Hi Amanda -
Well, we have kind of done both actually. <sigh> For an item that is a stand-alone cup and saucer set, we have cataloged them as a,b and have done one record, recording them as their individual components, and counting it as 2 objects in the object count. Although it is a set and we consider it one set, we do consider it two individual objects. A teacup and saucer would be two objects, where a teapot and it's lid we would consider one object, as the lid can't live without the teapot.
We do also have a couple full tea sets, where we have cataloged all of the teacups together, and all of the saucers together, creating components for each number or letter - mostly for purposes of location. It made sense to do all the teacups together and all of the saucers together for the sake of saving time cataloging.
Sadly, we have numbered both ways; one set we have is designated as 1935.2.25 for the overall set, with .1,.2, etc. being added on. Another set has not gotten an overall number, but each item has been numbered within the lot, like 1979.40.1, 1979.40.2, etc, and all the cups being given .a and all of the saucers being given .bs. (So they end up with the teacups being .16a, .17a, .18a, etc. and all the saucers being .16b,.17b, etc.)
<Disclaimer - I was not in on the this project, it was before my time. But knowing how our numbering can be, I am imagining one was an old numbering scheme, and it was in the interest of saving time not to try renumber the whole lot.>
I recently got a great report from someone in the Smithsonian system that gives you a tally of your object count, so can tell you that your 8 records (in the case of our tea set) actually accounts for 25 actual object.
I don't know if this helps or is more confusing - I'm guessing more confusing, but I thought I'd put it out there anyway.
Here are examples of both ways we do the records. Our emuseum page records is sparse but might help.
Let me know if this creates more questions...good luck!
Diane.
Breakfast cup and saucers:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://emuseum.chs.org:8080/emuseum/view/objects/asitem/id/7420&k=diZKtJPqj4jWksRIF4bjkw%3D%3D%0A&r=XTJzpIcEHE%2Fdpcfy6DYLFGXNnGz7Bd9JKTihuOsgjts%3D%0A&m=XSlyQ4f%2F7OfqjEelZqHnP4e1dwHgyZ8XdJpjJPdXycE%3D%0A&s=73e428af259bda6e821e609130c6fe0832dd7ea3156514d64cb3f7d50866d12a
Saucers:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://emuseum.chs.org:8080/emuseum/view/objects/asitem/id/7108&k=diZKtJPqj4jWksRIF4bjkw%3D%3D%0A&r=XTJzpIcEHE%2Fdpcfy6DYLFGXNnGz7Bd9JKTihuOsgjts%3D%0A&m=XSlyQ4f%2F7OfqjEelZqHnP4e1dwHgyZ8XdJpjJPdXycE%3D%0A&s=705f81c53396dc1016e3c3bec1d66b9243f433d55b6fc8bebe970d1786944064
Teacups:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://emuseum.chs.org:8080/emuseum/view/objects/asitem/id/7107&k=diZKtJPqj4jWksRIF4bjkw%3D%3D%0A&r=XTJzpIcEHE%2Fdpcfy6DYLFGXNnGz7Bd9JKTihuOsgjts%3D%0A&m=XSlyQ4f%2F7OfqjEelZqHnP4e1dwHgyZ8XdJpjJPdXycE%3D%0A&s=9d0e03fc4e784bbe969dae24e513a38867111727582aafa1fd1164a695ac6742
==================================================================
Diane Lee | Collections Manager
[log in to unmask] | (860) 236-5621 x(242)
Connecticut Historical Society | One Elizabeth Street | Hartford, CT 06105 | www.chs.org
Upcoming Events | Membership | Donate | Volunteer
Visit us on Facebook and Twitter @ConnHistSoc
-----Original Message-----
From: The Museum System (TMS) Users [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Amanda Robinson
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 2:11 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Use of Components in TMS Database
Dear Listserv,
I apologize for the cross-posting!
I am curious how others catalog those works that have additional components in their TMS database. For example, if you have a cup and saucer set, would you create two separate object records for them, or would you create one object record and designate the cup an the saucer as component parts?
I am finding that in the past multiple object records have been created for works that have multiple components, such that a cup and it's saucer are 1993.003.001a and 1993.003.001b as two separate object records. One of my concerns is if this is an efficient means of cataloging? For example, if I were to query all objects, I would not receive an accurate read because there would be multiple object records for technically "one single" object.
How have others rectified these circumstances? Do you find the component aspect of an object record efficient for accurately cataloging a "cup and saucer"? If so, how does your object record look - i.e. 1993.003.001a-b?
Thank you all so much for your input!
Amanda Robinson
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.
|
