| Author |
Messages |
|
JP Brown
Posts:26
 |
| 26-10-2005 1:00 AM |
 Alert
|
Hi,
Attached, a pdf with the 1.0.4 version of the draft for a set of core conservation tabs. This version supercedes the document at the top of the v.1.0.3 thread. The document presented here is the result of online discussion between workers from the NMAI, the Field Museum, the NMNH, the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, the Winterthur Museum, Museum of Victoria, Carnegie Museum of Art, and The Whitworth Art Gallery, and KE Software.
Please encourage conservators at your institution to read this draft and post their comments.
Notes:
1. Current deadline for the completed draft is Nov 24, 2005.
2. Conceptually, there are three elements to the design of KE screens for the conservation treatment process:
- Catalog-related information (which object is being treated?)
- Recording expert conservation-specific data (treatment documentation required by professional conservation ethics standards)
- A management layer (related to Tasks/Requests/Events/Loans, things like timing, prioritization, and approvals)
Of these, the first and third items are more or less institution-specific and will likely always require some customization. We are working on this core in the belief that much of the second element (conservation record keeping) is common between conservation sub-disciplines, and also common between institutions.
3. The intention is produce a set of core conservation tabs which will be of use to all museums with conservation departments. Some institutions will undoutedly need to subclass the management tabs (vide supra).
Cheers,
JP Brown
Conservator, CRC
The Field Museum |
Attachment: KE-EMu-Conservation-Common v1.0.4.pdf
|
|
|
|
JP Brown
Posts:26
|
| 28-10-2005 1:10 AM |
Alert
|
Dear kling
< I'm copying your remarks over from the 1.0.3 thread,
since we have now moved to the 1.0.4 version >
[...there are batch treatments as well as mass treatments that deal with the many. You will find these quite common in archives. The USHMM, being a hybrid institution with both museum and archival holdings, does deal with both individual and batch treatments in our conservation labs. Will is correct that all the details on each individual item is not recorded for a batch treatment. Our object numbering system allows us to identify the whole collection as undergoing a batch treatment as well as to identify individual items from a collection that are undergoing single item treatments. So, the question for me then becomes how these relate to each other. In the catalogue, we have the parent-child which, I believe, should carry over into the conservation module, yes? A related question is, does one necessarily have to cut and paste the batch treatment procedures for each item in the collection, or can one report be associated with the collection as a whole?]
As I understand it, you're asking whether a parent-child set (e.g., parent being a collection of newspapers, the children being the individual newpaper editions) should be admissable as a catalog entry in the conservation tabs. And then raise the following issues:
- If all children are treated, is it possible to relate the parent catalog item to the conservation treatment record so that all children inherit the treatment record?
- What happens when only *some* of the children are treated (i.e., you have to nominate the sub-parts that inherit the teratment record)?
The only (rather unsatisfactory) answer I have is that I don't know -- over to Bern. How would part and whole work with a
catalog --< conservation
relationship? Does it need to be
catalog >-< conservation
to make recording treatment of multiple (but not all) parts of a parent catalog item work?
[Regarding a context field in the proposal: is this not redundant to purpose? I really do not understand the difference. I am also under the impression that having purpose as a drop-down field can allow one to add/customize the choices. If so, context may be taken care of here, unless I misunderstand what is meant by context. ]
Over to Ducky on this one...
[Our treatment proposals often give options. Sometimes the curator signs off on the least invasive, sometimes on the full treatment depending on a number of factors (intrinsic value, insurance value, time, etc). I would place all three options in the proposal narrative, thus we have a record of all the considered approaches... I think simply placing the options (a, b, c) in the free text field and documenting which was approved could satisfy this concern. ]
I think your idea about placing the options a., b., c. is the correct approach to take here -- nice one : ) This is exactly what we do at the Field Museum.
Cheers,
JP Brown
Conservator, CRC
The Field Museum
|
|
|
|
|
William Real
Posts:47
|
| 29-10-2005 12:05 AM |
Alert
|
Dear kling et al.,
[...In the catalogue, we have the parent-child which, I believe, should carry over into the conservation module, yes? A related question is, does one necessarily have to cut and paste the batch treatment procedures for each item in the collection, or can one report be associated with the collection as a whole?]
Currently, attributes of a parent record in the catalogue cannot be "inherited" by the child records (except for location, if you have the "independently moveable" box unchecked in the child records, which would typically only apply if the child objects are attached or mounted together).
Conceptually this is part of a bigger question: what types of information should be recorded at the parent level, which at the child level, and which at both levels? In the batch treatment scenario, I think you want the information at both levels--so that whether looking at the catalogue record of the parent, or at the individual child records, you would be able to see a reference to the conservation treatment record. The way the database currently works, you would in this case attach the records of all the children, as well as the parent, to a single conservation record--if you have the possibility of 1:many in the conservation module, that is...
It's probably a long shot, but it would be nice if KE could somehow make it possible to designate attributes that would be inheritable from parent to child. I suppose this could look something like the existing Bibliography model, in which you see a read-only tab representing the parent (e.g book), from within the record of the child (e.g. article in book). This might be harder to develop in the catalogue, where the nature of parent-child relationships is much more variable and complex than for bibliographic records, and the way various institutions use parent-child relationships can differ so widely. But this is probably a subject for one of the other forums...
Will
Carnegie Museum of Art |
|
|
|
|
Jessica Johnson
Posts:2
|
| 29-10-2005 4:44 AM |
Alert
|
All,
Ducky asked me to reply to this part of the discussion:
[Regarding a context field in the proposal: is this not redundant to purpose? I really do not understand the difference. I am also under the impression that having purpose as a drop-down field can allow one to add/customize the choices. If so, context may be taken care of here, unless I misunderstand what is meant by context. ] Over to Ducky on this one...
I'm not totally sure I understand the original question - because I don't see a "Purpose" field in the current 1.0.4 version - but as we view it at here (at the National Museum of the American Indian) - we need to put something in the Proposal that explains why we are doing the treatment which we title "Goals". It could be called Purpose, or Context or some other word. But basically it is additional information about why we are carrying out this treatment beyond the attachment of it to a specific Associated Event or Associated Loan. Oftentimes this goals information includes background about the specific issues associated with the Event or Loan - like it's going to a small, tribal museum with no environmental control, or it's going to be loaned for use in a ceremony, or it's going to go on exhibit at the Mall which has very heavy visitation. All those pieces of information help to explain why we propose to do the treatment the way we do. Because of our use of this field - I'd like to ask that it not be a drop down field - but a simple text field. (I also don't like the title "Action" - I'd prefer "Proposal", but can live with it.)
After the treatment is done - we have another field - which we call "Rationale" which explains why we did the treatment the way we did it. (Which may or may not be what was in the Proposal - because we all know that stuff comes up in the course of treatment that isn't planned.)
Based on the current design we plan to deal with this field through the Notes Tab - Rationale will just be one our our Notes. We also have Background - which is just random information that comes our way during the course of treatment that doesn't easily fit in other fields (e.g. We happen to have a student in the lab who is from the community of origin of a piece and she provides information about how her grandfather made this kind of object.) We also have a Consultation field that gives information on discussions about the piece that take place with Community Representatives or Curators who are involved in the development of an exhibit or loan. Again, we'll use the Notes field for this information.
Finally, thanks to everybody who's agonzing through all these decisions and discussion - but especially to JP and Ducky for keeping things moving at a great pace.
Jessie |
|
|
|
|
Julian Tomlin
Posts:11
|
| 25-11-2005 3:52 AM |
Alert
|
I have gone through the proposal with Ann French, Conservator (Textiles) and Nicola Walker, Conservator (Works on Paper) here, and previously with Amanda Wallace, Head of Conservation at Manchester City Galleries. These are our comments on v.1.0.4.
*Information*
- Current Location might appear here as read-only field from the Catalogue module.
- Can there be a Notes field next to the Object field? This is the approach in other modules.
- We would like to be able to refer to objects not in the catalogue. Perhaps a field such as "External Object" could be added, plus related fields for Owner, Reference Number and Notes? We are about to conserve a large number of objects that are not in our collection. We don't want to catalogue them but need to describe them.
- What is Record Type for?
*Non-Digital Media*
- Should this tab and the Multimedia tab go at the end as is the normal convention?
- Can Reference Number be added to the details.
- What are Locator, Date and By for?
*Analyses*
- Should the MM ref be multi-value?
*IntProposal*
- I agree with Jessie that Context should be a simple text field.
*Recommendations*
- We had different views on this. There is a case for having these fields for conservators to comment but I personally feel that this information would be more accessible and are more logically recorded in the Catalogue module. The Storage and Display tabs could be used in the Catalogue module. For works going out on loan should the Movements module be used to specify specific instructions for handling?
*Recall information*
- The next condition check due can be recorded in the Condition Check tab of the Catalogue module. Should recall information be recorded in the Conservation module, perhaps under Recommendations?
*Accounting*
- It still seems a bit tedious to copy this information across from the Proposals tabs. Perhaps there is a solution to this?
Thanks
Julian Tomlin
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Topic is locked |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.6
|