On Wed, 14 Jan 2009, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> The Getty terms do seem to be more or less what I'm looking for, under
> "information artifacts by physical forms". I'm not sure if I can re-use them
> without a license from them though?
> And oddly it breaks things into different hiearchies than I would. To me,
> "CD" vs. "phonograph record" are peers, when the CD is being used to hold
> sound. But AAT keeps "CD" out of the "sound recordings" hieararchy, and
> instead just puts it in "machine-readable artifacts". I guess this is the
> danger of hieararchy, especially with such a slippery concept as form.
That's probably because CDs are more than just sound recordings.
For instance, there's CD-i and Kodak's Photo CD standard, CD-ROM, VCD,
CD+, CD-Text, etc.
They all use the same media, but the data written onto them is not
necessarily audio. What you're calling 'CD' is probably more accurately
'CDDA' (Compact Disk Digital Audio).