Sorting names
Sally Hambridge <sallyh@ludwig.intel.com> Wed, 19 October 1994 20:22 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06740; 19 Oct 94 16:22 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06736; 19 Oct 94 16:22 EDT
Received: from mocha.Bunyip.Com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16802; 19 Oct 94 16:21 EDT
Received: by mocha.bunyip.com (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA11064 on Wed, 19 Oct 94 14:25:05 -0400
Received: from sifon.CC.McGill.CA by mocha.bunyip.com with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA11060 (mail destined for /usr/lib/sendmail -odq -oi -fiafa-request iafa-out) on Wed, 19 Oct 94 14:24:55 -0400
Received: from hermes.intel.com (hermes.intel.com [143.185.65.3]) by sifon.CC.McGill.CA (8.6.9/8.6.6) with SMTP id OAA08026 for <iafa@cc.mcgill.ca>; Wed, 19 Oct 1994 14:23:44 -0400
Received: from ludwig.intel.com by hermes.intel.com (5.65/10.0i); Wed, 19 Oct 94 11:23:50 -0700
Received: by Ludwig.intel.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA05358; Wed, 19 Oct 94 11:23:09 PDT
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 11:23:09 -0700
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Sally Hambridge <sallyh@ludwig.intel.com>
Message-Id: <9410191823.AA05358@Ludwig.intel.com>
To: iafa@cc.mcgill.ca, mkoster@nextor.co.uk
Subject: Sorting names
>> Sally suggested that names be "Lastname, first names". If this is >> agreed - the examples would need changing. >Has anyone else got any strong desires/arguments either way? >I personally always think it looks silly, and am not convinced >sorting is always important. This is a challenge. How do I persuade you that sorting is important when you're not convinced it is. Hmmmm. I guess that it's important to think about people using IAFA templates in a context of research. If a person is doing research on a topic, not looking for a specific item, but interested in current work in a field, or general information, then the search they do will probably be a broad, sweeping search. If they get a lot of hits back, (100-200 - hopefully if there are more they will narrow, but I know some people who won't!) they will want to orgranize the templates in a way to make browsing through them easier. This may be one of several ways: By reverse date order; by an index weighting scheme (as Wais does), or by author name. Library catalogs (with paper cards) arranged subjects alphbetically by author name. Online catalogs have options for sorting, but in general, author names are still sortable and still allow organizing by that principle. I envision IAFA templates and URCs to be used in the same way that online catalog records are used - as a means to make decisions about whether a piece of information is relevant without having to access the piece of information and look through it to make that decision. (In the library world these are called surrogates.) OK - this probably hasn't convinced you that it's important, since I probably haven't said anything that's news to you. Try this: if we don't allow sorting of these names, they will *NEVER* be sortable. If in the future people decide they need this ability, we will not be able to offer it without wild code convolutions to parse names in First M. Last, Jr. order to make sure we get them right. The draft states that the templates are meant to be machine parse-able. I submit that names in Fist M. Last, Jr order *ARE NOT* parse-able. If your objection is that this *LOOKS* bad, then I say I favor ugly templates over ugly code. I don't mean to rant, but I do think this needs to change. Sally sallyh@ludwig.intel.com
- Sorting names Sally Hambridge
- Re: Sorting names ferguson
- Re: Sorting names Martijn Koster