Suggestion: add fields for ISBN and ISRC to the BaOI

As in the title. I think it would be a good idea to add these, as right now we use the Other field to represent these. ISBNs are widely used and printed on releases. I see the ISRC most commonly on Chinese releases, but I'm sure they are not the only ones printing them. One time I even saw a CD booklet that provided the ISRC for every song! I think both ISBNs and ISRCs are more widely used than the ASIN, which we have a field for.

Another suggestion would be to add a field for the ISAN, but I see them very rarely and I don't think it is much of a priority.

Does anyone else think these fields should be implemented?

I think "Barcode" in general should be more specific. We are jamming UPCs (12 digits) and EANs (13 digits) together as "barcodes," and even the text vs. "scanned" distinction is vague. Scanners can be programmed to emit strings of different lengths. For example, I have mine programmed to emit 13 digits, even when scanning a UPC. I carefully notate these distinctions in the Notes field, but would appreciate direct from the popup menu.

As for ISBNs, the situation is similar, as ISBNs exist in two standards: the ISBN-10 and ISBN-13.

If we are to improve one of these distinctions, we should improve them all.

I don't know much about barcodes but I understand what you mean about ISBN-10 and ISBN-13. I don't have anything against differentiating those two and providing different fields for them. I am always in of as much data as possible being added to a release page.

Well, the ISBN issue is tied to the barcode issue, because on many (most?) releases, the ISBN is not merely written as text, but is itself encoded as a barcode (itself formatted differently from the UPC and the EAN). So again, the text vs. scanned distinction arises. To summarize the situation, we have

Universal Product Code (UPC): a 12-digit barcode format
International Article Number (EAN-13): a 13-digit barcode format mostly used on products originating outside the US

When scanning both of the above as a uniform 13-digit number as I do, and as a typical store does, the result is a Global Trade Item Number (GTIN-13). Wikipedia summarizes the relationship between these three as follows:

«The Universal Product Code, UPC, has been a dominant barcode standard in North America since it was established in the 1970s. It encodes a 12 digit number (GTIN-12), unique to a product, which allows it to be scanned and read in virtually any major retail establishment. […]

«The EAN-13 and EAN-8 are other point of sale barcodes that are widely used outside of North America. A UPC formed in the United States can be transformed into an EAN by prefixing it with a zero.

«The Global Trade Item Number, GTIN, is an identification number that may be encoded in UPC-A, UPC-E, EAN-8 & EAN-13 barcodes as well as other barcodes in the GS1 System.»

Meanwhile, ISBNs (which evolved out of the earlier SBN) are an entirely different numeric catag system developed originally for books, and which has subsequently gone through two revisions, the original ISBN-10, and when a larger code space was needed, the enlarged ISBN-13.

These systems use different check digits, and have differently formatted barcodes. And in all cases, the problem of the numeric string that is written on the artifact differering from that which is encoded in the barcode presents itself. If a barcode is present, it is the number that is encoded in the barcode that is definitive and used by inventory control systems. The textual representation is merely a convenience for humans, and often has left off the check digit, or otherwise differed from what is in the digital form.

For our purposes of identifying the minutiae that distinguish release variations, however, these aberrations in the textual representation are significant. On the other hand, if you would like to be able to point your scanner at a barcode on a record, and expect Discogs to yield up a release, or set of releases, you're usually out of luck, because s here, if they have entered barcode information at all, have often only entered the textual version, and the system, although it could fairly easily inference one from the other in most (though not all) cases, does not at present even attempt this.

So we, the s, must enter both the textual and a scanned form by hand. My point is that there are a total of eight different kinds of strings to potentially be entered that someone might conflate with the word "barcode." Four are text strings written underneath the code itself, and four are the actual code encoded in the barcode.

Phew! I know that was long, but it needed to be said.

Yukabacera
ISRC

W've discussed that one extensively some time ago.
ISRC is a track attribute, whereas the BAOI section is designed primarily for release-wide attributes.
Imagine a 10×CD box set with 20 tracks each.
Then list all 200 ISRCs in BAOI.
Then try to figure out which is which.
And don't make errors. ;)

In other words:
What's needed for implementing ISRC (and other stuff) in a useful way are dedicated track attribute fields. (Example: track credits are track attribute fields)

I having requested a "track comment field" years ago already…

I understand that in regards to ISRCs that apply to individual songs. But if one code appears on the entire release, that certainly is not a track attribute, is it? And if it is, which track does it belong to? I don't see where else it is to be entered other than the BaOI.

Yukabacera
if one code appears on the entire release, that certainly is not a track attribute, is it?

I don't know. But if a multi-track release lists only 1 ISRC, then something seems to be slightly wrong, doesn't it? ;)
Either that, or it's not an ISRC in the first place.

That all said, I for one would really welcome the inclusion of such track attributes.
Just recently I was wading through all the different versions of Bill Haley's "Rock Around The Clock" (and others from his repertoire), trying to figure out which is which. Just in my collection I have found 6 different Bill Haley recordings of Rock Around The Clock, and there are many more: http://thegardnerfamily.org/haley/discography/songs.html#472

loukash
Either that, or it's not an ISRC in the first place.

I mean, maybe I don't know, but you tell me:

http://discogs.versitio.com/%E5%AD%99%E5%B7%9D-%E5%90%84%E5%9B%BD%E5%90%8D%E6%9B%B2/release/5589702
http://discogs.versitio.com/%E5%AD%99%E6%9C%9D%E4%B8%AD-%E8%91%A3%E5%B0%8F%E5%B7%9D-%E6%B1%89%E8%AF%AD%E4%B8%AD%E7%BA%A7%E6%95%99%E7%A8%8B-5/release/5690452
http://discogs.versitio.com/%E4%BA%9E%E6%9D%B1-%E5%90%91%E5%BE%80%E7%A5%9E%E9%B9%B0/release/5902027
http://discogs.versitio.com/FIR-%E9%A3%9B%E5%85%92%E6%A8%82%E5%9C%98-%E6%97%A0%E9%99%90/release/5853039

They look like perfectly valid ISRCs to me and these are all legal releases. What else could they be? In fact, I believe it is illegal to sell music that hasn't been assigned a code in China. Or at least it used to be.

Yukabacera
They look like perfectly valid ISRCs

Yes, the code looks valid.
If it really is? I don't know.

In any case – since there's only one code anyway – it doesn't make much difference right now, and it's OK to add it to BAOI the way you did. It looks like a "unique identifier" for sure.