TMSUSERS Archives

The Museum System (TMS) Users

TMSUSERS@SI-LISTSERV.SI.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date:
Thu, 15 May 2014 14:10:54 -0400
Reply-To:
"The Museum System (TMS) Users" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Message-ID:
Sender:
"The Museum System (TMS) Users" <[log in to unmask]>
From:
Amanda Robinson <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (23 lines)
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.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2