These date codes were previously discussed in https://discogs.mejorespelis.org/forum/thread/963347 with consensus that they should not be added. This proposal is to add an explicit "do not add to LCCN" statement to the profile, and remove them throughout.
These date codes were previously discussed in https://discogs.mejorespelis.org/forum/thread/963347 with consensus that they should not be added. This proposal is to add an explicit "do not add to LCCN" statement to the profile, and remove them throughout.
The same logic applies to the date codes of the related/successor companies (ODS Optical Disc Solutions (2)), so I plan to add the statement to those as well.
Before we go too far with removal, it may be worth revisiting the discussion about LCCN for these Sanyo companies since the previous discussion was several years ago.
IMO, although they include a glass mastering date code, these are still company specific and unique numbers eligible for LCCN entry.
First digit = LBR#, digits 2 to 5 code for GM date, digit 6 is probably the sequential letter# of the GM on that day (i.e. "B" would be the 2nd disc glass mastered on the date).
brianvy
Before we go too far with removal, it may be worth revisiting the discussion about LCCN for these Sanyo companies since the previous discussion was several years ago.
IMO, although they include a glass mastering date code, these are still company specific and unique numbers eligible for LCCN entry..
Welp, my main interest here was to address the ambiguity of the current situation, though indeed I don't think uniqueness is sufficient to consider them catalog numbers - they are not sequential. In the discussions thus far yours has been the only objection, but I'm certainly ok with pausing the removals (about halfway done, I think) if you wish to discuss further.
Mylene-Clouseau
Because Sanyo, U.S.A.'s matrix numbers aren't sequential, they shouldn’t be in LCCN. As I’ve always understood it, sequential numbering is a key requirement for matrix-based LCCN fields.
Mylene-Clouseau
Because Sanyo, U.S.A.'s matrix numbers aren't sequential, they shouldn’t be in LCCN.
As a math guy, I would have to disagree. These matrices are absolutely sequential. Just because there is a "date" built into the digits doesn't mean they aren't sequential. If looked at as simply numbers and letters (alphanumerically) they are sequential by LBR (similar concept to WEA Mfg. Olyphant LCCN #s by LBR).
Examples:
S0707B is sequentially prior to S0707L (S0707B will alphanumerically sort before S0707L)
S0707L is sequentially prior to S0708A (S0707x will alphanumerically sort before S0708x)
S0708A is sequentially prior to S0718D (S070xx will alphanumerically sort before S071xx)
S0718D is sequentially prior to S0808C (S07xxx will alphanumerically sort before S08xxx)
S0808C is sequentially prior to S10808A (S0xxxx will alphanumerically sort before S1xxxx)
etc.
I'm probably looking at this from a losing perspective, but I think what I've said is factually accurate.
Here's the description from Sanyo, U.S.A.'s profile page of its matrix dating:
The matrix is in the form "ccc" "Aymddx"
― "A" is a letter or number assigned to identify the LBR used to make the glass master.
― "y" is the last digit of the year the glass master was made. 7 = 1987, 8 = 1988, 9 = 1989, 0 = 1990, 1 = 1991, 2 = 1992, 3 = 1993, 4 = 1994, 5 = 1995
― "m" is the month of the year. (1 through 9 = Jan. through Sept., A=Oct, B=Nov. C=Dec.)
― "dd" is the day of the month.
― "x" is a unique letter (Possibly indicating the order of daily production for the LBR, but this is not yet established.)
______________________________
Using the above Sanyo, U.S.A. matrix dating formula:
S1A13B was glass mastered Oct 13, 1991; and
S7A13B was glass mastered Oct 13, 1987
Even though S1A13B represents a disc made four years later, it will alphanumerically sort before S7A13B. This means the data doesn't reflect true sequential production. If these were sequential catalog numbers, we wouldn’t expect a 1991 disc to have a lower number than a 1987 one, which is why I don't think Sanyo, U.S.A.'s matrix data qualifies to be in LCCN.
Why is it so important to erase all this useful data?
Mylene-Clouseau
Even though S1A13B represents a disc made four years later, it will alphanumerically sort before S7A13B. This means the data doesn't reflect true sequential production.
Technically yes, that is correct. But since we know that Sanyo, U.S.A. only existed from 1987 to 1995, I'd argue that these are still sequential. 198(7) to 199(5). The Sanyo, U.S.A. sequence runs 7, 8, 9, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. That's it, still sequential. This detail can be added to the profile.
brianvy You mentioned the Olyphant mastering scheme: there's a marked (qualitative) difference between its Z00057..Z131633-style ordering and the (nonobvious) Sanyo encoding. And regarding the "technically yes, that is correct" collation problem, I noticed this along the way, which adds to my impression that it's not actually incredibly useful to have in LCCN; it's already in BAOI.
Edit: I doubt I'll have much more to add to the discussion - again, my main goal is to resolve the profiles' guidance ambiguity to either explicitly discourage or explicitly encourage the LCCN catalog number entry.
miss_me_when_im_gone
Fundamentally, if something can be used to place items in an order by following set unambiguous rules, then it's a sequence.
Yes... and I only bring up Olyphant because of the different LBR. It's certainly useful to have a sequence in LCCN because titles can be sorted by that criteria. If it's only in BaOI, the data can't be sorted.
IronyChef
my main goal is to resolve the profiles' guidance ambiguity to either explicitly discourage or explicitly encourage the LCCN catalog number entry.
