Andrea and Marni,

At Mystic Seaport we have been wrestling with the very problem you describe
(actually I truly see it as a wonderful opportunity rather than as a
problem).

About three years ago, we developed a team of various collection managers
and started taking a hard look at our museum information in totality.
After surveying our information sources as well as our users, it became
very apparent to us that we would not be happy either with cataloging our
museum objects in a MARC based library system (although it is possible and
done in a few places) nor would it be acceptable to catalog our library
materials (including manuscripts and archives) in a curatorially focused
system (although also done).  We have found no system that would completely
meet our needs both for museum registration and for library functions
including cataloging (we do not have access to OCLC or RLIN and do a
considerable amount of originial cataloging - not to mention the original
cataloging required of manuscript holdings.)

The solutions that we are focusing on are based on standards.  We are
currently in the process of acquiring new systems both for our curatorial
collections as well as our library collections.  Because the systems we are
purchasing are based on "open architecture" standards (and most likely the
same operating system) as well as both systems having web interfaces, we
are optimistic about our ability to created a seamless interface to our
whole range of museum information either (and probably both) through the
web interface at the top, and field mapping through Oracle at the bottom.

The process that we have gone through to get were we are now has been an
extremely enlightening and exciting one, but I believe that there are no
shortcuts.  It was completely necessary to do the ground work of
self-evaluation.  In addition to the information gleaned about our sources
and our users, it was equally valuable for developing a sense of common
purpose within our various collection divisions.  We are currently in to
process of developing a very comprehensive data dictionary which will be
extremely useful when it comes time to map fields between the two systems.
We are also in the middle of a long but necessary process of evaluating our
vocabulary, both through a collaborative process with the Art and
Architecture Thesaurus, as well as an internal coordination of subject
headings - both levels being necessary for differing levels of user need.

Another major piece of the puzzle is how does one incorporate the
phenomenal amount of data that doesn't go into a MARC record or
registrarial records, such as archival finding aids?  Traditionally
manuscript collections are cataloged at the collection level and finding
aids developed that give greater specific access.  Currently a new
initiative is emerging from a project at Berkeley (developed through SAA
and maintained by LC) called EAD (Encoded Archival Description) that is a
specific application of SGML (Standard Generalized Markup Language) that
allows for the codification of finding aids by using SGML tags.  It is in
it's infancy but is a very exciting initiative that will eventually
standardize that way finding aids are communicated electronically.  This in
turn will allow for searching with a greater degree of specificity than
simple key word searches.

Anyway, if you have any questions about any of this stuff, I would be happy
to elaborate further.  Best of luck with your project.



Leah Prescott, Information Technologies Librarian
Mystic Seaport
[log in to unmask]