TMSUSERS Archives

The Museum System (TMS) Users

TMSUSERS@SI-LISTSERV.SI.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Frances Lloyd-Baynes <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
The Museum System (TMS) Users
Date:
Wed, 21 Oct 2015 15:14:11 -0500
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1367 bytes) , text/html (2633 bytes)
Hi Everyone,

We are just starting to use the Physical Parent / Intellectual Child
relationships in TMS and are watching related conversations with interest.
We just noticed what might be a bug.

At Mia, we create TMS object records for all potential acquisitions as
Object Status = "Acquisition Candidate" and assigned a specially formatted
Loan Object Number (e.g. L2015.16.1). Our registrar just created a Physical
Parent / Intellectual Child record set using this approach. The item(s) in
question were then acquired, their Object Numbers edited to normal Object
Numbers and the Object Status in the Physical Parent changed to
'Accessioned'.

Our problem: The Intellectual Children did not inherit the new Object
Status and could not be edited (on the front end) to each have a new Object
Status, so the Physical Parent was 'Accessioned' while the Intellectual
Children remained 'Acquisition Candidates'.

Has anyone else encountered this problem?

Thanks for your help,

Frances

-- 
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.


ATOM RSS1 RSS2