The Finnish National Gallery Database implementation Juha Inkari Aimari Oy inkari@iki.fi

The Finnish National Gallery Database implementation Old/current relational database New relational database designed for CRM compatibility in mind Conversion application to copy database contents from the old database to the new database Task specific user-interface (10 modules)

Starting point ”Flat” schema Missing data or data in wrong place First correct and cleanup data in the current/old database average 1 error correcting update per row

New database SqlServer 2000 RDMS Use CRM as a guideline Compatibility can be managed Use CRM as a guideline Compatibility in the future possible to export database in a CRM compatible XML Document

Support for CRM Mapping from current data structures and data to relevant CRM structures was done Based on needed CRM structures a relational database schema was designed

”Flat” schema Source database

Step 1 : Add Events

Step 2 : Add Actor

Step 3 : Add Place

Step 4 : Add Time-Span

Add Activity and properties to support documentation needs

Normalised database The normalised database has tables for objects actors events places time-spans Yet there has not been a need to denormalise for performance

Order or precedence Catalogers want to keep the order of precedence classifications work of art is classified to be as more of a type ”drawing” than of a type ”painting” materials and techniques broader term like ”metal” before specialized term like ”bronze”. Also main materials are listed before supplemental and not so important materials.

Production carried out by extensions Order of precedence to keep list of artists in the precise order requested by the artists themselves Note used to document unknown artists School of work Belief/certainty field Belief/certainty classification Mutually exclusive cases

Original and reproduction

Missing original Shortcut to enable joining subject and time of production for example

Making CRM ”user friendly” Users do have some kind of mental model about the system our userbase refers to object records as ”cards” Focus attention to the work problems like classification Users could apply their CRM knowledge (if there would be any) to work problems

Goals Revise the cataloging rules from 1998 the new cataloging rules should somehow refer to CRM In the future with successfull training curators developing cataloging rules could also map those documentation needs to CRM

Thats all folks