Re: proposal for subjects in subject tree

Tony Barry <> Mon, 30 November 1992 07:09 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07597; 30 Nov 92 2:09 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07593; 30 Nov 92 2:09 EST
Received: from kona.CC.McGill.CA by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa26711; 30 Nov 92 2:10 EST
Received: by (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA22370 on Mon, 30 Nov 92 00:16:44 -0500
Received: from by with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA22365 (mail destined for /usr/lib/sendmail -odq -oi -fiafa-request iafa-out) on Mon, 30 Nov 92 00:16:30 -0500
Received: from by (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA28576; Mon, 30 Nov 92 16:15:49 EST
Received: from by (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AB27731; Mon, 30 Nov 92 16:18:31 EST
Message-Id: <>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1992 16:15:42 +1000
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Tony Barry <>
Subject: Re: proposal for subjects in subject tree
Cc: Ton Verschuren <>,,,,


you said -

>Does it matter if there is more than one subject tree?

Definitely not. Any subject tree can point to sub entries of any organised
by a different classification. Information _needs_ multiple views. We do
need to provide however those views which seekers of information are most
familiar and those are the common library classifications.

Any others are a bonus.

>then in fact only the top level of the tree will be different,
>perhaps all the bottom trees will be in common.

All trees will have the same leaves after all ;-)

Tony Barry. Head, Centre for Networked Access to Scholarly Information

    Australian National University Library     | fone   +61 6 249 4632
GPO Box 4 Canberra City A.C.T. 2601, AUSTRALIA | phax   +61 6 249 4063,  | telex  10717252