I agree with your statement of  sticking with a system if it is a good one.
and for paper systems (which can include basic wordprocessor and spreadsheet
use) the type of numbering system that you have indicated can work just great
for small collections such as yours.  but, while it sounds quite simple as you
have described it.  there is a very complicated logic to how your numbering is
done and making a database system "intelligent" enough to follow the logic you
have described (AND DO IT RIGHT EVERY TIME) is quite a feat.
I still maintain(and will until someone can show me a better way) that it is
best to let your database some up with a unique ID for each record.  if you
have the luxury of building from the ground up then you can take advantage of
some of the wonderful concepts that have been mentioned in the stream
regarding parent records and child records.
you might notice that many of these numbering schemes that people use today
are stem from paper cataloging systems.  coming up with a unique number based
on multiple criteria (like the date and donors name etc) was the only to keep
track of your files and what was what and where and when etc etc etc.  Now it
is possible to only concern yourself with the information itself and let the
computer keep it individualized in terms that it readily understands.  not to
mention the fact that doing things this way eliminates alot of "unnecessary"
coding my programmers and database developers.  because you know that every
function, query or sub-routine costs money and if a developer has to write
several functions built, with what a computer might consider weird logic, just
to come up with a viable identifying number that is time and money that could
be spent building something that is actually useful like reports and data
entry/retrieving screens or a deck on the back of his house :)

just my over zealous opinion.
Gary Acord
Acord Information Management
[log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From:   Museum discussion list  On Behalf Of Jennifer Jaskowiak
Sent:   Friday, May 30, 1997 11:52 AM
To:     [log in to unmask]
Subject:        Catalogue numbering

I have been reading the statements on numbering with great interest.  I
work for a small university museum established in 1939.  At first,
"numbering" the objects was easy--a single donor's collection.  That basic
system, slightly altered is still in place here.

Our numbers are "donor based."  If accessioned before 1980, a number might
be read-- SW:65:13--  donor initials:year of gift:number of object in gift.
For objects accesssioned after 1980-- 1989.4.3 -- in 1989.4th accession
group.3rd object in gift. This works fine for small collections.  Oh, and
if there is only one object in the gift, it would be 1989.4.

You might ask--What about the purchases?  Well, we don't have a huge
accession fund.  Our collection is built on donations with only two
exceptions.  We used to be connected to a funding raising group.  Their art
purchases, though, were recorded as a gift to the museum.

The other exception are small budget purchases.  All of these, though, come
after 1980 so are numbered as such:  year of purchase:accession group

Our collection is primarily of 2dimensional objects.  Occaissionally, as
such, we receive series of prints.  Our numbering solution is simple.   in
1993 Mr. Smith donates four objects, one of which is a series of 5 images.
Mr. Smith is the second donor to the museum that year.  The objects would
be numbered:
        1993.2.1, 1993.2.2, 1993.2.3 and the series would be:
        1993.2.4a, 1993.2.4b, 1993.2.4c, 1993.2.5d, 1993.2.4 e.

This isn't the best system but it works for our collection which is less
than 2000 objects.  I have been toying with the idea of renumbering to
indicate media category (painting, drawing, print, sculpture, etc.) within
the number.  Haven't come up with a workable solution, as yet.

In closing, the most important part of selecting a system of numbering for
objects is consistancy.  Find some way that is strong enough to survive the
challenges yet flexible enough to provide a workable solution.

Jennifer Jaskowiak
Curator of Collections
Fisher Gallery, USC