For the readers of this forum who are with museums, historical societies or otherwise manage a collection of pictures or other artifacts, I have some comments relating to the cataloging and managing of the data (as opposed to the management of the physical objects in the collection).

I am the acting archivist for TMNY, and I use a home grown database in MS ACCESS. It is derived from a flat Q&A database the previous archivist used, and I've added related tables and more fields based on what I've seen other museums doing. Below is the data entry screen, so you can see the sort of information we capture per catalog entry.

Questions I'm curious about with my answers in ():

What software do you use to catalog your collections? (as mentioned, I use a MS ACCESS database I wrote myself)

How many records are in your database and how rapidly do you see it growing? (we are at 3000+ records and it will probably grow to over 6000 by the time everything already accessioned gets cataloged)

How much information do you capture per cataloged item? (see the screen capture below for what I do)

Do you make your data available to the public or to researchers? If so, how? (I've put link to a summary extact of photos only on tmny.org. Navigation is crude, but its a start.)

Do you ever exchange collections data with other organizations? If so, how and in what format? Do you use MARC? (I haven't yet, but I worry about this since my database is not standard to anything else)



link to data entry screen
n2xjk@ulster.net

At the SPCRR Society for the Preservation of Carter Railroad Resources) we have an ambitious plan to catalog not only each artifact, but also to catalog the individual components of each car.

We use Lotus Approach, a X-base based data base. Several of us have found it much easier to use than the Microsoft equivalent. Our data base has been modified several times since we started with it (as a D-base 3 database) in 1983. It is currently a series of 4 linked databases.

We are an all volunteer organization, and are always short of time to catalog as much of the collection as we wish. There are currently more than 2500 items and less that 5000 items listed. We have made reports available to researchers, but have had little call for them outside our small organization. More often we are using it to answer questions about a specific artifact.

I wrote the following article for our local SIA chapter explaining what we were trying to do.

Cataloging the Changing Artifact

One of the difficult problems which confronts any museum of industrial technology is how to catalog the collection. Conventional record keeping systems have trouble dealing with a working industrial artifact. What makes these artifact so difficult to deal with is their changing nature. As they are restored, and used (and in some cases used up) they change, and most cataloging systems don't deal with change well.

Over the last 15 years the Society for the Preservation of Carter Railroad Resources (SPCRR) has developed a collection system which is able to deal with these issues. Our primary collection list is parts based. We try identify and separately catalog all discrete components of an assembly. We do this for several reasons; first our collection is comprised of a great variety of items ranging from fragments and car parts to single books or photographs, to complete railroad cars, any system we choose had to be able to record all of these. Second many of our artifacts were badly deteriorated and require restoration, we needed a system capable of recording parts which were replaced during restoration. Third, we wanted to be able to use our collection as a research tool, comparing parts from different sources to track both the similarities and the differences in the cars in our collection. Finally we developed our system so that a parts list could be generated for any car listing each part, what it is attached to, and what bolt(s) are used to attach it. The second way we organize our collection is by use of the "collection" system. We use collections as the way we acquire and record ownership. Items are accessioned into our collection as blocks (collections) of items. These items are then cataloged into our database as resources permit, or in the case of large complex items such as cars as they are disassembled and restored. Collections normally carry the name of the donor as the collection name. A file is maintained for each collection holding the ownership documents and any supporting historic information.

But, there are problems with a parts based system . This means that within the system a railroad car exists only as the sum of its catalogued parts, or as a collection name, but not as a single functional unit. This weakness in the system is further complicated by restoration and even routine maintenance as original parts are removed either because of their deteriorated condition or because they don't match the era we are restoring the car to, or simply to prevent damage due to use. In these cases the original part is placed in protective storage and a replica replaces it on the car. Within this system a car would be found by a search based on its collection name. This search would produce a list of parts which would include: 1) original parts which are installed on of the car, 2) modern reproduction parts on the car, 3) historic (original) parts in storage, 4) and a collection of drawings, photos, field notes and other documents. It might include, 5) parts removed from this car, and used to restore another car in our collection. The list would not include parts on the carbody which have not (yet) been catalogued and therefore do not exist in the system, nor would it include historic parts from other collections we hold. In no way would this list of parts describe the railroad car in question.

In response to this short coming we have developed a secondary system to record our collection called the "Gross Technological Artifact (GTA)" list (yes, the name was a joke). The GTA list includes major items such as railroad cars, wagons, locomotives or even major machine tools. To be listed as a GTA a item must have several attributes; It must be a collection of separately catologable parts which have a single common identity as a unit, they must be useful primarily as that unit, and within our cataloging system they are a "home" location for catalogued parts.

This list also allows us to capture replica equipment, which while not historic in and of itself (i.e.. not old) holds value to our group for its historic appearance, as well as its operational value. Additionally these replica cars can incorporate some historic parts in their construction, and therefore are a location for catalogued parts.

We maintain the GTA list as a separate database within and linked to our existing databases. In addition to the linked computerized list we keep files for each GTA holding maintenance and historic records. Further each GTA is the subject of a restoration report explaining decisions and assumptions relating to the object's restoration or construction.

Through these interconnected lists we feel that we are able to track all of our "goodies" whether large or small.

There is more on our collection, including our collection policy at our web site.

Randy Hees

http://WWW.SPCRR.org
hees@ix.netcom.com

We use the SNAP! system for our collections at the Port Huron Museum, but I find that its pretty
combersome and not at all user friendly. At the Michigan Museums Association confrence this fall, I got to know many fellow curators and archivists
who use PastPerfect. After doing further research, we may be switching to this format. The problem with PastPerfect in the past was its inability to absorb digital imaging. This has now changed.

As you may or may not know, to advance for certain types of funding, an institution must be able to have a complete record of its collections that is easily accessible, and includes location of item, a photograph, and other related info such as donor, relavent era, etc. The move for us from Map 2 to Map 3 designation is and was part of this process.

We are well over 14,000 records in our collection currently. We do try and make our information available to visitors and fellow
researchers, but as I am the sole curator, it
is currently on a first come first seve basis,
and we require an appointment for any lengthy
research (i.e. thesis research, etc.)

We do exchange information via other institutions, but is not a directly downloadable
system. Usually I receive an email or snail-mail
letter (on an upcoming traveling exhibition perhaps) and type the info or reply via email.

What storage methods are you using currently? We are looking to move to a system similar to that
of Michigan State University's collections, with large storage cases that have easy-sliding drawers for separating smaller items, and/ or shelving with non-acidic archival boxes for paper based materials.

T.J. Gaffney



Port Huron Museum
peremarquette@hotmail.com

I saw some literature for Snap! and was unimpressed with its function compared to what I did already in MS Access. I also saw a presentation at an ARM convention a few years ago for a program with a generic name like Historydatabase. It gave me the idea to add more fields to a catalog entry. For example, our old database had only one date field in the record, now there is Date-Search, Date-Note and Copyright.

As for storage methods, all photographs are individually sleeved in mylar or acid-free paper and then stored in file cabinets at the time they are cataloged. Due to lack of space, we keep most blueprints and large-format drawings rolled. We do have one battered flat file, but it's mostly full already with advertising cards! There are also a fair number of negatives and some slides, but I haven't tackled them yet. There is also an entire shelving unit filled with boxes of old magazines that needs to be gone through.

We had a MAP I assessment one upon a time, but we didn't go any further since we don't have an executive director.


Trolley Museum of New York
n2xjk@ulster.net