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
[log in to unmask]
This e-mail is
subject to the Sunshine Act and its contents may be subject to public
disclosure.