[Pgindexingsub] FW: [Techserv] indexing for PALSGroup database

[Slanicky, John]

I've moved this "discussion" over to the Indexing Subcommittee email
list.
If you have comments, please <reply> to this version of Nancy's message.
Thank you--
 
John
 
 


________________________________

	From: techserv-bounces at mailman.palsnet.info
[mailto:techserv-bounces at mailman.palsnet.info] On Behalf Of Nancy
Johnson
	Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:42 AM
	To: techserv at mailman.palsnet.info
	Subject: [Techserv] indexing for PALSGroup database
	
	
	   Here are my recommendations and comments on fields 7xx and
8xx.
	 
	   700, 710, 711, and 730 - don't index subfields 3 and 5.  I'd
say don't display them either.
	 
	   790, 791, 792, and 792 - are local entries for names.  Do we
have any of these fields?  My first thought is to not index or show
these fields.  If any records have them though, I'd say don't index or
display subfields 3 or 5.
	 
	   851 is an obsolete field.  Are there any occurances of this
field?  If there are, can they be remapped to an 852?
	 
	   871 is a required field, but it's obsolete.  (Doesn't make
much sense to me!).  If we have any occurances of the field, I'd say
don't index or display subfield 5.  Subfield 2 is the source of the
heading.  Do we display, but not index?  See my note below on subfield 2
in other fields. 
	 
	   I guess I had never thought about being able to be able to
access terms in the subfield 2.  If subfield 2 is indexed I could do a
keyword search for Spanish subject headings and ask that only those that
are bidex would display.  Example:  Bodas bidex would give me any
subject headings from the bidex file on weddings.
	 
	
Nancy J.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.palsnet.info/pipermail/pgindexingsub/attachments/20070207/340cf4ae/attachment.html