LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@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

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  November 2004

ARSCLIST November 2004

Subject:

Re: File naming for digital audio and associated files

From:

Susan Hooyenga <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 3 Nov 2004 16:03:33 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (158 lines)

Hi Steve,

Thank you for your help, and I'm sorry we weren't clear about what sort of items
we were naming.  The tapes already have call numbers assigned by the Alaska
Native Language Center; when they were digitized, they were assigned ID
numbers, which may or may be kept in the next phase of the project.  Right now
Andrea is working on digital transcripts and time-alignment files, so she's
trying to figure out the best scheme for identifying all of the files.

Thanks again,
Susan Hooyenga

Quoting Steve Green <[log in to unmask]>:

> Some thoughts on file naming for audio materials.
>
> But first, can you clarify whether you are speaking of a numbering
> system for physical recordings such as cassettes, or a file naming
> system for computer-based digital sound files? It sounds like you are
> dealing with a collection of tapes, probably cassettes?
>
> In practice, it is easiest and most efficient to store physically
> tangible recordings (we can refer to them as sound "carriers" as
> distinguished from what might be called the "sonic content") in simple
> numerical sequences. It seems to work best for cassettes, DATs, CDs,
> and open reel tapes to have their own separate format-based sequences.
> Additions to a collection or series simply get the next highest number
> in the sequence and are added at the end. A finding aid (database,
> collection inventory, etc) can enumerate the actual carrier numbers
> associated with a given collection or series. This is important and
> helps alert users when a collection has recordings in several different
> formats.
>
> What you want to avoid is having to write complex identifying numbers
> on carrier items and their containers. For one thing, most cassettes
> and DATs have very little room for writing on shells and j-cards.
> Writing on CDs and CD-Rs should be kept to a minimum because of
> potential problems associated with writing directly on CD surfaces. In
> theory, a simple unique number is all that should be needed to retrieve
> and re-file recording carriers. The number is made unique by the
> addition of a format code that can be either a prefix or suffix.
>
> For example
>
> CT001
> CT002
> CT003, etc.
>
> DT001
> DT002
> DT003, etc.
>
> There is a strong temptation to include additional clues to the content
> by incorporating initials, dates, locations, project names, and so
> forth. But these quickly can become unwieldy when dealing with all the
> different format types and dimensions out there. One school of thought
> suggests that you want all these indicators labeled on your carrier
> items because if somehow the recordings were separated from an index or
> database, there are still clues as to what the recording is and how to
> link it back to other documentation that may exist. While that is, in
> theory, a good argument for using a more complex compound numbering
> system, I believe that in a library, archives, or other relatively
> stable curatorial situation, the likelihood of recordings becoming
> irrevocably separated from the master shelflist are rather slim--
> assuming that databases and other support files are backed up and
> stored offsite as is the recommended practice.
>
> They say recordings collections are only as accessible as the
> documentation that exists about them. I feel that a well-maintained
> database can contain a wealth of information about the physical
> carriers as well as the provenance and content and can point users and
> curators easily and quickly to a unique, specific shelf location, so
> that complex, compound numbering systems are unnecessary. Even with all
> those extra initials, project code abbreviations, dates, etc. written
> on the carrier, someone still has to be able to decode what it all
> means, and that still falls back on external documentation that is
> maintained in a file somewhere.
>
> As for file naming of digital audio files on a computer down to the
> track or segment level: Assuming you start with a physical carrier item
> to begin with, and assuming that the carrier has a unique number like
> DT541 or CT229, it is then easy enough to add on a track or sequential
> item number to the file name, for instance: DT541.01. Again, you need
> an external database or other type of computer file in which to
> maintain information (metadata) about the individual track or segment.
> It seems to me that long, compound file names on a computer simply
> increases the likelihood of error in naming or searching for files, and
> there may be limitations on the syntax of the filename as dictated by
> the operating system.
>
> When all is said and done, I have found that, when possible, keeping
> things simple in the numbering, naming and labeling department makes
> things that much easier to track and manage.
>
> Hope this helps, and naturally I would be interested to hear other
> ideas and points of view as well.
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
> Steve Green
> Western Folklife Center
> Elko, Nevada
>
> *******
>
>
> On Nov 3, 2004, at 10:49 AM, Susan Hooyenga wrote:
>
> > I'm posting this for a colleague on a linguistic project in Alaska:
> >
> > ------------------
> > My question concerns file naming conventions. We are working to create
> > an
> > archive of the Dena'ina (Athabascan) Audio Collection, which contains
> > a few
> > hundred tapes, and associated transcription and alignment files. We
> > need a file
> > naming system for individual audio tracks (narratives) that addresses
> > key
> > identification information without being too unwieldy or too brief.
> > Some of
> > this information includes:
> >
> > -the ID number of the original tape in the collection
> > -the name (or initials) of the speaker
> > -the content of the narrative (ie ''tools'' or ''hunting moose'')
> >
> > Our main problem at the moment is deciding which bits of information
> > should be
> > part of the file name and which should be included in an index or some
> > kind of
> > metadata file.
> >
> > We'd very much appreciate any input or direction to any sources of
> > information
> > on file naming conventions and audio archiving.
> > Andrea Berez
> >
> > ------------------
> >
> > I'll pass the answers on to Andrea - thanks!
> > Susan Hooyenga
> > E-MELD
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
> >
> >
>




----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

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

October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
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
March 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
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager