We are currently seeking feedback from  Key Users/Contributors about how we are expanding certain areas of data capture in the database. Below is a short (6 min) video in which Jo Croucher (Our Data Manager) and I talk through some of the issues that we are using this abridged version of database to test.  Those of you who have been asked to test this have been sent an email.

Click here to see  AbridgedSchemaTest2

Feedback notes:

Friday; Feedback two CIs/Editorial Board Members.

Negative ( which is a good thing when trying to solve a problem!)

Too much information on works? is measurement necessary?

Too many stubs will be generated if we create record files for each ROLE associated with the production of works ( particularly in design)? Ie. we don’t need a record for Kambrook associated with Musset’s kettle. Just need to be able to note that Kambrook  made it. ?

Requests for clear citation policy (I agree but  this is an editorial Board issue- over to you!)

Positive( also useful)

Like the way that works can be dividied into parts- helps with complex works.

Like the way that Roles will now be searchable.   Also appreciate the inclusion of curators and arts professionals.

Appreciate the logic of associating medium with work, rather than a person.  So person  + Role and Medium +work.

Tuesday; CI x2  ( I CI also Ed board)

Measurement is important and should stay as field for design objects. ( 1)

Both want clear citation and additional reading policies.

Issues with category confusion over medium- ie Musset eg. Is Industrial design of the same order as Plastics etc… (totally right- catgeories get covered by TAGs and medium is medium and relates to a specific work.)

Agree that we don’t need records for every associate- we need to define primary roles ( ie Creator, curator etc)  who get full records and secondary roles ( ie Kambrook in the Musset eg) who don’t.