[game_preservation] Cataloging Standards?

[ommail at cox.net]

Devin-

YES--this is exactly what I'm thinking--I'm currently working with a friend on this, and I hope to have something to show soon.  At least this will give us a place to start from.

Joe
---- Devin Monnens <dmonnens at gmail.com> wrote: 

> A catalogue system was something I had been thinking about myself. These

> numbers would be something that all libraries would recognize and so they

> could list their catalogue in an online database that could easily be

> cross-referenced. Certainly, you could use a citation list with all the

> information I listed, but it would be easier to reduce it down to a few

> numbers. These should be pretty easy to recognize too. We could use any of

> the common abbreviations for system (AT = Atari (or AT2 for Atari2600, AT5

> for 5200, AT7 for 7800), GC =Gamecube, W98 = Windows 98, etc). Publishers

> and developers would have numbers or abbreviations as well (I'd stand for

> abbreviations though as they are easier to understand). You could probably

> number games based on year of publication in case a new version was found

> (that way, you're not adding new entries alphabetically). So you might say:

> 

> System.Number.Version.Developer.Publisher.Year

> 

> AT2.001.v1.US.Ata.Ata.1977

> 

> >From this, you could tell that this is an Atari 2600 game published in

> 1977, version 1 (it's a first print), it's

> the US

> region and the developer and publisher are both Atari, Inc. This

> narrows it down. If you can't guess the sample game, it's Combat :)

> 

> NES.001.v1.JP.NCL.NCL.1985.9

> 

> First see how much of this you can recognize. This might be the entry for

> the Japanese Super Mario Bros. Note that we can also add another number at

> the end indicating the month (or even the day too).

> 

> DOS.143.v1.21.US.Bli.Bli.1995.2

> 

> Ok, here is a PC game. We can tell it runs on DOS and that the version (or

> rather, patch) number is 1.21. It was published in the US and Bli stands for

> Blizzard :P A Feb 1995 release date narrows this down to...*drumroll*

> Warcraft.

> 

> However, we might want to list the patch separately. You could probably list

> .pa for 'patch' or the medium (fl for 'floppy', CD, etc).

> 

> DOS.142.v1.US.Bli.Bli.1994.fl [Original Floppy]

> DOS.142.v1.21.US.Bli.Bli.1995.2.pa [Patch]

> DOS.142.v1.21.US.Bli.Bli.1996.CD [CD version]

> 

> This way, games get listed together based on whenever they are added to the

> catalogue.

> 

> You can then

> have extra fields in the extended catalogue entry that indicate any

> special hardware

> or software you need to run the game (maybe also if the entry actually runs

> or has succumbed to bit rot?).

> 

> An online catalogue would make it necessary to indicate if the library has

> box, manual, game, and inserts lines as

> well (in case someone was looking for one of those).

> 

> Is this system closer to what you were thinking of? Is this level of

> complexity too much? (you could probably just have say

> DOS.142.v1.21.US.1996.CD and skip developer and publisher altogether). I

> think maybe this privileges release date, too so that the name of the game

> is associated with its release dates. You could divide these into genre with

> say 1.XX as 1 (action), 2 (rpg), and then the second number is the entry

> number.

> 

> -Devin

> 

> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Andrew Armstrong <andrew at aarmstrong.org>wrote:

> 

> > With that being the case, standard archive and library systems can easily

> > do "(Game) Name(s)" "Date" "Publisher" "Developer" "System" (or game type)

> > and possibly "Credits", and maybe (a broad) "Genre" or "Category" one, as

> > well as if it supports it a "Cover picture".

> >

> > What more do you think a library system catalogues? Looking at the

> > University I'm working at, that's what they do for DVD's, books, etc. etc. I

> > don't think archives would do much more, as a baseline for finding things in

> > their collections. Perhaps someone working on one can tell us. The only odd

> > thing would be the comparison to book's categorisations. Oddly, the

> > University of Nottingham uses an American system, which is odd mainly

> > because it has massive sections for "American History" but, say, UK history

> > gets dumped into tiny categories in "World History" I think, which I found a

> > tad silly, but hey ho!

> >

> > If we need to standardise those fields, well, are there any I've missed

> > out? We can put up some suggested fields as to allow people to, for example,

> > provide SQL database copies of what they have with those fields with

> > standard field names so that, perhaps, they can be shared (or just searched)

> > for historian's sakes if that was part of your intent.

> >

> > Do you want to write it up somewhat, with more what your intent is?

> >

> > Anyway, it's more fun talking about bigger databases, I'm glad it went off

> > topic a bit :)

> >

> >

> > Andrew

> > _______________________________________________

> > game_preservation mailing list

> > game_preservation at igda.org

> > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/game_preservation

> >

> 

> 

> 

> -- 

> Devin Monnens

> www.deserthat.com

> 

> The sleep of Reason produces monsters.