You still have a fold? Designer forms, man!
Attributes can be qualified by smart use of attribute types and/or by
using attribute remarks.
I don't buy the data entry is too complex argument - if the attribute
type is set to a particular node, just select your attribute type then
type in the term and hit add for most entries.
From: The Museum System (TMS) Users [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Chad Petrovay
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 6:38 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Culture, Constituent or Both
Jeri,
I'd have no problem with that. Other parties would argue that the
culture is no longer visible above the fold. There would also be the
factor of data entry time (and complexity), and the process for adding
cultural groups. The Attributes does not allow for qualifiers
("possibly" or "probably"), which is built into Constituents. The upside
to attributes is that any Tom, Dick, or Harry can't edit the thesaurus -
so there is more control to the edition/revision/modification process.
I can see, and justify, both of those options. In an ideal world, I
would see cross-referencing that field to the thesaurus, and providing a
"Create Label" option for pretty reporting and formatting.
Chad Petrovay | Collections Database Administrator
MIM-Musical Instrument Museum | 4725 E. Mayo Boulevard | Phoenix, AZ
85050
480.478.6000 main | 480.478.6058 direct | 480.471.8690 fax |
www.themim.org
Blog: www.petrovay.com/tmsblog
From: The Museum System (TMS) Users [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Moxley, Jeri
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 3:13 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Culture, Constituent or Both
Hey Chad,
How about using attributes and having a regional structure layered in
with your culture names in a thesaurus structure? That would give you
regional searching and also give you ability to search on alternate
spellings and the like.
Jeri
From: The Museum System (TMS) Users [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Chad Petrovay
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 12:35 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Culture, Constituent or Both
We have yet to address cultures as constituents. Since the Culture field
is just a text field, it has cause problems, in that some objects in our
collection are shared by several cultures. We have this field set to
display as a distinct list in queries, which was to help promote
standardization on the demonyms entered. But we end up with "Igbo",
"Yoruba, Igbo", and "Yoruba" all as separate entries.
I'm liking the idea of using the constituents to help control these, but
in some ways, I also wish that Culture field was both a controlled
assistant and label field, the way that Medium, Dimensions, or
ObjectName currently work.
Chad Petrovay | Collections Database Administrator
MIM-Musical Instrument Museum | 4725 E. Mayo Boulevard | Phoenix, AZ
85050
480.478.6000 main | 480.478.6058 direct | 480.471.8690 fax |
www.themim.org
Blog: www.petrovay.com/tmsblog
From: The Museum System (TMS) Users [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Burke, Ashley
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 4:52 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Culture, Constituent or Both
Hello TMS Users-
I have a question for you all regarding the preferred placement of
culture in TMS. Although there is a field for culture, I notice quite a
lot of people will also insert the culture into the constituent field.
For example, an Italian work that is unknown would have Italian in the
culture field and then under constituent (object related) would be
Unknown, Italian. What is the best option, culture only or both? One
of my thoughts is that it might actually be better to have it in both
places for exportation purposes. I would love to hear what other people
are doing and the reasoning as to why you would choose one over the
other.
Thanks!
Ashley
Ashley Burke
Associate Registrar
The John and Mable Ringling Museum of Art
5401 Bay Shore Rd.
Sarasota, FL 34243
941-359-5700 ext. 1504
[log in to unmask]
This e-mail is subject to the Sunshine Act and its contents may be
subject to public disclosure.
|
