Welcome to Connecting to Collections Care › Forums › Group Forums › C2C Community Archives – 2012 through 2014 › Nomenclature 3.0 – a jar of silver polish? › Reply To: Nomenclature 3.0 – a jar of silver polish?
Although it is a temptation to add descriptive information to object names, my advice is to stick with the Object Names as they stand in the Nomenclature and by association in the Lexicon of PastPerfect. The Object Name and Nomenclature system is not intended to describe the object in detail. Rather it is intended to provide a way to call the object by a name recognizable to all in the profession within an accepted structure. Adding more specific terms: i.e. Jar, Jelly; Can, Repellent runs the risk of negating the power of finding all the containers in a collection quickly – regardless of their original or current contents. I rely on good description in the appropriate field for the specifics about the artifact (we use Pastperfect 4.0 with an anticipated upgrade soon). So, my two cents worth is to stick with the Object Name Jar, Can, Jug etc and describe the contents. You can always designate a Collection in that separate field if you have a lot of silver polishing items and want to find them quickly. I welcome other perspectives as I love discussing Nomenclature and object description standards 🙂