From LISTSERV@BINGVMB.cc.binghamton.eduFri Aug 25 11:00:12 1995 Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 10:55:23 +0000 From: BITNET list server at BINGVMB To: Julius Ariail Subject: File: "INDEX-L LOG9507A" ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 16:39:24 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Hazel Blumberg-McKee Subject: Re: Fee for dense text settled In-Reply-To: <9506302006.AA13914@symnet.net> ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Fee for dense text: as much as humanly possible. Hazel Blumberg-McKee (hazelcb@symnet.net) "Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song, / A medley of extemporanea; / And love is a thing that can never go wrong; / And I am Marie of Roumania." --Dorothy Parker ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 16:43:37 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: johno@spry.com Subject: Re: Internet indexing In-Reply-To: <199506302057.NAA09341@homer.spry.com> ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- On Fri, 30 Jun 1995, Hannah King wrote: >However, indexing the Internet as a whole seems an exercise in futility. >Consider what a waste of time and effort it would have been to index >gopher sites that were doomed to extinction by web software. I disagree with Hannah on this point, to a degree. It's true that Gopher, the once-touted child of the Internet, has quickly fallen by the way as the Web increased in popularity. However, it's also clear that the Web's popularity has already far surpassed anything Gopher acheived. The Web is here to stay, in one form or the other. However, creating an *exhaustive* index of the Web *IS* an exercise in futility, only because the Web grows so fast. Dare I liken it to indexing computer softare manuals? ;) There's an awful lot to do! John O. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * John Overbaugh johno@spry.com Technical Documentation CompuServe Internet Division Makers of Internet In A Box and Internet Office Award-Winning PC to Internet Connectivity Solutions * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 16:43:55 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Efthimis N. Efthimiadis" Subject: FUN and VUSE: IR system presentations at UCLA ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- The Dept. of Library & Information Science, Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, UCLA, and the Student Chapter of the American Society for Information Science invite you to two presentations: a) The VUSE (View-based User Search Engine) system for INSPEC by Dr Martin Smith b) FUN : An NF2 Relational Interface with Aggregation Capability for Document Retrieval, Restructuring and Analysis by Dr Kalervo Jarvelin DATE: Thursday July 6, 1995 TIME: 3-4pm and 4-5pm VENUE: Room 121, GSE&IS Bldg, UCLA PARKING: UCLA parking available at $5 (request lot #5 or #3) Reception with refreshments and cookies is provided by the UCLA Student Chapter of ASIS. Abstracts of the two systems follow: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ a) The VUSE (View-based User Search Engine) system for INSPEC presented by Dr Martin Smith Abstract CeDAR - The Centre for Database Access Research, School of Computing and Mathematics, University of Huddersfield, UK, has pioneered the use of view-based techniques to improve the effectiveness of user- interfaces to both bibliographic and corporate databases. The system presented is: VUSE for INSPEC This front-ending software searches the 5 million record INSPEC database and is a by-product of a research project launched on 1st Sept. 1991. The project has been funded by the University of Huddersfield in collaboration with the Institution of Electrical Engineers, Marconi Research Laboratories and STN-International (FIZ-Karlsruhe). The VUSE (View-based User Search Engine) system removes the need for the user to appreciate explicit Boolean statements by introducing a search strategy of successive refinement through the use of filtering views. These techniques are described in ``Peek-a-Boo revived --- End-user searching of bibliographic databases using filtering views.'' by A Steven Pollitt, Martin P Smith and Geoffrey P Ellis, Online 94, 18th International Online Information Meeting, London, December 1994 pp 63-72. Contact: CeDAR - Centre for Database Access Research, School of Computing & Mathematics, The University of Huddersfield, Queensgate, Huddersfield HD1 3DH, UK; Tel: +44 (0)484 472248 or 472147, Fax: +44 (0)484 421106, Email: cedar@hud.ac.uk, a.s.pollitt@hud.ac.uk; http://www.hud.ac.uk/schools/cedar/cedar.html +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ (B) FUN : An NF2 Relational Interface with Aggregation Capability for Document Retrieval, Restructuring and Analysis Kalervo Jarvelin and Timo Niemi Abstract Complex documents are used in many environments, e.g., information retrieval (IR). Such documents contain subdocuments, which may contain further subdocuments, etc. In practice, document database users often want to view selected complex documents in different structures and to obtain aggregation information on their subdocuments. Therefore powerful tools are needed for complex document retrieval, restructuring, and analysis. The FUN system provides powerful filter conditions, full restructuring capability and multi-attribute multi-level data aggregation of structured complex documents represented in the non-first-normal-form (NF2) relational model. In particular, The FUN system provides these capabilities in a truly declarative and powerful interface. Contact: Kalervo Jarvelin, principal investigator, Dept. of Information Studies, University of Tampere, P.O.Box 607, FIN-33101 TAMPERE, Finland; Fax : +358 31 215 6560, Tel (home) : +358 31 317 1794, Email : kalervo.jarvelin@uta.fi +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 16:44:11 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Jonathan Jermey Subject: Re: Using bis and ter ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >----------------------------Original message---------------------------- > While I've never ever seen bis, ter, or their followers in my one >year as an indexer, I've had several occasions when I've wished I could >indicate that there were separate and separated occurrences of the same >topic on a single page. If bis and ter aren't winning many friends out >there, has anyone used any alternative approaches? (I don't think 23(2) >is even as enlightening to the index user as bis would be, unless there is >a note at the front of the index as to what it means...which could be done >with bis as well. This relates to another indexing issue which has worried me. Some indexers, for some indexes, use 12, 13, 14, 15 to indicate that a subject is mentioned in isolated occurences on each of the pages from 12 to 15, while they use 12-15 to indicate continuous treatment of the subject over that range. There is, however, no way of telling the user that the subject is mentioned in an isolated occurence at the top of page 12, and then in a continuous treatment from the bottom of page 12 to page 15. It seems to me that the attempt to give extra information can actually result in the user missing some information. I feel that the more complicated we make indexes, the more obligation we have to make extra sure that we do not disadvantage users by our efforts. We also have to realise that if indexing practices vary from one book to the next, users will not know what to expect. By making our own index extra fancy, we may actually lead users to have wrong expectations when using other indexes. I also feel that indexing time and energy are probably best spent ensuring that our subject analysis and depth of coverage are correct, rather than working on procedures used in a minority of indexes, with potential for confusion. Glenda Browne. Jonathan Jermey & Glenda Browne Blaxland NSW Australia 061-47-398-199 jonathan@magna.com.au "From the motherboard on the sister ship to the brotherhood in the fatherland." ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 16:44:34 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Eric Dahlin Subject: ACH/ALLC '95 ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- ACH/ALLC '95 July 11-15, 1995 Association for Computers and the Humanities Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing University of California, Santa Barbara ================================================= If you've sent in your registration for this year's conference but haven't yet received a confirmation, please call or send a note to: Sally Vito Campus Conference Services University of California Santa Barbara, California 93106-6120 Phone: (805) 893-3072 Fax: (805) 893-7287 E-mail: hr03vito@ucsbvm.ucsb.edu She'll be able to make sure that your registration has been received and that everything is in order. Eric Dahlin Local Organizer ACH/ALLC '95 HCF1DAHL@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu ===================================================== ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 16:44:48 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Dwight Walker Subject: Nat'l Fed'n of Abstract. & Indexing Soc. - scholarly publishing ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- --=====================_805028785==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I was approached by NFAIS to load their article on scholarly publishing onto our web site: http://www.zeta.org.au/~dwalker/nfaissch.htm I've attached it to save Zeta dying with overload ;-) They are an old federation of indexing companies which have banded together to promote standards in the indexing and abstracting area. Membership includes OCLC and BIOSIS. Examples of a secondary publisher in Australia would be CSIRO (Govt Research body) who produce the SAGE database containing abstracts and citations from high school level science and geography magazines. A teacher would be able to find an article on the Nepean River (near Sydney) pollution for her Year 10's ecology class assignment. Have a read... Dwight Webmaster AusSI --=====================_805028785==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="NFAISSCH.HTM"

National Federation of Abstracting and Information Services

NFAIS Board - Indexing Organisations

Primary/Secondary Publishers: A Complementary Relationship

Introduction

Founded in 1958, the National Federation of Abstracting and Information Services (NFAIS) is an organization of more than sixty of the world's leading publishers of databases and information services in the sciences, engineering,social sciences, business, the arts, and the humanities, representing both the for-profit, non-profit, and government sectors. NFAIS members are the international leaders in information collection, organization, and dissemination, collectively providing a broad range of information products and services both in traditional and electronic media.

NFAIS believes that widespread access to information benefits all participants in the information distribution continuum - authors, primary publishers, secondary publishers, distributors, libraries, and users. NFAIS also believes that any action that could negatively impact information dissemination must be thoroughly and carefully deliberated in order to ensure that an equitable balance of the interests of all the participants in information distribution is maintained.

Background

The principal objective of both the primary and secondary journal publishers is the same - to facilitate the transfer of information - with each providing a unique service to the information community and to each other. The primary publishers have traditionally provided the publishing framework for scholarly research, facilitating functions such as the collecting, organizing, and peer review of manuscripts, in addition to the editing, printing, distributing, and archiving of the final publications.

The secondary publishers have provided a convenient information access/retrieval service by functioning as a "front end" to multiple journals across thousands of publishers, with their ability to index, abstract, and classify literature. Secondary publishers serve to address researchers' needs both in the breadth and depth of publications covered, providing ease of access to current and archival material produced by the primary publishing community. As a result, secondary publishers provide a beneficial distribution mechanism for primary publications. From one perspective, the secondary publishing community has served as a marketing arm for the primary publishers - alerting potential users to new journals as well as to existing journals either unknown or unavailable to them.

Traditionally, the respective roles of the primary and secondary publishers have been complementary, not competitive, and the relationship has been mutually beneficial - and beneficial to users - throughout its history. Therefore, changes to this long-standing relationship must be thoughtfully - and mutually - crafted to ensure that the balance of benefits is equitably maintained.

Current Status

Today the publishing industry is in the process of being transformed by economic forces and advances in information technology so that the traditional roles within the industry are being redefined. Indeed, the combined pressures of advancing technology, changing usage patterns, and decreasing library budgets have accelerated the decline in subscriptions to journals and indices alike, with libraries sharing resources via networks. In addition, the electrocopying of both printed and electronic information, legally and sometimes illegally, is becoming increasingly problematic. The electronic delivery of information, the unlimited potential usage of information in this format, and the resultant overall impact on the economics of publishing and information distribution has forced all industry participants not only to reshape their businesses and functions, but also to rethink their relationships with one another.

Indeed, in response to the current economic dynamics in the publishing industry, primary publishers have begun to look to the secondary publishers for a new source of revenue. While journals have been provided, for the most part, to secondary publishers on a complimentary basis in order to gain market exposure, some primary publishers are beginning to charge for these subscriptions. Additionally, a few primary publishers are considering licensing and charging for the use of author abstracts in secondary services. Should these practices become widespread reality, the existing economic foundation of information distribution will be negatively impacted, and the flow of information along the distribution chain will be impaired.

Potential Scenarios

The immediate financial impact of the actions now being taken by some primary publishers holds the potential for across-the-board price increases, as secondary publishers begin to incur expenses for the thousands of journals that they presently abstract and index - expenses that can total millions of dollars for any one abstracting and indexing service. Restrictions on and payments for use of author abstracts will only increase the expense line. One could predict a decline in the use of author abstracts (although eventually the authors themselves may rebel on this point) as well as a decline in the growth of coverage in secondary services as the secondary publishing community attempts to balance production costs and product quality/utility. Primary publishers will find it increasingly difficult to have journals covered by secondary publishers and, as a result, libraries and users will have less ease-of-exposure to titles, particularly new ones.

In extreme cases, the smaller secondary services face possible extinction - if they and their customer base cannot absorb the additional costs being levied, possibly creating information voids for users in small niche markets. The relationship that was once forged to facilitate the broadest possible distribution of information may fall well short of that objective in the not-too-distant future.

Recommendations

NFAIS recognizes that the publishing industry is in a state of flux. NFAIS also recognizes that the primary and secondary publishing communities face common concerns - increased use of electronic media and networks, decreased print subscriptions, increased focus on copyright/intellectual property rights, the need for creative pricing and new revenue opportunities, and the ever-present threat of new entrants to the business who may usurp the traditional functions currently fulfilled by primary and secondary publishers. These issues are intricately interwoven and inter-related, and how the two publishing communities attempt to resolve the issues will not only impact both, but also will have a rippling effect throughout the information distribution chain. Creative responses to these issues can be developed if both publishing communities work towards that objective - together.

NFAIS strongly recommends that the primary and secondary publishers establish strong and open channels of communication to more fully understand the environments within which the two communities operate. To this end, NFAIS will initiate the establishment of working groups of primary publishers, secondary publishers, and others in the information chain who may be impacted by any actions taken by the two publishing communities. These working groups, consisting of representatives from key organizations will meet to discuss issues and recommend actions for resolving both current problems and broader issues facing information providers and users.

With the primary and secondary publishers moving forward together - as complements - in this time of change, and with the input of the creators and users of information, NFAIS believes that policy recommendations can be ultimately developed that will ensure that the economics of information flow along the distribution chain is gradually adjusted in a way to keep the financial viability of the evolving publishing industry in concert with the purchasing power and needs of the marketplace.


For further information, contact:
  • Dick Kaser,
  • Executive Director, National Federation of Abstracting and Information Servi ces,
  • 1518 Walnut Street, Suite 307, Philadelphia, PA 19102.
  • Phone: 215 893-1561, Fax: 215 893-1564,
  • Internet: nfais@hslc.org
This statement was developed by the NFAIS Information Policy and Copyright Committee, Bonnie Lawlor, chair, and has been approved for release by the NFAIS Board of Directors:

5-1-95
© 1995, NFAIS
AusSI Introduction
(Updated 1 July 1995) --=====================_805028785==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ---------------------------------------------------------- Dwight Walker +61-2-3986726 (h) +61-2-4393750 (w) W-F My Home Page: http://www.zeta.org.au/~dwalker AusSI Home Page: http://www.zeta.org.au/~dwalker/aussi.htm --=====================_805028785==_-- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 16:45:05 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Matt Miller Subject: Re: Internet indexing In-Reply-To: <199506292113.OAA06928@netcom21.netcom.com> ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- If you have not seen this site for an internet index/search engine then try it: http://www.opentext.com:8080/omw.html Matt Miller memiller@netcom.com On Thu, 29 Jun 1995, Linda Sloan wrote: > ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- > Are there any indexers here involved in indexing Internet resources? > I've been checking out Internet indexing services and am looking to see > if I can get involved in this. So far I've done a search on Yahoo and > came up with some interesting things there. Has anyone else been doing > research in this area? > > Linda Kenny Sloan > indexer@ix.netcom.com > ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 5 Jul 1995 16:45:46 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Matt Miller Subject: Bis flopped In-Reply-To: <199506262006.NAA00255@netcom11.netcom.com> ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Okay, so bis is not popular among indexers of today. I am a new indexer, currently finishing up my first book. I read Knight, Mulvany and others in an attempt to learn the science of indexing. I cannot remember what Mulvany said about bis (I got the book from the library) but I do remember her commending Knight. I enjoyed reading Knight and thought bis sounded like a good idea and a textbook answer to the discussion at hand. A colleague of mine, who received his doctorate reading British literature, was very familiar with the use of biz in indexes, and passim as well. I have lurked on this list for some time to learn from all of you experienced indexers and appreciate your comments. I have not used bis or passim in my first index. Matt Miller memiller@netcom.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 14:43:34 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: JPerlman@aol.com Subject: Re: Bis flopped ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- As an experienced indexer (many years), I'd like to put my vote in for simplicity and usability of indexes. To suggest using "bis" or "ter" would simply make indexes more complicated than they need to be. I daresay that the ordinary user of an index will be happy to be led to the portion of the book, the pages, on which the desired subject is discussed. Whether it appears once or twice on the page is, I believe, irrelevant. I suspect the index-user wouldn't care to know this either. When I use an index myself, I don't stop when I find the first reference to my subject. I look on the page before, and skim a bit after, to put the information gleaned into context. I often continue reading past the reference page, to see where the author is going with his topic or argument. I've found so many people who say "index? -- what's that?? when I tell them I'm an indexer. Indexes are not commonly used, nor is indexing methodology something that most people think about. An index is simply a tool - nothing more, nothing less. It's a kind of intellectual digest and roadmap of what's in the book. So ... I'd vote for simplicity and thoroughness in my indexes, and the greatest usability possible. We need to guide the researcher -- that's all! And I can't for the life of me see what "bis" or "biz" or "ter" have to add to any index for the "man in the street." Now, before anybody starts throwing things at me, let me add that if, in the arena of scholarly research, or in any other discipline, these abbreviations are commonly known and used, then I'd say by all means, continue to use them. I would never suggest doing away with something that has meaning and usefulness. But to suggest that their inclusion in all indexes would be a boon .... I doubt it! My vote is to keep books, and their indexes, as user-friendly as possible, and not complicate things, obfuscate, or load them down with conventions from a bygone era. Books are in stiff competition with all kinds of online information these days. We need to keep up with the times, and keep books and their indexes easy to use and quickly meaningful. Does anybody out there agree with me? Janet Perlman Southwest Indexing, Scottsdale, Arizona jperlman@aol.com or (602) 569-7302 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 14:44:25 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: JPerlman@aol.com Subject: Re: MeSH ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Can somebody provide me with an address and ordering information for the medical thesaurus MeSH -- all the various volumes. I'd appreciate it. Thanks in advance! Janet Perlman jperlman@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 14:44:37 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: David T Terry Subject: AD: LIS Seminar in Austin, Texas ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Graduate School of Library and Information Science (GSLIS) SZB 564, MC D7000 The University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX 78712-1276 CONTINUING EDUCATION SEMINAR (1) Updated July 5, 1995 Friday, July 21, 1995 -- one-day seminar, "Caught in the Internet: Fishing for Electronic Information," will be held at the University of Texas at Austin, Joe C. Thompson Conference Center. Fee is $40 (includes late fee). Speaker is Christine Peterson, automation consultant at the Texas State Library. Co-sponsored by Library Development Division, Texas State Library. Do you feel lost when the discussion turns toward the Internet? Would you like to get a handle on the Internet and what it can provide for you and your library? If you are interested in learning about the Internet, then this workshop is for you! Anyone with basic computer experience is welcome. This workshop may be particularly helpful to those who currently have Internet access, will have Internet access within the next year, or those who are thinking about connecting to the Internet. This full day workshop is designed to provide librarians with a solid basis for beginning exploration of the Internet. The workshop objectives are: to define the Internet and explain how it works; to explain terms or "jargon" associated with the Internet; to demonstrate the basics of Internet use; and to view the Internet as a library resource. For information, or to register, call David Terry at (512)471-8806; email: gldt@utxdp.dp.utexas.edu; fax (512)471-3971. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 14:44:48 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Lynn Moncrief Subject: Re: Bis flopped ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Matt, Bis may have flopped, but you're a big hit in my book. Had you not mentioned bis and posted Knight's passage about it, I would have never known of it. You made a great contribution to our discussion here, Matt, by bringing up a little-known aspect of indexing regardless of how some of us feel about actually using bis in our indexes. Please don't hesitate to jump in again. I learned something from you that I didn't know before and I truly appreciate that. Wishing you success in your new indexing business!! Lynn Moncrief TECHindex & Docs You wrote: > >----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >Okay, so bis is not popular among indexers of today. I am a new indexer, >currently finishing up my first book. I read Knight, Mulvany and others in >an attempt to learn the science of indexing. I cannot remember what >Mulvany said about bis (I got the book from the library) but I do remember >her commending Knight. I enjoyed reading Knight and thought bis sounded >like a good idea and a textbook answer to the discussion at hand. A >colleague of mine, who received his doctorate reading British literature, >was very familiar with the use of biz in indexes, and passim as well. I >have lurked on this list for some time to learn from all of you >experienced indexers and appreciate your comments. I have not used bis or >passim in my first index. > > >Matt Miller >memiller@netcom.com > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 15:14:16 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: doug montalbano Subject: Indexing the Internet? Why not? ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- John Overbaugh expressed the opinion (if I understand correctly) that indexing the Internet would be an exercise in futility? Why? I am not an indexer -- I lurk here as part of my job as a technical & scientific writer-editor; I *have* worked in libraries in my dim past, as a bibliographic searcher and part-time cataloger -- but I do use the Web. It would seem to me that the technologies exist already for *scanning* the whole Web. This is unwieldy and sometimes not too helpful, but it can be done. I imagine, therefore, that soon it may be possible to do it quickly (faith in technological evolution: fallacious? we'll see). It may even behoove indexers to consider the *ways* in which links may be quickly added to indexes. More, I would argue that indexers in the know could suggest (and proselytize) sensible formats or even HTML tags, to allow easier indexing even under current technology. It really is a new game, folks. Just my naive, not-a-pro-indexer's inflationary 2 cents' worth. doug_montalbano@cc.chiron.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 15:14:28 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Carolyn Weaver Subject: Hardware backups (AOL subscribers can ignore!) ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- A couple of weeks ago I started a thread in the America Online Indexing folder about backup systems for indexers that I thought INDEX-L might be interested in as well. (AOL subscribers can delete; you've heard all this!) My desktop system (a Compaq 486) crashed late on a Saturday afternoon, with about 40 pages to go on a 600 page book and the deadline looming. Conveniently, I had bought a laptop computer the week before, and had just finished loading in all my key software (Cindex, MS-Office, and communications software) the evening before. I routinely back up Cindex indexes in process to floppy every 2-3 hours, and had just finished the weekly hard drive backup (no, I don't back up daily since I'm a part-timer) when the keyboard decided to go bonkers. So no data was lost, and I was able to use the Cindex .dat file to finish the index via the laptop with no damage except to my nerves. (Just got the Compaq back from the shop after a WEEK AND A HALF(!) with a new keyboard, BTW.) The question that I posed to AOL has, What does everybody use as a backup against hardware failures (assuming, of course, that EVERYBODY backs up critical files regularly)? A second computer? Rental? Borrow from a friend? Live-in technician? Prayer? The universal response (about 10 replies, I think, mostly from full-time indexers) was that everybody has a second computer for emergencies - either a notebook or a second desktop setup. And most full-timers run daily hard drive backups, in addition to frequent index backups to floppies. As far as I know, this is not something that gets widely discussed in the literature. We're all aware of the importance of regular data backup; but how do we plan for potential hardware failures? Many indexers starting out have a problem just paying for their FIRST computer and software; a second one just doesn't fit into most start-up budgets. So what advice can the group offer to those who are still using the "don't think about it and it won't happen" method of planning for hardware emergencies? Carolyn Weaver Bellevue, Wa. e-mail: cweaver@u.washington.edu voice: 206/930-4348 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 14:06:58 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Carolyn Weaver Subject: Re: MeSH In-Reply-To: <9507061851.AA26982@carson.u.washington.edu> ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- They're available from NTIS. (Phone: 703/487-4650; fax: 703/321-8547) Address: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA. 22161. Following is the order information from the current NLM Publications catalog: MeSH Annotated Alphabetic list, 1995. Price: $42.00. Order No.: PB95-964801/GBB MeSH Tree Structures, 1995. Price: $39.00. Order No.: PB95-964901/GBB Permuted MeSH, 1995. Price $35.00. Order No.: PC95-965101/GBB NTIS takes Visa, Mastercard, & American Express. The "black & white" MeSH (alphabetical & categorized lists only) distributed as part 2 of the January issue of Index Medicus can also be purchased separately from the Superintendent of Documents for $43.00. GPO Code: IM95 (Medical Subject Headings). Not as comprehensive as the individual volumes, since scope notes are omitted; but it may be sufficient for somebody who does only occasional health sciences indexes. Carolyn Weaver Bellevue, Wa. e-mail: cweaver@u.washington.edu voice: 206/930-4348 On Thu, 6 Jul 1995 JPerlman@aol.com wrote: > ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- > > Can somebody provide me with an address and ordering information for the > medical thesaurus MeSH -- all the various volumes. > > I'd appreciate it. Thanks in advance! > > Janet Perlman > jperlman@aol.com > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 14:07:08 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Dan Martillotti Subject: Re: Hardware backups (AOL subscribers can ignore!) ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- If I were going to rely heavily on my personal computer for any type of work, I would invest in a tape back-up device. You can find both internal (drives you install in your computer) and external drives for $150 and up. Most of the tapes hold at least 200 MB of data, so with just a couple of tapes you can put together a good back-up plan. Good luck! Dan Martillotti danm@tivoli.com > ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- > A couple of weeks ago I started a thread in the America Online Indexing > folder about backup systems for indexers that I thought INDEX-L might be > interested in as well. (AOL subscribers can delete; you've heard all this!) > > My desktop system (a Compaq 486) crashed late on a Saturday afternoon, with > about 40 pages to go on a 600 page book and the deadline looming. > Conveniently, I had bought a laptop computer the week before, and had > just finished loading in all my key software (Cindex, MS-Office, and > communications software) the evening before. I routinely back up Cindex > indexes in process to floppy every 2-3 hours, and had just finished the > weekly hard drive backup (no, I don't back up daily since I'm a > part-timer) when the keyboard decided to go bonkers. So no data was > lost, and I was able to use the Cindex .dat file to finish the index via > the laptop with no damage except to my nerves. (Just got the Compaq back > from the shop after a WEEK AND A HALF(!) with a new keyboard, BTW.) > > The question that I posed to AOL has, What does everybody use as a backup > against hardware failures (assuming, of course, that EVERYBODY backs up > critical files regularly)? A second computer? Rental? Borrow from > a friend? Live-in technician? Prayer? > > The universal response (about 10 replies, I think, mostly from full-time > indexers) was that everybody has a second computer for emergencies - > either a notebook or a second desktop setup. And most full-timers run > daily hard drive backups, in addition to frequent index backups to > floppies. > > As far as I know, this is not something that gets widely discussed in the > literature. We're all aware of the importance of regular data backup; but > how do we plan for potential hardware failures? Many indexers starting out > have a problem just paying for their FIRST computer and software; a second > one just doesn't fit into most start-up budgets. So what advice can the > group offer to those who are still using the "don't think about it and it > won't happen" method of planning for hardware emergencies? > > Carolyn Weaver > Bellevue, Wa. > e-mail: cweaver@u.washington.edu > voice: 206/930-4348 > ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 14:07:21 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Hazel Blumberg-McKee Subject: Re: Bis flopped In-Reply-To: <9507061930.AA06215@symnet.net> ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >Does anybody out there agree with me? YES! Couldn't have said it all better myself. Let's hear it for the user-friendly index! And for the user-friendly book, which (judging by what creeps and slithers across my desk) is getting harder and harder and harder to find. Hazel Hazel Blumberg-McKee (hazelcb@symnet.net) "Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song, / A medley of extemporanea; / And love is a thing that can never go wrong; / And I am Marie of Roumania." --Dorothy Parker ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 14:07:32 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: K Suzanne Johnson Subject: Re: MeSH ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- All of the MESH publications can be obtained from: NTIS U.S. Dept of Commerce Technology Administration National Technical Information Service Springfield, VA 22161 phone 703-487-4650 fax 703-321-8547 for rush service call 1-800-553-NTIS You can obtain a FREE catalog of all of the NLM publications for 1995 from: Office of Public Information National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 phone 800-272-4787 or 301-496-6308 fax 301-496-4450 email: fran_beckwith@occshost.nlm.nih.gov ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 14:07:46 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: johno@spry.com Subject: Re: Indexing the Internet? Why not? In-Reply-To: <199507062112.OAA02223@homer.spry.com> ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- On Thu, 6 Jul 1995, doug montalbano wrote: >----------------------------Original message---------------------------- > > John Overbaugh expressed the opinion (if I understand correctly) > that indexing the Internet would be an exercise in futility? Why? Well, I didn't mean it quite that way. What I mean is that you'll never index the whole thing--it's a lot like searching for quarks: at the very instant you're indexing it, it grows by several files. > It would seem to me that the technologies exist already for > *scanning* the whole Web. This is unwieldy and sometimes not too > helpful, but it can be done. I imagine, therefore, that soon it > may be possible to do it quickly (faith in technological evolution: > fallacious? we'll see). It may even behoove indexers to consider > the *ways* in which links may be quickly added to indexes. I think you'll end up with results similar to that of automated indexing software. > More, I would argue that indexers in the know could suggest (and > proselytize) sensible formats or even HTML tags, to allow easier > indexing even under current technology. It really is a new game, > folks. Now THERE'S an idea! That's a really good suggestion. If we were to create an index of the Web or even the Internet, and then request that people posting information on the Web submit to the index (like a Library of Congress?), we could probably keep on top of things. It could easily be done with existing WWW technology (HTML forms). The only drawback is that the 'index' produced would not be a professional index; it'd be indexed by content providers. But perhaps the well-designed form could even help with that. John O. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * John Overbaugh johno@spry.com Technical Documentation CompuServe Internet Division Makers of Internet In A Box and Internet Office Award-Winning PC to Internet Connectivity Solutions * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 14:07:55 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: johno@spry.com Subject: Re: Hardware backups (AOL subscribers can ignore!) In-Reply-To: <199507062019.NAA29284@homer.spry.com> ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- I've just started hearing about the new ZIP drives. They are 3/5" floppy drives, with 25mb and 100mb cartriges. The drives run abou $200; cartridges are $25--$40. I'm seriously considering buying one. They are the cheapest removable storage I've found, and they offer the durability of optical storage (a SYQUEST drive will store for only 2--5 years). I think it's a viable solution for data backup, but that's still no solution for when your system is inoperable. You know, I'm convinced that some day, every home in America will have two computers, like many have two tv's now. Amazing, isn't it? John O. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * John Overbaugh johno@spry.com Technical Documentation CompuServe Internet Division Makers of Internet In A Box and Internet Office Award-Winning PC to Internet Connectivity Solutions * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 14:08:28 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Contr Karl E. Vogel" Organization: Control Data Systems Inc. Subject: Re: Indexing the Internet? Why not? ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >> On Thu, 6 Jul 1995 15:14:16 ECT, >> doug_montalbano@cc.chiron.com said: D> John Overbaugh expressed the opinion (if I understand correctly) that D> indexing the Internet would be an exercise in futility? Why? D> It would seem to me that the technologies exist already for *scanning* D> the whole Web. This is unwieldy and sometimes not too helpful, but it D> can be done. "Not too helpful" is an understatement. Simply walking through the hostname address space would put a big load on nameserver software and annoy the dickens out of a few system administrators. A similar issue came up among Gopher enthusiasts some time ago. The "Veronica" package was being used to walk through entire Gopher menus looking for keywords, and this was putting quite a load on the Gopher servers involved. Any serious attempt to index the Internet will ultimately run into the same problem. D> More, I would argue that indexers in the know could suggest (and D> proselytize) sensible formats or even HTML tags, to allow easier indexing D> even under current technology. Since you're dealing with many different hosts run by many different people, the main problem (as with most Internet issues) is getting everyone to agree on what "sensible" means. For example, the IAFA formats for creating FTP catalogs are easily available and well thought out (IMHO), but I haven't seen them used at very many sites. -- Karl Vogel vogelke@c17mis.wpafb.af.mil Control Data Systems, Inc. ASC/YCOA, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433 In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot. --Mark Twain ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 14:08:38 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Richard Evans Subject: Re: Hardware backups (AOL subscribers can ignore!) ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- You wrote: > >----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >A couple of weeks ago I started a thread in the America Online Indexing >folder about backup systems for indexers that I thought INDEX-L might be >interested in as well. (AOL subscribers can delete; you've heard all this!) > >SNIP Many indexers starting out >have a problem just paying for their FIRST computer and software; a second >one just doesn't fit into most start-up budgets. My "backup" is a 286/12 portable that cost me $200 in a second hand shop. With DOS 6 installed, it runs CINDEX plenty fast enough. I didn't start out with backup, though. Call me lucky, but I spent my first two years with no hardware backup and only sporadic software backup. During that time, indexing was a secondary income. Now that it is a full time occupation, I have to take backups more seriously. I had a recent incident where I installed a new version of my invoicing software and it corrupted my entire 1995 invoice file. It was only by the sheerest dumb luck that I had taken a backup the day before -- first one in months -- and was able to restore it. I have since added an 800 megabyte Colorado tape drive and Colorado software that runs scheduled daily backups. Dick Evans ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 14:08:51 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Bill Proudfoot Subject: Re: Hardware backups ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- A portable hard drive is what I use. When I feel I have created something I can't live without, I just drag a copy of it over to the portable drive. (I know this is simpler for those of us with Macs, but even a PC can handle it!) When (not if) the system dies, you can take the portable to a friend's computer or even to a rental computer and finish the project. Much faster and easier than floppies, so I am more likely to actually DO the backups. >Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 15:14:28 ECT >From: Carolyn Weaver >Subject: Hardware backups (AOL subscribers can ignore!) > >----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >Clipped** >The question that I posed to AOL has, What does everybody use as a backup >against hardware failures (assuming, of course, that EVERYBODY backs up >critical files regularly)? A second computer? Rental? Borrow from >a friend? Live-in technician? Prayer? > >The universal response (about 10 replies, I think, mostly from full-time >indexers) was that everybody has a second computer for emergencies - >either a notebook or a second desktop setup. And most full-timers run >daily hard drive backups, in addition to frequent index backups to >floppies. > >clipped** Bill Proudfoot, Systems Librarian West Valley College, Saratoga, California (408)741-2559 fax (408) 741-2431 pfoot@znet.com ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 14:09:08 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Sonsie C. Conroy" Subject: Re: Hardware backups (AOL subscribers can ignore!) ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- In article <199507062015.NAA90632@callamer.com>, you wrote: >----------------------------Original message---------------------------- [Good stuff deleted] >The question that I posed to AOL has, What does everybody use as a backup >against hardware failures (assuming, of course, that EVERYBODY backs up >critical files regularly)? A second computer? Rental? Borrow from >a friend? Live-in technician? Prayer? > >The universal response (about 10 replies, I think, mostly from full-time >indexers) was that everybody has a second computer for emergencies - >either a notebook or a second desktop setup. And most full-timers run >daily hard drive backups, in addition to frequent index backups to >floppies. That's me. My old computer and printer now reside in my son's room. I've already got Macrex loaded on it, plus anything else I might need. It would take five minutes to upload my backup file into Macrex and be back in business. > >As far as I know, this is not something that gets widely discussed in the >literature. We're all aware of the importance of regular data backup; but >how do we plan for potential hardware failures? Many indexers starting out >have a problem just paying for their FIRST computer and software; a second >one just doesn't fit into most start-up budgets. So what advice can the >group offer to those who are still using the "don't think about it and it >won't happen" method of planning for hardware emergencies? > My advice would be to check out this situation BEFORE starting a big important job. Call around about the cost of renting equipment in an emergency. Ask a good friend if you can use his or her computer in an emergency. See if someone could loan you a laptop. Also, when I bought my new computer several years ago, I disc ussed this very thing with the technicians in the shop and got their hourly rate, emer gency phone numbers, etc. That single contact has been a lifesaver in the two serious computer emergencies I've had. Macrex automatically backs up my index every 15 minutes. I save it to a floppy a bout every 50 pages or so (of the book, not the index). And I make spare copies of that bac kup at regular intervals. If I'm feeling especially paranoid, I will make a spare co py and give it to a friend to save for me. What if someone stole my equipment AND all the lo ose disks laying around? Sonsie [sconroy@slonet.org] ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 14:09:26 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: TYANCEY@delphi.com Subject: Re: Hardware backups (AOL subscribers can ignore!) ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- There is an interesting new device, called an Iomega Zip drive, that looks like it could be very helpful for backups of critical files. It holds up to 100 MB (uncompressed) and has a parallel or SCSI interface. The cost is $199.95 and it is available at Egghead Software stores and through the Computer Discount Warehouse (CDW) catalog (800-876-4CDW). I haven't tried this tool yet, but am seriously considering it for peace of mind. Trish Yancey Denver, CO e-mail: tyancey@delphi.com voice: 303/841-6795 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 14:09:42 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "laura m. gottlieb" Subject: Re: Bis flopped ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >----------------------------Original message---------------------------- > >As an experienced indexer (many years), I'd like to put my vote in for >simplicity and usability of indexes. To suggest using "bis" or "ter" would >simply make indexes more complicated than they need to be. > >I daresay that the ordinary user of an index will be happy to be led to the >portion of the book, the pages, on which the desired subject is discussed. > Whether it appears once or twice on the page is, I believe, irrelevant. I >suspect the index-user wouldn't care to know this either. When I use an >index myself, I don't stop when I find the first reference to my subject. I >look on the page before, and skim a bit after, to put the information gleaned >into context. I often continue reading past the reference page, to see where >the author is going with his topic or argument. > >I've found so many people who say "index? -- what's that?? when I tell them >I'm an indexer. Indexes are not commonly used, nor is indexing methodology >something that most people think about. An index is simply a tool - nothing >more, nothing less. It's a kind of intellectual digest and roadmap of what's >in the book. > >So ... I'd vote for simplicity and thoroughness in my indexes, and the >greatest usability possible. We need to guide the researcher -- that's all! > And I can't for the life of me see what "bis" or "biz" or "ter" have to add >to any index for the "man in the street." > >Now, before anybody starts throwing things at me, let me add that if, in the >arena of scholarly research, or in any other discipline, these abbreviations >are commonly known and used, then I'd say by all means, continue to use them. > I would never suggest doing away with something that has meaning and >usefulness. But to suggest that their inclusion in all indexes would be a >boon .... I doubt it! > >My vote is to keep books, and their indexes, as user-friendly as possible, >and not complicate things, obfuscate, or load them down with conventions from >a bygone era. Books are in stiff competition with all kinds of online >information these days. We need to keep up with the times, and keep books >and their indexes easy to use and quickly meaningful. > >Does anybody out there agree with me? > >Janet Perlman >Southwest Indexing, Scottsdale, Arizona >jperlman@aol.com or (602) 569-7302 > 7 July 1995 Dear Janet--I couldn't agree with you more, or have put it more eloquently! Keep up the good work! Laura Moss Gottlieb Freelance Indexer since 1982