[359] in ad-lib
ad-cat, b.index
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (sbyrd@MIT.EDU)
Wed Apr 19 11:03:11 1995
From: sbyrd@MIT.EDU
To: smitchel@MIT.EDU
Cc: ad-cat@MIT.EDU
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 11:01:23 EDT
>I'm not clear on whether the B.Index discussion came to closure.
>Do we need to plan for 1/2 hour or more on this topic, or, isn't there
>that much left to discuss.
For most issues, it did come to closure (updated list of changes to
give to Grant forthcoming). Most things were pretty straightforward,
non-controversial changes. The only thing that really didn't was the
notion of indexing 490 0 and most/all 5xx's. As you've seen, there's
a debate (well, I think we're actually all in agreement on this) that
the 510s, since they will not be displayed, should not be indexed. We
reached a heady but shaky consensus.
>I would like to talk about how the Ad-Cat
>recommendations for indexing get communicated to other interested
>parties.
I think our list of changes falls into two categories: 1. things that
are either errors or self-evident changes; 2. broader things like
indexing all 5xxs: creative changes or enhancements to the B.Index. I
think the way to communicate the recommendations to other interested
parties is simply to post our finalized list to whatever groups are
interested (I know opac-lib is) after we give it to Grant.
>Also, did the training discussion get resolved to everyone's
>satisfaction?
I think so....
>As you can see, I'm starting to think about what we need to discuss on
>Thursday before moving on to new agenda items.
>Sarah Mitchell
How about functional testing?
dcode = F,
Sam
