Re: A Cataloguing Question
Hi Will, This is one of my favourite topics! To process such collection, I would first verify with the curator whether the collection of prints is considered one work or multiple works. Here at the Vancouver Art Gallery, we consider them one work if they are related to each other in a way that prints in the collection cannot be exhibited separately. In this case, I create a parent record for the group and child records for each of the prints. If a print can be separated out from the series and exhibited on its own, then the prints are considered separate works, and I create separate records for the works without a hierarchical (parent/child) relationship. As for the title issue, we put the individual titles in the title field and record the series title in the Series Title field. However, I have set up our search field so that users can retrieve all prints if they search by what's in the Series Title field. You can also set up the output field for title so that it concatenates data from a few fields and puts in the format and order that users need to see. Generally speaking, I just remind users that the output can be different from input. so, I would rather input the data in the proper fields, and then can customize the output as needed. Hope this helps. best, Bita Bita Vorell Assistant Registrar, Documentation Vancouver Art Gallery t. 604 662 4700 f. 604 682 1086 www.vanartgallery.bc.ca Subject: RE: A Cataloguing Question From: Jonathan Thristan jonathan.thris...@tate.org.uk Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 10:52:43 - X-Message-Number: 1 Hello Will Here at Tate, the group and each group member would have an object record, with a parent/child relationship between the two. Complete/incomplete information is also recorded. A sample title from the web, for a page from a Turner sketchbook: from Tweed and Lakes Sketchbook [Finberg XXXV], Kirkstall Abbey: [group title] North Aisle of Nave, Looking across the Crossing to the East End, with Debris from Collapsed Tower in Foreground [page title] This 'display title' is formed by concatenating a 'group information' field (but with information regarding the group's 'completeness', plus the object number range of the group, stripped out) on the child object record with the child object record's 'title'. The 'group information' on the child object record is itself derived from the title of the parent group object record, plus the object number range of the group, and is calculated by the CMS (TMS at Tate). Regards Jon Jon Thristan Collections Information Manager Tate Millbank London SW1P 4RG t: +44 (0) 20 7887 8983 e: jonathan.thris...@tate.org.uk w: www.tate.org.uk -Original Message- From: Real, Will [mailto:re...@carnegiemuseums.org]=20 Sent: 31 January 2005 20:32 To: mcn-l@mcn.edu Subject: A Cataloguing Question Hi everyone, We are having a disagreement here among staff with differing approaches to cataloguing a large collection of Japanese prints in our collections management system. Many of the prints are part of a series, and in many cases we own the entire series of prints. One school of thought is that the series title ought to be part of the print title, and that no hierarchical records (e.g. a group record for the series as a whole, with child records for each print that is part of the series) are needed since a user could recall the records by either the print title or the series title in the main title field. Others gravitate towards segregating the print title and the series title (and number), and creating group-level records for the series, with child records for the prints. Those of us who favor this understand that when the data is displayed (on the web or on a label or other publication), data from the Series and Number in Series fields have to be concatenated with data from the Title field so it looks like the title of the object is print so and so, No. 3 from the series such and such. It was suggested that we take an informal survey to find out how other institutions approach this or similar situations, to see if there is in fact some consensus. We are especially interested in hearing from insitutions that catalogue Japanese prints in particular, since it is this group of objects that seems to have stirred up the most controversy. CCO seems to favor separate fields for Title and Series (or designating one title as collective title which is similar), and also seems to favor Whole/Part relationships for this situation. It does say that when a repository does not have the entire series, it may not want to create the record for the whole series, which might be misleading. In our case, more often than not, the series are complete. A third way would be to create an Alternate Title of type Display that includes the entire string of print title, number in series, and series title, as preferred by one group, while also entering the data in the separate fields and in hierarchical relationships
Re: A Cataloguing Question
The Getty Museum follows this same practice, coupled with rules for entering counts, level and object type, you can count the collections by group, wholes, parts in ways your director hasn't even imagined yet. Attached are our syntax rules for cataloguing, groups, wholes and parts for the Getty collections. Cheers, Amy Noel jonathan.thris...@tate.org.uk 02/01/05 02:52AM Hello Will Here at Tate, the group and each group member would have an object record, with a parent/child relationship between the two. Complete/incomplete information is also recorded. A sample title from the web, for a page from a Turner sketchbook: from Tweed and Lakes Sketchbook [Finberg XXXV], Kirkstall Abbey: [group title] North Aisle of Nave, Looking across the Crossing to the East End, with Debris from Collapsed Tower in Foreground [page title] This 'display title' is formed by concatenating a 'group information' field (but with information regarding the group's 'completeness', plus the object number range of the group, stripped out) on the child object record with the child object record's 'title'. The 'group information' on the child object record is itself derived from the title of the parent group object record, plus the object number range of the group, and is calculated by the CMS (TMS at Tate). Regards Jon Jon Thristan Collections Information Manager Tate Millbank London SW1P 4RG t: +44 (0) 20 7887 8983 e: jonathan.thris...@tate.org.uk w: www.tate.org.uk -Original Message- From: Real, Will [mailto:re...@carnegiemuseums.org] Sent: 31 January 2005 20:32 To: mcn-l@mcn.edu Subject: A Cataloguing Question Hi everyone, We are having a disagreement here among staff with differing approaches to cataloguing a large collection of Japanese prints in our collections management system. Many of the prints are part of a series, and in many cases we own the entire series of prints. One school of thought is that the series title ought to be part of the print title, and that no hierarchical records (e.g. a group record for the series as a whole, with child records for each print that is part of the series) are needed since a user could recall the records by either the print title or the series title in the main title field. Others gravitate towards segregating the print title and the series title (and number), and creating group-level records for the series, with child records for the prints. Those of us who favor this understand that when the data is displayed (on the web or on a label or other publication), data from the Series and Number in Series fields have to be concatenated with data from the Title field so it looks like the title of the object is print so and so, No. 3 from the series such and such. It was suggested that we take an informal survey to find out how other institutions approach this or similar situations, to see if there is in fact some consensus. We are especially interested in hearing from insitutions that catalogue Japanese prints in particular, since it is this group of objects that seems to have stirred up the most controversy. CCO seems to favor separate fields for Title and Series (or designating one title as collective title which is similar), and also seems to favor Whole/Part relationships for this situation. It does say that when a repository does not have the entire series, it may not want to create the record for the whole series, which might be misleading. In our case, more often than not, the series are complete. A third way would be to create an Alternate Title of type Display that includes the entire string of print title, number in series, and series title, as preferred by one group, while also entering the data in the separate fields and in hierarchical relationships, as favored by the other group. (Though this seems like a labor intensive way to try to satisfy everyone.) Anyone care to jump in? [full disclosure: I am in the whole/part camp, but if you are not doing it that way, bring it on!] Will Real Technology Initiatives Carnegie Museum of Art Pittsburgh PA --- You are currently subscribed to mcn_mcn-l as: jonathan.thris...@tate.org.uk To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-mcn_mcn-l-12800...@listserver.americaneagle.com --- You are currently subscribed to mcn_mcn-l as: an...@getty.edu To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-mcn_mcn-l-12792...@listserver.americaneagle.com Syntax Rules for Object Count - Level - Type.doc Description: application/applefile Syntax Rules for Object Count - Level - Type.doc Description: MS-Word document --- You are currently subscribed to mcn_mcn-l as: rlancefi...@mail.wesleyan.edu To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-mcn_mcn-l-12800...@listserver.americaneagle.com
A Cataloguing Question
Hi everyone, We are having a disagreement here among staff with differing approaches to cataloguing a large collection of Japanese prints in our collections management system. Many of the prints are part of a series, and in many cases we own the entire series of prints. One school of thought is that the series title ought to be part of the print title, and that no hierarchical records (e.g. a group record for the series as a whole, with child records for each print that is part of the series) are needed since a user could recall the records by either the print title or the series title in the main title field. Others gravitate towards segregating the print title and the series title (and number), and creating group-level records for the series, with child records for the prints. Those of us who favor this understand that when the data is displayed (on the web or on a label or other publication), data from the Series and Number in Series fields have to be concatenated with data from the Title field so it looks like the title of the object is print so and so, No. 3 from the series such and such. It was suggested that we take an informal survey to find out how other institutions approach this or similar situations, to see if there is in fact some consensus. We are especially interested in hearing from insitutions that catalogue Japanese prints in particular, since it is this group of objects that seems to have stirred up the most controversy. CCO seems to favor separate fields for Title and Series (or designating one title as collective title which is similar), and also seems to favor Whole/Part relationships for this situation. It does say that when a repository does not have the entire series, it may not want to create the record for the whole series, which might be misleading. In our case, more often than not, the series are complete. A third way would be to create an Alternate Title of type Display that includes the entire string of print title, number in series, and series title, as preferred by one group, while also entering the data in the separate fields and in hierarchical relationships, as favored by the other group. (Though this seems like a labor intensive way to try to satisfy everyone.) Anyone care to jump in? [full disclosure: I am in the whole/part camp, but if you are not doing it that way, bring it on!] Will Real Technology Initiatives Carnegie Museum of Art Pittsburgh PA --- You are currently subscribed to mcn_mcn-l as: rlancefi...@mail.wesleyan.edu To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-mcn_mcn-l-12800...@listserver.americaneagle.com
