Hi Morgan-

Here's a few screenshots of some object relationships we have at the Smart (there are quite a few others).  When I was figuring this out, I just kept editing the terms until it looked right on all of our screens- you can experiment with the changes in the relationship window and it will be applied globally.

[cid:4BC07743-CFB9-4641-9690-879EBA52D3CC]     [cid:4ABD2435-6204-4C8E-B836-4223A618377C]      [cid:D03343E3-2D4B-4E0B-9679-A06B2F168BB1]

Hope this helps!

Angie
Angela Steinmetz
Head Registrar, Smart Museum of Art, University of Chicago
[log in to unmask] | 773-702-0175

On 3/19/12 11:06 AM, "Morgan, Amber" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:

I think there is something weird going on with the way our related objects work in TMS.  It’s a system that I inherited, so I don’t want to go making some major change to it until I’m sure that it’s incorrect and not just a matter of me misunderstanding how it works.  This is going to be really tricky to explain in an email, but I’ll give it a shot…

We want to create parent-child relationships between the records for our Time Capsules and all of the items inside.  The TC would be the parent, the contents would be child records.  When I go to the relationships tab for the parent object, I select “add child,” and my option for the type of relationship is “IsPartOf.”  I can then add all of the related child records, no problem.  When I go to the child records, I can see the relationship for the parent record – it says “HasPart,” and lists the parent record.

What I think is kind of weird is the relationship names.  When I’m in a child record, I see this:

Objects
n       HasPart
o        TC23, Andy Warhol, Time Capsules:  Time Capsule 23


But I think that reads like “This object has a part, and it is TC23,” when what I’m really trying to say is that “This object has a parent, and it is TC23,” or, “This object is a part of TC23.”  But maybe you’re supposed to read it from the bottom up?

The functionality of all of this seems to work fine, it’s just the language of the relationship that seems odd to me.  Here’s a screenshot of how the relationship is set up.

[cid:image001.jpg@01CD05C8.BF1D9F00]

What do you guys think?  Should I switch “HasPart” and “IsPartOf?”

Thanks,
Amber



the warhol:
Amber E. Morgan
Associate Registrar
117 Sandusky Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
T 412.237.8306
F 412.237.8340
E [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
W www.warhol.org<http://www.warhol.org/>
The AndyWarholMuseum
One of the four Carnegie Museums of Pittsburgh
Email newsletterhttp://members.carnegiemuseums.org/email
Membership http://members.carnegiemuseums.org/SupportCMP


The information contained in this message and/or attachments is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any system and destroy any copies. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.   ­­
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.