Re: Proposal for fields in DB

robin nospam at acm.org
Wed, 10 Mar 1999 13:09:44 GMT

On Tue, 09 Mar 1999 20:08:19 +0000 Ian Clarke <I.Clarke nospam at ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Here is a list of fields that I think should be supported in the
> database at a minimum...
>
> CD ID ... Artist Name ... CD Title ... Release date ... Genre ...
> Hyperlink ... Author ... Date ... lyrics(n) ...
That's a very basic list.

Nearly all of these fields should be available per track too (and
per piece if we have that concept).

I can come up with loads more fields just by looking at a few sleeve notes:
Performer, Conductor, Composer, Librettist, Venue, Instrument,
Recorded date, Recording type (AAD/ADD/DDD) Recording equipment,
Producer, Engineer, Catalogue number, BWV number, Price, ...
If you think about fields mainly for personal use:
Favourite track, Rating, Review, Comment
And for administrative purposes:
Updates another entry Submit server, Submitted by,
Submitter's signature, Moderated by, Moderator's signature

The list could go on indefinitely. Perhaps this is the problem: there
are just too many fields that someone might think are important for
some particular use, but most people will think are excess baggage.

Can't we just allow any arbitrary tags to be attached to a simple
hierarchy of set, disk, piece and track objects, with some standard
tags defined?

The absolute minimum to get right then is how the hierarchy links up (just
nesting should suffice?) and a very basic tag like Title. Some idea
of the administrative tags is required too. These are required for
all submissions. Everything else is optional and infinitely extensible.

Robin.

-- 
R.M.O'Leary <robin nospam at acm.org> +44 7010 7070 44, PO Box 20, Swansea SA2 8YB, UK