At 10:16 PM 7/9/2003 +0000, Don Cox wrote:
>On 09/07/03, Paul T. Jackson wrote:
> > With regard to learning what to save, i.e., criteria, ( if someone is
> > already doing it, why save another or the 100th copy of a disc if one
> > knows how to get it or find it,) I'm wondering why ARSC and it's
> > members and other collectors groups couldn't mount a project similar
> > to the Gutenberg Project. It's been around since the days of Gopher
> > and has built a credible collection of OP material.
> > A common database and MP3s has already been suggested, but rather,
>MP3 or other lossy compression formats should be avoided for archives.
>See here for a survey of lossless compression methods for audio:
Think of the online collection as the catalogue. That may be - indeed,
should be - in low-rate MP3 or a similar, lossy format. The primary file
would be in a much less accessible format with much higher quality.
>I think something more like Google or Altavista but specifically
>searching for sound archives would be best. These engines keep on
>searching, so the links don't get so out of date as they do on web
The links go out of date as the library (or catalogue) is revised and items
are removed from the WWW or other filesystem on the Internet.
>So what would be needed is a new meta tag for HTML to indicate to a bot
>that the page contains sound archives. For example,
><meta name="robots" content="soundarchive">
That could be of value if there were also a commitment to eternal
preservation of that soundarchive. I keep my files up for two weeks. Others
may keep them up until they change interest or ISP. Others may intend to
maintain them as long as the Internet shall last - which may not be
anywhere near as long as people seem to assume.
[log in to unmask]