Book People Archive

Re: feedback to umichigan on "books and culture", part 1

jon said:
>    Well, I'll be nice to Bowerbird 

there's no reason to start at this late date!            ;+)

>    and assume I didn't communicate clearly 
>    what I meant by "scan-sequence" (which is 
>    what I assume Bowerbird meant by referring 
>    to it as "sequence-number".)


my explanation of why the "sequence-number" is
of relatively little importance (and too volatile to
_ever_ be included in something like a filename)
was aimed at both you and perry.   and considering
that perry is employed helping to manage a _very_
large digital archive, he's the one i wanted to reach.


>    The "scan-sequence" is simply the number 
>    of the scanned image as the book is being
>    scanned from cover to cover. A book is scanned 
>    from cover to cover, including all blank pages. 

well, the "sequence" in which the pages are _scanned_
is even less important than their sequence as bound.

furthermore, if you're scanning "from cover to cover"
-- presumably in order -- then there's no difference
between the "bound-sequence" and "scan-sequence"
(except maybe the numbers are shifted up), is there?

naming files can get very intense once you get fancy,
but at root you should be guided by sheer simplicity.

i'll repeat it, just in case anyone else is still confused:
if you've named your files correctly, their sequence is
determinable from the names; it really _is_ that simple.

-bowerbird