I had a few questions regarding the TMS Thesaurus Manager that I'd not been
able to answer from the User Help, webinar content, or the list-serv
archives, so turned to Gallery Systems directly. Since that conversation
was on a private channel, I thought I would share the questions and answers
in case others had similar questions/concerns.

All the best,
Frances
-------------------------------------------

*‘Authorities’* (i.e. local authorities) *in TMS Thesaurus Manager*
1. We no longer have to put our local authorities under the ‘Authorities’
branch in the new Thesaurus Manager. What are the benefits to separating
these authorities out (other than the new ability to set security access at
the Concept Scheme level)?  *I think the main benefit is more structured
security. As well, having the concept schemes spread out can improve manual
searching and slightly improve performance.*
2. It appears we can only control (via security permissions) the
‘Authorities’ concept scheme as a group (in TMS 2016R2). Can we move
existing local hierarchies out from under this ‘scheme’ to make them
separate, independent Concept Schemes and thus control who has access to
them at a more granular level? What are the implications of such a move?  *Yes
you can, there won't be any negative repercussions doing this. *


  *Attributes * (under 'Authorities' in the Thesaurus Manager)
1. Why is the Attributes hierarchy divided up by module (e.g. Objects) and
module cross-reference (e.g. Object – Constituent Cross References)? (I
have found no explanation as to why it was structured in this way.)  *I
believe this was purely organizational, a way to keep concepts specific to
a module.*
2. What is the impact (benefits and limitations) of having a vocabulary
listed under one of these module-based Attributes sub-groups? (e.g.
Attributes / Objects / Inscription Query Terms)
*The attributes tree gives you a built in organizational structure, but it
has limited security since all users would have the same security to all
the hierarchies under Authorities.*

3. Can a vocabulary be moved from its place in the current Attributes
hierarchy without ill effect? (E.g. take our ‘Inscription Query Terms’ out
from under 'Objects' and place it directly under ‘Attributes’)
*Yes, you can cut and paste a node to any other local concept scheme. This
means you won't be able to add to the AAT or TGN. *

4. Can one go so far as to take a vocabulary out from under the
‘Attributes’ hierarchy as well as the ‘Authorities’ scheme and set up as
its own Concept Scheme?
*Yes, you will need to create a new concept scheme and assign security to
it (by default, no users have security rights to a new concept scheme) then
you can copy/cut and paste your Inscription Query Terms or any other
concepts into the new scheme.*


*I believe the idea behind expanding the capabilities of the thesaurus was
to provide more options for our clients, every institution can decide what
is best for their specific workflows.*
*-- *
Frances Lloyd-Baynes  |  Content Database Specialist
Minneapolis Institute of Art
2400 Third Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55404

612-870-3189  |  [log in to unmask]  |  www.artsmia.org

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.