I think that Stuart has given us much to think about.  I would just like
to pick on one remark he made, however.

He expresses concern that museums not create a meaningless unique
identifier number for each object in the collection.  His concern seems
to be that if numbering is left to the computer (I have *no* idea how
this would happen, but the idea by itself is intriguing), the result will
be a meaningless number that, as others have pointed out, would make it
impossible to relink the object with its documentation, should one become
detached from the other.

I am probably just picking nits here, but the three-part system of numbering
objects used by many museums *does* create a unique number.  It is
certainly not meaningless, but it is nonetheless unique.  That is the
whole point, isn't it?

When we enter a number into our program (SNAP! for Windows by Willoughby),
the program automatically separates the number into its component parts
(year, accession, and number within the accession).  Isn't it possible to
set up this or any other program to number objects within this established
sequence?  If one entered information first about the accession (e.g. a
donor record), then the year (in the computer already) and the accession
could be automatically entered, then the number within the series would
come for each new record.  Although I have no idea if my program can do
that, it seems to me that many could be made to do that.

That takes care of both computer numbering and having numbers that are
minimally meaningful to the staff.

Enlighten me. . . am I confused?

Claudia Nicholson
Curator of Collections
Museum of the South Dakota State Historical Society
Pierre

[log in to unmask]