that is sort of what the discussion has been about. what you have descibed is called concatenating several "strings" of data into one "string". the problem that exists is that many people want to put (what i consider) too much information in that one string. and everyone does it differently and has different meanings. some institutions number have meanings only known to the individual that devised it some many many years ago. i'll leave that as a basic explanation as i've already voiced my opinion over-abundantly on the subject. Gary Acord Acord Information Management [log in to unmask] -----Original Message----- From: Museum discussion list On Behalf Of Claudia Nicholson Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 1997 8:13 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Catalogue numbering I think that Stuart has given us much to think about. I would just like to pick on one remark he made, however. He expresses concern that museums not create a meaningless unique identifier number for each object in the collection. His concern seems to be that if numbering is left to the computer (I have *no* idea how this would happen, but the idea by itself is intriguing), the result will be a meaningless number that, as others have pointed out, would make it impossible to relink the object with its documentation, should one become detached from the other. I am probably just picking nits here, but the three-part system of numbering objects used by many museums *does* create a unique number. It is certainly not meaningless, but it is nonetheless unique. That is the whole point, isn't it? When we enter a number into our program (SNAP! for Windows by Willoughby), the program automatically separates the number into its component parts (year, accession, and number within the accession). Isn't it possible to set up this or any other program to number objects within this established sequence? If one entered information first about the accession (e.g. a donor record), then the year (in the computer already) and the accession could be automatically entered, then the number within the series would come for each new record. Although I have no idea if my program can do that, it seems to me that many could be made to do that. That takes care of both computer numbering and having numbers that are minimally meaningful to the staff. Enlighten me. . . am I confused? Claudia Nicholson Curator of Collections Museum of the South Dakota State Historical Society Pierre [log in to unmask]