Collections Management Proposal for a Simplified Structure for EMu Chicago, Oct 2005

Collections Management Proposal for a Simplified Structure for EMu Chicago, Oct 2005

Collections Management Background EMu is an object-relational system Information recorded about an object is “normalized” into a series of modules – catalog, taxonomy, parties, etc. Modules can be designed to reference other modules, records attach to other records Each module is a data resource or authority – e.g. Taxonomy = nomenclature

Collections Management Attachment Overview Object Record Taxon Authors (Party records) Collection Event Site Specimen is added here But name must be added here And locality details here

Collections Management Benefits of Modular Approach Not just object-centric view Results in other useful resources, e.g. nomenclature Aids in navigation to related information – e.g. from party record to specimens collected or papers published or taxa described, etc. Promotes data consistency and minimum data standards

Collections Management Benefits of Modular Approach Reduces data redundancy – e.g. biography of person recorded only once Ensures updates need only be applied in one place - e.g. correction to spelling of author’s name Supports security over records in different modules, e.g. can see specimen but not its taxon

Collections Management But there are problems! Complex model can be difficult for new users to understand Results in more steps in data entry thus making it slower Makes reporting more difficult Complicates data migration/import process

Collections Management The Import Problem Scenario: New specimen record contains a person’s name (Identified By): If new person, should it be added to Parties? If name matches more than one Party record (e.g. G. Smith), should EMu Choose one of the existing party records? Create a new party record? Reject the specimen?

Collections Management Then there are the practical problems When entering a new specimen, how do you know if you should attach to an existing Party or Collection Event or Site? Practical reality is that duplicate records are being created now

Collections Management A possible solution? Rather than being structural components of a record, consider the catalog support modules as references or authorities Based on the way EMu’s thesaurus now works

Collections Management How it might work Users can choose to attach to a record in the supporting module as they do now using drag-and-drop or Alternatively users could enter text directly into the “attachment” field but this would be stored locally

Collections Management Behind the scenes Each existing attachment field would be changed to include: A local text field An optional IRN to an attached record (as now). Attaching to a record would automatically fill the text field

Collections Management Options to control terminology Force attachment Must be attached to a record before you can save (e.g. Object links in Loans module) Attempt attachment Uses entered text to try to attach but allows save anyway (e.g. Taxon in Catalog) Reference only Does not attempt to attach but user can choose to attach (e.g. Authors in Bibliography)

Collections Management Administrative options Alert on new term Ensures that designated terminology expert (e.g. taxonomist) is alerted to new terms used in records which are not in the attached module

Collections Management Notification example

Collections Management Administrative options Display exceptions (report) Allows an administrator to periodically view terms used in records that are not in the attached module

Collections Management Question Can an attachment field have both a local text string and an IRN? Local text of “L.” but attached to record for “Carl Linnaeus”

Collections Management Advantages of new scheme Rapid data entry Simplified interface to data model Flexibility to control terminology only in areas that matter Improved options for data import Can import data into a flat model Can preserve controlled terminology lists Can address terminology exceptions after import

Collections Management Other options leading from this Ultimately these references/authorities may not have to be stored in KE EMu but could be web-based resources, e.g. ITIS, Alexandria Digital Library Gazetteer A step towards a Semantic Web?