Simon Wascher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think its quite clear that it is impossible to enforce whatever
> numbering scheme to all abc format users, so the only question is if we
> can find a solution that is based on an agreement of a large number of
> abc collection owners (and programmers) an so reasonable and open that
> others join it because they find the agreement sensible.
Yes.
> It could be something like the identification system in librarys,
> probably made up the same way (are there librarians out there ?).
I think the `tune/transcription ID' should be similar in spirit
philosophically to the `message ID' found on e-mail messages and Usenet
postings. That is, it shouldn't a priori try to `classify' the tune
according to some set of criteria (which we will never be able to get
a consensus on), but be merely a globally unique identifier.
My view would be that the most sensible approach for this would be using
URNs (or Uniform Resource Names), which are basically like WWW-style
URLs but don't specify *where* a certain resource is to be found. For
example, we could agree on a syntax like
urn:abc-id:<collection>:<collection-dependent-part>
like, for example,
urn:abc-id:skye-coll:miller_of_drone
There would have to be a registry for <collection>s to ensure that the
<collection> names remain globally unique; of course a <collection>
would not have to refer to an actual published volume of tunes, but we
could have
urn:abc-id:campin:...
and so on, where each owner of a collection would be free to make up
their <collection-dependent-part>s (within the confines of URN syntax).
This could of course contain an informal classification.
The nice thing about this approach is that as URN usage becomes more
widespread there could be a `resolving service' accessible to WWW
browsers and such that would map abc-id URNs to actual URLs where the
resource (i.e., tune) could be found. Of course use of this would not be
mandatory; indeed it would not be mandatory for tunes to be actually
available on-line.
If this idea catches on we should try and get a URN namespace
registered with the IANA.
> And
> the main problem will still not be solved, that nobody can stop people
> from stripping off all this usefull information when copying the source.
> Besides this there is a big problem with altered files in general: If I
> change the apperance of the abc text - like I do it regulary - "whose"
> file is it then, if I correct or alter the abc text - the music - what
> happens then ?
This is difficult to get right. There could be various transformations
of an ABC text that would change the bytes of the text but would leave
the musical contents as well as the `meta-data' (the title, composer and
so on) unchanged.
In my opinion, if somebody assigns an URN to a piece of ABC text that
means that he or she `signed off' on it as it stands, and that it should
be passed on either verbatim or without that URN. If a piece of ABC text
is changed then the URN of the `original' could be preserved in a header
line.
Anselm
--
Anselm Lingnau .......................................... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dost thou love life? Then do not squander time; for that's the stuff life is
made of. -- Benjamin Franklin
To subscribe/unsubscribe, point your browser to: http://www.tullochgorm.com/lists.html
