 |
 |
See end... ----- Original Message ----- From: "D P Ingram" <[log in to unmask]> > On 25 apr 2007, at 03.31, Steven C. Barr(x) wrote: > > Well...remember that, to me, "phonorecord" means "78rpm > > record"...if only > > because the imposing task of trying to list EVERY sound > > recording...analog > > or digital, regardless of format...that has ever existed is simply too > > overwhelming to even THINK about! > I think the task of compiling every 78 is still a hard to manage > project. But I am hoping that my project will build on quality > information with many sources to ensure the highest quality of > information. Of course user interaction will be essential. I don't > wish to criticise other sources of information either but I guess it > is easy to introduce errors when compiling databases from databases > without stricter controls. Maybe a sort of "Oxford English > Dictionary" equivalent with good controls, peer review and > interaction. Of course, some of the information stored might be > esoteric and only of interest to the purist, and some of the > information might only be used by someone trying to tidy up their > collection. > > > Now, a discographic database is NOT the same as a catalog (in spite of > > the fact that catalogs could be an important data source for > > such...!). > > A catalog "describes," using a set of data fields, the subset of > > phonorecords held by a SINGLE collector/institution/wotever. Thus, > > entries like "Condition," "Price Paid," "When acquired" and such > > become applicable (note that these aren't, and CAN'T be in any > > practical > > sense, part of a discographic database!). As well, a catalog should > > provide on the storage location of a given phonorecord in the > > collection; > > a discographic database has the option of identifying holders of a > > given > > phonorecord, but nothing more exact is needed. > > My idea is to have this master index and to allow then the individual > user (maybe paying a small fee to help offset the large costs of > hosting etc) the ability to maintain their OWN collection database > and a host of other features. Of course, when the user finds that > they have a recording not in the master index, they can submit that > information, etc and hopefully other community members will benefit/ > can add additional information etc. > > But the big question, would anyone use it... help to build in and > police the data records... and maybe even throw some dollars at it.. > Would there be any grants for this to help provide quality > information. I just don't want to licence/get data and merge this in > and introduce many errors and cause problems down the line just to be > the "largest" database. I think quality counds and expansion can then > be controlled, manageable etc. > > My company is presently paying for the system development (but its > potential use is not for 78s, but the system is being developed as > "media agnostic"). > > Thoughts, brickbats and shouts of "Don't me mad... " welcomed ! > 1: URL where you can (I think still) download the "Abrams Files"... http://www.78online.com/data/abrams.php 2: E-address of another person thinking of the same sort of thing (as "Project Gramophone"...) Jon Noring <[log in to unmask]> Later on, I can send you a VERY partial database comprising about 20,000 of my own half-vast shellac archive (labels & catalog numbers only so far...) Steven C. Barr