[Emsan-l] EMSAN database structure proposal

[Kevin Austin]

Hmmm ...

If time and other resources are to be invested in an important project, it is my experience that it is best to bring it to as high a standard as possible. While one never knows the directions that things will go in the future, if it is possible to have solid core values in the design and structure, then there is a good possibility of some survival, if not in the original form, at least in a form which can be transported to another platform.

This also means that the structure needs to avoid the creation of ambiguity, or exceptions, and also to avoid creating systemic biases to certain kinds of work. The design, in my experience, needs to look forwards as well as backwards which, as you have pointed out, means employing field and format structures (and relationships) which are already in use in other music databases.

It seems to me that the way to do this is to find a database that has many / most / all of the properties that one needs, and then to adapt this to the specifics of one for electroacoustics.

As has been found by many who have attempted this, two of the linger term issues are: boundary limits, and sustainability. The boundary issue can be summarized with the question: "I have created 20 pieces in GarageBand. Do they get listed in the database?" Is 'membership in the community' self-defining or imposed from? And how to handle the issue of composers _not_ wanting their work included.

Sustainability is in two forms: (1) continuing to get contributions to the database; (2) having a location where the work will remain for the foreseeable future. Number one is a systemic issue, for if composers, artists and researchers see the database having little value, it will not be used, and die.

Number two is a more vexing one. In the past couple of years I have seen 'established' associations (and their collections of information) 'disappear'. Think SAN, BOURGES, but I have personal experience of two others. I know of a studio collection that was digitized, cataloged, databased and put in a library. When the initiator left the institution, the collection disappeared from availability, and then when the library system changed, the database was no longer accessible.

My suggestion here is to aim for a robust and sustainable form and structure which means adopting and adapting existing forms rather than inventing anew.


Kevin




On 2010, Jan 7, at 2:53 AM, Ken Fields wrote:

> Hi Kevin,
> Though there wiki got spammed, I'm confident of their research. The question is if Prof Huang is up for the task. On the other hand, there's no reason this project must pursue cutting edge database stuff. Not critical.
> 
> ken
> 
> 
> 
> On 2010-01-06, at 8:16 PM, Kevin Austin wrote:
> 
>> 
>> I am not sure that the site cited can be trusted. I followed several links from within it and quickly hit dead links. The http://wiki.musicontology.com/index.php/Examples site seems to be from another planet.
>> 
>> As this is not a unique project, perhaps there are larger existing projects that could be used as models so that the fields correspond to existing database structures.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Kevin