<<Does that mean alphabetical index displays of names, titles, subjects etc. can safely be considered dead?>>
I, for one, happen to like them. As a user, I always find it frustrating whenever I can't sort a list according to some transparent logic, be it alphabetical or chronological or by another scalable measure. ----- Dr. Christoph Schmidt-Supprian Assistant Librarian Bibliographic Data Management Trinity College Library Dublin On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Bernhard Eversberg <e...@biblio.tu-bs.de>wrote: > Weinheimer Jim schrieb: > > >> >> This is a description of a very interesting meeting over metadata, with >> many groups involved. >> >> http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/2010/01/google-exposes-book-metadata-privates.html >> > Most edifying as well as sobering indeed. > Do we conclude that ONIX should replace MARC? > > Karen Coyle said in that meeting: > "... the team tried to figure out when alphabetical sorting was really > required, and the answer turned out to be 'never'." > > Does that mean alphabetical index displays of names, titles, subjects > etc. can safely be considered dead? We've long suspicioned that > non-librarians neither want them nor understand them in the first place. > Decisions to abolish them should, however, not be based on suspicion > but evidence. Do we have it? Is that team's conclusion evidence? > If so, to the dustheap with non-sort markers and indicators! > > B.Eversberg >
