In >>> Posting number 29182, dated 16 Jul 1997 00:00:0/
Orycteropus afer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Far too many automated systems define the fields
used to record dates (acquisition dates, dates of manufacture, conservation
dates, movement dates, etc.) as what is called a "date" type field internal
to the database management system....This is almost always a BIG mistake...the museum is forced to enter spurious data in order to be able to
enter any information into these fields...The more sophisticated way to handle dates in an automated system is to define fields that will carry date information as "character" type fields and then to create a mask that requires that data entered into these fields
follows a certain pattern but a pattern that doesn't have to have a day or
day and month ... In general date type fields are
not a good solution for recording the kinds of dates found in museum
documentation.

I'm sorry, but I absolutely have to disagree with this.

I believe that the reason for having a computerised collection management system is to help you more effectively and efficiently manage your collection.  To this end, it is important to utilise the database's searching facilities as well as possible.

For example...
I want to get a list of all objects donated to the museum in the (UK) tax year 1995/96

If the field 'date acquired' is a date field, I can simply search for everything from 6/4/1995 to 5/4/1996 and the system will find them all.

However, if 'date acquired' is a character field (however manipulated), I have to search for the following sets of characters '4/1995', '5/1995', '6/1995', '7/1995', '8/1995', '9/1995', '10/1995', '11/1995', '12/1995', '1/1996', '2/1996', '3/1996', '4/1996'.
Then I have to go through all the objects found by this search and discount those with the characters '1/4/1995', '2/4/1995', '3/4/1995', '4/4/1995', '5/4/1995', '6/4/1996' etc.
If I also included some objects in my database just with the year of accession '1995', I'll have to make a separate search for these and decide individually if I want to include them in my list.

I wholeheartedly agree that the documentation mistakes of the past should not be compounded by entering the wrong information into the computer system.
However, I think it would be much better to simply include a freetext notes field with a standard phrase such as 'exact date of accession within 1996 unknown', continue with the practice of using 1/1/1996, and allow the database to work FOR me rather than against me.

It is, after all, extremely unlikely that my computer will ever completely replace the paperwork.  What it should do is enable me to manage the collection better by the tasks it does best (like searching for objects) much quicker than I could do without it.


Philippa Tinsley

[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]