[Nhcoll-l] Has anyone had experience using Specify as electronic museum management system?

Fri Oct 2 13:57:08 EDT 2015

Peter

I think what everyone is getting at is a batch edit rather than a global edit i.e.  Identifying a batch of records using a search criterion and then performing a batch edit of those records to edit or augment the set.  Specify has toyed with various iterations of this idea and will likely include something like this in a future Specify 7 release - hopefully.

Andy

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 2, 2015, at 12:16 PM, Peter Rauch <peterar at berkeley.edu<mailto:peterar at berkeley.edu>> wrote:

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 9:39 AM, angie thompson <angie.c.thompson at gmail.com<mailto:angie.c.thompson at gmail.com>> wrote:
Tom,

... You cannot yet create a record-set and update only those records included in the set.

How would you create a "record-set" without explicitly specifying each of the records that will need to be included in that set ?

If you need to be that explicit, then can't you simply update each of those explicitly-selected records ?

It seems to me that the notion of "global" edit is not a proper characterization of the issue. It is precisely because there is no "global" set to search for, according to your scenario,  that you can not do a "global edit".

... Granted, if you have someone who can work directly with the SQL database, none of these issues apply.

The same issue applies even in raw SQL queries. How would you search for / retrieve an arbitrary sub"set" of records that need to be changed if you can not "globally" identify those records ?

The edit records limitation only applies to interacting with data from the 'normal' interface.

I have asked the Specify crew about downloading ALL the data for each record into a huge spreadsheet, fixing the records that need tweaking, then blowing away the current install of Specify and reinstalling it. Shockingly*, this was not met with much approval.

Sounds very dramatic and not a sound approach. And, again, how would you "select" the records needing to be updated in Excel if there is no "global" characteristic of those records upon which to select ? You'd still have to identify them one by one, and only then --perhaps-- update that group of records "globally". To do this, one would have to know something about manipulating (programming?) Excel, which raises the question about whether learning to use SQL sufficient to do the same task(s) might be a better alternative.

If your problem is not actually one of having to select/retrieve/update a set of records ("some but not others") that can not be "globally" identified (as you state., " An example would be if a taxa is split, with some saying with the original genus but others getting reassigned"), then just ignore the above comments, and perhaps clarify the actual problem that confronts you.

Peter

-Angie

*note: It was not really shocking that the crew didn't approve. In truth, it was more shocking that nobody fainted at the notion. I would NEVER seriously suggest this as an option. But I think I did get my point across for how much we want GUI based mass editing capabilities!

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Thomas J Trombone <trombone at amnh.org<mailto:trombone at amnh.org>> wrote:
Hi Angie,

If you and Lien don’t mind my jumping in, I have a question about Specify’s capabilities. Is there no means of performing a single global update operation across a set of records? For example, in the case you gave where some records are assigned to a new taxonomic name, does the user need to edit each record individually as opposed to performing one operation that automatically edits all of them? (Or perhaps some global updates are possible in Specify, but not in this particular case involving taxonomic reassignments?)

Alternatively, can data be exported, edited externally (in something like Excel or Access)  and then re-imported, allowing one to avoid having to edit each record individually?

We use KE EMu in my department at AMNH but I’m always interested in learning about the alternatives, particularly Specify. Thanks!

Tom

__________________
Thomas J. Trombone
Data Manager
Division of Vertebrate Zoology - Ornithology
American Museum of Natural History
Central Park West @ 79th Street
New York, NY 10024-5192
Phone: (212) 313-7783<tel:%28212%29%20313-7783>
Email: trombone at amnh.org<mailto:trombone at amnh.org>
URL: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__research.amnh.org_ornithology_&d=AwIF-g&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=CLFZJ3fvGSmDp7xK1dNZfh6uGV_h-8NVlo3fXNoRNzI&m=oyUNI-VgYKhdH18cnjvc_NgnfQS9ce5wVGs3dqCVH3Y&s=Cz2LjXhqX03zPHDaClSgOnZVYYyw8aF6IMH972mcbkw&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__research.amnh.org_ornithology_&d=AwMFaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=CLFZJ3fvGSmDp7xK1dNZfh6uGV_h-8NVlo3fXNoRNzI&m=z7Qo_ufelFNN-andM8YuVcOMHeswaYuyEbJqJ3dQNmg&s=2iUVEvjmbJwD1TDWaRux754w_a5y56CeooyXIvDVQvk&e=>

From: nhcoll-l-bounces at mailman.yale.edu<mailto:nhcoll-l-bounces at mailman.yale.edu> [mailto:nhcoll-l-bounces at mailman.yale.edu<mailto:nhcoll-l-bounces at mailman.yale.edu>] On Behalf Of angie thompson
Sent: Friday, 02 October 2015 9:52 AM
To: NHColl
Subject: Re: [Nhcoll-l] Has anyone had experience using Specify as electronic museum management system?

Lien,

My lab has used Specify database for years. I love it. Everything is *finally* in one database - there's a table for scanning and attaching accession paperwork and permits, a table for publications so you can easily link specimens to their citation history, all of our loans are 'in' and we can quickly find who is coming due. Use of authority tables and 'trees' that tie to lookup fields cuts down on misspellings, and helps keep mistakes down to a mild roar (our original database has issues with people putting data into the wrong field, such as in the taxon field, they would put 'Jurassic').

It's a complex thing but it's worth it. We make extensive use of wikis to train people, as well as to provide them with a quick reference. (wikis [dot] utexas [dot] edu/display/specify6/Specify+Database)

Finding the information you need is really quick, too. It's been a learning curve, of course, but we can now generate reports that count number of specimens per locality, how many research loans vs. outreach loans for any given year, and so on. It's nice having good tools to look at the collections with, but it's also a great help for gathering statistical data about how the collection is *used*.

I find one of the biggest drawbacks is how hard it is to change information once it's in the database. If data got added incorrectly, or even if you just want to refine some information, in many cases each record has to be edited individually. An example would be if a taxa is split, with some saying with the original genus but others getting reassigned. In this case, you would have to first update the taxon 'tree', then open *only* the records that are getting reassigned and edit each of them. Sure, it's a small thing, but if you have a lot to do then it gets really tedious and time consuming. The silver lining is if *all* the specimens get reassigned, you just edit the 'tree' and the individual records tied to that entry all change (this features comes with its own dangers, though!).

Hope this helps. Feel free to contact me if you have other questions.

Angie

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Huong Lien Tran <huong.tran at uq.net.au<mailto:huong.tran at uq.net.au>> wrote:

Hi all,

I am posting for my colleague who is working in natural history collection management. Currently her museum in Vietnam is looking to digitise their current specimens collections and is looking for an affordable management system. We've done some research and found that the common ones like KEmu or Vernon are a bit too expensive for their museum to handle. We've come upon Specify (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__specifyx.specifysoftware.org_specify7_&d=AwIF-g&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=CLFZJ3fvGSmDp7xK1dNZfh6uGV_h-8NVlo3fXNoRNzI&m=oyUNI-VgYKhdH18cnjvc_NgnfQS9ce5wVGs3dqCVH3Y&s=h2hRCbgZnUoX5-aCzHqvRq4CYxgbOclwaVOK6Rt7K0k&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__specifyx.specifysoftware.org_specify7_&d=AwMFaQ&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=CLFZJ3fvGSmDp7xK1dNZfh6uGV_h-8NVlo3fXNoRNzI&m=InDsYKRaBducE-o3tDKHCN6uuQ0o7Lm03va1z7qaUrM&s=HI7xEF19TJNrx5S6GJap8u-oro_8dmJyrNXJhL5-zis&e=>) and it seems to be very good in the prospect of having local technicians handling the development and maintenance the database, keeping the cost at affordable level. Nevertheless, we would really want to have some insights from professionals who had experience with Specify. Are there any pitfalls we should look for? Or maybe a contact points where we can get help when using Specify?

Thanks You,

Lien

_______________________________________________
Nhcoll-l mailing list
Nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu<mailto:Nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu>
http://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/nhcoll-l

_______________________________________________
NHCOLL-L is brought to you by the Society for the Preservation of
Natural History Collections (SPNHC), an international society whose
mission is to improve the preservation, conservation and management of
natural history collections to ensure their continuing value to
society. See https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.spnhc.org&d=AwIF-g&c=-dg2m7zWuuDZ0MUcV7Sdqw&r=CLFZJ3fvGSmDp7xK1dNZfh6uGV_h-8NVlo3fXNoRNzI&m=oyUNI-VgYKhdH18cnjvc_NgnfQS9ce5wVGs3dqCVH3Y&s=2Egtkne8Xn9TCqr3OqznK3BwQtxETl4f50e5CqV50C8&e=  for membership information.
Advertising on NH-COLL-L is inappropriate.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.yale.edu/pipermail/nhcoll-l/attachments/20151002/63b5e7fc/attachment.html 