 |
 |
----------------------------Original message---------------------------- Colleagues, I'd like to share (with apologies) a few ill-formed thoughts about the idea of encouraging Wilson to recon Art Index, thoughts prompted by the recent discussion on ARLIS-L and by the (I think) impressive Web version of Chadwyck-Healey's ambitious Periodicals Contents Index (available only via license at http://pci.chadwyck.com/ ; there is also a CD-ROM version that leaves, I think, much to be desired, not least the price tag). As many of you will know, PCI represents an ambitious attempt to provide searchable tables of contents for core humanities and arts journals from the turn of the century to the present--precisely those bygone times we wish were available via Art Index. It does not feature controlled vocabularies for subjects, names etc., but is of immeasurable utility nonetheless, not least because it presently indexes "almost seven million articles in 1,730 journals" and "will grow to encompass 3,500 journals" (to quote the Web blurb) and covers a period woefully ill-covered by other online humanities indexes. In some contexts, quantity rivals quality in value. Could it in the case of Art Index? I, too, would love to have the full run of AI online, and would sacrifice abstracts to this cause eagerly. But (as Ted Goodman has reminded us re Avery) given the complexity, cost and time an Art Index recon enterprise employing a standardized vocabulary would require--our children should look for completion well into the next millenium!-- would it make sense to encourage Wilson to take a lesson from PCI and take a more cost-effective and timeily route? Once Art Index is available through a genuine Web interface (presumably real soon from First Search Web), and not only via telnet and on CD-ROM, why not: 1) scan back volumes sequentially from 1983 back to '29 _without_ slowing the process down by decades and ultimately bankrupting Wilson by trying to clean up the headings, and 2) make a clear distinction between the 1984 portion of the eventual Web site (featuring controlled vocabularies and some abstracts) and the earlier portion (without controlled vocabularies, alas, but possibly completed within our lifetimes and employing a solid search engine that allows us to live with uncontrolled vocabularies) Again, I apologize for the ill-formed nature of these thoughts, but my sense is that our specialized art indexing and abstracting services should consider carefully the rapidly changing technological landscape they must live in--and compete--with or (in some instances perhaps) spend themselves into extinction. I also apologize for not addressing the fact that many colleagues are principally interested in the CD-ROM version of AI and would not enjoy the benefits of a Web version. Max Marmor