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 *******************************************************