From: "Sewald, Ronda" <[log in to unmask]>
> I'd also be interested in learning more about how other people are
> handling this problem, particularly for born digital files they're
> receiving from outside parties.
> I've encountered file naming systems where people have attempted to
> reflect the presence of signal processing or other types of editing in the
> file name, but you just can't capture enough info. there to clearly
> differentiate between multiple derivatives, particularly if the
> differences are subtle. Perhaps embedding a version number in the file
> names of the derivatives would work better? Then you could reference the
> file name in an associated system and provide all of the specifics there.
> It wouldn't be as quick as eyeballing a series of file names, but if the
> names aren't detailed enough to give you the information you need anyway,
> it may be preferable.
> I'm also curious as to how people are handling born digital files they've
> received in less than ideal formats. For instance, I recently participated
> in a pilot project that generated AAC files (lossy, compressed, limited
> compatibility with existing audio software, etc.). I'll keep the original
> file, but it seems like a good idea to create a more preservationally
> sound "derivative." This raises all sorts of questions like:
> 1) Should the original file name be retained or updated to play better
> with the file naming conventions used for our other files?
> 2) Should we tinker at all with the embedded metadata for the original
> file, particularly if it contains non-standard elements that would make it
> difficult to access the audio content later on?
> 3) How should bit-depths and sample rates be handled during the
> conversion, particularly for formats that measure resolution in kbps?
> 4) What do we call the converted files? Can we consider them to be
> preservation masters or are they just derivatives? If the original is
> already in a preservationally sound format, do we need to create a
> preservation master then just to avoid confusion?
> We're also receiving born digital video files and question #1 alone gives
> me a headache when I think about wrapped proprietary file formats like
As far as naming, I can comment here. I accept the original file name, but
that with (using "square brackets) a version number (i.e. "<title> "
Steven C. Barr