That’s it! That’s going to be our standard for object package
names! They must ALL start with cutiepie from now on! It’ll start a
revolution and immediately make TMS more cuddly and user friendly! Thanks
Jeri! This is brilliant!!
From: The Museum System
(TMS) Users [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moxley,
Jeri
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 4:55 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Object Package Names
Yeah…we always do that equal to/not equal to object package
query for our users (and we usually make new packages that we use and delete,
with crazy sure-to-be-unique names like “bunnyrabbit” and “cutiepie”). It would
be great if that was more user-friendly. People need it all the time.
From: The Museum System
(TMS) Users [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Aylsworth,
David
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 5:35 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Object Package Names
Thanks Jeri,
For the most part, we encourage people to go to the object
package tool directly, too. This isn’t hard, since hardly anyone WANTS to
use the advanced query if they don’t have to! The problem we would have
with this approach is that we largely go to AQ for object package names when
we’re trying to do a query for things that are NOT in an object package.
For that, we really need the distinct name list—or, at least, it makes it a lot
easier when we’ve had to search for everything that IS in object package A, but
not in object package B. (if you follow me?)
It’s really similar to the problem we have with doing advanced
queries by container name. I’ve been really pleased that people have
started doing searches by container name, but of course they get frustrated
when the boxes that begin with “PR” don’t show up in the list because the list
is already too long.
Surely there’s a programming thing that can expand the number of
things in the list? (says the boob who knows the absolute least amount
about anything remotely technical of anyone on this list…)
David
From: The Museum System
(TMS) Users [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Moxley,
Jeri
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 4:23 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Object Package Names
Hi David,
We have our query on object package name configured to be a free
text search. Users just have to remember to use quotation marks when searching
if there’s a space in the name (which we discourage) and, of course, have to
get the name right.
We also advise users to go to the object package tool directly, rather
than to a query option, start typing the package name, and when they find the
one they want, hit the Execute button on the package tool to execute a query
for that set of records. This method gets the records in the order specified in
the package, and they can change the order in the list view by clicking on any
column header to re-sort the records on screen.
Our package naming convention is:
To
facilitate both searching and organization, the standard naming convention for
object packages is:
Dept–initials–project
Example:
DRAW-KC-DubuffetViewing4-7-09
Never include spaces or
punctuation other than dashes in your object package name.
Jeri Moxley
Manager, Collection and Exhibition Technologies
Collection Management and Exhibition Registration
The Museum of Modern Art
11 West 53 Street, New York, NY 10019-5497
Tel. (212) 708-9599 Fax. (212) 333-1102
From: The Museum System
(TMS) Users [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Aylsworth,
David
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 4:42 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Object Package Names
One of the problems we have with object packages is the
apparently finite number of object package names that can show in the drop down
when you do an advanced query for object package name. The same seems to
hold true with fields like container name. We have object packages that
alphabetically go up to “zuni”, but when I search by object package name in AQ,
I can’t search any higher than “Hevrdejs”.
Is that being fixed in TMS 2010, or is it something that is able
to be fixed now with 9.35?
From: The Museum System
(TMS) Users [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jay
Hoffman
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 1:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Object Package Names
That is already done and available in TMS 2010.
From: The Museum System
(TMS) Users [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Felton,
Larry
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 2:49 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Object Package Names
It would be really nice to some similar mechanism (e.g.
folders) for organizing reports as well.
From: The Museum System (TMS) Users
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Linda Pulliam
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 11:45 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Object Package Names
By department
Then by staff member
Then by project
Cheers
From: The Museum System
(TMS) Users [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jay
Hoffman
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 2:41 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Object Package Names
I was thinking the same thing. It could be organized by owner,
project (a new field), global, etc. How do you see the hierarchy
groupings?
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