MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:13:16 -0400 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
multipart/alternative;
boundary="_000_1FCE938D1B79BE46A1F21F8D928B2901026A27B41EC4MAILSERVERC_" |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I totally agree with the idea of folders. I hope this is something in the hopper for future.
Eunice Glosson, Registrar
Colonial Williamsburg
From: The Museum System (TMS) Users [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ryan Donahue
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 11:27 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Object Package Names
We are actually looking at this problem now, folders would be a really welcome addition to object packages (that is to say, a hierarchical organization for object packages).
Our present plan is to expose a web interface for un/archiving object packages on demand (we already have such an interface for transferring object packages to our DAM).
My other thought was to treat global object packages like a communal fridge -- periodically (2x year?) turning all global object packages (with some exception) non-global, and letting people bug my department when they need it (or use the web interface) to turn object packages back on.
-Ryan Donahue
George Eastman House
|
|
|