The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
Best results have been obtained by indexers with subject knowledge, and “production” indexing should be undertaken only by such indexers.
The classification used was basically sound, but requires expansion in some areas and contraction in rather more, so as to achieve less variation in the number of times code-numbers are used. In many cases scope notes are required.
A survey (6) of the report literature actually in use by a typical group of aerodynamicists shows that 98% of the reports were less than 10 years old and 83% less than 5 years old. This finding is likely to influence schedule revision and may necessitate re-appraisal of the scope of the present project. It also tends to minimise one criticism of peek-a-boo, i.e., that it is necessary at intervals, depending on card capacity and accession rate, to start a completely new index.
REFERENCES
1. WILDHACK, W.A., STERN, J., SMITH, J., Documentation in instrumentation. American Documentation5, 223–237 (1954).
2. CLEVERDON, C.W., THORNE, R.G., A brief experiment with the Uniterm system of co-ordinate indexing for the cataloguing of structural data (unpublished).
3. VESSEY, H.F., Test of N.L.L. card catalogue of aerodynamic measurements (unpublished).
4. VESSEY, H.F., SEYMOUR, J.R., Test of N.L.L. card catalogue of aerodynamic measurements. II (unpublished).
5. BERNIER, C.L., Correlative indexes and the blank sort. American Documentation9, 32–41 (1958).
6. WILSON, C.W.J., Report literature used by aerodynamicists (unpublished).
Items in cart [0]
