Hi Stephanie,
We regularly give objects that are part of a set their own individual
records. For instance, a tea set will have separate records for the teapot,
the creamer and the sugar bowl, although they are linked via Related Objects
(which like Kate said will be much more useful in 2010 with the
Seperable/Inseperable objects linking - I can't wait to upgrade to be able
to use this feature!). For something like the teapot, with parts that are
an integral part of the particular object, there will be components - like
the teapot having a lid: the teapot is .1a, the lid .1b, and that would be
part of one record. It is likely that the teapot, creamer or sugar bowl
might be on display on their own, but the teapot and lid probably would not
be.
I don't see any issues with making the two vases components if they are
always together or were always meant to go together. It's kind of a bigger
question of how you think about them. Can the piece stand on its own? Or
must it have the other part with it to make a complete object?
A dress must have its skirt and bodice to make up the full dress outfit; a
teapot must have the lid to be a full teapot, but does not necessarily need
the creamer or pitcher for you to tell what it is. (Even though it forms a
set.) Probably deeper than you wanted to go, but you may need to think
about other types of things to see what is going to work best overall.
(Have not yet integrated using the values for Loans, etc., just starting to
do that now so unfortunately can't offer any advice as far as that.)
Good luck and have fun with 2010 when you upgrade - I'm jealous!
D.
==========================================
Diane Lee, Collections Manager Ÿ 860-236-5621 x242
Connecticut Historical Society
-----Original Message-----
From: The Museum System (TMS) Users [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Hansen, Stephanie
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 9:44 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: components vs. relationships
Hi Kate,
Thanks so much for your reply. We'll be using 2010 in a couple of weeks, so
I've been looking at the separable objects feature. It's nice that you can
see what objects are in the same location when you're doing a move
transaction. When it comes to portfolios, etc. this is definitely the way we
want to go because they are expected to be exhibited separately, they have
individual titles, etc. But when it comes to decorative arts it starts
getting fuzzy for us. What we really like about the way components works, is
that 1. you see all the locations on the front objects page and 2. when you
put the objects in the shipping record, the overall value is in the same
record as the separate objects, so it's easy to see and decide how/if you
want to divvy up the value. But is it bad practice to make individual
objects components even if they were made to go together (like a pair of
vases)? I'm afraid that we might not foresee some pitfalls (other than
having to re-create location records if we change our minds) along the way.
Thanks again for your thoughts!
Stephanie
-----Original Message-----
From: The Museum System (TMS) Users on behalf of Collen, Kate
Sent: Tue 3/8/2011 4:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: components vs. relationships
Hi Stephanie,
Are you on TMS 9.35 or TMS 2010? We've yet to upgrade but in 2010 there is a
new feature that you could use to handle these relationships--separable
objects.
Also, it's a pain but you can re-create historical locations. First record
the historical locations you want to duplicate (via screenshot is easiest).
If you have admin privileges, you just login as the person who originally
created the location and enter the type of move, date of move, anticipated
end date, handler etc exactly as it appears on your screenshot, working in
chronological order from earliest to latest. The only fields that may be off
are those in the entered date column. You can also add historical date info
using SQL but it's more complicated.
Best,
Kate
KATE COLLEN
COLLECTIONS DATABASE ADMINISTRATOR
SMITHSONIAN NATIONAL POSTAL MUSEUM
202.633.5512
[log in to unmask]
WWW.POSTALMUSEUM.SI.EDU
WWW.ARAGO.SI.EDU
-----Original Message-----
From: The Museum System (TMS) Users [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Stephanie Hansen
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 4:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: components vs. relationships
Hello,
I'm picking up on this old thread of components vs. relationships to try to
think through this with our decorative arts. A pair of vases that normally
display together, travel together, etc., a tea set, a desk with chair, etc.
We're pretty tentative about making any of these components because if we
ever did decide to make individual records instead, we lose our location
history.
And, when it comes to having relationships with group records (associated
with the value) do you just include the individual records in the loan
record and shipping record? How are you tracking the value?
I'd love to hear your thoughts on handling records like these.
Thanks in advance!
Stephanie Hansen
Milwaukee Art Museum
To unsubscribe, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the
following commands in the body of the email:
signoff TMSUSERS
// eoj
You will receive a confirmation that your subscription has been removed.
To unsubscribe, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the
following commands in the body of the email:
signoff TMSUSERS
// eoj
You will receive a confirmation that your subscription has been removed.
To unsubscribe, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the
following commands in the body of the email:
signoff TMSUSERS
// eoj
You will receive a confirmation that your subscription has been removed.
To unsubscribe, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the following commands in the body of the email:
signoff TMSUSERS
// eoj
You will receive a confirmation that your subscription has been removed.
|
