Categorization and description was RE: Collection policy was Re: No space for vinatge computers in
30 May
2003
30 May
'03
6:36 a.m.
I'm finding many aspects of this discussion very compelling. It got me to wonder some
things.
How would you categorize and describe classic computer items? Is there an accepted
descriptive benchmark in the collectors discipline?
Or better still, how would you *like* to see it done? What would be an appropriate
descriptive level of a flip chip, a unibus terminator, a cable, a power cable, a
backplane, a cabinet part? If you had a museum or archival collection of these DEC things,
what would you want to know about them that would make them useful to you?
Cynde Moya, MLIS
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Duell [mailto:ard@p850ug1.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 3:04 PM
To: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: Collection policy was Re: No space for vinatge computers in
And worse to the categorisation and descritpion. We
are in the process
of inventorying our collection, the PDP-9 is described as "a cabinet xx
cm tall, xx cm wide, xx cm deep with orange and black panels and an
operator console". That neatly describes a museums view of a PDP-9 !!
I am currently in a battle royal to get this point of view chamged.
Argh!! I knew I disliked most museums for a good reason :-)... This is
simply rediculous. A PDP9 is a PDP9 no matter what cabinet it's installed
in, of even if it's jsut loose backplanes and PSUs...
Mind you, I once saw a list of valves (vacuum tubes) that one museum was
offering to another. The list had a column of 'condition'. No, it didn't
give the emission and gm figures. It didn't even say if the heater was
continous, and the getter silver (not white, which would indicate air had
leaked into the valve). No, it described how clean the glass was...
I recently recoverd an entire PDP-9 OS thought long
lost from three
DECtapes found in a batch of over 100. Had "policy" been applied at
least 90 of those tapes would have been trashed on the grounds that "we
already have ten of those".
The obvious extension of this is that art galleries should throw out all
but 10 of their paintains on the ground that they 'already have 10 pieces
of canvas with paint on them' :-)... And that libraries only need to keep
10 books ('we already have 10 sets of bound pieces of paper with ink on
them').
Somebody is going to have to educate museum curators about the importance
and meaning of technical and computer artefacts...
-tony
30 May
30 May
10:42 a.m.
New subject: Categorization and description was RE: Collection policy was
How would you categorize and describe classic computer
items? Is there
an accepted descriptive benchmark in the collectors discipline?
I think I'd it at the 'option' level. For example :
PDP-9 processor with xxx DECtape controller and TU56 DECtape, xxxx serial
interface, ...
I'd give the version of any options where it really makes a big
difference (such as the fact that the PDP11/45 processor had many changes
and S/N 2000)
-tony
31 May
31 May
4:39 a.m.
New subject: Categorization and description was RE: Collection policy was
On Fri, 30 May 2003, Tony Duell wrote:
I would be more inclined to separately identify each major component of
the overall system. So with the above, I'd have:
PDP-9 processor -> Hardware:Computer/Processor:Mainframe
DECtape controller -> Hardware:Board:Adapter Card/Logic Module:Other*
TU56 DECtape -> Hardware:Peripheral:I/O:Drive:Tape Drive:Reel-to-Reel
* I don't have a special category for PDP-9 modules
Now, if all of these came in as one artifact, they would all be grouped
together under a "parent" entry in the database, linking to each
sub-record.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
How would you
categorize and describe classic computer items? Is there
an accepted descriptive benchmark in the collectors discipline?
I think I'd it at the 'option' level. For example :
PDP-9 processor with xxx DECtape controller and TU56 DECtape, xxxx serial
interface, ...
I'd give the version of any options where it really makes a big
difference (such as the fact that the PDP11/45 processor had many changes
and S/N 2000)
4:34 a.m.
New subject: Categorization and description was RE: Collection policy was Re: No space for vinatge computers in
On Fri, 30 May 2003, Cynde Moya wrote:
I'm finding many aspects of this discussion very
compelling. It got me
to wonder some things.
How would you categorize and describe classic computer items? Is there
an accepted descriptive benchmark in the collectors discipline?
Not yet, but I've been working on one for the forthcoming Vintage Computer
Festival Marketplace.
I've adopted a heirarchical structure as one would expect. It is a
taxonomy of sorts, with the top level genera being:
Hardware
Software
Literature
Component
Media
Ephemera
Video Games
Calculator
Toys
Other
I'm still thinking about it but I think this is a good start. I separate
out calculators from hardware because in my mind it seems appropriate. A
Burroughs hand-cranked calculator from the late 19th century just doesn't
seem like it should go in the same genus as a 1975 MITS Altair, or an
ENIAC plugboard, even though a calculator is, after all, "hardware".
Or better still, how would you *like* to see it done?
What would be an
appropriate descriptive level of a flip chip, a unibus terminator, a
cable, a power cable, a backplane, a cabinet part? If you had a museum
or archival collection of these DEC things, what would you want to know
about them that would make them useful to you?
To take each example you gave, in my system, they would be categorized as
follows:
FlipChip -> Hardware:Board:Adapter Card/Logic Module:FlipChip
Unibus terminator -> Hardware:Adapter Card/Logic Module:Unibus
Cable -> Hardware:Cable/Connector:Cable:Data
Power Cable -> Hardware:Cable/Connector:Cable:Power
Backplane -> Hardware:Board:Bus
Cabinet part -> Hardware:Enclosure
Some of these examples got me thinking, which gave me a chance to edit,
expand, and re-think some of my current heirarchy, which is good. This is
an exercise that needs to be iterated many times with many different
artifacts so that a sensible and logical heirarchy can be developed.
As an example of something that will require some thought: what would a
lone front panel be considered? It's a circuit-board, but it's also an
input/output device, but it's also part of the enclosure. For now, I'm
saying it's a Hardware:Board:Front Panel.
Of course, there will always be the platypus, which will throw the
heirarchy for a loop, but that's what the "Other" category is for ;)
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
7881
days inactive
7882
days old
3 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
CyndeM＠vulcan.com -
vcf＠siconic.com