>
>Chenhall is good for a starting point.  I don't think fine arts uses it
>because most of the categories pertain to historic artifacts.  I don't
>think it would work as a subject thesaurus for artworks.  It has a number
>of drawbacks.  It doesn't (nor does it pretend to) have a listing for
>every man-made artifact in existance.  Many artifacts we have at OHS are
>not in Nomenclature.  We have added to it liberally within the major
>categories "he" defines.  We have "added" two categories.  One for native
>American artifacts which aren't covered at all in Chenhall.  I don't feel
>that I know enough about these artifacts to put a cornhusk bag in the
>same category as bags in general.  Many of the baskets we have, we don't
>know exactly what they were used for and an artifact "without a function"
>has no home in Chenhall.  Other ethnographic items I have a feeling would
>also warrant another kind of treatment, but native American artifacts are
>the largest collection of this kind that we have.  We also made two
>categories for military and civil uniforms.  The terminology for military
>uniforms especially is very precise.  I've seen distinctive insignia
>categorized as documentary, personal, and clothing accessory.  It is a
>somewhat imprecise system and leaves much open to the interpretation of
>the cataloguer which is ok if one is consistent but the inconsistencies
>over time and many staff members makes it difficult to know exactly where
>or what something has been catalogued as.  This will be somewhat
>mitigated with a computerized collections management system but the links
>have to be made still.  You still need to know what something was called
>in order to find it and the fewer choices there are the easier the
>search.  Chenhall is wonderful.  Don't get me wrong.  It was for a long
>time the only means by which a system could be had for categorizing
>historic artifacts.  But it's not the end all, be all.  If a commitment
>to update it was made it could be much better.  A horrendous task but.
>
>The Canadian Parks Service system is basically Chenhall with only their
>terms in it.  This is ok for them and is basically what I have done.  The
>terms I record in my records as object names are only those that pertain
>to OHS's collection.  (Although now I have the whole thing in the
>thesaurus for Argus I can choose to eliminate object names that I don't
>want in the system).  The Canadian system is useful as a reference.  The
>"what did they call it" kind of thing.  I couldn't just import it to use
>here however.  It's too tailored to Canadian collections and offers
>French translations which I don't need.
>
>AAT.  I'm still doing thinking about this.  It has the advantage of
>having Getty money and support so the commitment is there.  They are open
>to broadening the original concept (art and architecture) to other kinds
>of objects.  I've put my native American and military questions to them.
>I'm still learning how to use it so I haven't decided finally what I
>think about it.  I have it in print form not on the Argus system yet.
>(Although I can have it on Argus should I decide I want it.)  I'd be
>interested in what responses you get about it.
>Hope this is useful.
>
>
>
>
>
>*******************************************************
>Marsha Matthews
>Director/Museum Collections
>Oregon Historical Society    Internet: [log in to unmask]
>1200 SW Park Avenue             Voice: 503-306-5274
>Portland, OR  97205               Fax: 503-221-2035
>*******************************************************
>
>
Thank you so much.  You probably already know this, but the AAT is always
accepting what it calls "candidate terms" which it will consider for
inclusion in the next revision.  I have put a couple forth.  (This may
be what you refer to.)
 
Thanks again for your comments.