In a recent posting Gary Acord writes:
>just to reiterate my opinion, let's get off of relying on those numbers to
>reflect something useful in terms of information.  since we can sort and
>filter and query data in so many ways now in order to make useful information
>out of it, we shouldn't care how the records are individualized.  AS LONG AS
>THEY ARE.

On the whole I agree.  I have seen all kinds of weird and wonderful
systems during my career working in and alongside UK museums.  Most, as
Gary suggested in an earlier posting, stem from paper cataloging systems
where a unique number based on multiple criteria (date, donors name,
subject, etc.) reduced the need for additional indexes which were very
time-consuming to create.  A few appear to stem solely from the warped
imagination of their originators as it is hard to see how they could
ever perform any useful function other than to obstruct future
collection managers!

Computers have certainly removed the more obvious justification for
incorporating spurious criteria into accession numbers BUT (apologies to
netiquette freaks who think I'm shouting) should we simply hand over
control of numbering to the computer?  There are several reasons why
this might be dangerous:

1.  Computer software has a limited life expectancy so any database
system which creates its own numbers must use a very simple form of
numbering which will be acceptable to any future software we may wish to
use.

2.  In my experience, many curators will take a very long time to be
weaned off the old idea that the number should convey useful
information.  In the UK, I have found that the suggestion that simple
running numbers be used as identifiers is very often strenuously
resisted.

3.  Changing existing numbers is generally a bad idea.

4.  Should our accession numbering strategy be dictated by current
database technology?  Is the computer (or the software developer) our
master or our servant?

Objection 1 is easily resolved by ensuring that the software creates a
simple numbering sequence.

Objection 2 can probably be overcome by a combination of education and
the passage of time - but it could be a long time.  I find that it is
usually possible to persuade curators to drop the more esoteric
components of their numbering systems but a very high proportion of UK
museums still insist on starting all accession numbers with the year
(fortunately, several decades of campaigning by the MDA has reduced the
number of short-sighted British museums using two digit prefixes,
although there are still some).  This doesn't really matter as (provided
the year of accessioning is used rather than the year of acquisition)
the resultant number should never need to change, unlike those which
incorporate concepts which may in time prove incorrect or subject to
changing fashions.

Objection 3 doesn't apply if your chosen software can accept (and
preferably sort using human logic) existing numbers alongside the new
series.

The philosophical question of what an accession number represents may be
harder to resolve.

Note that I am assuming here that the software will generate the actual
accession / identity number by which accessions will be identified in
perpetuity (hopefully), rather than just an internal record number which
is used transparently (more or less) by the software and exists
alongside the true accession number.

Frankly, I don't know if objection 4 is valid but I would be happier if
someone could convince me that it is not.  I find it rather hard to look
at the problem dispassionately, without the preconceived ideas of the
curator or the computer nerd (I am both, although I fondly imagine
myself not to be too nerdish!).  Actually, I think it is my preconceived
ideas (instincts?) as a member of the human race which causes me the
biggest problem here.

Whilst it is easy to state categorically that the accession number
should merely be a unique identifier and nothing else, I have an uneasy
feeling that this is not quite true.  The simplest way of structuring
any accession list, register, etc. is often to sort by the accession
number (assuming your software can sort accession numbers the way people
do).  Combinations of acquisition date, donor name, etc. do not always
give the required result, which suggests that the accession number is
(rightly or wrongly) of more significance than merely as a link between
object and data.

Despite my belief that spurious data has no place in accession numbers,
I often advocate the use of set numbering systems similar to those
described by Jennifer Jaskowiak and others.  It seems to work perfectly
well but am I misusing the accession number concept?

I look forward to hearing from anyone who shares my unease about
treating accession numbers purely as unique identifiers.

Stuart

P.S.  In an earlier posting Gary Acord states that "making a database
system "intelligent" enough to follow the logic you have described (AND
DO IT RIGHT EVERY TIME) is quite a feat."  The MODES cataloguing
software used by many UK museums does this very effectively.  Any
worthwhile museum specific system should be able to handle this.
--
Stuart Holm, Heritage Documentation Projects     Tel: +44 1603 870772
2 New Road, Reepham, Norwich NR10 4LP, UK     E-mail: [log in to unmask]
-------------   World Wide Web - http://www.holm.demon.co.uk   -------------