Print

Print


opps -  see why you should let the computer copy the numbers and never  
multitask!  please note

> the 2539th CD that came in in 2010 as
>
> 2010 - 002539 - 2

and the number should be 2539 through the note

sorry

B


On Mar 21, 2011, at 3:45 PM, B. George wrote:

> AR - Here @ ARC we use filemaker db that auto enters a number, next  
> item in getting the next number, based on the year received.  MOST  
> of the time, year received = year manufactured.
>
> number consists of the year (four digits) / item number (six  
> digits) / format (one digit)
>
> so the computer records the 2539th CD that came in in 2010 as
>
> 2010 - 00259 - 2
>
> then a label is attached to the archival bag that stores the  
> recording, that says :  102002537
>
> But often we just print 10-2537 - since it is obvious it is a CD,  
> while the computer retains the full number.
>
> an LP would look like 101002537
>
> We do not ever expect to catalog more than 100,000 of any one format  
> in one year.  We have two million recordings and have never had a  
> conflict with only six digits.  We realize we will need to print the  
> century data one day on the label also.
>
> We also enter the UPC code, and this is an incredible unique  
> qualifier.  It would be sufficient for all new commercially released  
> material.
>
> Yours  B. George
>
>
>
> On Mar 21, 2011, at 3:14 PM, Aaron L. Rosenblum wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>> In arranging a ~1000 item institutional audio collection that spans  
>> media
>> (12" and 16" acetates, CS, CD, DAT, R-to-R, wire), content types
>> (broadcasts, meetings, oral histories) and eras (1930s-2000s), I'm  
>> having
>> trouble settling on a numbering system to impose on the collection  
>> for use
>> in our not-audio-specific database. I'd love to hear what any of  
>> you use in
>> your collections or might recommend, on- or off-list.
>>
>> I'll spare you the run-down of my potential solutions, but suffice  
>> it to say
>> they include a multi-part number including codes for media, content  
>> type and
>> date, as well as a much simpler system leaving most of that  
>> information for
>> for other fields in the database record. I'm also concerned about  
>> having a
>> system that allows for new accessions to be integrated smoothly in  
>> the midst
>> of the numbering system/collection, rather than being appended to  
>> the end.
>> You can imagine the impact this has on physical order/shelving, etc.
>>
>> My current task only involves arrangement and description of the  
>> physical
>> collection, but I may also be creating an RFP for the digitization  
>> of the
>> collection in the near future, and would be happy to hear from  
>> interested
>> digitization vendors in NYC and the surrounding area.
>>
>> Thanks for your time,
>> Aaron Rosenblum
>> *Processing Archivist*
>> JDC Archives
>> [log in to unmask] (subscribed to ARSClist from my personal  
>> e-mail -
>> off-list replies can be sent to either)