Alexandra,

My philosophy is, using a count field on every record, record the set as a
record and the parts of the set as individual records linked to the set
record.  Usually.  If it is a sugar bowl with a lid, I would use one record
with a count of 1.  If it is a coffee or tea service, I would create a set
record with a count of 0, and each item within the set would be count of 1
(except lids, which would be grouped with their significant other for a count
of 1 for the happy couple).

I'm curious to hear what your thoughts might be about a pair of shoes when
you have other instances of only one extant shoe.  Currently I count each
shoe as one, but I can easily remedy that when someone gives me a good
rationale to do so.

I work with a relational database with a table for associated, related and
parts.  I use that extensively.  In a set with parts, the "whole" set record
efficiently tells me how how many parts or related objects exist in the
collection, and what their accession numbers are, even when objects arrive
from different donors at different times.  It is very helpful too, when one
object takes a vacation from the rest of the set.  Whether the hard number
says 95.8.25 or 95.8J, I can turn to the set record to find out how many
other objects belong to the set.

I hope this helps.  In the meantime, I'm here to learn too and am open to
other ideas.

Ruth Bryant Power,
Registration Assistant
Brandywine River Museum