TO ALL LAW-LIB READERS:
Last month I posted a message advising you of
impending changes to Information Access Company's (IAC's)
_LegalTrac_ index. IAC had brought this matter to my
attention in my role as Chair of AALL's Advisory Committee
on Indexing Periodical Literature. The changes to
_LegalTrac_ stem from the fact that the index is running out
of space on its single CD.
My posting solicited your comments and preferences as
to the future development of this product. I received over
forty responses, several of which were group responses
carrying the sentiments of more than one librarian. My
sincere thanks go to all who responded.
At the end of March I gathered up all the responses
and summarized them in a letter to IAC's production editors.
The next several paragraphs are excerpted from the letter I
sent:
"The strongest sentiment expressed in the responses
was that IAC refrain from dropping any indexing from the
_LegalTrac_ CD-ROM product. This was the preference of a
majority of my committee members. It was also the strong
preference of a large majority of respondents in general.
Many declared that the deletion of indexing of early years
or of selected newspaper titles would be 'unacceptable' to
them.
"The question of how to accommodate new indexing on
the product, now that the single CD is full, drew several
interesting responses. One of my committee members
suggested that IAC solve the problem by transferring the
indexing of legal newspapers to a second disk, thereby
creating three separate product options: a legal newspaper
index, a legal journals index, and an unabridged LegalTrac
index that would search both disks. As this option sounded
attractive to me, I included it in my Internet posting. The
three-product option was actually the choice of a plurality
of those responding. But a significant number of others
felt that the unabridged LegalTrac should remain one
product, with one current disk and one archive disk.
"As between the option of eliminating the earliest
years of all titles and the option of eliminating local
newspaper indexing before 1990, most who considered this
choice said they felt the latter to be less objectionable.
Several expressed the feeling that complete retrospective
indexing of legal newspapers was dispensable, as these
sources are of dubious academic value. Still, this was a
minority opinion. And many who said that they were willing
to consider deletion of newspaper indexing specified that
they meant only local newspapers, and not the _National Law
Journal_ or the _Legal Times_.
"Another frequently expressed concern was that of
cost. Some respondents said they felt that since LegalTrac
is already a premium-priced product, IAC should be able to
add the equipment necessary to create a two-disc
configuration at only a negligible additional cost to
subscribers. As you were unable to provide me with pricing
estimates for a two-disk product, my respondents were unable
to take this into consideration in expressing their
preferences. I think it fair to say that if the two-disk
option involves a substantial price increase, this will
result in no small amount of subscriber dissatisfaction."
My letter has not yet elicited a reply from IAC. I
expect that they will respond soon, though, since the
_LegalTrac_ CD will be full by June, and they must put the
changes into effect before then. I will post further
details to LAW-LIB as they come to my attention.
In the meantime, you are still welcome to address
your thoughts to me about _LegalTrac_ and its related
publications, _Current Law Index_ and _Legal Resource
Index_. I will see to it that your comments are shared
within the committee, and with IAC. (Feel free to post
directly to my Internet address.) Thanks again for your
help.
Bill Mills, Associate Librarian
New York Law School
57 Worth Street
New York, N.Y. 10013
voice: 212-431-2380
FAX: 212-431-2327
nylawsch@class.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST