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)
<LISTSERV@BINGVMB.cc.binghamton.edu>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
From: Justine Carson <jhcarson@netcom.com>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
From: Alain Vaillancourt <NDGMTLCD@GSLIS.Lan.McGill.CA>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
From: Sheldon Siegel <sheldon.siegel@attws.com>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
From: Dwight Walker <dwight@zip.com.au>
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: <simon@herenow.com.au>
>Date: Sun, 07 Apr 1996 06:20:21 -0700
>From: Simon McGuire <simon@herenow.com.au>
>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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
From: Rebecca Green <rgreen@umd5.umd.edu>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
From: Australian Society of Indexers <aussi@zeta.org.au>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
From: Sarah Lee Bihlmayer <tecscrib@sirius.com>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
From: Sarah Lee Bihlmayer <tecscrib@sirius.com>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
From: "Neva J. Smith" <njsmith@bga.com>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
From: "Barbara J. Stroup" <bjstroup@mouse.mv.com>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
From: "Neva J. Smith" <njsmith@bga.com>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
From: lillian ashworth <ashworth@pullman.com>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
From: Pam Rider <prider@powergrid.electriciti.com>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
From: Pam Rider <prider@powergrid.electriciti.com>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
From: Simon Cauchi <cauchi@wave.co.nz>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
From: Michael & Cheryl Dietsch <skyler@iquest.net>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
From: Jonathan Jermey <jonathan@magna.com.au>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
From: Jonathan Jermey <jonathan@magna.com.au>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
From: John Howe <johnh@aiche.org>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
From: Carol Roberts <Carol.Roberts@mixcom.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.
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
From: Carol Roberts <Carol.Roberts@mixcom.com>
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
<snip, snip> 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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
From: Susan Sandford Pty Ltd <susans@vicnet.net.au>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
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
<instead of writing so much about indexing today, I should settle down and
actually *do* some>
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:58:20 ECT
Reply-To: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
From: Kevin Mulrooney <indexer@iNet.net>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
From: Kevin Mulrooney <indexer@iNet.net>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
From: John Howe <johnh@aiche.org>
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 <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Sender: Indexer's Discussion Group <INDEX-L@BINGVMB.BITNET>
From: Robin Hilp <robin@microtekintl.com>
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