Dear colleagues,
The ACCESSION BOOK discussion is of great interest and importance for me.
 But I would like to have a punctual reply for the question: if you have in
computer DB the records of accession, that include all the data according to
the Accession Book, and you make by the comuter   printer's sheets  designed
in the Accession Book form, and then  these sheets are signed by the
officer,  stitched and kept in special safe, - is it enough to say: I HAVE
LEGAL DOCUMENT, and I can in this case REJECT THE MADE BY HAND ACCESSION
BOOK?
Has any museum experience with COMPUTERIZED ACCESSION BOOK?
Interested in your responces.
Lev Noll
Chief of the Computer Department
The State Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts
12 Volkhonka str. 121019 Moscow Russia
Tel. (07) 095 203 8061
Fax (07) 095 203 4674
E-mail [log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert A. Baron <[log in to unmask]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.museum-l
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 21 октября 1997 г. 16:52
Subject: Re: ACCESSION BOOK


>Readers:
>The record of accessions, certified in its tangible form as an inviolate
>list of objects received and owned, a list authenticated by an officer of
>the collecting institution, carries the weight of a legal document. No
>computer program, no matter how useful it may be to facilitate "collections
>management," can substitute for this written record. The collection cited
>below, potentially, is placing itself into legal jeopardy if its caretakers
>cannot determine without reservation what was accessioned, when it was
>accessioned and who accessioned it.  Paper is still good for something,
>indeed, for all the wonders of what computers can do for managing
>information, paper's intrinsic inability to manipulate information is what
>makes it valuable to serve as a legal record.  (I suppose, parchment would
>be even better, and engraved stone, better still. <g>)
>
>More detail on this topic can be found in the form of a paper published
>some years ago in the journal _Registrar_.
>
>See http://www.pipeline.com/~rabaron/LEDGER.htm
>
>(Note: Since I cited this article several days ago when this thread began,
>over 80 individuals have looked at it.)
>
>Robert Baron
>[log in to unmask]
>http://www.pipeline.com/~rabaron
>
>At 10:12 PM 11/19/97 +1000, Sue Terry wrote:
>
>>Ken Perry wrote:
>>
>>>This is to inquire about the status of the Accession Book in museum
>>>record keeping. It has been recommended by one of our staff to abandon
>>>keeping this book in favor of computerized records with a hard copy work
>>>sheet.  The worksheet information would be entered into the computer.
>>>I would like to get some feedback as to making a fundmental change such
>>>as this.
>>
>>
>>I have been interested to read the responses to Ken's question. I work at
>>the National Film and Sound Archive in Australia. We acquire not only
>>films, videos, audio tapes and discs, but also photographs, glass slides,
>>posters, scripts, manuscripts, costumes, equipment, awards and other
>>artefacts relating to Australia's audiovisual industry. Our acquisition
and
>>accession records are now completely automated and have been for some
>>years. The paperwork documenting/leading up to the acquisition (eg
>>correspondence, deposit contracts, agreements as to special conditions
etc)
>>is filed on a donor's file BUT all the data needed to control and track an
>>item is in electronic form. (We used to keep a range of hard copy forms in
>>the past but these are long gone - except of course for things acquired in
>>the past which have not yet been converted to our database).
>>
>>I would be interested to know just how serious or founded the concern
about
>>changing of electronic data is. Is there a legal requirement to prove that
>>the data has not been changed - and if so what data in particular does
this
>>requirement relate to? Or, is it people's experience that data is changed
>>carelessly (or with negligent intent) thereby causing problems?
>>
>>We have some concerns at the Archive about how easy it is for staff to
>>change data as we have very few 'controls' on who can enter what data and
>>who can change what data. Our general approach to this is to ensure our
>>staff are well trained so that any database work they/we do is accurate
and
>>trustworthy (in all senses of the word). This isn't foolproof of course
and
>>the odd careless or even suspicious event may occur but we believe that
the
>>small risk we run is outweighed by the increased productivity and high
>>levels of physical and intellectual control we achieve by processing
>>materials this way. Data is usually entered straight from whatever
>>information is available - the object itself, the aquisition paperwork etc
>>- without the aid of worksheets. Developing these practices with their
>>concomitant reliance on training, trust and good system design has not
been
>>without pain over the last decade or so but I believe our system - and our
>>whole organsiation - is the better for it.
>>
>>Interested in your responses,
>>
>>Sue
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>
>>  Sue Terry                           __  /\
>>                                     /  \/  \
>>   +61  6 209 3033 (w)              /        \    Co-Manager, Client
Services
>>   +61  6 286 8336 (h)             /         /    National Film & Sound
>Archive
>>   +61  6 209 3165 (fax)           \   __  */     Canberra ACT 2600
>>                                    `-'  \_/
>>  [log in to unmask]
>>  [log in to unmask]
>>
>>'The secret of survival is to embrace change, and to adapt' (Rohinton
Mistry)
>>_______________________________________________________________________Sue
>>Terry
>>