Forgot password? | Forgot username? | Register

Strategies for attempting a Parties clean up

Strategies for attempting a Parties clean up

PAC are about to attempt to contact all of our Donors in relation to a collection relocation. This will require a major clean up of the parties module (eeek!) and I'd be very interested to hear how others manage the status of party records.

Obviously this is a long running issue given the other Parties threads here. It appears a common policy is to leave Party records attached to Accession/Loans unchanged and create new party records when an address is updated.

My plan is:

1. Collate and refine a Group of Accession Records

2. Export to excel as a csv (the attached set of Source/Vendor party records cannot be opened as a corresponding bulk set, each party record must be opened individually via the field link unless someone knows of a clever way around this other than reporting from accessions or showing the reverse attachment???)

3. Update the csv to include current addresses and new contacts for organisations

4. Import the csv to create new parties and flag all with a Record Status of "Active Contact" and assign to a mailing group. This will avoid having to change the address of records associated with an Accession, but will cause massive duplication!

How do other instiutions identify the status of Party records? I'm concerned that in future these "Active contact" records may get linked inadvertantly to catalogue or Accession/Loan records. I'm considering using record security to hide the entire set so no future linking occurs.

Any ideas or advice much appreciated

Cheers,
Rowena
Rowena Craick
Collections, Research & Exhibitions
the Arts Centre

Edited by: - 01-Jan-70 09:00:00

Administrator has disabled public posting. Please login or register in order to proceed.

Re: Strategies for attempting a Parties clean up

Hello Rowena,

Not sure about the best strategies for cleaning the data but I have put a little document together to help you get the list of Party records of all the Source Vendors. This relates to the 2nd question you asked.

It is basically a a quick dump of the Source Vendor party IRN's out of Acc. Lots but it may have use for other tasks as well.

Let me know if you have any further questions.

Kind regards,

Ben Sullivan
KE Software UK

Attachment: Source-Vendor-Searching.pdf

Ben Sullivan (Axiell Manchester)
useravatar
Offline
9 Posts
Administrator has disabled public posting. Please login or register in order to proceed.

Re: Strategies for attempting a Parties clean up

Thanks Ben - that has indeed solved my problem of calling up the Venors as a Parties set, a handy trick to use elsewhere too.

On to the clean up now...

Cheers,
Rowena

Administrator has disabled public posting. Please login or register in order to proceed.

Re: Strategies for attempting a Parties clean up

Rowena,

Don't listen to Ben. He's been pen-pushing for far too long and doesn't really know the product he's trying to sell......... :-)

I've just spoken to him and he didn't know about this functionality.

Attached is a document outlining a method which does not involve exporting any data.
I don't know when this functionality appeared, but I'm using 3.2.04 and it may have been present in 3.2.03..perhaps?
Hopefully this will speed up your process, and it really will come in useful for other queries throughout EMu you may have (e.g. show me all the Collection Events /Sites for all these selected Catalogue records).

Best of luck

Dave Smith
Natural History Museum, London

Attachment: Alternative Source Vendor selection method.pdf

Dave Smith
Earth Sciences Data Manager
Natural History Museum, London

David Smith
Earth Sciences Data Manager
useravatar
Offline
52 Posts
Male  Website 
Administrator has disabled public posting. Please login or register in order to proceed.

Re: Strategies for attempting a Parties clean up

Ahhh - much easier :) Thanks very much for that one Dave!

Still trying to think of ways to classify particular Party records for particular connecting uses...

For example; we have Parties records with biographical info which are used to connect to Creator field in Catalogue. Other Party Records are used for contact info and address information. These records would only get connected to Accessions, Loans, Movements etc.

"Wouldn't it be nice if..." when connecting to Parties via another module, only certain party records would be searched and available for attachment. Perhaps this is a suggestion for the other thread with the wish list for the next version. It would be helpful if Parties attachment fields in other modules could direct you to specific party records with a particular status, using record level security or partitioning similar to Multimedia module???

For now it looks like the interim solution will be adding record status keywords to the Parties Source field as a temporary tidy up and asking cataloguers to rely on this in a list view when selecting records to attach.

R

Administrator has disabled public posting. Please login or register in order to proceed.

Re: Strategies for attempting a Parties clean up

"Wouldn't it be nice if..." when connecting to Parties via another module, only certain party records would be searched and available for attachment. Perhaps this is a suggestion for the other thread with the wish list for the next version. It would be helpful if Parties attachment fields in other modules could direct you to specific party records with a particular status, using record level security or partitioning similar to Multimedia module???"

You can do this yourself with the "Column Attach" registry setting. If you find the help page entitled "Column Attach Registry entry" this describes how you can configure an additional search to be performed on an attached module whenever you go to attach from a specific field.

All the best,

Alex

Alex Fell (Axiell Manchester)
useravatar
Offline
8 Posts
Administrator has disabled public posting. Please login or register in order to proceed.

Re: Strategies for attempting a Parties clean up

Thanks Alex - it helps to wish outloud! That should do the trick nicely.

Cheers,

Administrator has disabled public posting. Please login or register in order to proceed.

Re: Strategies for attempting a Parties clean up

Hi Rowena, Ben, David and Alex,

At Bristol Museum and Art gallery we are now also planning a Parties clean up, and have been through the same steps as mentioned in this thread. We have found the reporting function more useful than 'reverse attachments' by using Excel formulae to detect obvious duplicate records and highlight them.

I have linked an example Excel report to this post, that might work as is, or could be adapted to work with a different EMu system, - in conjunction with a screenshot of the report fields needed - for highlighting duplicates in the Accession Lots module: Accession Lot parties report: highlight duplicates
http://www.markpajak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Parties-report-screenshot.bmp

We have also decided to use the Column Attach registry setting to restrict various sets of Parties records to different fields in the catalogue and other modules. We are considering the use of the Roles field to act as the search function for the registry setting, but wondered if any other institutions had made progress with this and if so what terms and which attachments fields have they done it for?

We are at present looking into possible terms, and deciding which fields to do this for. Although theoretically possible, I think it would seem a little far-fetched and impractical to have a separate registry setting and search term for every Possible parties attachment throughout EMu - so where would you draw the line? Also we are concerned that the use of the Roles field in this way could confuse EMu users, as there are other roles fields in the catalogue. Perhaps restricting the availability of the Parties>Roles field may help, but again this would also have implications for users creating new parties records.

At present we have only used the Column Attach registry setting for Parties records attached to the fields Parenthetic/Basionym Authors. I have used the term 'Taxonomic Authority' in the Parties Role field, and thus the value of the registry setting is 'NamRoles_tab=Taxonomic Authority'

We would be most interested to hear of any updates from people undertaking similar parties clean ups, comments, advice etc.

Regards,
Mark Pajak
Documentation Assistant
Bristol Museum and Art Gallery

Administrator has disabled public posting. Please login or register in order to proceed.
There are 0 guests and 0 other users also viewing this topic

Board Info

Board Stats
 
Total Topics:
601
Total Polls:
0
Total Posts:
1362
User Info
 
Total Users:
823
Newest User:
Vijay Abhichandani (Axiell Ottawa)
Members Online:
0
Guests Online:
193

Online: 
There are no members online