In responce to your query.  No.  I manage collections for five history
museums operated by the city of Toronto, and I've yet to find a single
system which spans the range of material in our collection (it ranges
among a marine museum, a fort/military museum, and three historic
houses, plus archaeology, architecture and industrial technology
collections).  This is not to say I don't classify the collection, but
I do it according to the particular problem I am trying to solve.  How
the curators classify the subcollection under their care is a
different matter.
 
If you are going to adopt a "standard" look at Chenhall's nomenclature
(in any of the half-dozen or so flavours you'll find it in.), and if
you are going to create a classification I'd advise you to clearly
articulate the problem it is supposed to solve (my classifiaction of
the collection for insurance purposes won't really assist the
curatorial staff in material culture research!).  Then choose a
standard vocabulary and stick to it.  I strongly support the Art and
Architecture Thesaurus because of its near global applicability,
flexibility and the long-term committment to the support and updating
it as a standard.
 
I wish you the best of luck with the project.
 
Richard Gerrard
Registrar, Collections Management
Toronto Historical Board
[log in to unmask]