The context of this quote is important. For the project Karen Coyle was working on, and with respect to the particular way data was being ingested, stored, and ultimately discovered and used by the public, enabling alphabetical sorting proved more cumbersome than it was worth. An interesting, no doubt provocative anecdote; but I do not see it as a blanket statement on the overall value of alphabetical indexing to users in every system and every discovery environment.
Alphabetical indexing remains, I believe, the best way of showing users what a library does (and just as importantly) does not "have" (or license as the case may be). It may very well be that this function is not particularly useful for applications like Open Library which are closer in purpose, IMO, to universal bibliographies than true library catalogs. (This should not be taken as a dig at Open Library, which I support, but simply as a characterization of its function compared to most online catalogs.) For what it's worth our "A to Z index" of online journals is one of the most popular features we offer our users, because it allows them to see, quickly and easily, what resources are available to them through our library. It is true that indexing is a technique that originates in a previous generation of technology, and it certainly no longer has the universal attraction it used to. We now have more effective ways of performing some of the objectives of the catalog. However, I find rumors of its death -- proudly proclaimed or fearfully whispered -- to be somewhat exaggerated. Benjamin Abrahamse Head, Serials Cataloging Section Cataloging and Metadata Services MIT Libraries 617-253-7137 -----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:rd...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Weinheimer Jim Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 5:30 AM To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Google Exposes Book Metadata Privates at ALA Forum Bernhard Eversberg wrote: <snip> 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! </snip> This would demand some research. I would say that LCSH, i.e. subject heading strings, lose most of their coherence when they are not browsed alphabetically (and even then they are difficult). With personal names, I would think that people would find it very helpful to arrange all of the Robert Johnsons by surname instead of by first name (Bob, Rob, Robbie, etc.), but I think we could learn a lot from Wikipedia on this. I just cannot agree that surname-forename "Johnson, Robert" is so foreign for people's understanding. I think alphabetical arrangement is highly useful for finding sub-bodies of corporate bodies. (Of course, all of this assumes cross-references) As far as book titles go, my research has shown that alphabetical arrangement is rather recent. In several card catalogs, there were no title added entry cards made, only for title main entry. And in earlier times, in manuscript catalogs, I often found that even title main entry was not used. If there was no clear author, these items got placed into the section "Anonymous, Pseudonymous, etc. Works" by order of acquisition(!!!!!). That was really bad. Browsing by title may not be that important today with keyword retrieval since people should be able to sort in other ways. I believe that is the only place for non-filing indicators (other than series titles), but I may be wrong? James Weinheimer j.weinhei...@aur.edu Director of Library and Information Services The American University of Rome via Pietro Roselli, 4 00153 Rome, Italy voice- 011 39 06 58330919 ext. 258 fax-011 39 06 58330992
