![]() |
|
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 373
|
![]()
This is a subject near and dear to me since my day job is library-centric and is heavily involved in various classification schemes. Libraries are way ahead of the curve on this one. They have a large number of established classification schemes that work for just about every subject one can think of. Dewey, LCC and NLM are common examples. These schemes are good at describing books, video and music, but do not lend themselves well to physical objects. As far as I know the scheme.org folks are only group that has attempted this. And it's messy, to say the least! The approach I am using is not standard, but includes enough meta-data about the object to serve for insurance purposes. This includes the following:
- a unique identification number. For example VI-131 - basic object type (dagger, sword, jambiya, etc.) - origin - date and place of manufacture - a detailed description - the object dimensions - valuations I hope this helps. Good luck! Harry |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buraimi Oman, on the border with the UAE
Posts: 4,408
|
![]()
"The pen is mightier than the sword...and a lot easier to write with" !!
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,718
|
![]()
Quote.
- a unique identification number. For example VI-131 - basic object type (dagger, sword, jambiya, etc.) - origin - date and place of manufacture - a detailed description - the object dimensions - valuations End of quote. I doubt that an indification number couls be used here. Basic object type. Good idea, but some of the weapons are called different names in the different parts of India. A detailed discription. Good idea, but impossible to many new collectors. The object demensions. Yes this should be possible. Valuations. Out of the question if you have read the forum rules. Thank you for trying, but this is very complex, and I doubt that the different collectors can/will agree to a certain standard - butwe can always hope. Jens |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 373
|
![]() Quote:
Absolutely right. You could not do this with a group of collectors, and I wouldn't suggest such a thing. Successful classification schemes have formal bodies that govern them. What I am suggesting is that there is no reason collectors cannot adopt a scheme of their own, for their own collection. Those are really basic metadata elements. I have no doubt it could be improved upon. Regards, Harry |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
![]() Quote:
I also think nmany collectors already practice such habit. I keep a record of all items, split by (1) firearms, (2) white arms and (3) diverse. Organized by: - Item number ... although i don't stick a label to the pieces, which is an option. - Type ... sword, pistol, etc. - Origin ... Country, area. - Model ... basket hilt, box lock, etc. - Serial number ... when existing. - Marks/inscriptions. - Seller/trader. - Age. - Description details ... full as possible, incl. dimensions, weight, etc - Price acquired. - Date acquired. - Hiperlink to photos ... of my own archives. When i update my little collection to the Insurance company, i copy all the above, except the Seller/trader column. No need to transmit such info. Basicaly when you buy a piece, very often some of the particulars to be recorded are not available; then you have to browse the net, consult the forum and all that ... like you would give your kingdom to reach the info to fill all those columns. But that's what makes all the fun. - Last edited by fernando; 17th September 2015 at 12:51 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|