Dear colleagues,

 

We are reviewing our data entry standard for Parent-child in TMS and I would be very pleased to hear from anyone of you what you think about our new way of thinking.

 

Up to the present we enter the portfolio/cover/book as the parent and each part/page/single related object as the children. Now we are thinking of having all of our parent records as virtual records and each part as a child (also the portfolio/cover/book). This is already how we are entering our installations and objects with no physical parent in TMS (using a virtual record to keep the parts together).

 

When doing this change we will have the same data entry standard for all of our objects and not having to first consider what kind of an artwork it is (does it have a physical parent or not). We are thinking that it will be easier to understand our data/objects in TMS if we have only one data entry standard for all of the objects.

 

Parts that belong to the objects as accessories (are not artwork) will be entered as components in TMS (to the parent record or to the child record if it belongs to a child).

 

This way of thinking equals the way we are thinking when entering a single object with components in TMS. The single record is the “cover” / ”wrapping” and the components represents each part of the object as they can be located in different places. If the object is only one physical part there will be one component because there must be at least one component in the record. In our new way of thinking the virtual object will exist instead of the single record and the children instead of the components.

 

We are looking forward to hear from anyone of you about your thoughts on this.

 

Also: any thoughts on how to use Object level together with parent-child-records?

 

Thanks!

 

 

Best regards,

 

Magdalena Youssefi
Manager / Digital Collection Management

Moderna Museet

Box 163 82    SE-103 27  Stockholm, Sweden 
Tel: + 46 70 883 89 54    

Email: [log in to unmask]

www.modernamuseet.se