In recent weeks, we have observed at the museum that the potential of the intervention record [rsc550] is very significant. We believe that the section can be adapted to register other activities beyond the restoration of objects. Its name is well chosen, as it clearly conveys that it refers to interventions, which applies to both tangible and intangible heritage. In this context, it can be used to describe many diverse situations: excavations, restorations, consolidations, site signage, acts of vandalism... It does not carry a positive or negative connotation, but rather implies an heritage alteration/modification of any kind. It might also be useful to include a typology component to describe clearly the different kinds of intervention of the section records.
If this approach is accepted as valid, some modifications would need to be made to the record in order to give it a more generic character. To start, I would suggest some implementations.
reason[rsc562] > It sounds too specific, useful for restoration purposes only. Is it better to broad the definition or to keep as it is only for restoration purposes?restorers[rsc565] > It is insufficient. It would be better a portal where individuals could be listed along with the roles they perform.conservation status/diagnosys[rsc550] > change to status before intervention(?).restoration process tab > change to ìntervention process.
This is only an initial approach. The debate is now open...
