Subject: Categorization and description was RE: Collection policy was Re: No space for vinatge computers in

From: "Cynde Moya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri May 30 13:36:00 2003

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:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 3:04 PM
To: [email-masked]
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

---

From: [email-masked] (Tony Duell)
Date: Fri May 30 17:42:00 2003

> 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

---

From: Vintage Computer Festival <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat May 31 11:34:00 2003

> 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 *

---

From: Vintage Computer Festival <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat May 31 11:39:00 2003

> difference (such as the fact that the PDP11/45 processor had many changes

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.

--