Since people (undoubtedly at small museums) may be at different stages of developing in-house applications, I thought I would share my experience. About 5 years ago, I set up a database for about 10,000 historical objects using MS Access. I used the book Using Access 2 for Windows, Special Edition, by Roger Jennings, published in 1994 by Que Corporation. It became my bible, I still have my very dog-eared copy. I worked through from a large flat table to relational tables for donors & locations. More was planned, but institutional priorities intervened.
I'm at a different institution now, getting a proprietary system up and running for them, & I HATE it for it's lack of flexibility & customizability (is that a word?) For some people a proprietary system may be more comfortable, but for us do-it-yourselfers, I can't recommend Access & that book highly enough Cheryl Desmond, Registrar Independence Seaport Museum Philadelphia, PA 215.413.8629 [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: Farrell, David [SMTP:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 11:05 AM To: 'MCN Listserve' Subject: Courses and References on Database Design - Addendum Hi Everyone: When I posted my last message to the MCN listserve I wanted to avoid yet another proprietary software vs. in house collections management system debate. I only asked for recommendations of books and types of courses on relational database design. A couple of the recent replies, however, have presented arguments against designing in-house collections management databases to which I would like to respond to. First of all, the decision to go in-house took months. At different points in the process proprietary software was considered. If I was starting the process at a different institution with a different staffing structure and a collection which was documented differently, I may have given a different recommendation. At a larger institution in particular, I may have recommended collections management software designed for institutions with multiple departments. But this is a community institution with a collection which has been poorly documented in the past. There is no need for 400 fields. The flexibility that using generic database software provides allows us to massage the data and come up with solutions to the problems which crop up at small museums. As data is entered and procedures are established the software needs of the institution may change and another option may be more suitable. Choosing an in-house solution now does not mean it is a permanent solution Flexibility was the main reason behind the choice of an in-house system. This was a much more important factor than cost. There are software packages which were designed with small museums in mind, but they in turn usually use software such as Access or Filemaker. Professionals in smaller institutions are fully capable of establishing standards and designing databases themselves. Moreover, they are the best judges of what the needs of their individual institutions are. On another note, I still plan to post a summary of the answers I've received regarding my original message. David Farrell, Collections Assistant Peel Heritage Complex 9 Wellington Street East Brampton, ON L6W 1Y1 (905) 791-4055 ext. 2108 (905) 451-4931 fax www.region.peel.on.ca/heritage/index.htm ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.Region.Peel.On.Ca **********************************************************************
