Chenhall is good for a starting point.  I don't think fine arts uses it
because most of the categories pertain to historic artifacts.  I don't
think it would work as a subject thesaurus for artworks.  It has a number
of drawbacks.  It doesn't (nor does it pretend to) have a listing for
every man-made artifact in existance.  Many artifacts we have at OHS are
not in Nomenclature.  We have added to it liberally within the major
categories "he" defines.  We have "added" two categories.  One for native
American artifacts which aren't covered at all in Chenhall.  I don't feel
that I know enough about these artifacts to put a cornhusk bag in the
same category as bags in general.  Many of the baskets we have, we don't
know exactly what they were used for and an artifact "without a function"
has no home in Chenhall.  Other ethnographic items I have a feeling would
also warrant another kind of treatment, but native American artifacts are
the largest collection of this kind that we have.  We also made two
categories for military and civil uniforms.  The terminology for military
uniforms especially is very precise.  I've seen distinctive insignia
categorized as documentary, personal, and clothing accessory.  It is a
somewhat imprecise system and leaves much open to the interpretation of
the cataloguer which is ok if one is consistent but the inconsistencies
over time and many staff members makes it difficult to know exactly where
or what something has been catalogued as.  This will be somewhat
mitigated with a computerized collections management system but the links
have to be made still.  You still need to know what something was called
in order to find it and the fewer choices there are the easier the
search.  Chenhall is wonderful.  Don't get me wrong.  It was for a long
time the only means by which a system could be had for categorizing
historic artifacts.  But it's not the end all, be all.  If a commitment
to update it was made it could be much better.  A horrendous task but.
 
The Canadian Parks Service system is basically Chenhall with only their
terms in it.  This is ok for them and is basically what I have done.  The
terms I record in my records as object names are only those that pertain
to OHS's collection.  (Although now I have the whole thing in the
thesaurus for Argus I can choose to eliminate object names that I don't
want in the system).  The Canadian system is useful as a reference.  The
"what did they call it" kind of thing.  I couldn't just import it to use
here however.  It's too tailored to Canadian collections and offers
French translations which I don't need.
 
AAT.  I'm still doing thinking about this.  It has the advantage of
having Getty money and support so the commitment is there.  They are open
to broadening the original concept (art and architecture) to other kinds
of objects.  I've put my native American and military questions to them.
I'm still learning how to use it so I haven't decided finally what I
think about it.  I have it in print form not on the Argus system yet.
(Although I can have it on Argus should I decide I want it.)  I'd be
interested in what responses you get about it.
Hope this is useful.
 
 
 
 
 
*******************************************************
Marsha Matthews
Director/Museum Collections
Oregon Historical Society    Internet: [log in to unmask]
1200 SW Park Avenue             Voice: 503-306-5274
Portland, OR  97205               Fax: 503-221-2035
*******************************************************