ? is significant as a ?traditional cultural property.? Ms. Matthews? memorandum makes some peculiar statements that I think merit critical attention.

With Patricia L. Parker of NPS, I invented the term ?traditional cultural property[1]? as it is used in historic preservation in the United States ? where it is often referred to by its acronym ?TCP.? Parker and I coined the term in National Register Bulletin 38, Guidelines for the Identification and Documentation of Traditional Cultural Properties, published by NPS in 1990. I?ve discussed the background of Bulletin 38 ? why we wrote it, its intent, our choice of terminology, in several publications[2], and will not reiterate here. Ms. Matthews? opinion in the dune shacks matter is of concern to me because it evidences a deep misunderstanding of the ?TCP? concept, an unKeeperly unfamiliarity with National Register Bulletin 38, and an assumption of governmental omniscience that I find bothersome in an ostensible public servant.

I will not discuss the character of the dune shacks here, other than to note that they comprise a collection of cottages mostly constructed by and used in the past and currently by artists, poets, writers, and other members of the arts community. This community has considerable time depth in the area. The shacks and the people who value them have been discussed in detail by ethnographer Robert Wolfe in a 2005 evaluation[3], and by Wolfe and T.J. Ferguson in a 2006 report[4]. The Peaked Hills Historic District, including the dune shacks, was determined eligible for the National Register in 1989 under National Register Criteria A, B, and C.

The question of the shacks? traditional cultural significance came up a few years ago as NPS undertook to evict some of the shacks? residents. Since the residents maintain the shacks, and since the district was determined eligible for the Register at least partly because of its significant association with its residents and their artistic endeavors, questions arose over the propriety of these actions. In undertaking them, as far as I have determined, NPS did not bother to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Apparently, however ? and I am rather reading between the lines here ? NPS then was persuaded that it had Section 106 responsibilities with regard to the shacks, and that if the shacks were eligible as a TCP, the residents would have more power in the Section 106 consultation process than would be the case otherwise. The State Historic Preservation Officer opined that the shacks did in fact comprise a TCP. Unable to bring itself simply to respect the community and its traditional associations, NPS contracted for a study, performed by Dr. Wolfe. Dr. Wolfe concluded that the dune shacks were indeed significant as a TCP. Unwilling to accept this conclusion without vetting, NPS had Dr. T.J. Ferguson examine Dr. Wolfe?s work; the result was the Wolfe-Ferguson report, concluding that the dune shacks were eligible for the National Register as a TCP. The residents and various local governments offered supporting opinions. But NPS was still unsure, so it requested the ?determination? of the Keeper ? an NPS employee, but we are not to imagine that this might have made any difference. The Keeper, in simple terms, said no.

The Meaning of the Keeper?s Opinion

For a government action that has caused such sturm und drang, the Keeper?s opinion is curiously meaningless. Meaningless, that is, in real world terms; what meaning it may have in the world where the Keeper and her associates live can only be guessed.

Let?s be clear about what the category ?TCP? means. TCP is not a National Register criterion, separate and apart from the formal criteria A, B, C, and D[5]. It is really a descriptive term, like ?cottage,? or ?archaeological site,? or ?big gray rock.? When we wrote Bulletin 38, Parker and I needed a term to embrace a range of place-types that were being given short shrift by government despite their significance to real people ? Native American spiritual places, traditional neighborhoods, culturally valued landscapes and landforms, and so on. No term was sufficiently embracing, so we invented one ? traditional cultural property. It?s simply a semantic box, or envelope, within which various types of place can be kept.

So, who is authorized to decide whether something is or isn?t a TCP? Well, who is authorized to decide whether something is a cottage, or an archaeological site, or a big gray rock? It depends, of course; if you?re a geologist and I?m not, your opinion about the big gray rock is probably better than mine. But archaeologists can argue over what is and isn?t an archaeological site, and one person?s cottage may be another?s palace and another?s hovel. In any event, cottageness, siteness, and rockness are more or less matters of opinion, on which people can honestly reach divergent conclusions, and ? here?s the important point ? no government agency has the authority to decide the matter.

In just the same way, no government agency has the authority to decide whether something is or is not a TCP. The Keeper has the authority to decide whether a given TCP (or non-TCP) is eligible for the National Register, but she has no more official role in deciding whether something is a TCP than she has in deciding whether something is a rock, a boat, or a fig tree.

Who can determine whether something is a TCP? According to National Register Bulletin 38:

?It is vital to evaluate properties thought to have traditional cultural significance from the standpoint of those who may ascribe such significance to them?[6]

In other words, traditional cultural significance is defined and determined by the people who know and care about a place. The bulletin goes on to acknowledge that a group?s assertions about a place can and should be ?subjected to critical analysis,? but the bottom line is the obvious truism that only I can say what?s important to me, and only you can say what?s important to you. Neither of us needs the Keeper to instruct us in the matter.

So the Keeper?s opinion is simply an opinion. It?s also an opinion without practical consequence. The district remains eligible for the National Register, under criteria A, B, and C. The dune shacks contribute to the district; their use by artists and their colleagues is understood to be part of the district?s significance. Any eviction or demolition action by NPS would obviously require review under Section 106[7]. The dune dwellers would be entitled to be consulting parties in any such review, based on their interests in the district[8].

So what did the Keeper?s opinion mean? Only that in the Keeper?s opinion, the shacks are not significant as a TCP. This opinion must have deep meaning to the Keeper, but in real world terms it is simply one ostensible specialist?s conclusion, to be compared and contrasted with those of the residents, Wolfe, Ferguson, the SHPO, and others in future evaluations of the place.

If the Keeper?s opinion has marginal relevance to the dune shacks themselves, it has rather chilling implications for other TCP cases. We may, and should, wonder what will happen when other properties of traditional cultural significance, not already on or determined eligible for the Register, are brought to the Keeper for determinations of eligibility or as nominations. To judge from Ms. Matthews? memorandum, the prospects for official recognition of such significance are not good. The Keeper appears to be unfamiliar with the National Register?s own guidance on the evaluation of TCPs, and to have some strange notions about what makes such properties significant.

The Keeper?s Understanding of National Register Bulletin 38

Ms. Matthews? memorandum includes what purports to be a summary of what Bulletin 38 says about TCP evaluation, reproduced below.

Traditional Cultural Properties

National Register Bulletins provide guidance and technical information regarding the evaluation of cultural resources. National Register Bulletin #38 provides flexible guidance regarding the evaluation and documentation of TCPs. In general, as discussed more fully in the Bulletin, a TCP has the following characteristics:

A living, traditional group or community;
The group/community must have existed historically and the same group/community continues to the present;
The group/community must share cultural practices, customs, or beliefs that are rooted in the group/community?s history;
These shared cultural practices, customs, or beliefs must continue to be held or practiced today;
These shared cultural practices, customs, or beliefs must be important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity and values of the group/community;
The group must transmit or pass down these shared cultural practices, customs, or beliefs through the generations, usually orally or through practice; and
These shared cultural practices, customs, or beliefs must be associated with a tangible place, and the place must be directly associated with the identified cultural practices.

Most of the bulleted sentences and sentence fragments are accurate enough glosses on what Bulletin 38 actually says. The second bullet, however ? ?The group/community must have existed historically and the same group/community continues to the present? ? is not found in Bulletin 38 in any form I can discern upon rereading the publication. The Keeper appears simply to have made it up. She goes on, in explaining ?why the dune shacks? does (sic) not have significance as a TCP,? to lean entirely on this putatively ?most important characteristic of a TCP? as her basis for concluding that the dune shacks don?t comprise one. This suggests to me that Ms. Matthews is unfamiliar with the actual language of the bulletin, and/or that over the years since its publication her staff have begun to read into the bulletin a standard that its authors never intended to include ? and moreover, to elevate this standard to ?most important? status. This, as we?ll see, is a problem.

The Keeper?s use of the ?historical existence/continuation to the present? standard

Why is there a problem with employing the standard that Ms. Matthews and her people have invented? It seems intuitively obvious that a group ascribing ?traditional? significance to a place must have existed long enough to have traditions, and must exist today in order to honor them. The problem with this standard, however, is rooted in the question of who defines traditional significance. If, in the bulletin?s words, we are to ?evaluate properties thought to have traditional cultural significance from the standpoint of those who may ascribe such significance to them,? is it legitimate for someone standing outside the group ? most notably a government official ? to evaluate the legitimacy of the group?s perceptions? If ? as the bulletin details ? it is inappropriate for us to question whether an Indian tribe?s ancestors ?really? emerged from a lower world at the beginning of time, is it legitimate for us to deny the beliefs of the Cape Cod dune dwellers about their history, and indeed their very existence as a group?

If the dune dwellers had dragged their shacks into the dunes last year, it might not be problematic to apply the ?historical existence/continuation to the present? (HE/CP) standard, though I think the wisdom of doing so would still be questionable. But the dune dwellers did not arrive yesterday; they?ve been around for quite awhile, so the Keeper has to develop a convoluted rationale for denying them legitimacy. The fact that she is willing and able to do this, in the face of massive contrary evidence, bodes ill for future human-based TCP evaluations.

Ms. Matthews? argument ? to the extent I can extract its essence from her prose ? goes like this:

The community (she would probably put the word in quotes) of dune dwellers is made up of several groups, including long-term and short-term occupants, visitors, and so on.
These groups are ?fluid, evolving, and different from one year to the next.?
Wolfe?s and Ferguson?s reports focused on the long-term occupants.
Many of those offering opinions about the dune shacks emphasized the relevance of groups that do not comprise long-term occupants.
Some comments suggest that the groups using the shacks are so fluid that no ?cultural focus? can be discerned[9].
Therefore, ?the District should not be identified for its significance as a TCP.?

If the reader?s response to this argument is ?huh?? I am not surprised; that?s my response, too. Granting the accuracy of points 1 through 5, it is utterly unclear, at least to me, how Ms. Matthews jumps to point 6 (which actually is the lead-in to her discussion). How does inclusion of multiple subgroups, fluidity, a tendency to evolve, year-to-year differences in composition, the existence of groups other than the long-term occupants, and questions about ?cultural focus? (whatever that is) translate into non-TCP status? Presumably it has something to do with the newly-minted HE/CP standard, but even if one accepts that standard, the intellectual leap Ms. Matthews has made is difficult (impossible, for me) to follow. Apparently Ms. Matthews would not deny that the long-term occupants as a group have ?historical existence,? and it is pretty evident that this group ?continues to the present.? If this is true, then presumably Ms. Matthews would regard the dune shacks as comprising a TCP if there were no one there but the long-term occupants. But by having the temerity to die or move away from time to time and be replaced by others, the long-term dune dwellers have compromised their historical/cultural legitimacy in Ms. Matthews? eyes.

Apparently to the Keeper, if the community that ascribes significance to a property has been so gauche as to change over time, its claim to ?community? status has been lost, and it doesn?t really value the places it thinks it values. But historians, anthropologists, and sociologists have pretty thoroughly documented the fact that all human societies change, evolve; all have more or less fluid boundaries. If there is one immutable principle of human existence, it is mutability. By Ms. Matthews logic, then, no living community can have a TCP. And of course, no dead one can either, since it has not ?continued to the present.?

Let?s imagine the HE/CP principle and Ms. Matthews? logic applied to a more ?traditional? sort of TCP than the dune shacks. Suppose an Indian tribe asserts that a hill somewhere in its traditional territory (or elsewhere) is an important spiritual place, and is misled into nominating it to the National Register[10]. In evaluating the nomination, the Register will have to ask whether the tribe?s composition and boundaries have changed and evolved over time. It would be a rare tribe for which the answer to this question would not be ?yes.? The Keeper might be satisfied that the tribe ?existed historically,? as evidenced by historical accounts, archaeology, perhaps oral history, perhaps treaties, but has it ?continued to the present?? Well, the Keeper might say, maybe it has and maybe it hasn?t; it all depends on how fluid the group?s boundaries are. So ? assuming the tribe has patience with this kind of effrontery ? the tribe submits its tribal rolls for the last century or two. And ? what do you know? ? they document a considerable fluidity. Not only have tribal members been born and died, but people have come into the group through marriage, perhaps through adoption, while others have left or been thrown out. Some tribal members come and go; a couple live in Switzerland, one member has been elected to the House of Representatives and lives in suburban Virginia. Oh dear, can this really be seen as a community? Guess not, so its place can?t be a TCP.

If this hypothetical seems absurd, I will only say that I don?t think it any more absurd than the Keeper?s opinion about the dune shacks. Since the Keeper?s decision in this matter was pretty obviously a politically motivated one, we can hope that it will not be replicated in cases where the National Park Service is not the agency questioning a place?s traditional cultural significance, but I have my doubts. The Keeper certainly engaged in convoluted, unsubstantiated logic (broadly defined) to reach the conclusion desired by her agency, but the fact that such logic apparently makes sense to her and her colleagues ? that they can put it out in public with straight faces ? cannot make one very hopeful about the quality of likely future decisions.




[1] Also taken to mean ?traditional cultural place,? which amounts to the same thing; we used ?property? in order to parallel ?historic property,? a term used in the National Historic Preservation Act.
[2] See, for instance, Chapter 15, ?Stupid TCP Tricks,? in Thinking About Cultural Resource Management: Essays from the Edge; AltaMira Press 2002; Chapters 1 and 2 in Places That Count: Traditional Cultural Properties in Cultural Resource Management, AltaMira Press 2003; and ?How Micronesia Changed the U.S. Historic Preservation Program and the Importance of Keeping it from Changing Back,? Micronesian Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 5:1/2:505-516, http://marshall.csu.edu.au/MJHSS/
[3] Dwelling in the Dunes: Traditional Use of the Peaked Hills Bar Historic District, submitted to the National Park Service 2005.
[4] Traditional Cultural Property Assessment, Dune Shacks of the Peaked Hills Bar Historic District, Cape Cod National Seashore, submitted to the National Park Service 2006.
[5] As set forth in regulation at 36 CFR 60.4
[6] National Register Bulletin 38:4, emphasis added.
[7] This is not, however, to say that NPS will subject its decisions in such matters to such review; it is required to, after all, only by federal law.
[8] 36 CFR 800.2(c)(5)
[9] The Keeper does not define this somewhat ambiguous term.
[10] For the record, I recommend NEVER nominating TCPs, or anything else, to the National Register unless there is a very good practical reason for doing so.




crm integration |web based crm software |benefits of crm |crm websites |contact management software |
Splinters For a Platform

I for one would like to kick around ideas about what we should look for in a presidential platform splinter (it would hardly be a plank) on cultural resources. So I posted the following yesterday on ACRA-L.

I?ll start by stipulating that I?m a lifelong Democrat, and a supporter of Barack Obama. At the same time I?ll say that in terms of demonstrated thoughtful support for initiatives that support the kind of thing we do (or ought to do), it?s hard to beat John McCain. I?m thinking of his long-time sponsorship of the National Institute for Environmental Dispute Resolution, which applies the principles on which section 106 review is based (despite their near-abandonment by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation) to the management of environmental impacts in general.

That said, let?s consider: whichever party one supports, and whatever candidate, what would we like whoever?s elected to do in terms of CRM? Here are my opening suggestions, which naturally reflect my beliefs that (a) impact assessment and mitigation are the heart and soul of CRM; (b) that CRM is tightly related to environmental impact assessment (EIA); (c) that it ought to be about giving a fair shake to things that are important to ordinary people, not just specialists; and (d) that the CRM and EIA systems are in serious trouble, despite the happy talk we get from NPS, the Advisory Council, and the SHPOs. I didn?t mean to make them the Seven Rs; they just came out that way. They?re in no particular rank order.

Reformulate environmental, social, and cultural resource impact assessment.

Nobody wants to talk about it, but review of project impacts under NEPA, Section 106 of NHPA, and related authorities has devolved substantially into the generation and exchange of paperwork, into mindless adherence to the (often counterproductive and overly complicated) dictates of regulatory authorities (e.g. SHPOs) and ? most damagingly ? into client-contractor relationships that paper over project impacts and frustrate the interests of the public. It will be a difficult job ? because the regulatory agencies and contractors have vested interests in the status quo, and the advocacy groups can?t bring themselves to advocate anything but its continuance with more funding ? but the new president needs to put some good minds to work reformulating the process of impact analysis -- seeking to make it honest, straightforward, transparent, efficient, and consultative. We should end the inherently corrupting practice of having project proponents hire and supervise the consultants who assess the impacts of their projects, and simplify review processes to a point at which citizens can participate in meaningful ways.

Reform the management of federal land and resources in the interests of future generations
We need a thorough review of federal agency policies and how they are implemented, to undo (to the extent it?s possible) the current administration?s policy of carte blanche for private energy extraction, resource development, and other private exploitation of federal and tribal land and resources. This is not to say that the federal estate should be locked up, simply that balance needs to be restored in the public interest, and agencies need to understand their duties to be those of stewards, not facilitators of every cockamamie development scheme that comes along. It is also not to suggest support for things like the recent recommendations of the National Trust for Historic Preservation to the Bureau of Land Management. Some of the Trust?s recommendations are sensible, but many are mindless (?Nominate more places to the National Register?) and the Trust?s general tendency to want more money thrown at every preservation problem, while understandable, needs to be viewed critically.

Rejoin the international community
We?ve largely abrogated leadership in international environmental and cultural resource management, but we ought at least to be responsible followers. For starters (besides joining the team in trying to reduce global warming), the U.S. should become party to the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, and (in principle if not in its particulars, some of which are silly) the UNESCO Convention on the Intangible Cultural Heritage.

Rethink police action as a cultural resource management tool
The assumption that police action can control traffic in antiquities, whether in the US or internationally, needs critical reconsideration. The thriving business done by antiquities dealers both licit and illicit despite ARPA and a variety of international conventions and agreements indicates that some other approach is in order. Personally, I think legalization with regulation is the way to go, but at the very least, a thorough, openminded review is needed of alternative ways to address the problem.

Respond to ongoing environmental change
We can?t stop the seas from rising, and their doing so is going to force large-scale displacement of people and facilities from coastlines and islands into the continental and high island interiors. These displacements are going to have serious impacts on natural and cultural resources. We need to undertake concrete programs NOW to assess these impacts and adopt means of mitigating them. At the same time we need to attend (to the extent possible) to the impacts of sea level rise itself ? the erosion of coastal cultural sites, the inundation of culturally important built and natural resources, and the effects of more frequent hurricanes and other severe weather events.

Resolve conflicts between historic preservation standards and alternative energy development
Can windfarms in the viewsheds of historic places be made acceptable to people who live in or use such places? Can solar panels be designed that are aesthetically pleasing replacements for traditional slate, shake, or tile roofs? Are there ways to extract geothermal energy and harness hydropower in culturally sensitive landscape with little or no damage? What sociocultural impacts are likely from the extensive production of biofuels, and what can be done about them? I certainly don?t know, but these are issues to which someone ought to be seriously attending.

Revisit repatriation
I?ve written elsewhere about the fundamental flaw in NAGPRA and similar laws ? the notion that people can own one another, so that a person?s remains can and should be the subjects of dispute over ownership. It seems, to judge from some of the discussions I?ve seen on the World Archaeological Congress listserv and elsewhere, that others are beginning to come to similar conclusions ? in short, that our policies ought to be based on respect for the dead, rather than on ownership. A full, open, no-holds-barred rethinking of the principles underlying NAGPRA and the policies that arise from it might have very fruitful results.

Those are my top-of-the-head ideas ? none of which, I hasten to say, I have any way to advance through political processes. Any other ideas, or reactions?
Tom King


saas crm |hosted crm |microsoft crm download |crm software download |open source crm software |