Re: proposal for subjects in subject tree

Tony Barry <tony@info.anu.edu.au> Mon, 30 November 1992 08:10 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07721; 30 Nov 92 3:10 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07717; 30 Nov 92 3:10 EST
Received: from kona.CC.McGill.CA by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa27645; 30 Nov 92 3:11 EST
Received: by kona.cc.mcgill.ca (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA22375 on Mon, 30 Nov 92 00:17:00 -0500
Received: from anu.anu.edu.au by kona.cc.mcgill.ca with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA22371 (mail destined for /usr/lib/sendmail -odq -oi -fiafa-request iafa-out) on Mon, 30 Nov 92 00:16:47 -0500
Received: from info.anu.edu.au by anu.anu.edu.au (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA28573; Mon, 30 Nov 92 16:15:41 EST
Received: from [150.203.86.7] by info.anu.edu.au (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA27731; Mon, 30 Nov 92 16:18:25 EST
Message-Id: <9211300518.AA27731@info.anu.edu.au>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1992 16:15:37 +1000
To: Anders Gillner <awg@sunet.se>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Tony Barry <tony@info.anu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: proposal for subjects in subject tree
Cc: eurogopher@ebone.net, gvl@unt.edu, iafa@cc.mcgill.ca, jkrey@isi.edu, Ton Verschuren <Ton.Verschuren@surfnet.nl>, wombat@aarnet.edu.au

Anders

There has already been some discussion along these lines on gopher-news and
PACS-L.

>The idea is to find a couple of subjects, corresponding
>to one library standard or another, find subject maintainers
>for these, and then link their subject menus to one or more
>gopher servers in order to get an easy_to_find_access_point for users
>A SEPA, by the way, is a subject maintainer:
>
I completely agree with this. The choice of classification system is
important.
It is not cheap in staff time to determine a classification code in a large
collection. We will be talking large collections. The Veronica service has
already turned up 1.1 million items in gopher space.

The classification scheme needs to be one which is supported, trained staff
are available to do the classification and clients know it. I think this
favours the Library of Congress Classification, Dewey or UDC. As this
campus uses Library of Congress that is the way we have decided to go for
our gopher organisation. This can be seen at -

Name=The Electronic Library
Type=1
Port=70
Path=1/library/elibrary
Host=info.anu.edu.au

>that we have in a library, but the library situation probably
>reflects the situation on the total information market in a better
>way although some of the clusters are a little hard to understand:

This I agree with hence our decision.

All classifications have faults particularly with new material like
computer science. With gopher you can get round these faults by -

Putting multiple entries in for items which have more than one aspect.
Adding crosslinks from one classification group to another where there is
subject overlap.

Regards Tony
______________________________________________________________________
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
  tony@info.anu.edu.au, Tony.Barry@anu.edu.au  | telex  10717252