In looking at the recent postings on the subject of abbreviating the
Ampico numbering system, I've noticed three topics to comment on:

  First, the original subject: changing how Ampico classical
recordings were numerically referenced, both here and in future printed
publications;

  The second topic is the use of catalog numbers in databases and
storage configurations;

  The third topic, a major concern of mine, is the drift that occurred
in going from the first topic to the second.  I'm treating each topic
separately, but they are indeed interrelated.

First, while I can see merit in the abbreviation idea (since the idea
behind abbreviating the numbers is for clarity of date as much as for
convenience), the proposal seems to assume that everyone involved
understands both the original numbering system as well as the fact that
the numbers are being listed in an abbreviated form.

Mike Walters was dead on when he suggested there might be confusion
among novices if the abbreviated numbers were used without explaining
both numbering systems.  While it may not seem so to many of us,
certain aspects of our hobby can be baffling to a newbie.  If our hobby
is to continue to generate new interest, extraneous complexity can be
more of a hindrance than a help, especially to novices.

Now, concerning roll cataloging:  From what I understand, Ampico roll
numbers have three parts: first, a number indicating music type (for
example, a classical composition), followed by a series of numbers
which indicates a sequence (rather like a serial number), and finally
a number indicating approximate length.

I suggest giving each of these parts a field in your database .  The
user could then find a classical roll by searching using the first
number, a specific roll searching by the middle numbers, or a roll of
specific length by searching using the third number.  Of course, you
can refine your search by combining these search options.

You might consider setting up your roll storage to reflect this system
as well.  For example, you could store all your classical rolls along
one wall, in order by the middle number sequence, then perhaps sort
them further by approximate length, as indicated by the final number.

Lastly, the matter of Subject Drift.  I certainly enjoy reading the
MMD, and have had many questions answered that I would still be asking
were it not for this incredible resource.  I have noticed, though, that
sometimes the original posting seems to get forgotten by those who
respond.

The subject I've responded to above is a great example: Early on, the
original idea of merely referring to abbreviated numbers somehow
morphed into a discussion of using catalog numbers in roll databases
and storage configurations.  While these subjects are closely related
to the initial posting, they are a different subject.

While the initial posting generated a fair amount of discussion of the
original subject, the related topic of databases generated just as
much, if not more.  It occasionally occurs in the MMD that the original
posting doesn't get an answer of its own, but instead generates other
topics.  While this "drift" is crucial in serving to stimulate the
discussion, I often feel sorry for whoever generated the original post
and never got the information they're looking for.

I enjoy very much the informative discussions on the MMD, and look
forward to its arrival every day.  But sometimes I think its effective-
ness may be compromised by responses that may miss the original topic.
I for one, am more than happy to have the stimulus of related topics,
as long as the original topic gets proper attention as well...

"Hodie Christus Natus Est!  Gloria Deo!"

(Pardon my poor Latin, and my posting it a bit early)

Bryan Cather
Arlington, Texas
Bryan.cather@Platinum.com