CCMA objects

[VladimirAlexiev]

ccma-ClassificationobjType-aat.xlsx has a bunch of different IDs with the same label: strange.
There are also 89 rows with no labels

• is this correct/expected?

Most of the mappings are ok (map to objects). Exceptions that map to activities/techniques:

• Graphics -> 300264849 graphic arts: a technique that includes drawings, illustrations and prints.
  • imho should be 300033973 drawings (visual works). 99% of the time "Graphics"means drawings, and not illustrations or prints
  • therefore the same as Drawing -> 300033973 drawings (visual works).
• Decorative Arts -> 300054168 decorative arts
  • should stay as is. I've had discussions with PHarpring and she says there's no object "decorative art". There are spoons, and silwerware, and woodworks etc, but no generic object "decorative art".

[kateblanch]

@cbutcosk

[cbutcosk]

The 89 blanks are what they are--those objects are not classified for one reason or another.

On "Graphics," those are almost all prints. For instance ID8318 is a lithograph. Maybe prints (visual works) is a good candidate?

On "Decorative Arts" I definitely agree it's a bad category, but what fix are you proposing? That category (both in the CCMA's data and in the broader history of its use by museums/collectors) has some major cruft in it. We have ritual objects (see Tripod ), tools (see Whistler's Palette ), furniture (see Sheraton Card Table ), and objects more conventionally thought of as decoration in western cultures (see Pony Begonia Lamp ).

Given that, linking to a technique that at least resembled the mistaken classification field it was mapping seemed preferable, but if you have a better solution I'm definitely at a loss on how to square that circle.

[VladimirAlexiev]

@cbutcosk

• Prints is better
• if you can't map to more specific types as you describe above, Decorative Arts is the best you can do

Cheers!