Hi Everyone,
Just a quick thank you to those of you who offered your suggestions regarding our associations dilemma. All of your responses contained ideas we hadn't considered, so all have been very valuable. Thanks again, and have a great week!
David Thompson | MFAH
713.639.7580 o
281.330.3803 m
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
From: The Museum System (TMS) Users [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Christine Droll
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 4:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: parent-child vs. see-also associations
David, I've done what you are contemplating-that is, making a parent-child relationship and defining it as a See Also because I want it to show in the Group Information field in the object record. Seems to work well enough, even though I'm a little sketchy on which record is the parent, and which is the child. Depending on how you link it seems to dictate how the relationship will display in the Group Information field. (see images below)
Christine
Christine Droll
Registrar, Database & Collections
The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art
4525 Oak Street | Kansas City, MO 64111
p 816.751.1333 | f 816.751.0499
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
[cid:image001.jpg@01D1DC3C.995F4080]
[cid:image002.jpg@01D1DC3C.995F4080]
[cid:image003.jpg@01D1DC3C.995F4080]
From: The Museum System (TMS) Users [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Thompson, Dave
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 8:39 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: parent-child vs. see-also associations
Hi Everyone,
We're taking a look at how we number and associate photographs and their reserve prints, and I was asked to weigh-in on the numbering and association type. To me, associating different instances of the same photograph would be a see-also association. But, we like to see on the main data entry screen that there are associated objects without having to go to the hierarchy view or the related tab. I've been kind of a stickler for coding the associations "correctly" as I understood them, but I wonder if it really hurts anything to code them as parent-child relationships? Using the see-also association type has made me happy in the thought that it's more "accurate," but it hasn't seemed to provide any real practical benefit, rather it just seems to make the information more difficult to find at-a-glance. Perhaps there's something I'm overlooking?
If any of you would mind taking a moment to share your opinion I'd be very appreciative.
Thanks,
David Thompson
TMS Administrator
The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston
PO Box 6826 | Houston, Texas 77265-6826
5100 Montrose Boulevard | Houston, Texas 77006
713.639.7580 o
281.330.3803 m
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
To unsubscribe, send an email to [log in to unmask]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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.
|
