1. The Finnish National Gallery Database implementation
Juha Inkari
Aimari Oy

2. 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)

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. ”Flat” schema
Source database

7. Step 1 : Add Events

8. Step 2 : Add Actor

9. Step 3 : Add Place

10. Step 4 : Add Time-Span

11. Add Activity and properties to support documentation needs

12. 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

13. 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.

14. 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

15. Original and reproduction

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

17. 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

18. 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

19. Thats all folks