Recommendations sought for a beginner to CA

Berney

Hello. I think this is going to be a very basic question for many on this forum. I’m a complete novice to CA but would like to use it to hold records for a very small volunteer run museum in the UK. Currently our artefacts (almost all physical items) are recorded in an Excel spreadsheet. This question is really about how the contents of our spreadsheet might map to the tables and relationships inside CA. I’ve already installed CA using the SPECTRUM profile and have read the documentation online which is very useful. This question is really about checking my understanding and to see how others might typically approach what I’m attempting and how my data might map to the various structures within CA. I do want to expand and use more of the capabilities of CA but I want to first better understand how to make the best start.

Currently when we get an accession into the museum from a single donor an entry is made into the spreadsheet. The accession may well be made up from multiple related items, each of which will occupy a row of the spreadsheet. Simplistically the column headings are:

Accession Number

This is assigned by us and has the form “YEAR-X-Y” where X is the number assigned to a overall donation from a single donor (which may include several related items) and Y is the number assigned to each of those individual items. So a single accession made up of three related items might be assigned the numbers:

2015-1-1

2015-1-2

2015-1-3

If the same or another donor then made another donation with two related items they would be assigned

2015-2-1

2015-2-2

Category

This is a top level category, e.g. Publication, Painting

Sub Category

This is sub-level category which is different depending on the Category, e.g.

Book, Newspaper, Magazine (if the category selected was Publication)

Oil, Watercolour (if the category selected was Painting)

Currently I’ve used Excel drop-down lists which restrict the ‘sub-category’ to that permitted by the category selection.

Item (Brief title for the item)

Description (Full description of the item)

Donor (name of person making the donation)

Date of Acquisition

Storage Location

Notes

Currently we have around 15 categories each of which has between 5 and 15 sub-categories. We are also tracking movement of items between different storage locations

What I’d like to know is how others might map this simple structure on to CA and how the entries might map to the different tables, e.g. do Category and Sub-Category  map to Object type and sub-type or perhaps they are best served by the Collection tables. I guess I get a little confused by the distinction between these two and how Objects and Collections relate to each other within CA. E.g. a donor could donate a set of books which according to my scheme would be given the numbers 2015-1-1, 2015-1-2, etc. which tie them together as part of the same accession. However they are also now part of a bigger set of books already held by the museum. Do I give them an Object Type and also assign them to a 'Books' Collection when entered into the system? Do those tables already link via keys?

What I really want is for our users (volunteers with limited computer exposure) to be able to enter the details above (or something similar) on a single entry form in CA. I know CA can do far more than this and I do want to enhance our capabilities but I want to make the best start.

Thanks for any thoughts and suggestions.

Julia

If the goal is simplicity--and volunteers being able to add entries on a single form---than I'd suggest not using the collections table but rather setting up the metadata you've described as elements on the object record.  Category and sub-category could be bundled together into a single, multi-level list.  I'd also suggest creating only a single object type (i.e. "artefact"), again for the sake of simplicity.  The only real advantage to using object types is type-specific metadata (i.e a "Publisher" field on a "book" record, that isn't on a "photograph" record).

It would probably make sense to use one additional table beyond objects: Accessions/Lots.  This would allow you to create single records for each donation that are linked outward to all relevant objects.  This would likely save you cataloguing time because there'd be no need to enter the donor name and all other details on each object record.

Berney

Thanks for that Julia, some helpful suggestions. Maybe I've restricted myself too much in my original description? I don't want to limit myself so much at this early definition stage in a way that it makes it harder to expand and use the fuller capabilities of CA once data has been added to the database. I guess I'm really looking for usage scenarios that might be adopted by a 'typical' small museum and more ideas on those tables and relationships which are used by the majority of users. If it would be better to make use of the Collections table as that is more representative of what others do then I'd rather do that. I also fully expect to have type-specific metadata. I said I'd like a single form but it doesn't have to be that way and if I would be best served by having more then that would be fine too. Thanks again.

gord.barker

You will want to fully describe those things that have a one-to-many relationship.  For example, if you get a set of books froms a donor, that donor may have in the past donated other items.  So you will have an entity (perhaps organization and individual) that should not be repeated but rather reference the one occurrance of the entity.  Likewise, entities could be authors, publishers, owners, donor, etc.In that same donation, the books might go on a library shelf and you would need to keep information on storage locations if many books go on the same shelf.You can reference all these other relationships on the new object form provided they already exist and the system can just look them up.  (It will create them if a record is not found but with entities, spelling is important and its easy to get duplicates, so creating an entity as a separate task seems to work best for me).

Berney

Thank you very much for this. Just so I understand you right - providing the entities already exist in a separate table, they could appear as drop down lists of predefined values from which a user could select when adding a new object? That's what I would like to happen to ensure the database is normalized properly and to avoid duplication, repetition or error. What happens if the entity doesn't already exist - does the user get the option of adding it at the time of entry of a new object?Do I actually need to create the relationships from each other table to the object table on the object form or are those relationships already established? I've had a look but couldn't see how to make the drop-down lists appear so I could select something when I add a new object.I assume I could do the same with collections by setting up a relationship from the object form to predefined collections so that the object could be assigned to the appropriate one when the object was entered?

Julia

>>>Just so I understand you right - providing the entities already exist in a separate table, they could appear as drop down lists of predefined values from which a user could select when adding a new object?

Yes

>>What happens if the entity doesn't already exist - does the user get the option of adding it at the time of entry of a new object?

They do, we call this "Quick Add"

>>Do I actually need to create the relationships from each other table to the object table on the object form or are those relationships already established? I've had a look but couldn't see how to make the drop-down lists appear so I could select something when I add a new object.

Relationships are bi-directional, so if you create the relationship from the other table it can be seen from the object record.  You'll need to add the relationship bundles to the user interface under Administration > User Interface > Object editor, or in the installation profile.  Each relationship carries a configurable (and non-optional) relationship type (except for Lots to Objects, which doesn't carry a relationship type).

>>I assume I could do the same with collections by setting up a relationship from the object form to predefined collections so that the object could be assigned to the appropriate one when the object was entered?

Yes, you can add a Related Collection bundle to the Object editor, as described above, and use that to link to pre-existing Collections.

Berney

Many thanks for this Julia, much appreciated. Apologies for the delay in replying.I've done a bit more investigation with your suggestions. When I go to Administration > User Interface > Object editor and then look at Relationships I can clearly see that there are relationships listed as 'Object Related Entities' and 'Object Related Collections' - presumably from installation of the SPECTRUM profile?I added a few entities to test with and then went to add a new object. When I look at the 'Related Entities' section I don't see any drop-down list from which to select the pre-entered entities which is what I was expecting. What I do see is that if I start typing one of my previously entered entities, then after entering the first three characters, the interface does a look-up and presents those entities which match so far. That works providing I know the initial characters to type. Am I missing something?Also, despite having 'Object Related Collections' showing in the Object Editor I don't see a 'Related Collections' item shown when I attempt to add a new object. Again, am I expecting the wrong thing?I guess I still get a bit confused by the definition of a 'type' which can be selected when entering a new object and a 'collection'. To me they seem to have a similar function, i.e. to provide a sub-category to further define the object. Are types held in their own table in the DB as Collections are?Thanks for the continuing replies - it's slowly becoming clearer and CA is obviously a very capable piece of software. I just need to tailor it what I want to do!(One final thing - would it be possible for a moderator to remove some of the blank lines in my original post - I'm not sure why they are there and I don't seem to be able to edit it myself - thanks)Many Thanks

Julia

>>>> I added a few entities to test with and then went to add a new object. When I look at the 'Related Entities' section I don't see any drop-down list from which to select the pre-entered entities which is what I was expecting. What I do see is that if I start typing one of my previously entered entities, then after entering the first three characters, the interface does a look-up and presents those entities which match so far. That works providing I know the initial characters to type. Am I missing something?

No, this is how our relationship bundles work.  In re-reading your question, I think I misunderstood you.  If you want to create a small drop-down list of pre-defined entities you can do so by creating a list, but it won't function as a relationship in this case, simply as metadata.

>>>Also, despite having 'Object Related Collections' showing in the Object Editor I don't see a 'Related Collections' item shown when I attempt to add a new object. Again, am I expecting the wrong thing?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.  Can you be more specific?  You are trying to relate and object to a collection but the collection isn't appearing in the lookup?

>>>I guess I still get a bit confused by the definition of a 'type' which can be selected when entering a new object and a 'collection'. To me they seem to have a similar function, i.e. to provide a sub-category to further define the object. Are types held in their own table in the DB as Collections are?

Types are used to define what metadata appears on each user interface.

gord.barker

I am probably misunderstanding as well but my read on this is as follows.I have an object record (add and edit show the same UI screens so I will use an existing record)It is shown in the accessionrecord.png image attached.On that screen there is a list of additional screens available and Relationships is highlighted (in blue)When you click on Relationships you get what is shown in the Relationships.png attachmentThere are three relationships listed (Entities, Occurrences and Collections)To select an Entity for example, start typeing the Displayname you entered for the Entity.  Providence will complete the entry when it uniquely finds a match.  You can also use the Entity ID (I think) but it is usually harder to remember.There is no drop down list usually because the list will end up being massive (I have 2200 Entities in my collection split between individuals and organizations).The same goes for things like storage locations (I have 662 storage locations).

Berney

Thanks for these further answers:

Julia, you're correct when you ask "You are trying to relate an object to a collection but the collection isn't appearing in the lookup?", however it seems it's because there is nowhere on the object form from where I can type to start looking up the collection. If I look at the Object Editor UI relationships I see "Object Related collections" listed as one of the "elements to display on this screen". I then populated the Collections table with a few examples but when I attempt to add a new object I see nowhere to type the collection name which I want to be related to the object. I see "Related entities" listed as well as "Related places" but no "Related collections". The ones present seem to work though. Maybe I haven't set something correctly to be able to display the box where I need to start typing a collection name?

Gord - thanks for your examples, I can see there would be a problem with a very large number of items appearing in a drop down list. I could see that could well happen with something like Entities but for something like a set of Collections my list would be fairly small and predefined. My Storage place list is relatively small too compared with yours though I was hoping to have something like a drop down list of top level places (e.g. Building 1, Building 2, etc) from which a lower level list could be opened (Room 1, Room 2, etc) and so on (Shelf 1, Shelf 2, etc). These would be available to a user as an object was entered. They would never create a new storage place, just use existing ones.

I guess the concern I have is that users may not know what is already present in the list so don't know what to start typing so that the auto-completion can begin working. They could also type something slightly different from how it is currently stored and end up creating a new one which would result in two similar, but different, items being created for the same thing.

Sorry for the ongoing questions - I'm trying to get to a best practice before as I design the system and before I roll things out.

Julia

It sounds like you don't have the Related Collections bundle on the Object UI.  You can add it under Manage > Administration > User Interfaces > Objects Editor.  It's called "Related Collections" and if you hover your mouse on it you'll see the message "Bundle name: ca_collections" in a tool tip.

Berney

I'm fairly sure I've already done what you suggest. I can see "Related Collections" listed on the Object UI and "Bundle name: ca_collections" is shown when I hover over it. I'm attaching a screen shot showing this. The second screen shot shows what is visible if I attempt to add a new object - I see "Related Entities" and "Related Places but no other relationships. Is there something else I'm missing?

Julia

Your editor screenshot is for the Relationships screen, but your UI screen shot is of Object Info.  Is the Collections bundle displaying on the Relationships screen?

Berney

Thanks for that. I thought it was the Relationship screen I needed to look at. Anyway, I looked at the Object Info UI screen from the Object Editor and can see the 'Object Related Collections' bundle on the left hand side. I dragged it to the right hand side and clicked on Save and it came up with the message 'Saved changes to UI screen'. Everything seemed good. However when I re-examined the list and/or exited and came back to it the UI screen was as before. The 'Object Related Collections' was back as an option on the left hand side. Am I missing a step? Thanks.

Julia

It will stay as an option on the left hand side, even as it's saved to the right hand column.  That allows you to create multiple placements with different settings.

Berney

Thanks, I guessed it would remain on the left-hand side as an option but it no longer appears on the right, even though it located properly after the drag and drop and the message 'Saved changes to UI screen' appeared when I clicked on Save. Whenever I go back to the Object Info screen it's no longer there. I've tried it several times and the same thing happens. When I go to add a new object it's also not available as an option either, so it obviously didn't get saved.

Julia

What version are you running?

Berney

Sorry for the delay, I've been away. I'm running version 1.5.1

Calc

+ 1 : same problem !I updated to 1.5.1 version last weekend. Now unable to modifiy UI.

Berney

Thanks for that additional input. I've only ever used 1.5.1 as I'm experimenting with setting up a new system but I thought I was doing something wrong.