On Wed, 26 Jul 1995 Lucy Skjelstad <[log in to unmask]> said:

>    [...] to get these things into our catalog system
>    and for retrieval purposes (and eventually, hopefully, to create
>    computer search/matches with 'missing' items) we decided to add the
>    numeral 8 in front of the DATE section of our accession numbers, on
the
>    theory that by the year 2800 these items will no longer be in
existence
>    or some other method will be in use.

I strongly advise database users and cataloguers NOT to follow the advice
given above. By arbitrarily using a string with no date significance in a
date determined field the logic and structure of the accession number
system is compromised.  It would be better to assign an inventory number to
these objects -- a number that is unique sequential but is not part of the
accession system.  Inventory numbers can stand for all unaccessioned
objects or all objects with lost accession numbers or both.  One never
knows how long one's institution will live, or how long the accession
scheme will last.  To assign a number that looks like a date is asking
eventual trouble.  Indeed, abridging dates in accession numbers is also
problematic, as collections with accession numbers assigned in the early
20th century will soon find out.

>          I expect any similar scheme would work....but I would exhort you

>    not to use the 'x' thing, because it will create difficulties in a
>    computer database in which the numbers will need to be entirely
numeric
>    for sorting purposes

The above warning about mixing alpha and numeric characters in accession
numbers holds only for the most simple database systems.  Most advanced
systems provide ways to parse alphanumeric accession numbers and to sort
the collection correctly.

______________________________________

Robert A. Baron
Museum Computer Consultant
P.O. Box 93, Larchmont, NY 10538
[log in to unmask]