Search (20 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Register"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Olason, S.C.: Let's get usable! : Usability studies for indexes (2000) 0.06 
    0.061776184 = product of:
  0.12355237 = sum of:
    0.12355237 = sum of:
      0.043561947 = weight(_text_:systems in 882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043561947 = score(doc=882,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 882, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=882)
      0.07999042 = weight(_text_:22 in 882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07999042 = score(doc=882,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 882, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=882)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The article discusses a series of usability studies on indexes from a systems engineering and human factors perspective. The purpose of these studies is to establish a set of user requirements that indexes need to satisfy. The results from the first set of studies are presented and suggestions made as to how these can be applied to improve the usability and quality of indexes.
    Footnote
    Vgl.: http://www.theindexer.org/files/22-2-olason.pdf.
    Source
    Indexer. 22(2000) no.2, S.91-95
  2. Ross, J.: ¬The impact of technology on indexing (2000) 0.03 
    0.028280882 = product of:
  0.056561764 = sum of:
    0.056561764 = product of:
      0.11312353 = sum of:
        0.11312353 = weight(_text_:22 in 263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11312353 = score(doc=263,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 263, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=263)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Indexer. 22(2000) no.1, S.25-26
  3. Walker, A.: Indexing commonplace books : John Locke's method (2001) 0.03 
    0.028280882 = product of:
  0.056561764 = sum of:
    0.056561764 = product of:
      0.11312353 = sum of:
        0.11312353 = weight(_text_:22 in 13) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11312353 = score(doc=13,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 13, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=13)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Indexer. 22(2001) no.3, S.14-18
  4. Crystal, D.: Quote index unquote (2000) 0.03 
    0.028280882 = product of:
  0.056561764 = sum of:
    0.056561764 = product of:
      0.11312353 = sum of:
        0.11312353 = weight(_text_:22 in 487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11312353 = score(doc=487,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 487, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=487)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Indexer. 22(2000) no.1, S.14-20
  5. Matthews, D.: Indexing published letters (2001) 0.03 
    0.028280882 = product of:
  0.056561764 = sum of:
    0.056561764 = product of:
      0.11312353 = sum of:
        0.11312353 = weight(_text_:22 in 4160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11312353 = score(doc=4160,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4160, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4160)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Indexer. 22(2001) no.3, S.135-141
  6. Davis, M.: Building a global legal index : a work in progress (2001) 0.02 
    0.024745772 = product of:
  0.049491543 = sum of:
    0.049491543 = product of:
      0.09898309 = sum of:
        0.09898309 = weight(_text_:22 in 6443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09898309 = score(doc=6443,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 6443, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6443)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Indexer. 22(2001) no.3, S.123-127
  7. Browne, G.: ¬The definite article : acknowledging The in index entries (2001) 0.02 
    0.024745772 = product of:
  0.049491543 = sum of:
    0.049491543 = product of:
      0.09898309 = sum of:
        0.09898309 = weight(_text_:22 in 12) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09898309 = score(doc=12,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 12, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=12)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Indexer. 22(2001) no.3, S.119-122
  8. Weinberg, B.H.: Book indexes in France : medieval specimens and modern practices (2000) 0.02 
    0.024745772 = product of:
  0.049491543 = sum of:
    0.049491543 = product of:
      0.09898309 = sum of:
        0.09898309 = weight(_text_:22 in 486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09898309 = score(doc=486,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 486, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=486)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Indexer. 22(2000) no.1, S.2-13
  9. Mauer, P.: Embedded indexing : pros and cons for the indexer (2000) 0.02 
    0.024745772 = product of:
  0.049491543 = sum of:
    0.049491543 = product of:
      0.09898309 = sum of:
        0.09898309 = weight(_text_:22 in 488) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09898309 = score(doc=488,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 488, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=488)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Indexer. 22(2000) no.1, S.27-28
  10. Anderson, C.R.: Indexing with a computer : past and present (2000) 0.02 
    0.024745772 = product of:
  0.049491543 = sum of:
    0.049491543 = product of:
      0.09898309 = sum of:
        0.09898309 = weight(_text_:22 in 489) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09898309 = score(doc=489,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 489, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=489)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Indexer. 22(2000) no.1, S.23-24
  11. Lee, D.: Judging indexes : the criteria for a good index (2001) 0.02 
    0.024745772 = product of:
  0.049491543 = sum of:
    0.049491543 = product of:
      0.09898309 = sum of:
        0.09898309 = weight(_text_:22 in 4162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09898309 = score(doc=4162,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4162, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4162)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Indexer. 22(2001) no.4, S.191-194
  12. Weinberg, B.H.: Predecessors of scientific indexing structures in the domain of religion (2001) 0.02 
    0.024745772 = product of:
  0.049491543 = sum of:
    0.049491543 = product of:
      0.09898309 = sum of:
        0.09898309 = weight(_text_:22 in 4172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09898309 = score(doc=4172,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4172, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4172)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Indexer. 22(2001) no.4, S.178-180
  13. Weinberg, B.H.: Index structures in early Hebrew Biblical word lists : preludes to the first Latin concordances (2004) 0.02 
    0.024745772 = product of:
  0.049491543 = sum of:
    0.049491543 = product of:
      0.09898309 = sum of:
        0.09898309 = weight(_text_:22 in 4180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09898309 = score(doc=4180,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4180, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4180)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    17.10.2005 13:54:22
  14. Hodges, J.E.: Automated systems for the generation of document indexes (2000) 0.02 
    0.019058352 = product of:
  0.038116705 = sum of:
    0.038116705 = product of:
      0.07623341 = sum of:
        0.07623341 = weight(_text_:systems in 4668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07623341 = score(doc=4668,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.47535738 = fieldWeight in 4668, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4668)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  15. Bell, H.K.: History of societies of indexing : part VII: 1992-95 (2000) 0.02 
    0.01767555 = product of:
  0.0353511 = sum of:
    0.0353511 = product of:
      0.0707022 = sum of:
        0.0707022 = weight(_text_:22 in 113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0707022 = score(doc=113,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 113, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=113)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Indexer. 22(2000) no.2, S.81-83
  16. Rooney, P.: How I reused my own index (2007) 0.01 
    0.014140441 = product of:
  0.028280882 = sum of:
    0.028280882 = product of:
      0.056561764 = sum of:
        0.056561764 = weight(_text_:22 in 737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056561764 = score(doc=737,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 737, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=737)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    8.12.2007 18:41:22
  17. Dextre Clarke, S.G.: Evolution towards ISO 25964 : an international standard with guidelines for thesauri and other types of controlled vocabulary (2007) 0.01 
    0.012372886 = product of:
  0.024745772 = sum of:
    0.024745772 = product of:
      0.049491543 = sum of:
        0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 749) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049491543 = score(doc=749,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 749, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=749)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    8.12.2007 19:25:22
  18. Miksa, F.: ¬The DDC Relative Index (2006) 0.01 
    0.008837775 = product of:
  0.01767555 = sum of:
    0.01767555 = product of:
      0.0353511 = sum of:
        0.0353511 = weight(_text_:22 in 5775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0353511 = score(doc=5775,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5775, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5775)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The "Relative Index" of the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) is investigated over the span of its lifetime in 22 editions of the DDC as to its character as a concept indexing system, its provision of conceptual contexts for the terms it lists, and the way in which the index intersects with special tables of categories used in the system. Striking features of the index that are discussed include how the locater function of an index is expressed in it, its practice of including concepts that have not been given specific notational locations in the system, its two methods of providing conceptual contexts for indexed terms (by means of the notation of the system and by the insertion of enhancement terms that portray conceptual context), and how the index has intersected with three types of special tables of categories in the system. Critical issues raised include the indexing of constructed or synthesized complex concepts, inconsistencies in how enhancement terms are portrayed and the absence of them in some instances, the problem of equating conceptual context with disciplinary context, and problems associated with not indexing one type of special table. Summary and conclusions are extended to problems that arise in studying the index.
  19. Dienelt, O.: ¬Ein Workshop über Indexing (2003) 0.01 
    0.006186443 = product of:
  0.012372886 = sum of:
    0.012372886 = product of:
      0.024745772 = sum of:
        0.024745772 = weight(_text_:22 in 1502) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024745772 = score(doc=1502,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 1502, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1502)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    "Unter der Leitung von Frank Merrett von der Socieryy of Indexers (www.indexers.org.uk), die in Sheffield ihren Hauptsitz hat, fand am 22. Januar in London ein Workshop statt, in dem Einblicke in das Indexing (Registererstellung) ermöglicht wurden. SechsTeilnehmerinnen und drei Teilnehmer (Bibliothekare, Katalogisierer, angehende Indexer, Benutzer von Indices) bekamen durch Merrett neben den grundlegenden Dingen auch ein wenig Einblick in die Berufswirklichkeit eines Indexers vermittelt. Zunächst wurden einige Definitionen dessen, was ein Index ist, angesprochen: Ein Index (Register) ist eine systematische Anordnung von Eintragungen, die es dem Benutzer ermöglichen, Informationen in einem Dokument zu finden (nach Norm BS ISO 999,1996). Auch andere Definitionen besagen, dass die im Hauptteil eines Dokuments enthaltenen Informationen so herausgefiltert werden sollen, dass durch die Benutzung des Registers ein möglichst benutzerfreundlicher Zugang zum Hauptteil erfolgen kann. Ein Index soll den einen Benutzer entscheiden lassen, ob ein Dokument etwas für ihn Interessantes enthält. Dem anderen soll es dazu dienen, das Gelesene wieder aufzufrischen. Ein Index muss beiden gerecht werden. Nach Eintreffen des Materials vom Verlag (sehr oft als Papierausdruck) beginnt der erste Schritt, der vom persönlichen Arbeitsstil des Indexers abhängt. Manche beginnen sofort beim Lesen mit dem Niederschreiben von Begriffen, oft unter Verwendung von Software (Macrex, Cindex), andere markieren oder unterstreichen zunächst die relevanten Begriffe. Hier beginnt die eigentliche Arbeit, die darin besteht, wichtige Informationen aus dem Text herauszufiltern und so aufzubereiten, dass ein Buchleser zu Wichtigem hingeführt wird. Dazu gehören Entscheidungen wie zum Beispiel »was ist wichtig«, »was kann/ muss weggelassen werden«, »wo müssen Siehe- beziehungsweise Siehe-auch-Verweise eingebrachtwerden«. Bibliothekarisch gesehen, ist dies Sacherschließung und zugleich formale Erfassung, letztlich das Aufbauen eines Kreuzkatalogs. So wie ein Sacherschließer muss auch ein Indexer ständig überlegen, mit welchen Begriffen er dem Benutzer des Registers einen guten Zugang zur Information verschaffen kann. Ein gutes Verständnis des Faches, das in der Vorlage behandelt wird, ist deshalb unbedingt notwendig. Das wurde anhand einiger Seiten geübt, genauso wie das Aufbe-reiten des Index. Äußerste Genauigkeit ist hier nötig. Anhand eines fertigen Index mit eingebauten Ungenauigkeiten wurde geübt, sehr genau hinzuschauen und kleinste Ungenauigkeiten zu erkennen. Merrett sagte, dass ein gut geschriebenes Buch besser zu bearbeiten sei als eines, das einen weniger guten Hauptteil hat. Oft hat ein Indexer nur zwei Wochen Zeit für die Erstellung eines Registers. Die wenigsten dürften allerdings ständig von morgens bis abends an einem Index arbeiten, und nur sehr wenige verdienen ausschließlich mit dem Erstellen von Registern ihren Lebensunterhalt. Meistens ist dies ein Nebenjob. Nach Frank Merrett sind die Verhandlungen mit einem Verlag über einen zu erstellenden Index recht vorsichtig zu führen. Insbesondere über die Termine (Eintreffen des Manuskripts, Abliefern des Produkts) sowie die Form der Vorlage (welches Format, welcher Umfang) muss sich ein Indexer absichern, um keine Überraschungen zu erleben. So kann es sein, dass die Vorlage nicht als Buch, sondern als ein Stapel von Druckbogen, ungefalzt und unsortiert, ankommt. Auch das Honorar muß vom Indexer in Anbetracht des zu erwartenden Aufwandes verhandelt werden. Indexer ist keine geschützte Bezeichnung, deshalb kann sich jeder so nennen. Die Prüfungen, die man bei der Sociery of Indexers ablegen kann, sind aber ein Qualitätsnachweis. Die Society kann durch das Aufführen der Namen und Spezialgebiete auf der Homepage beziehungsweise in einem Verzeichnis einiges für die Mitglieder tun. Die Sociery legt auf das Kontakthalten mit Verlegern großen Wert, um dort auf die Dienste der Indexer hinzuweisen. Um Aufträge muß sich aber jeder selbst kümmern.
  20. Software for Indexing (2003) 0.00 
    0.0034032771 = product of:
  0.0068065543 = sum of:
    0.0068065543 = product of:
      0.013613109 = sum of:
        0.013613109 = weight(_text_:systems in 2294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013613109 = score(doc=2294,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.08488525 = fieldWeight in 2294, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2294)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Footnote
    A chapter an image indexing starts with a useful discussion of the elements of bibliographic description needed for visual materials and of the variations in the functioning and naming of functions in different software packaltes. Sample features are discussed in light of four different software systems: MAVIS, Convera Screening Room, CONTENTdm, and Virage speech and pattern recognition programs. The chapter concludes with an overview of what one has to consider when choosing a system. The last chapter in this section is an oddball one an creating a back-ofthe-book index using Microsoft Excel. The author warns: "It is not pretty, and it is not recommended" (p.209). A curiosity, but it should have been included as a counterpoint in the first part, not as part of the database indexing section. The final section begins with an excellent article an voice recognition software (Dragon Naturally Speaking Preferred), followed by a look at "automatic indexing" through a critique of Sonar Bookends Automatic Indexing Generator. The final two chapters deal with Data Harmony's Machine Aided Indexer; one of them refers specifically to a news content indexing system. In terms of scope, this reviewer would have liked to see thesaurus management software included since thesaurus management and the integration of thesauri with database indexing software are common and time-consuming concerns. There are also a few editorial glitches, such as the placement of the oddball article and inconsistent uses of fonts and caps (eg: VIRAGE and Virage), but achieving consistency with this many authors is, indeed, a difficult task. More serious is the fact that the index is inconsistent. It reads as if authors submitted their own keywords which were then harmonized, so that the level of indexing varies by chapter. For example, there is an entry for "controlled vocabulary" (p.265) (singular) with one locator, no cross-references. There is an entry for "thesaurus software" (p.274) with two locators, plus a separate one for "Thesaurus Master" (p.274) with three locators. There are also references to thesauri/ controlled vocabularies/taxonomies that are not mentioned in the index (e.g., the section Thesaurus management an p.204). This is sad. All too often indexing texts have poor indexes, I suppose because we are as prone to having to work under time pressures as the rest of the authors and editors in the world. But a good index that meets basic criteria should be a highlight in any book related to indexing. Overall this is a useful, if uneven, collection of articles written over the past few years. Because of the great variation between articles both in subject and in approach, there is something for everyone. The collection will be interesting to anyone who wants to be aware of how indexing software works and what it can do. I also definitely recommend it for information science teaching collections since the explanations of the software carry implicit in them descriptions of how the indexing process itself is approached. However, the book's utility as a guide to purchasing choices is limited because of the unevenness; the vendor-written articles and testimonials are interesting and can certainly be helpful, but there are not nearly enough objective reviews. This is not a straight listing and comparison of software packaltes, but it deserves wide circulation since it presents an overall picture of the state of indexing software used by freelancers."

Authors

Languages

  • e 19
  • d 1

Types