LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for METS Archives


METS Archives

METS Archives


METS@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

METS Home

METS Home

METS  December 2001

METS December 2001

Subject:

Re: Detail query re: filegrp

From:

Dean Rehberger <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 5 Dec 2001 11:17:08 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (81 lines)

MSU response to 'channels'

We keep the notions of "channels" and "tracks" separate. We have not really
addressed the issue of "tracks" in our audio extension. We define "tracks"
as individual portions of a recording (analog or digital) prior to mixing
(mastering), while "channels" refers to a signal that is already processed,
either as simple mono/stereo, or other psychoacoustic processing, such as
HRTF (head-related transfer function). The resulting digital audio file will
have a certain number and configuration of channels (mono, stereo, 5.1,
Dolby Digital (AC-3), Dolby ProLogic, etc.). For the sake of simplicity, we
have initially decided to use just one attribute "channels" and limit its
possible values with a closed set of controlled vocabulary. We agree,
however, that it may be good to provide a finer-grain description of
"channels", though, for instance, by using descriptions such as "5.1 AC-3",
one can collapse LC channel-track-quantity and sound-field attributes.

As far as multi-track recordings are concerned, we think of them as
consisting of individual digital files. This is, indeed, how they are
represented in the digital domain. With multi-track digital recordings, we
are dealing with individual files (one for each track) and a metadata file
that groups them together (synchronizes them) and contains various
processing information, such as volume, pan, effect automation, etc. We have
not accounted for that in our proposed extension. However, we agree that
there a need to do that. The LC proposed attributes do not seem to
adequately represent the multi-track system. Perhaps, we should come up with
a new set of fields for such recordings? I can see, for instance, many
situations whereby we will have to digitize a 16-track analog recording and
digitally represent the mixing information. Have you dealt with such
recordings yet?

MSU response to 'bitrate'

We think that "variable bitrate" is a possible value of the "bitrate"
attribute, and may not require a separate field.

MSU response to "filetype" vs. "fileformat"

This is a very interesting question. Indeed, the file type can be encoded as
MIME type, though we'd much rather keep it in the audio extension. File type
is not the same as "internet_media_type". What we understand by "filetype"
is, basically the way in which data is stored. It is a broader concept than
the MIME type. It is often referred to in the literature as "file format",
hence, probably, the confusion. The label is, of course, not important, and
can be changed to something less ambiguous.

Let me give an example of what we mean by "filetype". In addition to raw
audio data (individual sample values), audio file types also contain control
data. For example, a file can contain an edit decision list with timecode
and crossfade information, as well as some processing data (e.g.
equalization). Many such types use an introductory header that contains
information such as sample rate, bitdepth, number of channels, compression,
etc. Mac files, for instance, use a two-part structure with a data fork and
a resource fork. Audio can be stored in either mode. The raw type that you
asked about, contains only audio data - no header. It is a very popular
format among audio engineers and speech scientist. Header information must
be stored in a separate metadata file.

What we mean by "fileformat" is the possible ways in which a particular file
type can be encoded. For example the AIFF type supports many formats of
compressed and uncompressed data, e.g., the AIFF-C file format is a version
of AIFF that allows for compressed data. Several different types of
compression can be used including MACE, and u-law. The WAV file type, is
very similar, as it can contain comprise different formats. For instance, a
WAV file can contain data encoded as PCM, MPEG-3, or ATRAC (minidisk
compression).

Our intention was to separate type from format in a simple, generalized way,
without having to break the distinctions down into attributes such as byte
order, header size, etc. This detailed information can be usually inferred
from the basic type/format relationship. We thought we would limit the
possible type/format pairs with controlled vocabulary.

This type/format distinction also accounts for the problem with codecs that
you mentioned. The codec is, in fact, a characteristic of file format. Your
QuickTime is a good example. We could have "QuickTime" as the file type, and
"Qualcomm PureVoice" as file format. This is NOT the finest grain
classification, but we believe it is sufficient.

Hope this helps!
(MSU group:Bartek Plichta)

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
July 2018
June 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
January 2017
October 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
January 2016
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
January 2014
December 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
February 2013
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
June 2012
May 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager