Indexing Recommendations to Support Bath and Z Texas Searches

Greetings, and excuse the cross postings of the message...

The Texas Z39.50 Implementors Group (TZIG) has worked the past two years
to develop specifications to improve interoperability for library
catalog search and retrieval.  We recognized that common Z39.50
specifications address only one part of the interoperability problem. 
Our Z Texas Profile (a Bath Profile compatible specification) reflects
our effort on that part of the problem. 
 
The other part of the interoperability problem is a local system
concern.  Specifically, the differences in how systems make their
bibliographic records searchable (i.e., how the local system indexes the
records) have a profound impact on perceived interoperability.  To
address this level of interoperability, the TZIG has drafted a set of
indexing recommendations, "Recommendations for Indexing MARC 21 Records
to support Z Texas and Bath Profile Bibliographic Searches (Functional
Area A, Levels 0 & 1)" available at:

<http://www.unt.edu/wmoen/Z3950/MARC21Indexing/Z3950MARCIndexing.htm>

These are not intended as the final word on what MARC 21
fields/subfields should be searchable (i.e., provide the data for
indexes that support specific Bath and Z Texas Profile searches). 
Instead, we view the documents as containing the candidate
fields/subfields that should be considered for indexing.  As a community
that wants to improve Z39.50 interoperability for cross-catalog
searching, we should work towards consensus on a common set of indexes
all systems will support to enable cross-catalog searching, and we
should work towards consensus on the MARC 21 fields/subfields that would
populate those indexes.  

We are aware that local indexing practices are a new arena to be
considered for community standardization.  Following the recommendations
in these documents does not preclude a local system from prescribing
other indexes to support local needs.  These recommendations will work
with the Z39.50 profile specifications in Bath and Z Texas to result in
increased semantic interoperability for the limited, core set of searche
defined in those profiles.  We are not setting out to prescribe all
local indexing practices, but instead are proposing practices that
improve networked information retrieval in cross-catalog searching.

We offer this draft set of recommendations for community discussion,
within and outside of Texas.  Specifically, we encourage you to review
the documents with the following objectives in mind:

1. Identify any missing fields/subfields that should be listed to
support each of the different searches.
2. Suggest a common minimum set of fields/subfields that all systems
should index to support each of the different searches.
3. Assist us in understanding barriers to standardizing on a common set
of indexes to enable semantic interoperability for cross-catalog
searching.

We expect these recommendations to evolve based on comments and
suggestions during this public review period.  The final result should
be a Guide To Best Practices of Indexing USMARC 21 Records to Support
Bath Profile Searches.  We appreciate your comments

Please post your comments to the listserv on which you saw this posting
or send them to:

William E. Moen <wemoen@unt.edu> 
TZIG Member, Z Texas Profile Editor, Bath Profile Group Member  

(We are aware that some information retrieval systems manipulate
database records and their fields in ways that provide access to the
data without the creation of indexes.  We are using the notion of
"indexes" in a logical sense to talk about the problems of semantic
interoperability at the local systems level.)