Generations: Master: Listening files

[Allison Smith]

Hello Group -

Who is using the generation term: Master: Listening for audio, and how did you define it?  I'm thinking about adopting it to identify our master production files (edited, sound corrected, or stitched) single file (non-segmented) programs.

By the way - why doesn't PBCore have a Master: Production option?

Thanks!

Allison, WPR

by the way, when I signed up with this list last year, I tried to sign up using my work/WPR address, but google kept flipping it to my personal gmail address (this account is a gmail account).  Does anyone know how I can edit my account, so that the PBCore-talk messages go to my WPR address?  Thanks!

[Bruce Jacobs]

It has seen little use here.

 

The term "master" was used so loosely, and the terms "master" and "dub" so infrequently as to be judged meaningless.

 

Bruce

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PBCore Talk" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pbcore-talk...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Allison Smith]

Wow, that assessment sounds really bleak. :(

I'm assuming you are talking about your analog archive?  If so, we have a similar situation. 

However, I'm really trying to tighten up generation terms / codes for our digital material (born digital and first generation masters from analog tapes).

If Master: Listening seems like the appropriate term for a master production file (again, Master: Production is not an option in PBCore) - if anyone has any suggestions or opinions about it - that would be great.

Allison

[john passmore]

There was an attempt to define some of the PBCore Generations by the CPB.  Check out the link:

http://americanarchiveinventory.org/project/glossary/generations/

I don't think we've ever used Master:Listening.  In a somewhat related note, the new home of the American Archive is supposed to be the steward of PBCore, so there might be some eventual clarification/narrowing on some of these vocabs.

Keep in mind too that you don't have to use PBCore's suggested controlled vocabs to be PBCore compliant. As long as you're using the @source and @ref you should be fine.  I would use Master: Production if it suits your needs! 

 

http://metadataregistry.org/conceptprop/search/page/1/concept_term/Master.html

John

WNYC

[Thom]

We (at LC) have a similar field in our MAVIS system for Production Status, with options like Tape Duplication Master, Original Tape, Dub Copy, Master Tape, etc. that came with the software. More often than not, LC has such heterogeneous collections that the documentation is so minimal and the contents from too many sources that the provenance is often a complicated matter to assign just one value which feels too certain for what we know. I've felt much of the use of these sort of  terms is archive-specific, also, because, we hold copies of items which are in other libraries (both physical and analog), and so, for our purposes, our first generation item is the earliest one in the archive (from which others were made). This was also the case when I worked at the Archives of Traditional Music in Indiana, which houses copies of items where the originals are housed at the Smithsonian or LoC. 

John, thanks for pointing out that glossary. That will prove useful if/when we ever need to map our database to these sort of terms.

Thom Pease

(not speaking for my employer)

Library of Congress

Packard Campus/AV-Conservation

[Allison Smith]

Thanks Bruce, John, and Thom for you input.

I've decided I'm going to use Master: production for our production level files as John suggests, and hope that whomever is in charge of PBCore in the future - adopts it.  It's the term that I think most sound archivists will be using anyway (based on the Sound Directions best practice), so it makes sense to call it what it is.

Thom raises an interesting point about determining the generation of (or, what to call) a digital file which (in our case) might have been downloaded or archived/created elsewhere.  We have many such files, which we'd like to keep in our archive/library for use, but not necessarily put much effort into reformatting/archiving/cataloguing according to our best practice.   I've attached the document I'm working on which illustrates our digital workflow and assigned generations, so you can get a better idea of what I'm talking about.

I'd like to use a different type of "generation" identifier for these files, to keep them distinct from those files which we have archived according to our best practice.

Any suggestions from the list - on what you'd call these files?

Allison