I have to put my two cents worth (which may be a reasonable appraisal) into
this discussion -
I fully agree that once you have computerized your collections with a
relational database, there is no reason your catalog numbers have to reflect
anything (the year, the number of the gift ...).  Your computer can pull out
any of that information, sort by it, etc., and the computer only needs a
unique identifier for each object.  That doesn't mean you have to change your
numbering system - as long as the database you use accepts the numbers in
your format, it is a lot easier on staff to keep the system going.  In fact,
when someone mentions re-cataloging, as in re-numbering, I cringe.  Our
institution has had more than one numbering system - in each of our three
collecting departments - and each department has artifacts from predecessor
institutions with yet more and different numbering systems.  As long as each
object has a unique number, I put it on the computer the way it is.  There is
nothing more confusing than trying to identify an object with a number
painted on it 50 years ago that has since been re-numbered for a new system -
only nobody changed the label.  Because old numbers were often put on in very
permanent ways, adding another number just adds to the confusion when you
can't remove the old one.
I know there is a concern about whether numbers will sort properly, but as
long as the information you want to sort by - the accession date, the
creation date, the object name - is in the record, you can sort by that
information and your numbering system won't matter.

Carolyn Rissanen
Registrar, Natural Sciences and History
Oakland Museum of California