[BCMA] Combined database for archives and artifacts

Fri Jan 29 16:37:29 PST 2010

January 29, 2010

Hello:

We have used MSAccess, customized completely, for 16 years and have
found it much as Colin has described it.  It is relational, and if you
do not know what that means, one can draw from any part of the data base
to create a report.  The underlying structure is made up of separate
flat files (spread sheets that are called tables in Access) that contain
areas specific to a cataloguing issue, i.e. artifacts, photographs,
archives; and, a generic table that contains columns that are shared by
all of our forms.  We have 20 different forms that feed into this
background group of tables.  This shows up as a switch board where we
can make idiosyncratic searches of specific cells within a form and a
subject search that can be either partial or complete in terms of a
string search to search all forms.  For example, put in 'barker'
(partial) and every word that has those characters will have the form
'address' drawn into a summary box where you can click on say five
entries from Archives, or 10 entries from Reference files, or 6 entries
from Photographs (put in a full search, say 'Billy Barker' and you get
nothing as the subject index has been constructed to place last names
first, but put in full search for 'Barker, Billy' and you get only those
forms listed that have that exact spelling, spacing and comma character
and not all with just 'barker'):

Photographs     6

Archives           5

Reference         10

We click on the number and Access filters out the forms for the 10
Reference files that have the particular string search that has been
requested.  The beauty of this is that one can eliminate areas of
research on the fly without necessarily going through all of the returns
- maybe you are only looking for a photograph.  We have yet to have the
actual photograph come up when we want to look at them by clicking, but
that will happen.  The down side to the subject search is that each form
has a window to the subject search so that each form entered into the
data base has to have the subjects entered.  This is not quite a google
search type, which people are so used to today, but I find it handy for
narrowing down where to go when I am using it as a tool in a way that
Google just does not.  This also requires that you think like the people
who will be using the subject search, one has to anticipate that an
alley is a glassy is a marble to different people or that bad spelling
in a document or a variation in the spelling of a name may be included
in the subject index (I have found 6 different spellings for Guy L.
Shepherd, three by his own hand).  In using original documents, this is
often a problem.

The other down side is that one really should know how to use Access to
use all of the tools that are in that program.  I love the fact that I
can add a column to a form, if for whatever reason there is a purpose
for adding the column, without budgeting and a long term round robin of
decision making by a group of people who will agonize over it for
months.  It is also great at making inquiries, so that if you are in our
Library section, you can highlight the authors last name or part of the
name or the whole name, hit the 'filter by' button and every thing that
you have highlighted will be filtered from the larger data base and one
can thumb through the forms for each item to isolate what you want.
This feature is also good in editing, as one can discover errors in
spelling etc.  There is also the Queries element of Access that will
allow you to design the information you might want to extract from the
various forms.  We did run into problems with the fact that the subject
index got bigger than Access can handle, but our contractor worked out
another system for searches.  Be aware that MSAccess is subject to the
Microsoft short comings - their use of binary limits the number of
records you can put into a data base.  But, as indicated, this can be
overcome.  Space, the one big issue we were facing in 1994 has long ago
been left behind by the huge amounts of memory that is available, cheap.
The upside to MSAccess is that everything done in Excel and Word, and
any of the Microsoft programs is easily moved from program to program.
So in constructing our archeological data, we can work from an Excel
spread sheet and turn it into an Access from easily.

We have been working with Cliff Quinn of Fishability, who also developed
a smaller platform that is similar for use in small museums.  It doesn't
have all the bells and whistles that our platform has, but it is as
usable as any other of its size.  I can not agree more with the other
things that Colin has put forward - one does get used to things and
touting our system is probably because I have gotten used to using it
and all other systems appear seriously flawed in comparison.  But, I do
know one thing, because it is based in Access, it is not going out of
business tomorrow (another aspect of buying off the shelf) or be bought
out in the near future.  And, the support is in the further development
of it under our terms, not necessarily to have a yearly fee that just
fixes where the program screws up.  I love it with a bit of healthy
hate, as any computer user will attest to.  One can not marry ones
computer, as the idea of throwing it out the window at times gives great
pleasure.

Incidentally, since I did see Cliff's note to the list serve, I believe
that we were working towards the same goals way back when this all
started - I had just spent some time with John Breffit at SFU where he
had put together a great data base in Access and Jennifer Iredale was
consulting with Cliff about generating a system for the Heritage Branch.
When Jennifer broached the subject to me, I jumped right in.  I had seen
what people were doing with writing such programs on the Mac from
scratch and thought... hmm, there has to be a better way and personally,
I think, with great credit to Cliff Quinn who has put up with my demands
for all these years, we have found it.  But, it is still a work in
progress, as we add more and more and more.  Plus, the internet has come
a long since then and completely changed the public's idea of carrying
out a search for information - a subject for further discussion, I am
sure.

W. (Bill) G. Quackenbush,

Box 19, Barkerville Historic Town, Barkerville, B.C.  V0K 1B0

250.994.3302 ext 25    toll free: 1.888.994.3332 ext 25

Fax:  250-994-3435

email:  Bill.Quackenbush at barkerville.ca

www.barkerville.ca 

________________________________

From: bcma-bounces at lists.vvv.com [mailto:bcma-bounces at lists.vvv.com] On
Behalf Of Moderated BCMA subscriber listserv.
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 10:05 AM
To: bcma at lists.vvv.com
Subject: Re: [BCMA] Combined database for archives and artifacts

New Westminster Museum & Archives has two separate databases and it
causes extra work, so the long-term goal is one database for both. As we
are part of a city, and there is an IT Department dealing with computer
issues (support etc.), we are likely to go with the city's main database
once it is standardized (e.g. SQL Server). Having used a variety of
databases we have a good idea of what is required for data entry and
information retrieval. For example, I have use Paradox (DOS), Paradox
for Windows, MS Access (several versions), Heritage Sentinel and
InMagic. There is also the military museums' CFAMS (Canadian Forces
Artifact Management System) database which I am awaiting (as they make
it compulsory)  for a Canadian Forces Museum that I also run and which
is a nightmare and appears to be universally hated (e.g. The computer
assigns Accession Numbers automatically and you cannot delete any
records. Information retrieval is extremely frustrating and some found
it to be impossible - data in and no data out.

I would say that ALL databases have both good and bad features. People
become attached to what they know and often promote the same - sometimes
with the blinders on. They know only one and to them it is like the
Bible, Talmud or Koran - sacred. "The one true way to heaven."

We use Microsoft Access for our artifacts and InMagic for our Archives.
I view both as being interim solutions for us.

InMagic is used in various facilities for archives, for museum
collections and for both. Burnaby Village Museum was on Heritage
Sentinel, but we converted the Heritage Sentinel database (which I had
also purchased) over to MS Access for portability reasons when I was
Curator there (1986-2005), and since I left they converted again a
couple of years later to InMagic (at a cost of about $150,000 I heard
and are still cleaning up the loose ends.) Although there are some good
features, there are also several problems with InMagic:

*	It is VERY expensive (annual costs etc.)
*	It is a flat file rather than a relational database.
*	It uses two separate databases within - one for accessioning and
the other for the Description!!!! (This is likely explained by the flat
file nature, which duplicates work and leads to greater chance of
error.)
*	It is non-industry standard and has caused a lot of extra work
for our IT Department (our city Techies). 

Archives Association of BC is leaning towards an open source database.

MS Access also has good and bad features. It is not the greatest for
handling photos BUT it is a very common program and one can easily find
people who know how to use it. It can also be customized to suit your
needs. 

Be careful about customization of your database. If you do any (and it
is so tempting and practical), KEEP A MANUAL of your changes for your
successors!  Assume that you will not be there to explain it to your
successor. 

Be aware too that there is a tendency for Curators who are new on the
job to change the museum's database to the one they are familiar with. I
have seen this happen a number of times. The funniest story was (and no
I have not checked this out on www.snopes.com <http://www.snopes.com/> )
that two Canadian Curators' swapped jobs, and both of them insisted on
changing the databases to the type that they were familiar with. Who was
right? Probably neither one because both worked, it was just a matter of
preference. Before considering a change, consider the amount of work
involved, the costs and the possible loss +/or corruption of data.
Always keep back-up copies, ideally on paper too or your museum database
could end up screwed up like the Canadian Firearms Registry. Stories are
that they entered the data, destroyed the paper records, and then during
an upgrade or change, the data was corrupted. The result is that they
really don't know who owned what firearms and the old registry is a bad
joke. It is true? I have spoken with individuals who had encountered
problems. There are many guns that were registered under the old system
but Ottawa seems to have lost the records (not that they would admit
this), which is probably why they insist that everyone re-register their
guns in the new system. Owners have been accused of having guns they
never had (because the corrupted database says they had them when in
reality they belonged to someone else) and others have been told they
don't own certain guns - but they do and THEY kept copies of the
official paperwork to prove it. 

Remember your database is a TOOL and a SERVANT to you. It should not be
your master. 

Do I know the solution of one database for all? No, but I know I do not
want to go with InMagic for both. 

I too am interested to hear what people say.

Colin MacGregor Stevens,

Manager,

New Westminster Museum and Archives,

302 Royal Avenue,

New Westminster, BC, 

V3L 1H7

Phone Office:    604-527-4639

Work Cellular : 604-830-6965

Fax:                  604-527-4641

E-mail: cstevens at newwestcity.ca 

Web Site: www.newwestminster.ca 

-----Original Message-----
From: Moderated BCMA subscriber listserv. [mailto:bcma at lists.vvv.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 3:37 PM
To: BCMA at lists.vvv.com
Subject: [BCMA] Combined database for archives and artefacts

Hi,

I was wondering if anybody has a collections database that combines
archival and artefact records in one layout? And if so does it work well
for you?

Thanks,

Alexis Jensen
ajensen at nikkeiplace.org

-- 
Alexis Jensen

Collecions Manager
Japanese Canadian National Museum
604 777 7000 ext 140

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
signature database 4818 (20100129) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.vvv.com/pipermail/bcma/attachments/20100129/9532468b/attachment-0001.htm 