Re: [ARSCLIST] Cataloguing again--ARSC responsibility?

[steven c <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Karl Miller" <lyaa071@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, Roger and Allison Kulp wrote:
>
> > Either that,or alphabetize them according to label,and then list them
numerically
> according to the label's catalogue number.
> >    And there's your system.
>
> Some collections do file by manufacturer number, however, as a collection
> grows, it can require huge shifting projects. Many collections use an
> accession number for placing items on the shelf. While there are possibly
> some collections that try to classify recordings (assigning call numbers),
> I doubt this practice is still considered viable by many collections.
>
> The arrangement of recordings on the shelf isn't my major concern
> (frustration). For me, the problems reside in description and cataloging
> and the construct used for the preparation of the discographic record.
>
> I wonder if Google has any interest in an audio digitization project?
>
1) I use the Label-then-catalog-number system, both for storing the
phonorecords and storing the 3x5 cards (which could be thought of as
"data records?"). As noted, this can be a challenge to update (one
reason I'm behind in physically sorting my archive)...but I started
doing this back in the days before personal computers were even a
gleam in Bill Gates' eye, which would have made an access-number
system a challenge in finding the phonorecords I wanted!

2) I assume that when you say "discographic record" you mean a
DATA record, not the PHONOrecord (I use the standard library
terms to avoid confusion, since I do a lot of writing and
thinking about databases of phonorecords, which can get VERY
confusing if both are called "records!"...). In that case,
there are still two terms to separate. To me, a "discographic
record" is an element in a database whose purpose is to list
theoretical, not actual, phonorecords; in other words, a list
of all the records on one (or all, or a given selected set)
label, in one genre, or otherwise limited (except for the
one final, universal database of every known 78rpm phonorecord,
of which I dream...). On the other hand, a CATALOG record is
a data record which refers to one specific example of a
given phonorecord, which is held in the collection or
archive being catalogued.

Note that the second type of data record is useful in creating
or completing the first (except for the dangerous assumption
that the details of the specific phonorecord are typical of
ALL copies of that particular phonorecord!)...and the first
type of data record can be helpful in creating the second
(although one ought to verify the accuracy of the data for
the specific example being caralogued!).

Finally, one thing that ARSC could (and should) do is to
attempt to standardize the formats of these two types of
data records! This could in turn make the data from more
databases easily interchangeable between users. Remember
that what should be done is the definition of a selected
set of "core fields," so that each user could add other
fields as he/she/it saw fit regardless of whether others
needed or wanted to use such fields.

Comment ca?

Steven C. Barr