[809] in ad-lib
MAPROOM
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ninadm@MIT.EDU)
Mon Jun 12 14:24:51 1995
From: ninadm@MIT.EDU
To: opac-lib@MIT.EDU, cmg-lib@MIT.EDU, psac-lib@MIT.EDU
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 14:24:13 EDT
Is it OK with the Rotch contingent if we propose MAP and not MAPROOM? The
more I think about it, the more I concur that MAPROOM is dreadfully
misleading.
Nina
------- Forwarded Message
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 10:35:26 EDT
From: lippertm@MIT.EDU
To: opac-lib@MIT.EDU, psac-lib@MIT.EDU, cmg-lib@MIT.EDU, sbyrd@MIT.EDU
Subject: Maps, maproom
We in Science don't really think that maproom is all that useful,
since we doubt if anyone will actually request that something be found
in the maproom. And limiting to maproom does not make much sense in
terms of getting a smaller set. Rotch has a maproom too, so when we
use maproom as a qualifier we will get both Rotch and Science hits -
this is not a problem since the locations are clearly marked, but just
wanted to point out that it's not an ideal qualifier.
As for Map as a modifier, although it can be used by modifying a
search, it can be ETREMELY slow to do this on a large search as Margo
and I tried the other day. We searched for subject Africa and then
mofified by format map. It was so slow that we didn't wait for the
result. We both thought that a qualifier of map would help us in
these cases.
Margret
------- End of Forwarded Message
