In a recent posting Gary Acord writes: >just to reiterate my opinion, let's get off of relying on those numbers to >reflect something useful in terms of information. since we can sort and >filter and query data in so many ways now in order to make useful information >out of it, we shouldn't care how the records are individualized. AS LONG AS >THEY ARE. On the whole I agree. I have seen all kinds of weird and wonderful systems during my career working in and alongside UK museums. Most, as Gary suggested in an earlier posting, stem from paper cataloging systems where a unique number based on multiple criteria (date, donors name, subject, etc.) reduced the need for additional indexes which were very time-consuming to create. A few appear to stem solely from the warped imagination of their originators as it is hard to see how they could ever perform any useful function other than to obstruct future collection managers! Computers have certainly removed the more obvious justification for incorporating spurious criteria into accession numbers BUT (apologies to netiquette freaks who think I'm shouting) should we simply hand over control of numbering to the computer? There are several reasons why this might be dangerous: 1. Computer software has a limited life expectancy so any database system which creates its own numbers must use a very simple form of numbering which will be acceptable to any future software we may wish to use. 2. In my experience, many curators will take a very long time to be weaned off the old idea that the number should convey useful information. In the UK, I have found that the suggestion that simple running numbers be used as identifiers is very often strenuously resisted. 3. Changing existing numbers is generally a bad idea. 4. Should our accession numbering strategy be dictated by current database technology? Is the computer (or the software developer) our master or our servant? Objection 1 is easily resolved by ensuring that the software creates a simple numbering sequence. Objection 2 can probably be overcome by a combination of education and the passage of time - but it could be a long time. I find that it is usually possible to persuade curators to drop the more esoteric components of their numbering systems but a very high proportion of UK museums still insist on starting all accession numbers with the year (fortunately, several decades of campaigning by the MDA has reduced the number of short-sighted British museums using two digit prefixes, although there are still some). This doesn't really matter as (provided the year of accessioning is used rather than the year of acquisition) the resultant number should never need to change, unlike those which incorporate concepts which may in time prove incorrect or subject to changing fashions. Objection 3 doesn't apply if your chosen software can accept (and preferably sort using human logic) existing numbers alongside the new series. The philosophical question of what an accession number represents may be harder to resolve. Note that I am assuming here that the software will generate the actual accession / identity number by which accessions will be identified in perpetuity (hopefully), rather than just an internal record number which is used transparently (more or less) by the software and exists alongside the true accession number. Frankly, I don't know if objection 4 is valid but I would be happier if someone could convince me that it is not. I find it rather hard to look at the problem dispassionately, without the preconceived ideas of the curator or the computer nerd (I am both, although I fondly imagine myself not to be too nerdish!). Actually, I think it is my preconceived ideas (instincts?) as a member of the human race which causes me the biggest problem here. Whilst it is easy to state categorically that the accession number should merely be a unique identifier and nothing else, I have an uneasy feeling that this is not quite true. The simplest way of structuring any accession list, register, etc. is often to sort by the accession number (assuming your software can sort accession numbers the way people do). Combinations of acquisition date, donor name, etc. do not always give the required result, which suggests that the accession number is (rightly or wrongly) of more significance than merely as a link between object and data. Despite my belief that spurious data has no place in accession numbers, I often advocate the use of set numbering systems similar to those described by Jennifer Jaskowiak and others. It seems to work perfectly well but am I misusing the accession number concept? I look forward to hearing from anyone who shares my unease about treating accession numbers purely as unique identifiers. Stuart P.S. In an earlier posting Gary Acord states that "making a database system "intelligent" enough to follow the logic you have described (AND DO IT RIGHT EVERY TIME) is quite a feat." The MODES cataloguing software used by many UK museums does this very effectively. Any worthwhile museum specific system should be able to handle this. -- Stuart Holm, Heritage Documentation Projects Tel: +44 1603 870772 2 New Road, Reepham, Norwich NR10 4LP, UK E-mail: [log in to unmask] ------------- World Wide Web - http://www.holm.demon.co.uk -------------