I think we have a really great dialogue going on here. I will elaborate on
the points, below.
At 12:40 PM 3/23/2005, John Spencer wrote:
>Also, we've built these tools for our internal use, it's
>certainly not that hard.
Right, but I think Scott addressed that and what we're trying to do here.
Mounting heads and aligning tape machines isn't that hard for me, but lots
of people don't do it themselves. Writing the software would be harder for me.
> > I think the initial programming project was to provide a manual interface
> > to the BWF metadata chunk, so that presented with a BWF file, the operator
> > could read and modify the metadata.
>How do you control the operator's authority to modify? Should it be
>controlled? Will certain DAW applications overwrite the existing metadata
>when the file is opened?
I think these tools are intended for smaller archives and people like me.
Larger operations will require you to use the rigorous tools that they
develop internally or purchase with rights management.
> > It was my suggestion to add the import/export utility and to make it easily
> > accessible by standard Microsoft/Open Office tools.
>Agreed. I think that is why you see a large "dose" of XML baked into the
>latest Office flavors.
That is true--I haven't worked with that part of the latest Office all that
> > I do think that there is a place for this. If entity A provides a bunch of
> > BWF files to entity B, they could stand on their own w/o having the
> > separate metadata files.
>If entity A has 500GB of files and entity B would like to research them,
>wouldn't a 500K database be an easier start?
That wasn't what I meant. Entity A (me) transfers files for Entity B (Sound
Archive of Nowhere in Particular). I submit these files with
author/title/whatever metadata in them. It's all tied together. The SA of
NiP then ingests the files (essence and metadata) into their digital
The Sound Archive of Nowhere in Particular can also send some of these
files off to the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Centre of Nowhere in
Particular without having to extract pieces of a database, etc.
> > Also, putting metadata into the BWF on the data tape or storage system is
> > the perfect long-term backup to the main data store. I did not see this as
> > a search tool, but as part of an archive strategy and an interchange
>Agreed. I was merely pointing out that if you have many data tapes, it is a
>logistical nightmare to try and reload those tapes to update (1) common
>field across all of the audio files.
Totally agreed. I see the type of metadata in the BWF file as more
static/historic. The dynamic data--which, presumably, would be more
specialized to your collection would live in your database only and not be
written to the metadata chunk of the BWF files.
Richard L. Hess email: [log in to unmask]
Media web: http://www.richardhess.com/tape/
Aurora, Ontario, Canada (905) 713 6733 1-877-TAPE-FIX