I want to thank John Scafidi for his thoughts.  This is exactly the kind
of discussion that I hope will take place in the proposed MPMA session.
I could be wrong about this but it is my feeling that curators in
general like to keep their collections data close to the vest while
registrars tend to be much more open about sharing information.

I wanted to clarify some details regarding our Web database.  It can be
found at http://www.colorado-springs.com/fmp/cspm/.  The database is a
copy that is served from a remote server.  If a hacker were to damage
it, it is merely a copy that can be reinstalled.

We have left out certain sensitive information such as donor addresses,
anonymous donors, insurance values and physical locations, but
everything else is there.  Did we leave out enough?  Should we have
included any of this?

We chose to include donor names since many of our requests are people
asking what their ancestors gave to the museum.  We are a public museum
and it is public information.  We would credit them on an exhibition
label, but is it wise for a Web database?  Is it a virtual exhibit?

Our database contains some 39,000 records and about 400 digital images
of art and artifacts.  We hope to add to the digital images as time
permits.  It is hoped that this will reduce wear and tear on the
collection, since many researchers will be able to obtain the
information they need from the record and the thumbnail image.  Is this
a reasonable expectation?  Only time will tell on this one.

I think that this is a timely topic that will benefit from informed
discussion.

David Ryan
Registrar
Colorado Springs Pioneers Museum
[log in to unmask]
> ----------
> From:         John Scafidi TAL
> 850/488-5090[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Reply To:     Museum discussion list
> Sent:         Wednesday, January 06, 1999 6:01 AM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: Web Databases (collections)
> Sensitivity:  Confidential
>
> I am puzzled by Mr. Ryan's request for information. I hasten to point
> out I
> have no wish to flame him or dis his request.  But I do want to make
> some talk
> about the topic, and I think listers - including all you students out
> there -
> should, too.
>
> There seems a tendency among us to consider all data as equal, since
> to a
> computer all data ARE equal.  Therefore, the line of reasoning seems
> to go, all
> data are equally share - able.  The only danger, if we are of a
> suspicious
> frame of mind, is possible corruption of our data by the occasional
> hacker or
> careless user.  However, I am not a computer.  I am a human, and I
> work (I
> think) for the public in the present and in a future which will extend
> far
> beyond my life span.
>
> We attempt to keep our collections data close, allowing little
> insecure (so far
> as we know) access. When I entered museum work in the seventies, cheap
> (free
> for employees) xerographic copying was all the rage; opportunities for
> data
> leakage on paper were considered dangerous, and potential for leakage
> via the
> new electronic data storage devices were worrisome. Insecure data were
> viewed
> as potential shopping lists for industrious thieves.  I continue
> thinking this
> way and acting out my thinking.  However, I have begun to understand
> that some
> colleagues may consider my point of view as old fashioned or extreme.
> Yet our
> greatest sorrow as professionals is that sometimes our friends, with
> whom we
> are most anxious to exchange data, have proved to be fifth columnists
> of the
> worst sort.
>
> (I read what I have written and realize it may appear paranoid to many
> in the
> field, but...) I cannot see any hope for collections physical security
> unless
> we attempt to ensure collections data security.
>
> Perhaps this is an extreme point of view.  Let's talk.
>
> John A. Scafidi
> Florida State Parks
> Tallahassee, FL
> [log in to unmask]
>