I was wondering if I could get your opinion on something. I've spent some time reviewing how our next export to AMICO can be better serve the importance of what AMICO is trying to accomplish. One of the areas we have re evaluated is the terms we use for Object Type. In the next export, we are considering using terminology which is more detailed and specific to the objects in our collection. This however has raised an issue for us. I'll use Manuscripts as an example. For Object Type, one of the terms submitted will be Book of Hours. In being this specific in our terminology, we are concerned about the ability of people who are doing searches on Manuscripts to get to this Book of Hour. If the AAT is implemented, this will alleviate concerns similar to this. However Book of Hours in the AAT resides under Books and not Manuscripts. Technically speaking, a Book of Hour is a Book, however in the Museum, we categorize it as a Manuscript.

Therefore we feel there are two possible options for resolving this problem. Either we can use Object Type as a repeatable field and include Manuscripts. Or we can use the Classification field and have that be a searchable option in AMICO. I would propose that Classification be adopted since it would allow for generalized searches, where as the Object Type field could allow for people to be more specific in finding Objects they are interested in. This would also ensure that someone searching on Manuscripts could get to our Book of Hours. My only concern is that looking over the terms others have submitted for Classification Term, it appears as though there are varying opinions over what terminology is used to fill this field. Perhaps I have misread how this field can be used.

I would appreciate any feedback you can give me regarding this issue. Also if any of the above is unclear, please feel free to give me a call or let me know by email.

Thanks Jennifer

Erin Coburn (310) 440-7524