From: OXVAXD::LOU "Lou Burnard" 17-OCT-1996 18:08:21.52
To: MX%"[log in to unmask]"
CC: LOU
Subj: RE: ABSTRACT
>
>PROPOSITION:
>
>The notion of ABSTRACT is well accepted in all text-based communities.
>It is sufficiently different from SUBJECT to merit a field of its own.
I disagree with both these assertions. The notion of an ABSTRACT
may be well accepted in writers of contemporary scientific discourse. It is
barely understood amongst writers of modern imaginative prose, and
deeply contentious in most areas of humanistic study.
What is the "abstract" of Hamlet? Melancholy Dane fails to bump off
obnoxious uncle? Presumably not. How about "Prime example of 17c
revenge tragedy with added psychological realism"? How does the latter
differ from "subject" (as I understand it, anyway)
>>CON: for searching purposes, indexing of ABSTRACT seperately from SUBJECT
> is unlikely to have a significant impact on discovery.
> Change to the existing set of elements should only be done under
> compelling circumstances
These are both good points! Nuke it!
|