Re: [ARSCLIST] Record databases--was: MP3 player for public

["Steven C. Barr(x)" <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

See end...
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "D P Ingram" <darren@xxxxxxxxx>
> 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 <jon@xxxxxxxxxxx>

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