From: SMTP%"LISTSERV@BINGVMB.cc.binghamton.edu" 11-MAY-1996 20:09:25.46 To: CIRJA02 CC: Subj: File: "INDEX-L LOG9604C" Date: Sat, 11 May 1996 19:47:37 +0000 From: BITNET list server at BINGVMB (1.8a) Subject: File: "INDEX-L LOG9604C" To: CIRJA02@GSVMS1.CC.GASOU.EDU ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 11:52:27 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Justine Carson Subject: Re: courier fees In-Reply-To: <199604121823.LAA24617@mail3.netcom.com> from "Craig Brown" at Apr 12, 96 01:36:44 pm ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Just have to put my two cents in on the courier fees discussion. I think you'll find that the services will vary by region as to what they offer (not necessarily the prices, but what you get for that price). Here, one hundred miles south of San Francisco, the FedEx cut off is around 3:00 in the afternoon, but the USPS is even worse. I have to get my documents to the Post Office by 12:30 to use the overnight service. I only use the USPS if I don't really care when it gets to its destination. I have used their 2-day Priority service in the past and waited for more than a week for it to arrive (Denver or the East Coast). You'll probably have to try out a number of services before you'll know what will work best for your location, but Fed-Ex gets my vote and being the most con- venient and consistent accross the board. -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Justine Carson jhcarson@netcom.com ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 11:52:38 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: REvans4@aol.com Subject: Re: Courier fees ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- In a message dated 96-04-12 10:49:56 EDT, you write: >I >NEVER use the U.S. post office for Express Mail and strongly discourage my >clients from using them. They're totally unreliable-- When I was shopping around last week trying to get a package to Indianapolis, I asked the Post Office if they could get it there overnignht and their reply was "We'll have to see if we have something going that way." Dick Evans ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 11:52:50 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Alain Vaillancourt Subject: Re: courier fees ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- > ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- > I have also heard much anecdotal evidence of carelessness on the part of > UPS. My own breaking point came when I sent a Christmas gift to friends > who lived in a condo. Someone (I believe with the name of Jones) signed > for the package. My friends never saw it. UPS refused to reimburse me > because they had a signature. End of story. > Here in Montreal I have had a few hair-raising experiences with UPS drivers who where not only lacking in fluency in the french language, but were so totally "unilingual english" that they had trouble making deliveries correctly. And their office staff was no better. They could not even get my name right, despite the fact that it is so common that there are at least half a dozen pages in the phone directory filled with it. Since then I have always asked shippers to use any other courrier. Heck, even Canada Post is better than those guys in the brown trucks. Au revoir! Alain Vaillancourt ndgmtlcd@libertel.montreal.qc.ca ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 11:53:05 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Sheldon Siegel Subject: Win3.1 vs Win95 online indexing ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Hi everyone, I'm new to this list, and am excited about learning what the indexers of the world may be talking about these days. My current burning issue is about online indexing. ***WARNING*** this is a long, rambling e-mail ... leave now while you still can! ***WARNING*** I want to create a single set of WinHelp keywords that will work well in both the single-level Win3.1-style Search dialog, and in the two-level Win95-style Index tab. Here goes: 1) If you break up your keywords with commas: K Introduction, to charts; K Introduction, to data; K Introduction, to exporting files 3.1 Search yields: Introduction, to charts Introduction, to data Introduction, to exporting files and the 95 Index yields: Introduction, to charts to data to exporting files NEGATIVE: the first line of the list in the 95 Index looks strange. POSSIBLE SOLUTION: place an "Introduction," keyword into one of the topics: K Introduction, to charts;Introduction,; K Introduction, to data; K Introduction, to exporting files NOTE: If you don't include the comma ("Introduction,"), a keyword like "Introduction topics" would get stuck in with other "Introduction" base words. Once the compiler has set a base word, such as "Introduction", it would consider both "Introduction topics" and "Introduction, to charts" to be part of the same set of keywords. Then, 3.1 Search yields: Introduction, Introduction, to charts Introduction, to data Introduction, to exporting files and the 95 Index yields: Introduction to charts to data to exporting files NEGATIVES: a) this looks terrible for 3.1; and b) you have to decide and maintain where the lone "Introduction," keyword will go ... should it go to ALL of the Introduction topics, or just the key one, or ??? ... if there are a LOT of topics, you could end up with 20 "hits." 2) It gets a little more complicated if you happen to have a keyword that matches the {base word} of another keyword like: {base word, secondary word} -- or of another keyword like: {base word and another word} ... For example, the keywords: "Airtime column" and "Airtime column, Avg" and "Airtime column, Roaming" look great: In 3.1 Search: Airtime column Airtime column, Avg Airtime column, Roaming And in Win 95: Airtime column Avg Roaming BUT if you have the same set of keywords, plus "Airtime column enhanced" ... you get: In 3.1 Search: Airtime column Airtime column enhanced Airtime column, Avg Airtime column, Roaming And in Win 95: Airtime column Airtime column enhanced Airtime column, Avg Roaming If instead, you add the comma after the base word entry, "Airtime column," you get: In 3.1 Search: Airtime column enhanced Airtime column, Airtime column, Avg Airtime column, Roaming And in Win 95: Airtime column enhanced Airtime column, Avg Roaming SOOOO, from all this, it seems the best solution is to: a) Just continue making a list like in #1 above, and live with the strange-looking first line in the Win95 Index tab (this means DON'T include the base words, by themselves, followed by a comma, in order to make the list look better in Win95). b) If you run into a situation where a word is added onto the base word of another keyword (like "Airtime column enhanced" above), either live with it looking like the examples directly above, or make it fit into the scheme by adding a comma after the existing base word ... ("Airtime column, enhanced"). 3) I have a general indexing issue that no one has been able to help me with; I thought that keywords/index entries always HAD to form a grammatical structure, so that if you wanted to search "Centering poems on a page" on the word "poems" ... you'd have to create a keyword like: "Poems on a page, centering" (so that if it was put together, it would make sense) ... But, it reads terribly, and I've noticed that even in the Chicago Manual of Style, they'll take a word, or phrase, right out of the middle of a string like that, and manipulate it in such a way that it reads better in the index: for example, "Poems, centering on a page." Do you know of any rules that handle these types of instances? For example, how would you index the keyword (from a Q&A topic), "What if there's not enough memory to run the application?" on the word "Memory"? "Memory, too low to run the application" or "Memory to run the application, what to do if there's not enough" or "Memory too low, what to do" or ???? THANKS A LOT in advance for any information you might offer, Sheldon Siegel AT&T Wireless Services sheldon.siegel@attws.com _________________________________________________________________ John Prine lyric of the day: I'm cold and I'm tired and I can't stop coughing long enough to tell you all of the news, I'd like to tell you that I'll see you more often, but often is a word I seldom use Often is a word I seldom use ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 11:53:30 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: DStaub11@aol.com Subject: Re: indexing groups ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- I learned to index at Twin Oaks ten years ago, and managed the indexing collective there for a while. (Twin Oaks is an income-sharing intentional community--a really neat place.) They use Cindex now so their methods have changed; when I was there the indexing process was divided up so that the main person marked the pages and other people transferred entries onto cards; the main person edited the cards, and someone else typed the cards into a word processor. These clerical jobs were an excellent training ground, because you got to see other people's indexing in progress. It was a good place to learn on the job (there are quite a few ex-Twin Oaks full-time indexers around!) and it was nice to have other people around to talk about indexing with, and to get help from if you got sick or something (although indexing is such creative work that you can't really transfer a whole job to someone else except in an emergency). I got frustrated managing there because I was responsible to the clients for other people's work. I like being on my own much better (especially now that I have online support!) but if you're just starting out and can be in a situation like this I think it would be beneficial. Do Mi ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 11:54:30 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Dwight Walker Subject: The Australian Internet Registry of Professional Editors ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- I recently got this posted to me... Hope someone else hasn't sent this to INDEX-L ;) I don't get it... Bye Dwight >X-POP3-Rcpt: dwight@zipper >Return-Path: >Date: Sun, 07 Apr 1996 06:20:21 -0700 >From: Simon McGuire >Subject: The Australian Internet Registry of Professional Editors >To: dwight@zip.com.au >Organization: me@here.now >X-Url: http://www.zeta.org.au/~dwalker/skyspace.htm > >Hi, > > My name is Simon McGuire and I am the Webmaster for the Australian >Resume Server on the World Wide Web. > >We have recently set up an online registry of Professional Editors in >conjuction with Maureen Wright, whom you may know is involved with the >Canberra Society of Freelance Editors. > >As part of the service we are offering free links to >resumes/CV's/presentations that are already on the Web. If you would like >one, you can generate the automatic link from :- > >http://www.herenow.com.au/AIRPE/add.html > >Hope to hear from you soon and hope we can be of service. > >Cheers >-- >-------------------------------------------------------------------------Si mon McGuire - Consultant | The Australian Resume Server | >Phone/Fax +61 8 370 9966 | WWW Online Resumes | >email simon@herenow.com.au | http://www.herenow.com.au/ | > ------------------------------------ > And forget not that the earth delights > to feel your bare feet and the winds > long to play with your hair > Kahlil Gibran >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ---------------------------------------------------------- Dwight Walker, Sydney, Australia tel +61-2-3986726 (h) +61-2-4393750 (w), fax (work) +61-2-4383729 My Home Page: http://www.zeta.org.au/~dwalker AusSI Home Page: http://www.zeta.org.au/~aussi ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 11:55:00 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: REvans4@aol.com Subject: Re: Cindex Question ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- In a message dated 96-04-05 16:16:42 EST, you write: >There are also a couple of methods for inverting fields "en masse." I'd be interested. Dick ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 11:55:56 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: CactusRP@aol.com Subject: Help---Software ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Help! We are looking for quality indexing software to help create a periodical index. Any advice you can give on which software to use (and how to obtain it) would be greatly appreciated! Thanks! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 11:56:46 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Prindex@aol.com Subject: synonyms ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- If the author talks about term X on page 30, then on page 33 he mentions that term X is also sometimes known as term Y, and then on other pages talks about term X, should term Y be indexed just on page 33 or on the other pages as well. If a person were looking up Y in the index he wouldn't find it on the other pages, so it would be misleading to list them. On the other hand, he will find the same concept on the other pages. Opinions? Judy Press Press Indexing Services ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 11:57:09 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Fred M. Brown" <75324.1707@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Ergonomic Keyboards and Key Layouts ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Does anyone have experience with ergonomic or alternative keyboards such the Kinesis Ergonomic Keyboard? Is the Dvorak keyboard layout a substantial improvement over the standard QWERTY layout? Thanks. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Fred Brown McCrae Consulting Associates "technical writing and indexing" 75324.1707@compuserve.com Phone: 613-728-5761 Fax: 613-728-9373 31 Grange Ave., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 0N8 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 11:57:39 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: LineyP@aol.com Subject: getting from "novice" to "professional"? ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- I am truly a novice - I stumbled into my first book thanks to a cousin's contacts, and I believe I did a passable job on it considering my own inexperience and the virtual lack of style specs from the publisher - but my tour through ASI's web site, and discovering this list, have got me all fired up about becoming an expert indexer! My question now is this: what is the best way to go about learning the craft of indexing? The options that I'm aware of right now are (1) just jumping in and doing it, (2) taking a workshop/class/correspondence course, or (3) finding a (probably local) indexer with whom to apprentice or form a mentoring relationship. I did find Nancy Mulvany's book, and have pretty much read it cover to cover, and I'll be a member of ASI as soon as the USPS gets my application to Seattle. I would greatly appreciate any thoughts on this process. A note on my own background: I have a recent bachelor's degree in Computer Science, with a minor in Biology, and no interest in going to work as a programmer. Working from home, in business for myself, is my ideal. I am an avid reader, and there's not much that infuriates me more than a useless index or sloppy writing. So in the spirit of "if you want something done right, do it yourself", I'd like to consider myself truly competent to enhance the usability of good (and not-so-good!) books. Thanks in advance for your input! And if there are any professional indexers in the Albuquerque/Santa Fe area who'd be interested in mentoring or apprenticing an enthusiastic novice, I'd love to hear from you. Caroline Parks ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 11:58:00 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Rebecca Green Subject: ISKO 96 registration deadline approaching ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- This is being cross-posted to several listservs. Please excuse any duplication. !!! *** Note that early registration is due MAY 2. *** !!! This preliminary program and registration information is also available at: http://www.hud.ac.uk/ISKO96 An electronic registration form is accessible at: http://www.hud.ac.uk/schools/cedar/isko96.registration.html Additional information about ISKO is available at: http://www.hud.ac.uk/schools/cedar/isko.html ****************************************************************** PRELIMINARY PROGRAM AND REGISTRATION MATERIALS INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION FOURTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE "Knowledge Organization and Change" July 15-19, 1996--Washington, DC, USA Co-sponsored by the Library of Congress Conference activities will take place in the James Madison Memorial Building, Library of Congress, 101 Independence Avenue, SE, except where otherwise indicated. The registration/information desk will be staffed 8:30am-3:30pm, Monday-Wednesday; on Monday it will be located outside the Digital Library Visitors' Center (ground floor, Madison Building), and on Tuesday and Wednesday, outside the Mumford Room (6th floor, Madison Building). Exhibits will be open 8:30am- 3:30pm, Tuesday-Thursday. Monday, July 15 Tools of Knowledge Organization: Discussions and demonstrations of online classification systems (Library of Congress and Dewey Decimal) and other digital initiatives and products. Indicate session preference on registration form. (9:00am- 4:00pm) Dewey 120th Anniversary Address, Fran Miksa, and Reception (5:00- 8:00pm) Conference sessions will be held Tuesday-Thursday, 8:45am-5:00pm, in the Mumford Room. Morning and afternoon breaks occur between sessions 1 and 2 and sessions 4 and 5. A lunch break separates sessions 2 and 3. Tuesday, July 16 Session A1a: Opening . Welcome and Introductory Remarks, Sarah Thomas, Ingetraut Dahlberg . Keynote Address, Roland Hjerppe Session A1b: Library of Congress Classification . Bringing the Library of Congress Classification into the Computer Age: Converting LCC to Machine-readable Form, Rebecca S. Guenther . Library of Congress Classification: Classification for a Library or Classification of Knowledge?, Jolande Goldberg Session A2: Management of Change in Knowledge Organization Schemes . Change as a Problem of Classification System Development, Eduard R. Sukiasyan . New Wine in Old Bottles: Problems of Maintaining Classification Schemes, Ia C. McIlwaine Session A3: Knowledge Organization in Cross-Cultural and Cross- Linguistic Settings . Towards A Unified Medical Language in a Diverse Cultural Environment, Marcia Lei Zeng . Concept-based vs. Word-based Measures of Medical Information Transfer via English-Chinese and Chinese-English Translations of Medical Titles, Shaoyi He . Terminology Organization and Change, Faina Citkina Session A4: The Role of Relationships in Knowledge Organization . Standardization of Inter-Concept Links and Their Usage, Pat Molholt . Development of a Relational Thesaurus, Rebecca Green . Analysis of Explicit Non-Hierarchical Associative Relationships Among Medical Subject Headings (MeSH): Anatomical Terminology, Carol Bean Session A5: Knowledge Organization in the Online Environment, I . Online Classification: Implications for Classifying and Document [-like Object] Retrieval, Diane Vizine-Goetz . Classification to the Rescue: Handling the Problems of Too Many and Too Few Retrievals, Karen M. Drabenstott . Visual Dewey: DDC in a Hypertextual Browser for the Library User, Pauline A. Cochrane and Eric Johnson Software demonstrations (5:00-6:00pm) Lecture, Douglas Bennett, and Banquet, held at the Supreme Court of the United States (7:00-9:00pm) Wednesday, July 17 Session B1: Knowledge Organization in the Online Environment, II . Hypertext and Indexing Languages: Common Perspectives and Challenges, Javier Garcia Marco . A Library-Organized Virtual Science and Technology Reference Collection, Gerry McKiernan . Ontology-based Information Capturing from the Internet, Michiaki Iwazume, Hideaki Takeda, and Toyoaki Nishida Session B2a: Impact of Technology on Bibliographic Elements . The Impact of Cultural and Technological Changes on Titles Content and Their Use in the Process of Information Retrieval, Snunith Shoham and Moshe Yitzhaki . Description in the Electronic Environment, Rebecca Green Session B2b: Knowledge Organization in the Economic Environment . The World Bank's Information Management Architecture: A Blue Print for Building the World Bank's Institutional Information Services, Harold C. Steyer, Jr., Ana Flavia Fonseca, Diane D. Hopkins, Marc Nodell, Irene L. Travis, and William S. Wahl . Business Productivity and Organization of Knowledge: A Look at the Emerging Requirements, Philip C. Murray Session B3: User Focus in Knowledge Organization . Empowering Users for Improved Database Access and Analysis through the Application of Knowledge Structure Views, Progressive Refinement Techniques and a Design Approach Driven by Usability, A. Steven Pollitt, Patrick Braekevelt, Geoffrey P. Ellis, Janet E. Finlay, Martin P. Smith, Mark Treglown, and Steven J. Wade . User Education Librarians: Teaching for Every Level, Michelle M. Foss . Selection of Search terms as a Meeting Place of Different Discourses, Mirja Iivonen Session B4: Thesauri and Metathesauri, I . Preparing Terminological Definitions for Indexing and Retrieval Thesauri: A Methodology, Mich le Hudon . Building a Multilingual Thesaurus Based on UDC, Victoria Francu . Deriving a Thesaurus from a Restructured UDC, Nancy Williamson Session B5: Knowledge Organization and Images . Is a Picture Worth a Thousand Words? Classification and Graphic Symbol Systems, Elin Jacob and Debora Shaw . The University of Michigan Art Image Browser Project, C. Olivia Frost . The Applicability of Selected Classification Systems to Image Attributes, Corinne Jorgensen ISKO Business Meeting (5:15-6:00pm) Thursday, July 18 Session C1: Interplay of Epistemology and Knowledge Organization . Dewey Thinks Therefore He Is: The Epistemic Stance of Melvil Dewey as Manifested in the Dewey Decimal Classification Past and Present, Hope A. Olson . Ontology and Knowledge Organization, Roberto Poli . L'Apparition du Computer: Epistemology and the Impact of Networked Computers on Society, Thomas D. Walker . Critical Notes on the Use of Knowledge in Knowledge Management, J.F. Schreinemakers and J.P.J.M. Essers Session C2: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Knowledge Organization . An Exploratory Study into Requirements for an Interdisciplinary Metathesaurus, Lynne C. Howarth . Evolution of a Concept System. Some Reflections and Study Cases, Giliola Negrini and Giovanni Adamo . An Inductive Approach towards Integration of General Information Systems for Agriculture. The Case of CERETHES, with Particular Examples, Massimo Ragucci . Controlled Vocabulary and Classification Scheme for HIV/AIDS: An Evolving Nosological Record of a Diseased Body of Knowledge, Jeffrey T. Huber and Mary L. Gillaspy Session C3: Natural Language Processing . PROMETHEUS: An Automatic Indexing System, A.R.D. Prasad . Intelligent Support for Construction and Exploration of Advanced Technological Information Space from Technical Papers in Metallurgy, Toshiyuki Matsuo and Toyoaki Nishida . Evaluation of Terminological Database Building Tools Using Linguistic Knowledge, Widad Mustafa-Elhadi and Christophe Jouis Session C4: Thesauri and Metathesauri, II . A Generalized Model for Thesaurus-aided Searching, Ron Davies . Library Catalogs in the Internet: Switching for Future Subject Access, Ingetraut Dahlberg . SemWeb: Proposal for an Open, Multifunctional, Multilingual, Integrated Knowledge Base of Concepts and Terminology : Exploration and Development of the Concept, Dagobert Soergel Session C5: Dewey Decimal Classification . The Dewey Decimal Classification at 120: Edition 21 and Beyond, Joan S. Mitchell . Revising Life Sciences in Dewey Edition 21, Gregory R. New . Dewey for Windows, Julianne Beall Concluding Remarks, Robert Fugmann (5:00-5:30pm) Reception, German Embassy (6:30-8:30pm) Friday, July 19 Post-Conference Excursions: National Library of Medicine or National Agricultural Library (morning); indicate preference on registration form. Conference chair: Sarah Thomas, Acting Director, Public Service Collections, Library Services, Library of Congress, LM 642 (COLL/O), Washington, DC 20540-4600, USA; phone: +1 202 707-5333; fax: +1 202 707-6269; email: stho@loc.gov. Program chair: Rebecca Green, College of Library and Information Services, Hornbake Bldg. (So. Wing), Rm. 4105, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-4345, USA; phone: +1 301 405-2050; fax: +1 301 314-9145; email: rgreen@umd5.umd.edu. Local arrangements chair: Jolande Goldberg, Cataloging Policy and Support Office, Library of Congress, LM 556 (COLL/CPSO), Washington, DC 20540-4305, USA; phone: +1 202 707-4386; fax: +1 202 707-6629; email: goldberg@mail.loc.gov. Program committee (*regional chairs): *Hanne Albrechtsen, James D. Anderson, Kenneth Bakewell, Clare Beghtol, *Pauline A. Cochrane, *Ingetraut Dahlberg, Brigitte Endres-Niggemeyer, Raya Fidel, Robert Fugmann, Alan Gilchrist, M. A. Gopinath, Roland Hjerppe, Hemalata Iyer, Krishan Kumar, Tamiko Matsumura, A. Neelameghan, Giliola Negrini, Bluma C. Peritz, Dagobert Soergel, and Nancy J. Williamson. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CONFERENCE REGISTRATION INFORMATION REGISTRATION FEE US $250 (members) or $US 300 (non-members) per participant. Mail OR fax your registration form by MAY 2, 1996. After May 2, 1996, the registration fee is: US $300 (members) or US $350 (non- members). The fee covers printed conference proceedings and attendance at all sessions, excursions, breaks, receptions, and banquet. PAYMENT Make all checks payable in US Dollars to: LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ALA/LIBRARY SERVICES GIFT FUND. Agency invoices and credit cards are not accepted. REFUNDS After May 2, 1996, only 50% of the registration fee is refundable. No refunds after July 2, 1996. Please complete one registration form per participant and mail with payment to: ISKO REGISTRATION OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC SERVICE COLLECTIONS LM 642 - LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20540-4600 CONTACT: THEODORE MORGAN Phone: + 202 707 5325 Telefax: + 202 707 6269 Email: tmor@loc.gov HOTEL RESERVATIONS Conference hotels (in most convenient locations to the conference site) where participants may register at a special rate, are: 1. Capitol Hill Suites 200 C Street, SE Washington, DC 20003 USA Phone: + 202 543 6000; + 800 424 9165 Telefax: + 202 547 2608 Single/double occupancy: $114.00/$129.00 per room. Reservations must be made by close of business, June 3, 1996. 2. Holiday Inn 550 C Street, SW Washington, DC 20024 USA Phone: + 202 479 4000; + 800 469 4329 Telefax: + 202 479 4353 Single/double/triple/quadruple occupancy: $110.00 per room. Reservations must be made by close of business, June 16, 1996. Special rates are offered from Saturday, July 13, 1996 to Saturday, July 20, 1996. All rates are subject to a 13% sales tax and $1.50 per night occupancy tax. In order to get the special rate, you must identify yourself as a participant of the ISKO Conference, sponsored by the Library of Congress. Participants will be responsible for payment of room, tax, and incidental charges. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ISKO CONFERENCE 1996 REGISTRATION Name: (Last First Initial) Institution: Position: Address: City: State: Zip: Country: FAX: Email: AMOUNT SUBMITTED: ISKO Member US$250 ___ Non-Member US$300 ___ DIGITAL LIBRARY VISITORS' CENTER: DEMONSTRATION SESSIONS, July 15, 1996 (indicate 1st and 2nd choices) ___ 9:00 AM - 10:45 AM ___ 10:45 AM - 12:30 PM ___ 12:30 PM - 2:15 PM ___ 2:15 PM - 4:00 PM LIBRARY TOUR, July 15, 1996 ___ 10:45 AM ___ 2:15 PM LIST EVENING FUNCTIONS YOU WILL ATTEND: ___ Reception, July 15, 1996 ___ Banquet, July 16, 1996 ___ Embassy reception, July 18, 1996 POST-CONFERENCE EXCURSIONS, July 19, 1996 (choice of one) ___ National Library of Medicine ___ National Agricultural Library SPECIAL NEEDS: ___ Check here if you have a disability which may require auxiliary aids and services. Services requested: ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 12:05:05 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Nan Badgett <76400.3351@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: folio copies ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- In my experience, this issue varies greatly from publisher to publisher. I have some clients who send copies of the finished product WITHOUT a request. I have others who have never given me a copy upon request, and even when I asked for photocopies of the finished index it was difficult to get. Nan Badgett Word-a-bil-i-ty ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 12:05:19 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Wildefire@aol.com Subject: Analysis run amok? ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- I'm indexing a fascinating chapter in a book on cytology about cnidarian nervous systems. (Yeah, I didn't know either that the nervous systems of jellyfish, etc. could be so interesting--or that they even had them. ;-D) Anyway, I derived the following set of headings: Biosynthesis of cnidarian neuropeptides Antho-RFamide in sea anemones, 58 -64 in sea pansies, 64-67 AnthoRPamide I in sea anemones, 68-69 Antho-RPamides II-IV in sea anemones, 69-71 higher animals versus, 57-58 in Hydrozoans, 74-77 metamorphosis-inducing in sea anemones, 71-74 Note that the there are subsubsubentries under subsubentry "Antho-RF amide". Usually, I try to avoid splitting hairs this finely, going down to a fourth level. However, the subheadings in the text include separate sections for "Antho-RFamide" in sea anemones and "Antho-RFamide" in sea pansies--which engaged my anal-compulsive hyperdrive mode! Would it be better to not separate the entries for sea pansies and sea anemones under Antho-RFamide, just putting locators for each next to that subsubentry? Is this overkill? A few notes. Other chapters in this book discuss "biosynthesis" of other substances in other biological taxa, so there's no avoiding going down to the subsub level. Secondly, the publisher does permit sparing use of fourth level headings and there are no space limitations. Thirdly, the publisher likes exhaustive, detailed indexes. (Yes, they are a joy to work for, as the indexer can actually create an index according to the demands of the text! Not like cramming an index to a 926-pp technical book into 12 pages with a six-day turnaround like I did last week. ;-D) Fourthly, if the authors thought it was important enough to differentiate between sea anemones and sea pansies in cnidarian neuropeptide biosynthesis, I feel compelled to do the same in the index. BTW, all of these entries represent separate headings within the chapter, so I don't think that this is a case of overanalysis on my part (as opposed to putting the entire thing into a page range under the subheading "of cnidarian neuropeptides" spanning 20 pages.) Does anyone else use the structure of the text, in terms of depth of heading levels, in deriving heading levels for the index? Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. Lynn Moncrief TECHindex & Docs Technical and Scientific Indexing ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 12:05:36 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Australian Society of Indexers Subject: thesaurus management software updated list on AusSI Web site ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Greetings!! I downloaded the list created in June 1994 from INDEX-L archives. I then emailed Russell Etta and have the latest directory... http://www.zeta.org.au/~aussi/thesauri.htm Please send me others and any updates if you have a chance to look at it!! Bye Dwight ------- Dwight Walker Webmaster Australian Society of Indexers +61-2-3986726 (h) +61-2-4393750 (w) W-F URL: http://www.zeta.org.au/~aussi ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 16:55:59 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: JPerlman@aol.com Subject: Re: courier fees ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- All, Just to share my experiences with you .... US Postal Service guarantees of 2-day or 3-day service isn't worth a darn. Don't believe it. Between USPS and FedEx, I much prefer FedEx. During the East Coast snow storms last January, I had packages en route (deadline material, of course) to the East Coast. I very much appreciated FedEx's ability to track the packages -- down to exactly where they were ..."it got to the clearing center in Kansas City and nothing's moved out of there in 2 days". I kept checking and found out exactly when the package was signed for, who signed for it, etc. On the other hand, past experiences tracking packages with USPS was totally frustrating. The tracking ability was especially valuable because the client himself, the editor, hadn't known the package was in his office. Staff changes/confusion due to the storm resulted in his not receiving the package in a timely manner. When he called me to check on where it might be, I was able to tell him who had signed for it in his office, and at what time. He was able to retrieve the package post-haste. It was worth its weight in gold. FedEx gets my vote! Janet Perlman Southwest Indexing ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 16:56:08 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: JPerlman@aol.com Subject: Re: courier fees ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- I want you Easterners to be very appreciative of the late FedEX deadlines you have out there. Here in the West (I'm in AZ), we have much earlier deadlines. In Phoenix, it's 3 PM in suburban locations, 5 to 5:30 in closer in drop locations, and the absolute latest one, closest to the airport, is 6:30 PM, but that's one heck of a ride across town! So it's still an east-coast based world out there! Janet Perlman Southwest Indexing ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 16:56:18 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Sarah Lee Bihlmayer Subject: synonyms ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Judy Press asks: >If the author talks about term X on page 30, then on page 33 he mentions that >term X is also sometimes known as term Y, and then on other pages talks about >term X, should term Y be indexed just on page 33 or on the other pages as >well. If a person were looking up Y in the index he wouldn't find it on the >other pages, so it would be misleading to list them. On the other hand, he >will find the same concept on the other pages. Opinions? Well...remember, an index is a topical analysis. The specific word usage is important, but so is its meaning...which is why in this situation, I'd index term Y with a single page citation and use a see-also reference to point the reader to the more commonly-used synonym. That way, readers who are looking for the less-common synonym will find it on the page that is referenced--and also find more information on the governing concept if they follow the pointer. |"God is in the details." --Frank Lloyd Wright| | Sarah Lee Bihlmayer * Print/Online/WWW Documentation Specialist | | Indexing * Technical/Developmental Editing * Technical Writing | | Technical Illustration * Electronic Prepress * Graphic Design | |POB 27901-312 San Francisco CA 94127 * 415-207-4046 * tecscrib@sirius.com| ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 16:56:28 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Sarah Lee Bihlmayer Subject: Re: Ergonomic Keyboards and Key Layouts ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Fred Brown asks: >Does anyone have experience with ergonomic or alternative keyboards >such the Kinesis Ergonomic Keyboard? Is the Dvorak keyboard layout a >substantial improvement over the standard QWERTY layout? I've been working with ergo keyboards for a while and am very happy with the Microsoft Natural Keyboard. The so-called better-engineered offerings like the Kinesis don't feel as good to my hands. Regarding the Dvorak keyboard...well, you can type faster with less finger movement. HOWEVER, it takes a while to learn the new layout (especially if you are a touch typist) and once you've made the move it's very hard to switch back to QWERTY if and when you need to--which can create a problem. |"God is in the details." --Frank Lloyd Wright| | Sarah Lee Bihlmayer * Print/Online/WWW Documentation Specialist | | Indexing * Technical/Developmental Editing * Technical Writing | | Technical Illustration * Electronic Prepress * Graphic Design | |POB 27901-312 San Francisco CA 94127 * 415-207-4046 * tecscrib@sirius.com| ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 16:56:37 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Neva J. Smith" Subject: Re: Ergonomic Keyboards ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Pardon me Fred and INDEX-Lers, while I rave about my ergonomic keyboard. I don't have the Microsoft one- I bought PC Concepts (has a nicer touch I think). A miracle has occurred! -- I have no more wrist and hand pain when I use this keyboard. I used to spend a significant number of weeks per year with a hand splint trying to keep the inflamation and aches from turning into full-blown carpel tunnel syndrome. Now- no splint, no pain! It took me about a day or so to adjust my muscle memory to the slightly different reaches, but since then I haven't had any problem hitting the right keys. Sorry, but I can't help on alternative key layouts. Neva = < +> = * = < +> = * = < +> = * = < + > = * = < + > = * = < + > = * = < + > Neva J. Smith, MLIS DataSmiths Information Services njsmith@bga.com PO Box 2157, Round Rock, TX 78680-2157 voice/fax +1-512-244-2767 & Editor, _Library Currents_ PO Box 2199, Round Rock, TX 78680-2199 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 16:56:48 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Barbara J. Stroup" Subject: Re: Analysis run amok? ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Lynn: I think that Mr/Ms Index User interested in sea pansies (but not in sea anemones)and who considers his/her time valuable (and who doesn't) will be delighted by your subsubsubs! (My present goal, however, is to cut back on detail during my first pass through the book because, in order to conform to style sheet requirements, I find I must edit out a lot of sub-heads I thought I needed.) Barbara Stroup ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 16:57:03 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: "Neva J. Smith" Subject: Re: Analysis run Amok? ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Lynn asks if the following entry is over-analyzed: >Biosynthesis > of cnidarian neuropeptides > Antho-RFamide > in sea anemones, 58 -64 > in sea pansies, 64-67 > AnthoRPamide I in sea anemones, 68-69 > Antho-RPamides II-IV in sea anemones, 69-71 > higher animals versus, 57-58 > in Hydrozoans, 74-77 > metamorphosis-inducing in sea anemones, 71-74 Lynn, Since you asked for all thoughts... If you would like to stay at 3 levels, you could provide the detailed info under the entry for cnidarian neuropeptides if you have one, or under sea anemones and sea pansies. Or, of course, you could take advantage of your unlimited space and level-creation and leave as is. Maybe the same sort of thing will show up in other parts of the book and it will be good planning on your part. :-) Neva = < +> = * = < +> = * = < +> = * = < + > = * = < + > = * = < + > = * = < + > Neva J. Smith, MLIS DataSmiths Information Services njsmith@bga.com PO Box 2157, Round Rock, TX 78680-2157 voice/fax +1-512-244-2767 & Editor, _Library Currents_ PO Box 2199, Round Rock, TX 78680-2199 ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 16:57:13 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: lillian ashworth Subject: synonyms ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Judy Press writes: >----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >If the author talks about term X on page 30, then on page 33 he mentions that >term X is also sometimes known as term Y, and then on other pages talks about >term X, should term Y be indexed just on page 33 or on the other pages as >well. If a person were looking up Y in the index he wouldn't find it on the >other pages, so it would be misleading to list them. On the other hand, he >will find the same concept on the other pages. Opinions? > >Judy Press >Press Indexing Services > ---- Isn't this a good example of posting term x as the main entry, double posting term y on page 33 and cross referencing back to term x? At the term x entry, it might also be appropriate to enter term y in parentheses. Lillian Ashworth Argus Editorial Services ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 16:57:48 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: JPerlman@aol.com Subject: Re: Analysis run amok? ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Lynn, I understand the situation you're faced with. I would not choose to use the fourth level of subhead in this situation. I *would* use main entries for each of those fourth level organisms, to pick up the information under the name of the organism. My rationale is that the index does NOT have to duplicate the book, or the entire structure of the book. I would put the inclusive pages for the two under the third level subhead, and let it stand that way. My basic rationale is that the pages are so close together, that the discussion will flow from one to the other, and the searcher will find both if he/she finds one. I don't think the searcher needs to, or expects to, find such fine delineations in the index. My personal preference is never to use that fourth level of subhead, despite the fact that the publisher permits it. I simply don't make my distinctions that fine in any index I create. Another spin on the subject, and I hope I don't get flamed for introducing a business consideration into this techniques-oriented discussion .... I feel that to do analysis to this degree of detail would take extra time, if one is to analyze the entire text and index it similarly, which should happen, for consistency sake. In my mind, that would require a higher rate of pay. Without compromising basic quality, I believe that there is an index for every price -- it other words, you get what you pay for. For a price of X dollars per indexable page, I would do an appropriate index at a certain level. If the client wants me to do an even more careful an analysis, down to fourth level subhead, I would expect and request a higher rate of pay. The extra time it would take to create an index containing that level of detail should be compensated. To accept the usual price a publisher pays for a fourth-level index would mean you'd be very underpaid for the index. For that reason I'd say "no" to a fourth-level subheads *unless* I had discussed the payrate and need to do that detailed an index with the publisher in advance and reached some kind of agreement about a higher rate. As I said, friends, please don't flame me for thinking like a businesswoman. I do want to make money, and be properly compensated for my work. Most publishers are not paying enough to do fourth-level subheads on an index. Janet Perlman Southwest Indexing ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 16:58:16 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Pam Rider Subject: Re: Analysis run amok? ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- I agree with your decision as posted. At 12:05 PM 4/16/96 ECT, you wrote: >----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >I'm indexing a fascinating chapter in a book on cytology about cnidarian >nervous systems. (Yeah, I didn't know either that the nervous systems of >jellyfish, etc. could be so interesting--or that they even had them. ;-D) >Anyway, I derived the following set of headings: > >Biosynthesis > of cnidarian neuropeptides > Antho-RFamide > in sea anemones, 58 -64 > in sea pansies, 64-67 > AnthoRPamide I in sea anemones, 68-69 > Antho-RPamides II-IV in sea anemones, 69-71 > higher animals versus, 57-58 > in Hydrozoans, 74-77 > metamorphosis-inducing in sea anemones, 71-74 > Pam Rider Trying to walk cheerfully on the Earth prider@powergrid.electriciti.com prider@tsktsk.com http://www.electriciti.com:80/~prider/ ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 16:58:01 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: JanCW@aol.com Subject: Re: Win3.1 vs Win95 online indexing ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- In a message dated 96-04-16 13:14:44 EDT, sheldon writes: >I want to create a single set of WinHelp keywords that will work well in >both the single-level Win3.1-style Search dialog, and in the two-level >Win95-style Index tab. Welcome to the keywording club. I've done a few of these, and you do not get perfect results on both platforms, so you have to decide to sacrifice something (usually win31 cause it shows up less) Win 95 breaks the sort so ugly that I just can't stand to leave it looking that bad. I did a session on these kinds of problems that I could send you handouts for, although they aren't really self explanatory. I've also got two articles coming out in the next two WinHelp journals on this same topic, so that might help you out. >1) If you break up your keywords with commas: > >K Introduction, to charts; >K Introduction, to data; >K Introduction, to exporting files > >3.1 Search yields: > >Introduction, to charts >Introduction, to data >Introduction, to exporting files > >and the 95 Index yields: > >Introduction, to charts > to data > to exporting files > >NEGATIVE: the first line of the list in the 95 Index looks strange. You need to add a generic first-level keyword "Introduction" to the topic to make the win95 one look right. With this kind of topic, that keyword would be at best meaningless, so I would rewrite them all without the commas. Actually, I wouldn't include an introduction section at all in the index, but would put them under "charts, intro" "data, intro" etc. Introduction isn't really a useful head. But we need an example, so onward.... >POSSIBLE SOLUTION: place an "Introduction," keyword into one of the topics: > >K Introduction, to charts;Introduction,; >K Introduction, to data; >K Introduction, to exporting files > >NOTE: If you don't include the comma ("Introduction,"), a keyword like >"Introduction topics" would get stuck in with other "Introduction" base >words. Once the compiler has set a base word, such as "Introduction", it >would consider both "Introduction topics" and "Introduction, to charts" to >be part of the same set of keywords. > >Then, 3.1 Search yields: > >Introduction, >Introduction, to charts >Introduction, to data >Introduction, to exporting files > >and the 95 Index yields: > >Introduction > to charts > to data > to exporting files > >NEGATIVES: a) this looks terrible for 3.1; and b) you have to decide and >maintain where the lone "Introduction," keyword will go ... should it go to >ALL of the Introduction topics, or just the key one, or ??? ... if there are >a LOT of topics, you could end up with 20 "hits." This is the way I go, and sacrifice 3.1 for 95. I only put the generic "introduction-like" keyword into overview-type topics. Like I said before, it's hard with this, as the word "Introduction" really can't stand alone. If you use TEXT instead, you can see it better: in 95 Text font size font style in 3.1 Text Text: font size Text: font style Then you put the first-level keyword "Text" in the most generic text topics you have, so that they get an overview topic there about all the text possibilities. You'll notice I also avoid commas - sometimes they hose the Win95 compiler. Use colons instead - they are safer. > > >2) It gets a little more complicated if you happen to have a keyword that >matches the {base word} of another keyword like: {base word, secondary word} > -- or of another keyword like: {base word and another word} ... > >For example, the keywords: "Airtime column" and "Airtime column, Avg" and >"Airtime column, Roaming" look great: > >In 3.1 Search: > >Airtime column >Airtime column, Avg >Airtime column, Roaming > >And in Win 95: > >Airtime column > Avg > Roaming > >BUT if you have the same set of keywords, plus "Airtime column enhanced" ... >you get: > >In 3.1 Search: > >Airtime column >Airtime column enhanced >Airtime column, Avg >Airtime column, Roaming > >And in Win 95: > >Airtime column >Airtime column enhanced >Airtime column, Avg > Roaming What you do with this mess is add a space between the end of the keyword and the separator character. "Airtime column ;" "Airtime column :Avg" "Airtime column :Roaming." That forces the sort order. Win 95 strips it off so you don't see it. It will also sort correctly in 3.1, but again is ugly. >3) I have a general indexing issue that no one has been able to help me >with; I thought that keywords/index entries always HAD to form a grammatical >structure, so that if you wanted to search "Centering poems on a page" on >the word "poems" ... you'd have to create a keyword like: "Poems on a page, >centering" (so that if it was put together, it would make sense) ... Not in keywords. You just don't have enough room or levels, or attention span for the reader. They get tired of looking at keywords very quickly, and the denser the keywords, the worse it is. I would make this "Centering poems" or "Pages: centering poems on" >For example, how would you index the keyword (from a Q&A topic), "What if >there's not enough memory to run the application?" on the word "Memory"? > >"Memory, too low to run the application" > >or > >"Memory to run the application, what to do if there's not enough" > >or > >"Memory too low, what to do" > >or > >???? Memory: low memory problems Troubleshooting: low memory problems Low memory problems Out of memory errors Errors: low memory problems Application name: memory problems RAM: low memory problems Let me know if you want me to send you the handouts, or fax you the article in its rough draft form. Jan Wright ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 16:57:48 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: JPerlman@aol.com Subject: Re: Analysis run amok? ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Lynn, I understand the situation you're faced with. I would not choose to use the fourth level of subhead in this situation. I *would* use main entries for each of those fourth level organisms, to pick up the information under the name of the organism. My rationale is that the index does NOT have to duplicate the book, or the entire structure of the book. I would put the inclusive pages for the two under the third level subhead, and let it stand that way. My basic rationale is that the pages are so close together, that the discussion will flow from one to the other, and the searcher will find both if he/she finds one. I don't think the searcher needs to, or expects to, find such fine delineations in the index. My personal preference is never to use that fourth level of subhead, despite the fact that the publisher permits it. I simply don't make my distinctions that fine in any index I create. Another spin on the subject, and I hope I don't get flamed for introducing a business consideration into this techniques-oriented discussion .... I feel that to do analysis to this degree of detail would take extra time, if one is to analyze the entire text and index it similarly, which should happen, for consistency sake. In my mind, that would require a higher rate of pay. Without compromising basic quality, I believe that there is an index for every price -- it other words, you get what you pay for. For a price of X dollars per indexable page, I would do an appropriate index at a certain level. If the client wants me to do an even more careful an analysis, down to fourth level subhead, I would expect and request a higher rate of pay. The extra time it would take to create an index containing that level of detail should be compensated. To accept the usual price a publisher pays for a fourth-level index would mean you'd be very underpaid for the index. For that reason I'd say "no" to a fourth-level subheads *unless* I had discussed the payrate and need to do that detailed an index with the publisher in advance and reached some kind of agreement about a higher rate. As I said, friends, please don't flame me for thinking like a businesswoman. I do want to make money, and be properly compensated for my work. Most publishers are not paying enough to do fourth-level subheads on an index. Janet Perlman Southwest Indexing ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 09:47:39 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Pam Rider Subject: SUPPORT PUBLIC ACCESS TO NET ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- > >With the growing concentration of media and the increasing gap between rich >and poor, the following is perhaps one of the most important petitions we >can sign for the future of democracy in this country. Please sign and please >circulate: Andy Palmer >>From ALAWON, Vol.5, No.19: > ACTION ALERT - SUPPORT THE EQUITY PETITION DURING NLW > SUPPORT PUBLIC ACCESS TO ELECTRONIC INFORMATION >_________________________________________________________________ > ACTION ALERT - SUPPORT THE EQUITY PETITION DURING NLW > >It's now National Library Week -- time to really get going on >ALA's equity petition. This is a reminder to urge library >advocates and all library users to sign and return the equity >petition. It's also a reminder to include, not just the signer's >e-mail address, but also full name and mailing address >information. Many electronic responses are being returned >without full information. Thanks to all! > > SUPPORT PUBLIC ACCESS TO ELECTRONIC INFORMATION > >Where do you go to ride the information superhighway if you don't >own a computer or know how to use one? The same place >generations of Americans have turned for books and other >resources they need to live, learn, work and govern -- the >Library. Please sign and return this Equity Petition by May 1 to >equity@alawash.org to register your support for libraries as >public access ramps to electronic information. Forward this >petition to others whom you know will want to register their >support. You may also make print copies and return the signed >petitions to the American Library Association, 1301 Pennsylvania >Ave., N.W. Suite 403, Washington, D.C. 20004-1700. > >The Equity Petition: >I believe that free and open access to information is vital to a >democratic society. Connecting every school, public, college and >university library to the information superhighway is the most >logical and economical way of ensuring public access to >electronic information and equity on the information >superhighway. I want my local, state and federal tax dollars used >to help connect libraries. And I urge the President, Congress, >my state and local representatives to support policies that >ensure Americans in the 21st century will enjoy the same free and >open access to information that we do today. > >Your Name (please print) Street address, city, state, zip > > Pam Rider Trying to walk cheerfully on the Earth prider@powergrid.electriciti.com prider@tsktsk.com http://www.electriciti.com:80/~prider/ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 09:47:51 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Chuck Brockman <75176.605@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Ergonomic Keyboards and Key Layouts ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >>Is the Dvorak keyboard layout a substantial improvement over the standard >>QWERTY layout? There is a five-page file titled "Overview Information about the Dvorak Keyboard" by Randy Cassingham available via the Internet. (Cassingham wrote the book "The Dvorak Keyboard.") Simply send an e-mail to TrueInfo@freecom.com with the subject DVORAK. The autoreply program will send you the file. In it you will find answers to your questions. You might also contact Dvorak International, Box 129, Poultney, VT 05764 (USA). ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 09:48:00 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Lori Lathrop <76620.456@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Analysis ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- In response to Lynn Moncrief, who finds herself tempted to go to four levels in an index .... One thing I always tell participants in my indexing workshops is that, if they find themselves tempted to go to a fourth level, they've probably created a main heading that is much too broad. I think that's the case in your example, too. "Biosynthesis" is too broad and should be more specific. For example, you could combine your main heading and subentry like this: cnidarian neuropeptide biosynthesis Then your third-level subs would be second-level subs, and the fourth-level subs would be third-level subs ... and the index would still provide readers with a good topic analysis. Happy indexing .... Lori ******************************************************************* Lori Lathrop ----------> INTERNET:76620.456@compuserve.com Lathrop Media Services, P.O. Box 3065, Idaho Springs, CO 80452 Office: 303-567-4447, ext. 28 / Fax: 303-567-9306 ******************************************************************* ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 09:48:10 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Simon Cauchi Subject: synonyms ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >If the author talks about term X on page 30, then on page 33 he mentions that >term X is also sometimes known as term Y, and then on other pages talks about >term X, should term Y be indexed just on page 33 or on the other pages as >well. If a person were looking up Y in the index he wouldn't find it on the >other pages, so it would be misleading to list them. On the other hand, he >will find the same concept on the other pages. Opinions? > >Judy Press >Press Indexing Services Two solutions present themselves. Either index term Y as appearing on p. 33 and add a "see also" reference to term X, or else have a simple "see" reference from Y to X. Choose the second if X is exactly or very closely synonymous with Y, but the first if X is not an exact synonym. From Simon Cauchi, 13 Riverview Terrace, Hamilton 2001, New Zealand. Telephone and facsimile: +64 7 854 9229. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 09:48:19 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Michael & Cheryl Dietsch Subject: Re: synonyms ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Prindex@aol.com wrote: > > ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- > If the author talks about term X on page 30, then on page 33 he mentions that > term X is also sometimes known as term Y, and then on other pages talks about > term X, should term Y be indexed just on page 33 or on the other pages as > well. If a person were looking up Y in the index he wouldn't find it on the > other pages, so it would be misleading to list them. On the other hand, he > will find the same concept on the other pages. Opinions? > > Judy Press > Press Indexing Services I run into that problem a lot since I index computer books. (There seem to be countless different terms for "functions"!) What I do is make a "see" reference from term Y to term X and then make sure that all the page numbers and second levels are under term X. If there are no second levels, then I'll put all the page numbers with BOTH terms and delete the "see" reference. Cheryl Dietsch ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 09:48:28 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Annblum@aol.com Subject: Re: Analysis run amok? ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Lynn, My rule of thumb for subsubsubs, etc. is that (1) as long as there is pertinent material in the subsubsubsub for the reader and (2) the publisher allows you do use several subs, then do it. I know that with detailed surgical and many other medical and nursing books, I often have 4 and sometimes 5 subheads. It depends on the level of the material in question, and, often, as in your case with the "sea" creatures, there were several pages involved with each. Had these two topics been grouped together, the reader looking for either one of these would have spent unnecessary time searching for it among the total range of pages. Good choice in my opinion. Ann ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 09:48:41 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: WordenDex@aol.com Subject: Fwd: Writers Message Boards ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- When you all try to access the Editing/Indexing/Translating message board on AOL, don't believe the 0/0 folders/posting notice. Stuff is really there; just follow THopeB's direction til it's fixed: --------------------- Forwarded message: Subj: Re: Writers Message Boards Date: 96-04-16 13:29:09 EDT From: THopeB To: WordenDex,KarenB8352,NY WRITER To: GmBarba Hi everyone, The message boards, the folders on the message boards and the postings in the folders are still there. Until the message board problem is fixed, you need to select/double click on the message board you want to look at (Club News, Fiction, whatever). Then list the folders or topics. I know this is a pain and royally frustrating. Believe me, I'm doing everything I can to nag the tech people to fix it. I wish this problem was something I can fix but it's not. Thank you for your patience and if you have any questions, please let me know. Tracey, WC ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 17:03:37 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Jonathan Jermey Subject: Re: Analysis run amok? ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- At 12:05 16/04/96 ECT, Lynn Moncrief wrote: >----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >I'm indexing a fascinating chapter in a book on cytology about cnidarian >nervous systems. (Yeah, I didn't know either that the nervous systems of >jellyfish, etc. could be so interesting--or that they even had them. ;-D) >Anyway, I derived the following set of headings: > >Biosynthesis > of cnidarian neuropeptides > Antho-RFamide > in sea anemones, 58 -64 > in sea pansies, 64-67 > AnthoRPamide I in sea anemones, 68-69 > Antho-RPamides II-IV in sea anemones, 69-71 > higher animals versus, 57-58 > in Hydrozoans, 74-77 > metamorphosis-inducing in sea anemones, 71-74 > >Note that the there are subsubsubentries under subsubentry "Antho-RF amide". >Usually, I try to avoid splitting hairs this finely, going down to a fourth >level. However, the subheadings in the text include separate sections for >"Antho-RFamide" in sea anemones and "Antho-RFamide" in sea pansies--which >engaged my anal-compulsive hyperdrive mode! Would it be better to not >separate the entries for sea pansies and sea anemones under Antho-RFamide, >just putting locators for each next to that subsubentry? Is this overkill? Every indexer (and publisher) has their own idea of how the users of the book are going to deal with the index. I suspect that most of us are kidding ourselves if we think that most readers have the intellectual equipment and/or the desire to deal with complex sub-sub-headings (and elaborate divisions into bold and italic page numbers and references). If I was a reader looking up Antho-RFamide in sea pansies I would probably glance over the pages on sea anemones too, just to see that I (and the indexer) wasn't missing anything. I suspect many readers would do the same. So - to sum up - when the page references are sequential anyway then I don't think the differentiation adds anything. Jonathan. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Jermey & Glenda Browne, Blaxland NSW Australia E-mail - jonathan@magna.com.au Web - http://www.magna.com.au/~jonathan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If everybody on the Internet sent you one piece of junk mail, it would take three-and-a-half years for you to clear your mailbox. Report any unsolicited mail to the sender's postmaster. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thought on censorship: How come sticking sharp objects in people is OK for kids to see, but sticking blunt bits of people in people isn't? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 17:04:02 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Jonathan Jermey Subject: Re: synonyms ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- At 11:56 16/04/96 ECT, Judy Press wrote: >----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >If the author talks about term X on page 30, then on page 33 he mentions that >term X is also sometimes known as term Y, and then on other pages talks about >term X, should term Y be indexed just on page 33 or on the other pages as >well. If a person were looking up Y in the index he wouldn't find it on the >other pages, so it would be misleading to list them. On the other hand, he >will find the same concept on the other pages. Opinions? Use a see or see also reference - e.g. where the terms are synonymous: eggplants, see aubergines or where the terms are related: cucumber, 33; see also cucurbits This tells the reader: a) that the terms are synonymous or related; and b) where to find page references to the preferred or more general term. Jonathan. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Jermey & Glenda Browne, Blaxland NSW Australia E-mail - jonathan@magna.com.au Web - http://www.magna.com.au/~jonathan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If everybody on the Internet sent you one piece of junk mail, it would take three-and-a-half years for you to clear your mailbox. Report any unsolicited mail to the sender's postmaster. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thought on censorship: How come sticking sharp objects in people is OK for kids to see, but sticking blunt bits of people in people isn't? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 17:04:31 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: John Howe Subject: Index for Safety Book Sought ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- --part_AD9AC12E0015F40B00000001 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: Inline The American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) is looking for someone to index a 200+ page book, "AIChE Guide to Safety." This is a collection of 33 articles taken from the Institute's technical peridoicals on subjects such as emergency relief systems, hydrogen system safety and spill containment. Indexer should be familiar with engineering terms. Articles are geared toward practitioners, not academics. Deadline is May 31. Index must be supplied in Macintosh-compatible ASCII or other format that can be accepted by QuarkExpress. Send details on your background, rates and requests for additional information to Dan Chillak, Production Director, AIChE, 345 E. 47th St., New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 705-7125; Fax: (212) 705-7812; e-mail: danc@aiche.org --part_AD9AC12E0015F40B00000001 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: Inline John Howe, CEP Managing Editor 345 E. 47th St. New York, NY 10017 Voice: (212) 705-7334 Fax: (212) 705-7812 e-mail: johnh@aiche.org --part_AD9AC12E0015F40B00000001-- ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 17:07:00 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Carol Roberts Subject: synonyms ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >If the author talks about term X on page 30, then on page 33 he mentions that >term X is also sometimes known as term Y, and then on other pages talks about >term X, should term Y be indexed just on page 33 or on the other pages as >well. All the instances should be indexed under the term the author uses most frequently, X. Then cross-reference from the other term, Y. Also cross-reference from other synonyms of X that the author did not use at all if you think some readers might look up those. Cheers, Carol Roberts, indexer and copy editor | Life is good. Carol.Roberts@mixcom.com | Milwaukee, WI | ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 17:07:09 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Carol Roberts Subject: Re: Analysis run amok? ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >I'm indexing a fascinating chapter in a book on cytology about cnidarian >nervous systems. (Yeah, I didn't know either that the nervous systems of >jellyfish, etc. could be so interesting--or that they even had them. ;-D) >Anyway, I derived the following set of headings: > >Biosynthesis > of cnidarian neuropeptides > Antho-RFamide > in sea anemones, 58 -64 > in sea pansies, 64-67 > AnthoRPamide I in sea anemones, 68-69 > Antho-RPamides II-IV in sea anemones, 69-71 > higher animals versus, 57-58 > in Hydrozoans, 74-77 > metamorphosis-inducing in sea anemones, 71-74 Hi, Lynn. Have you considered making this main entry Biosynthesis, of cnidarian neropeptides to get rid of one level? Then you could still have other biosynthesis main entries: Biosynthesis of cnidarian neropeptides Antho-RFamide in sea anemones, 58 -64 in sea pansies, 64-67 AnthoRPamide I in sea anemones, 68-69 Antho-RPamides II-IV in sea anemones, 69-71 higher animals versus, 57-58 in Hydrozoans, 74-77 metamorphosis-inducing in sea anemones, 71-74 Biosynthesis of X Biosynthesis of Y Fourthly, if the authors >thought it was important enough to differentiate between sea anemones and sea >pansies in cnidarian neuropeptide biosynthesis, I feel compelled to do the >same in the index. I'm not sure I buy that . . . completely. I see authors do lots of things (including organization of material) I think will not make for a very good index structure. I hardly ever go down to a third level, let alone a fourth level, but I imagine it would be OK so long this is not the only way for users to find those sea anemones and sea pansies. Do they also appear as main entries? Cheers, Carol Roberts, indexer and copy editor | Life is good. Carol.Roberts@mixcom.com | Milwaukee, WI | ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:56:43 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Susan Sandford Pty Ltd Subject: Synonyms ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Judy wrote >----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >If the author talks about term X on page 30, then on page 33 he mentions that >term X is also sometimes known as term Y, and then on other pages talks about >term X, should term Y be indexed just on page 33 or on the other pages as >well. If a person were looking up Y in the index he wouldn't find it on the >other pages, so it would be misleading to list them. On the other hand, he >will find the same concept on the other pages. Opinions? Part of the indexer's task is to gather synonyms and provide references so that users of the work who may not be familiar with all of the different ways of referring to a concept can find what they want. There are two ways to handle this: either by double posting entries where only a few are involved; or, by choosing one term and providing references to the other terms. I think that editing an index is one of the nost important things an indexer can do. This is the added value that makes commissioning a professional indexer worthwhile. In the example given, I would most probably use the term which the author has used most often and provide a "see" reference to the lesser used term. Cheers, Susan ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss Susan Sandford, Susan Sandford Pty Ltd., Ph. (+61 3) 9482 2695 Fax (+61 3) 9482 6595 E-mail susans@vicnet.net.au ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:57:08 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Wildefire@aol.com Subject: Re: Analysis ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- In a message dated 96-04-16 23:39:39 EDT, 76620.456@CompuServe.COM (Lori Lathrop) writes: > >In response to Lynn Moncrief, who finds herself tempted to go to four levels >in an index .... > >One thing I always tell participants in my indexing workshops is that, if >they find themselves tempted to go to a fourth level, they've probably created a >main heading that is much too broad. I think that's the case in your example, >too. >"Biosynthesis" is too broad and should be more specific. > >For example, you could combine your main heading and subentry like this: > cnidarian neuropeptide biosynthesis >Then your third-level subs would be second-level subs, and the fourth-level subs >would be third-level subs ... and the index would still provide readers with a >good topic analysis. Lori, In principle I agree with you, particularly regarding many technical texts. (I haven't been tempted to go down four levels in software manuals, for example.) ;-D However, I don't think "biosynthesis" is too broad in this context unless you are saying that, under *all* circumstances, four levels is too deep. (BTW, I don't think that the other entries under "biosynthesis" will require four levels.) When, one finds oneself faced with that many levels in texts that simply aren't that complex, then I agree that the indexer is using main entries that are too broad. For example, Ann Blum cited medical and nursing texts demanding fourth and fifth levels and I've also heard that many philosophical texts are as complex. This text, and others that I've indexed where I've had to go to four levels are as complex as what Ann mentioned, considering that cytology is one of the source(?) sciences for medical topics. However, I think your technique of creating narrower main headings is a great one. I use it quite heavily when publishers restrict subentry levels to sub or subsub regardless of the complexity of the text. It's the only way in those circumstances to get the required topical analysis you mentioned, yet meet publishers' specs. I also use it when I find myself needing to go beyond a fourth level (forbidden by this publisher) or when a main heading is generating so many sub and subsubentries that the reader is likely to get lost in it. But using that technique usually (always?) requires cross-referencing from where the reader is likely to look first and that, IMHO, is its drawback. Now, I'm not saying that I *don't* use cross-references, but when I can tuck something in at a point in an index where the reader is already very likely to be (avoiding creating uselessly large page ranges in the process), I hate to send them elsewhere if I can avoid it. (I'm a very impatient index user, ergo I assume everyone else is.) I'd be extremely interested to hear whether you feel that fourth levels should always be avoided, regardless of the complexity of the text, and your reasoning. I'm always fascinated to hear your observations, as you well know. :-D Lynn Moncrief TECHindex & Docs Technical and Scientific Indexing ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:57:21 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Infojo6363@aol.com Subject: Content Analysis Software ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Greetings Index-L! Can anyone make any recommendations on content analysis software? Programs such as HyperResearch, KANT, NUDIST, ETHNOGRAPH, HYPEREQUAL KWALITAN, MARTIN? Has anyone ever attempted to do a content analysis using hypercard or flowcharting software? TIA Jodi Perkins Infojo6363@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:57:36 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Mrowland@aol.com Subject: Re: courier fees ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- In a message dated 96-04-16 16:59:06 EDT, you write: << want you Easterners to be very appreciative of the late FedEX deadlines you have out there. Here in the West (I'm in AZ), we have much earlier deadlines. In Phoenix, it's 3 PM in suburban locations, 5 to 5:30 in closer in drop locations, and the absolute latest one, closest to the airport, is 6:30 PM, but that's one heck of a ride across town! So it's still an east-coast based world out there! Janet Perlman Southwest Indexing >> Gosh, I am sorry to hear this. I have always imagined having a west-coast connection that would enable me to finish an index just before 9 pm ET and e-mail to someone on who could get it to a west coast Fed Ex box by 6 om Pacific time. :-) I encourage my clients to avoid overnight delivery altogether and take indexes by e-mail. Saves on paper too. Marilyn Rowland Cape Cod, MA--just about as far east as you can get ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:57:46 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: DStaub11@aol.com Subject: Re: synonyms ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >If the author talks about term X on page 30, then on page 33 he mentions that >term X is also sometimes known as term Y, and then on other pages talks about >term X, should term Y be indexed just on page 33 or on the other pages as >well. If a person were looking up Y in the index he wouldn't find it on the >other pages, so it would be misleading to list them. On the other hand, he >will find the same concept on the other pages. Opinions? If the author has clearly said that the two terms mean the same thing, I would index all of the pages under X, with a see reference from Y. If it wasn't quite clear or the author seemed to be attached to using the second term in that one section (as you all know, authors aren't always consistent about these things), I would index page 33 for Y with a see also to X. Here's an even worse scenario; I've run into it several times. One author in a multi-author collection defines a term and uses it. Then another author discusses the term, saying that "some people use it to mean [what the first author used it for] but they're wrong, it really means this other thing," and proceeds to use it for the other thing! I've even had this happen in a book by a single author! Of course, in a case like this, there is no ideal solution. I either get the author to decide if I'm on discussing terms with them, use the "majority" term if there's just one dissenting author or section of the book, and insert see also references liberally to help the reader find their way around! Do mi ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:57:58 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: MaryBFox@aol.com Subject: Re: Help---Software ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- CINDEX has been an excellent product for my newspaper indexing because of its flexibility and because of the ease with which separate files can be combined into one. Also, it comes with an excellent manual. I would think these features would be important for all periodical indexing, so I recommend you get in touch with Indexing Research, (716) 461-5530. I would be happy to answer questions about my experiences if that would help you. maryfox@delphi.com ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:58:11 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Wildefire@aol.com Subject: Re: Analysis run amok? ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- In a message dated 96-04-17 09:35:15 EDT, you write: >My rationale is that the index does NOT have to duplicate the book, or the >entire structure of the book. I would put the inclusive pages for the two >under the third level subhead, and let it stand that way. My basic rationale >is that the pages are so close together, that the discussion will flow from >one to the other, and the searcher will find both if he/she finds one. I >don't think the searcher needs to, or expects to, find such fine delineations >in the index. >My personal preference is never to use that fourth level of subhead, despite >the fact that the publisher permits it. I simply don't make my distinctions >that fine in any index I create. Janet, I agree that one discussion immediately follows the other (separated by a heading in the text), however, grouping them together creates a range of 20 pages which I don't feel is all that helpful to the reader, especially in a book of this complexity. Personally, I *do* feel that the searcher needs or at least appreciates finding such fine delineations in an index, especially if they're as lazy as I am when it comes to searching for something in an index and wanting to find it right away. (If I have to look under a third term in any index, I'm ticked. And, if I must read through quite a number of pages before I get to what I want in a text, I'm going up a wall.) ;-D It brings up a question that I don't recall seeing discussed here, i.e., what should be a maximum page range size before analyzing further. I'm not a proponent of the opposite excess which is having a list of subentries that are only a page apart or, worse, even falling on the same page. But, I think ten pages is an absolute maximum in most cases and less if the text itself is not rapidly scannable due to its complexity. >Another spin on the subject, and I hope I don't get flamed for introducing a >business consideration into this techniques-oriented discussion .... I feel >that to do analysis to this degree of detail would take extra time, if one is >to analyze the entire text and index it similarly, which should happen, for >consistency sake. In my mind, that would require a higher rate of pay. > Without compromising basic quality, I believe that there is an index for >every price -- it other words, you get what you pay for. For a price of X >dollars per indexable page, I would do an appropriate index at a certain >level. If the client wants me to do an even more careful an analysis, down >to fourth level subhead, I would expect and request a higher rate of pay. > The extra time it would take to create an index containing that level of >detail should be compensated. To accept the usual price a publisher pays for >a fourth-level index would mean you'd be very underpaid for the index. For >that reason I'd say "no" to a fourth-level subheads *unless* I had discussed >the payrate and need to do that detailed an index with the publisher in >advance and reached some kind of agreement about a higher rate. I'd never flame you. ;-D And this puts an interesting spin on the discussion. It turns out that the publisher is indeed paying a higher than normal (for them) page rate for this particular text. I've done complex texts for a lower rate for this publisher, but have also done less demanding texts for them at their higher rates--so it all evens out in the end. However, I don't really find it all that much more difficult to go down another level when I feel the text demands it, but this may be an artifact of my indexing methods and thought processes. When a text is really complex, I bang out prospective entries for a given passage, then go back and refine, often deleting and subsuming lower-level subentries, at the end of the passage. I'm sure that most people don't work this way, but I'm mentally generating entries and typing them in a flaming white heat as I read each group of paragraphs, scrolling through the index itself constantly while I go. If a fourth level entry immediately pops to mind, it's far easier for me to plug it in than ignore it and wonder at the end what to do with so many unanalyzed higher level locators for it. What I find extremely more difficult is to have to index more lightly than the text demands or restricting myself in any way. I can't get all of those subtle informational threads and patterns (that seem to be in all texts, regardless of how well or poorly organized) right if I don't have them there in the developing index to work from. I end up going back through the pages because something is nagging at me that I realize I should have indexed earlier. Or an agonizing structural flaw develops. Even when there aren't space or structural limitations, I often delete entries on the fly and in the final editing process. But this is far easier to do when I have a structure to delete from than not having enough in the index to know whether a particular entry is too important to delete or where it should be spun off as a main heading. > >As I said, friends, please don't flame me for thinking like a businesswoman. > I do want to make money, and be properly compensated for my work. Most >publishers are not paying enough to do fourth-level subheads on an index. I'm 1000% with you about thinking like a businesswoman and being properly compensated! But at the same time, there's that perfectionist, craftsmanship part of me that just won't let me hold back when I know that my creation--a part of my heart and soul actually--is going out into the world, even when my name isn't on it. :-D Lynn Moncrief TECHindex & Docs Technical and Scientific Indexing ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:58:20 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Lori Lathrop <76620.456@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Colorado - Online Info ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- If you have Web access and you're planning to attend the ASI Annual Conference in Denver next month, you'll enjoy surfing the following Web sites: Colorado Online Visitor Guide (http://www.colorado.com) and the Denver International Airport (http://infodenver.denver.co.us/~aviation/diaintro.html) Hoping to see you next month .... Lori ***************************************************************** Lori Lathrop ----------> INTERNET:76620.456@compuserve.com Lathrop Media Services, P.O. Box 3065, Idaho Springs, CO 80452 Office: 303-567-4447, ext. 28 / Fax: 303-567-9306 ***************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 15:22:18 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Kevin Mulrooney Subject: Re: synonyms ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Judy Press wrote: >----------------------------Original message---------------------------- >If the author talks about term X on page 30, then on page 33 he mentions that >term X is also sometimes known as term Y, and then on other pages talks about >term X, should term Y be indexed just on page 33 or on the other pages as >well. If a person were looking up Y in the index he wouldn't find it on the >other pages, so it would be misleading to list them. On the other hand, he >will find the same concept on the other pages. Opinions? > This may be a new thread, but I wanted to start a dialog on what a "see also" reference really means. Oh we all know what it "means" in terms of pointing you to additional/supplementary/related information, but how do index users really perceive a "see also"? What I'm getting at is that it is my opinion that there is nothing in the use of a "see also" that implies to an index user that they must do something *now*: specifically go to the other location, to avoid missing pertinent information such as would be obtained if the "see also" location was a synonym for the original location. This would of course need to be the case if the "see also" were to be used as proposed by Judy: for vocabulary control. I believe a "see also" is perceived as something along the lines of this dialog: "Congratulations Sir/Madam. You found what you were looking for and it was on page 23. Oh, hey by the way. Before you get back to work, here's a little tid-bit. If you have extra time now, or some other time when you're not too busy you may want to look up this other interesting term [the "see also"]. But there's really no hurry since it's like "additional" or "supplementary" information that if it really belonged here would be here, right?" Thus in my opinion using a "see also" is a poor means for vocabulary control. I use the approach several others have described: 1) double post all terms at both places if only a few 2) use a "see" to send readers to the preferred (i.e., author uses most) term if there are 1 or more subs In many of the books I do literally every other term will have not one but 2-3 synonyms [slight exaggeration but you get the point: this problem is ubiquitous]. As Susan Sanford pointed out very eloquently an index is made in the editing process and handling this type of thing is what it's all about. On the other hand I agree with the comment about users being confused about "looking" for one word but being made to "search" for another. Although I don't do it now, perhaps a format like putting the synonym forms in square brackets after the preferred/chosen term would help readers. Kevin Mulrooney ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dyslexics of the world untie! First State Indexing (302) 738-2558 276 East Main Street Indexer@inetcom.net Newark, Delaware 19711 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 15:22:30 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Kevin Mulrooney Subject: Re: Analysis run amok? ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Lynn I haven't read all your posts on this issue, but I have to be a contrarian and throw in a few comments. Yes I do think you've gone amok, but it's OK, you're among friends. Your set of terms looks like a beautiful layout for a thesaurus, with gorgeous well-posed hierarchical relationships. But is that what an index is about? [no in my opinion] What are you hoping to accomplish: sort of a "one-stop shopping" term with everything you ever wanted to know about biosynthesis? If that's the case, and assuming every single sub exists as an appropriate main heading, and that space is not an issue, and that indexer time is not an issue, then knock yourself out! I must say however that I don't think it's the indexer's task to organize the information in such a way and that the advantages are questionable given what we know about how clueless most index users are about using indexes. I wouldn't do this any more than in a book on chemistry have a term "reactions" followed by 300 subs with every reaction mentioned in the book. A specific reason: how about what I call the "fallacy of inclusiveness". Are you positive that every single solitary reference concerning biosynthesis is among your subs? (Actually Lynn you probably are but most people wouldn't be!) Because IMHO the **instant** you place specific terms in such a detailed hierarchical fashion you have implied that **all** such specific references to the topic will be listed here, which may not be true (thus the "fallacy" part). A reader who learns that there's a place in the index "biosynthesis" with a collection of all available information on biosynthesis would learn to only look here instead of looking up topics straight up. [see also "Law of Unintended Consequences"] More later perhaps when I have time to read all my e-mail. Noone can say this list isn't active these days!! Kevin Mulrooney ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dyslexics of the world untie! First State Indexing (302) 738-2558 276 East Main Street Indexer@inetcom.net Newark, Delaware 19711 http://www2.inet.net/~indexer/kjm.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 15:22:43 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: John Howe Subject: Correction to Ad for Indexer ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- --part_AD9BCE710006617100000002 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: Inline The e-mail address for Dan Chillak, the contact for those replying to the indexer for hire ad posted April 17, (see below) should read: danic@aiche.org Sorry. The American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) is looking for someone to index a 200+ page book, "AIChE Guide to Safety." This is a collection of 33 articles taken from the Institute's technical peridoicals on subjects such as emergency relief systems, hydrogen system safety and spill containment. Indexer should be familiar with engineering terms. Articles are geared toward practitioners, not academics. Deadline is May 31. Index must be supplied in Macintosh-compatible ASCII or other format that can be accepted by QuarkExpress. Send details on your background, rates and requests for additional information to Dan Chillak, Production Director, AIChE, 345 E. 47th St., New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 705-7125; Fax: (212) 705-7812; e-mail: danic@aiche.org --part_AD9BCE710006617100000002 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: Inline John Howe, CEP Managing Editor 345 E. 47th St. New York, NY 10017 Voice: (212) 705-7334 Fax: (212) 705-7812 e-mail: johnh@aiche.org --part_AD9BCE710006617100000002-- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 15:22:55 ECT Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group From: Robin Hilp Subject: permuted keyword in context ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- This sort of index has been around for a while. (For example, MetaWare has been designing indexes like this at least since 1992.) Now that the concept has been "field tested", how well does it really work? Do readers generally find it more useful than the standard multi-level index? For those of you unfamiliar with this type of index, it's a wide, shallow index -- one complete entry per line rather than the usual 2-or-more columns with indented subs. The indexed keyword is embedded in a phrase that provides context. To make it easier to scan, the keywords are aligned on a tab stop near the center of the page, with the context phrase extending before and after each keyword. IMHO, this style of indexing can provide quicker and more comfortable access to the desired reference, because the natural-language context phrase gives more intuitive information about the reference than a multi-level keyword-only index. I wonder whether, in practice, this style does reduce the amount of trial-and-error lookup. Here's an extract from a MetaWare index. It will look better if you can set your mailer display to a nonproportional font: _A_ command-line arguments ................................ 43, 263 function arguments .................................... 287 preloading arguments from memory ........................ 130 load function arguments into registers in the prolog ... 78, 130 aligning arguments on the stack ....................... 186 pushing arguments on the stack ....................... 217 _C_ file-name extension for C and C++ files .............................. 264 compiling and linking C and C++ modules ............................ 105 mixing C and C++ modules ........................ 66, 106