> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 11:28 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Abstract concepts as search indexes
>
> > So, you think it would be better to present the users with
> alternateTitle,
> > uniformTitle, spineTitle, runningTitle, subTitle indexes?  Or better
> yet,
> > 100$o, 110$o, 130$a, 240$a, 242$a, 245$a, 245$b, 245$c, 245$h, 245$n,
> 245$p
> > and so on for the 51 fields that I index as "title".
>
> No, No! I'm not arguing against a simplified representation for complex
> searching, I'm arguing against placing that burden on dc. If there is a
> general title index, and you map it to a dozen fields, and you also map dc
> to the exact same fields, that's up to you. Someone else may map the two
> differently.

And what has happened to cross-repository searching as a result of these
"improvements"?  If not dc, then who?  If we call it bib1, instead of dc, is
it any better?

Ralph