You still have a fold? Designer forms, man!
Attributes can be qualified by smart use of attribute types and/or
by using attribute remarks.
I don’t buy the data entry is too complex argument –
if the attribute type is set to a particular node, just select your attribute
type then type in the term and hit add for most entries.
From: The Museum System
(TMS) Users [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chad
Petrovay
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 6:38 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Culture, Constituent or Both
Jeri,
I’d have no problem with that. Other parties would argue
that the culture is no longer visible above the fold. There would also be the
factor of data entry time (and complexity), and the process for adding cultural
groups. The Attributes does not allow for qualifiers (“possibly” or
“probably”), which is built into Constituents. The upside to
attributes is that any Tom, Dick, or Harry can’t edit the thesaurus
– so there is more control to the edition/revision/modification process.
I can see, and justify, both of those options. In an ideal
world, I would see cross-referencing that field to the thesaurus, and providing
a “Create Label” option for pretty reporting and formatting.
Chad Petrovay |
Collections Database Administrator
MIM—Musical Instrument Museum |
4725 E. Mayo Boulevard | Phoenix, AZ 85050
480.478.6000 main | 480.478.6058 direct |
480.471.8690 fax | www.themim.org
Blog: www.petrovay.com/tmsblog
From: The Museum System
(TMS) Users [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moxley,
Jeri
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 3:13 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Culture, Constituent or Both
Hey
Chad,
How
about using attributes and having a regional structure layered in with your culture
names in a thesaurus structure? That would give you regional searching and also
give you ability to search on alternate spellings and the like.
Jeri
From:
The Museum System (TMS) Users [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Chad Petrovay
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 12:35 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Culture, Constituent or Both
We
have yet to address cultures as constituents. Since the Culture field is just a
text field, it has cause problems, in that some objects in our collection are
shared by several cultures. We have this field set to display as a distinct
list in queries, which was to help promote standardization on the demonyms
entered. But we end up with “Igbo”, “Yoruba, Igbo”, and
“Yoruba” all as separate entries.
I’m
liking the idea of using the constituents to help control these, but in some
ways, I also wish that Culture field was both a controlled assistant and label
field, the way that Medium, Dimensions, or ObjectName currently work.
Chad
Petrovay | Collections Database Administrator
MIM—Musical Instrument Museum | 4725 E. Mayo Boulevard |
Phoenix, AZ 85050
480.478.6000 main | 480.478.6058 direct | 480.471.8690 fax |
www.themim.org
Blog:
www.petrovay.com/tmsblog
From:
The Museum System (TMS) Users [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Burke, Ashley
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 4:52 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Culture, Constituent or Both
Hello
TMS Users-
I
have a question for you all regarding the preferred placement of culture in
TMS. Although there is a field for culture, I notice quite a lot of
people will also insert the culture into the constituent field. For example, an
Italian work that is unknown would have Italian in the culture field and then
under constituent (object related) would be Unknown, Italian. What is the
best option, culture only or both? One of my thoughts is that it might
actually be better to have it in both places for exportation purposes. I would
love to hear what other people are doing and the reasoning as to why you would
choose one over the other.
Thanks!
Ashley
Ashley
Burke
Associate
Registrar
The
John and Mable Ringling Museum of Art
5401
Bay Shore Rd.
Sarasota,
FL 34243
941-359-5700
ext. 1504
This
e-mail is subject to the Sunshine Act and its contents may be subject to public
disclosure.