At 14:05 on Monday, 08 Nov 2004, Connell, Paul wrote:
> This works for us as the programme we use for cataloguing can duplicate
> the
> classification field. I know that other museums I have advised had many
> long
> and tortuous discussions over which classification a particular image
> should
> be given and imagine the joy when learning they could have more than one.
>
> The classification list we have, The Wiltshire Standard, is one that has
> been built over many years from the collections of museums in Wiltshire.
> If
> you would like a copy I can email one off list.
I would be interested to see that, so yes, please email me a copy.
I'm also a bit curious about the way you multiple classify. do you have
cross referencing? or do you just accept that you may duplicate
images/objects in different category groups.
In response to the other suggestions, thank you all, lots of useful food
for thought there.
my previous experience has been that the categorization heirarchy and
subsequent application of metadata is the most difficult aspect.
Subsequent presentation of the collection and search technologies give
plenty of scope as long as the metadata is available in the first instance.
Systems we've implemented before have had multiple classification
possibilities, keywords for cross referencing and unlimited metadata.
However when data entry starts there seems to be less enthusiasm for
careful categorization (as I think someone mentioned), maybe that's where
the secret of a good system is.
The SEPIA project looks very interesting, so thanks for that.
As always it's a bit of a chicken and egg situation - the collection of
objects isn't clearly defined until data entry begins and you can't really
begin data entry until you've decided on a classification scheme...
Thanks again for your thoughts and ideas.
Tony
|