Hi Rob, I recently dealt with such a move, where some 1200 crates with archaeological materials were moved from their assigned shelf positions in storage building A, to temporary storage in building B, to their (hopefully) final destination to new shelf and stack positions in building C. All buildings were part of the same National Archaeological Museum of the Sibaritide (in south Italy). I was only responsible for part of the latter move (B to C), which required a lot of checking of what had been put where in building B by the moving company - resulting in one 'lost' crate that we still have to trace in our records - and some repackaging into new crates to allow placement in the new stacks of building C. In both building A and C, there was a system in place to record temporary removals of crates for specialist studies, and for permanently moving finds from one crate to another. Without such records chaos would quickly come to reign, as I have seen happen in other similar archaeology storage buildings....
Martijn On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:05 PM, George Bruseker <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear all, > > I don’t know of CRM encoded data with this information, but internal > movement is traced in almost any major collections management system that I > know of. The one I am most familiar with is the Emu system owned, now, by > Axiell. It generates automatic internal movement records when registrars > authorize the moment around the museum who carried it out and why. An > example would be that the object is moved from storage to conservation lab > for work and then back. This happened in the Museum of Islamic Art, so I > guess it would be a use case for art objects. I also seem to recall some > major projects of moving collections (perhaps of the Field Museum that uses > Emu), where the work was to get everything from old storage A to new > storage b. This was crucial provenance information because it helps them > know why something may have gone missing and or what happened to it along > the way (how was it packed, in what truck did it go). Here again what > happened in reality was, I believe, an instance of move and not a transfer > of custody acquisition or any such thing. > > Best, > > George > > > > On Oct 2, 2017, at 10:06 PM, Robert Sanderson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Christian-Emil, > > > > Could you provide some pointers to data that has Moves? In our > experience Move is theoretically important, but we could not find any > museum that had Move activities that weren’t better described as a Transfer > of Custody. > > > > In particular: > > • No history of internal movement between galleries / sites (which would > not be a change of custody) > > • No history of the actual movement of the object between institutions > (e.g. for exhibitions), which would be better as a transfer of custody > anyway. > > • Disincentive to record these events or make them public as it > encourages theft > > • No real incentive to integrate shipping/tracking and descriptive > systems > > > > We’re very happy to move terms around, but only with good cause :) In > particular, two institutions that both require the class and have actual > data to support it… preferably also with the intent to publish that data. > > > > Rob > > > > On 10/2/17, 11:59 AM, "Christian-Emil Smith Ore" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Before Getty(?) send out the the profile to all arts museum, maybe > one could go through the list once more and add a few central classes, move > is one of them. > > Best > > Christian-Emil > > ________________________________________ > > From: Crm-sig <[email protected]> on behalf of Robert > Sanderson <[email protected]> > > Sent: 02 October 2017 19:15 > > To: Dan Matei; martin > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] NEW ISSUE using CRM > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > If the terms were moved to an extension, for example moving Site to > the Archaeological extension, would then they would still be available for > use but not add to the complexity of the base model. > > > > I think there is some “food” they’re asking for, which is the > cognitive cost of understanding them and when they should be used. If that > cost is high compared to the value (which I argue that it currently is), > then the result is decreased usage of the model. This “usability” cost is > the primary driver for Linked Art – if we can do it once for the entire art > domain, then every (art) museum or gallery has then had that cost pre-paid. > > > > If you have data in real systems that _require_ the classes we’ve set > aside, we’d very much like to discuss those with you off-list. > > > > Hope that helps! > > > > Rob > > > > > > On 10/2/17, 7:31 AM, "Crm-sig on behalf of Dan Matei" < > [email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: > > > > Friends, > > > > On 30 September 2017 at 17:24, martin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Some classes may be an overspecialization, this has to be > discussed and respective classes be removed. > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh no ! Please do not remove anything ! > > > > > > I use almost all the CRM elements, in order not to loose nuances > in my legacy databases (besides museum and library resources I have to > model intangible resources - e.g. theatre productions). So I have to add > elements from other ontologies and even – horror > > – to invent some more. I trust more the CRM elements than those > I invent :-) > > > > > > Moreover, even if some CRM elements are not used too much, they > do not ask for food. So... > > > > > > Please... > > > > > > Dan > > > > > > PS. You can establish Oskars for the "best" class of the year, > the most popular property of the year, etc. And the "overspecialised" ones > will earn no Oskar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Crm-sig mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Crm-sig mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > > > _______________________________________________ > Crm-sig mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ics.forth.gr/mailman/listinfo/crm-sig > -- Dr. Martijn van Leusen Chair, Examination Board for Arts, Culture and Archaeology Chair, Faculty of Arts Advisory Board for Data Management policies Associate professor, Landscape Archaeology Groningen Institute of Archaeology / Poststraat 6, 9712ER Groningen (Netherlands) phone +31 50 3636717 Academia page <https://rug.academia.edu/MartijnvanLeusen>
