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.
|
