Subject: Re: Archiving and access & analysis = (bo po mo fo?)
From: Morgan Sutherland (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Oct 16 2005 - 16:10:16 EDT
I agree with Richard. I think we are over thinking. Leave the complex
catagorization to Freesound.org. For instance, look at this wonderful
There's no catagorization except for time and it's great.
I think if we had tags, organization by artist, chronological
organization, alphabetical order, and organization by length, we'd be
If it dies, so be it.
On 10/16/05, Richard Wentk <email@example.com> wrote:
> At 19:24 16/10/2005, you wrote:
> >At 10:36 -0400 2005/10/16, Ned Bouhalassa wrote:
> >>On 15-Oct-05, at 11:56 PM, Kevin Austin wrote:
> >>>Such a project would face the same issues that all archiving has to,
> >>>namely, how to sort and catalog so that things can be found.
> >>Keywords might be sufficient.
> >In my experience, this is not "trivial" (*)
> It's trivial in the sense that the perfect is the enemy of the good enough.
> God-like powers of sonic deduction and analysis aren't required - just an
> ability to search a probably quite small database of items looking for tags
> that have a good chance of being common enough to be useful.
> This is more or less how Google handles a much bigger database of images,
> and it really is very good at finding things.
> As for not finding soundwalks on Google - remarkably enough, I found a
> Sydney soundwalk by typing in "Sydney" and "soundwalk". And an audio
> example of a iib V I cadence by typing in "iib V I".
> Considering that this collection will be *much* smaller, with a much less
> noisy and ambiguous search space than the tens of billions of items indexed
> by Google, I'd guess the chances of getting something useful out of keyword
> searches would be good enough to make anything more complicated unnecessary.
> Besides, once you have the data you can always reindex it later with a more
> sophisticated automated scheme if it becomes necessary.
> But if the idea never gets off the ground in the first place, you'll have
> nothing to index at all.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:13 EST