MUSEUM-L Archives

Museum discussion list

MUSEUM-L@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Richard Urban <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Museum discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 15 Apr 2005 15:30:59 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (85 lines)
Christie,

As Andrew suggests, this is where standards and rules for description are
helpful.  mDA has done great work in the UK, and here in the states the
Visual Resources Association is working to finish the draft of Cataloging
Cultural Objects.  Below is the link to the PDF page on Object Naming/Title
http://www.vraweb.org/CCOweb/B-Chap1-Object%20Naming-28Feb05.pdf  

To get to the full document http://www.vraweb.org/CCOweb/

There's also the Getty's Categories for the Description of Works of Art
(CWDA) 
http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/standards/cdwa/

Many of the newer description formats, like VRA Core and Dublin Core, offer
the ability to "refine" or "qualify" data elements to make their meaning
clearer.  For example Dublin Core has a "Title Alternative" and VRA Core
has: "Title.Variant, Title.Translation, Title.Series, Title.Larger Entity."

Of course this means that your system, database, etc. has the capability of
storing qualifiers and associating them with the correct data values.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Richard Urban
Operations Coordinator
Collaborative Digitization Program

http://www.cdpheritage.org
[log in to unmask]
(303) 871-2006 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-----Original Message-----
From: Museum discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Andrew Schuricht
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 12:33 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [MUSEUM-L] Distinguishing between official names and created
names

Hi Christie,

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by removing one of your two
fields. Is it to reduce confusion? In my experience, more database fields
are generally better, provided that you have clear documentation about what
information goes where. Lots of examples generally help, too.

The minimum standard (per Spectrum http://www.mda.org.uk/speclic.htm) is
that an object be given both an Object Name (or a Title, in your example) as
well as a Brief Physical Description, which could be used to 'name' 
items in addition to the titles provided by their creators. As an example: 


Title: Mona Lisa
Desc: Oil Painting

In addition, we use a Nomenclature field (using the Getty AAT) to make it
easier for users of our object database to find things by subject or
category. 

Hope that helps!

======================================
Andrew Schuricht
Springs Preserve, Las Vegas

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at
http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed
information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message
to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help"
(without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to
[log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff
Museum-L" (without the quotes).

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).

ATOM RSS1 RSS2