This guide outlines the principles to which NAL indexers adhere in subject indexing. It supersedes all sections of the Indexing Manual issued in March of 1985 which dealt with subject indexing. (Sections of the March 1985 Indexing Manual dealing with descriptive indexing are still in force.) The guide sometimes refers to, and is to be used in conjunction with, the continuing series National Agricultural Library Notes to Indexers.
Comments and questions about this guide are welcome and should be directed to:
National Agricultural Library
Indexing Branch, Room 011
10301 Baltimore Avenue
Beltsville, MD 20705-2351
Follow these steps for every document to be indexed! You may
occasionally get by with less, but over the long haul your
indexing will surely reflect whether you take this systematic
approach vs. a scattershot approach which quickly gleans a few
terms from the document's title.
1.1. Understand the TITLE.
1.2. Read the INTRODUCTION to the document for background
information and to locate the author's statement as to the
purpose of the article. This statement of purpose is often
the last sentence of the introduction. (But see 2.15.)
Compare the statement of purpose with the title of the
document to see that they correlate.
1.3. Read the ABSTRACT as an aid for focusing your examination of
the text. (You may want to reexamine the abstract at a later
stage in your indexing to verify that items in the abstract
are actually substantively discussed within the text.)
1.4. Scan the MATERIALS AND METHODS section for specific names of
organisms, geographic locations, procedures, etc.
Information in the Materials and Methods section is often
more specific than elsewhere in the document.
1.5. Note ILLUSTRATIONS, CHARTS, GRAPHS, and TABLES and their
legends or captions. Also note headings, phrases, or words
in BOLDFACE OR OTHER SPECIAL TYPEFACES.
1.6. Scan the RESULTS. Don't overlook significant negative
results.
1.7. Read the CONCLUSIONS and/or SUMMARY and note actual findings,
as differentiated from speculations or implications. It may
be helpful to compare the findings to the statement of
purpose in the INTRODUCTION to see to what extent the purpose
was realized.
1.8. Scan the BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES for hints and confirmation
if, at this point, you are still having problems
understanding the article or if you are looking for some
specific item of information (e.g., the meaning of an
acronym).
1.9. Scan any supplied KEYWORDS and/or RUNNING TITLES to see that
you have considered all concepts indicated there. However,
use these with care; they are not always well chosen. Don't
allow them to overrule your own good judgment.
1.10. As a final aid in determining slant, consider the following:
a) the type of journal in which the article appears,
b) the organization with which the author is affiliated, and
c) the funding source for the research.
In making these decisions, consider both EXHAUSTIVITY and
SPECIFICITY.
EXHAUSTIVITY: You should index as many concepts as you deem
necessary to adequately represent the document in all its
significant aspects.
SPECIFICITY: You should index these concepts at a level of detail
consistent with the intended audience of the document and the
treatment of the subject in the document. Of course, the
specificity of descriptors available in the thesaurus is also a
consideration.
It is vitally important to keep in mind that we are talking here of
CONCEPTS, not WORDS. Always remember that the same concept can be
expressed by many different words or combinations of words.
For a longer discussion of indexing exhaustivity and specificity,
consult Indexing Policy Memorandum No. 1, July 17, 1989.
2.1. Give a high priority to concepts the author considers
important as evidenced by the manner and frequency of their
treatment in the document. (See 1.1 - 1.9.)
2.2. However, also index concepts that you know to be important,
on the basis of your own experience and judgment, even if
they are not emphasized by the author.
2.3. Index only information which warrants the time and expense of
retrieval, i.e., index concepts which are substantively
discussed, not just mentioned in passing.
2.4. Index methods, techniques, and procedures only if they are
one of the main topics of the document. The appearance of
the name of a method, technique, or procedure in the title of
an article is not sufficient justification for indexing it.
There should be some textual discussion to the effect that
the method is new, or modified, or applied differently, etc.,
for it to be indexed.
2.5. Index significant negative results. E.g., an article
reporting a study of antibiotic residues in beef should be
indexed with descriptors for ANTIBIOTIC RESIDUES, BEEF, etc.,
and a Category Code Q202, even if no residues are detected.
2.6. Many concepts are composed of more than one factor, or
component. Index each concept completely, i.e., for all its
factors. E.g., the concept "spleen weight" must be indexed
with descriptors for both SPLEEN and WEIGHT.
2.7. Generally, do not index redundantly, i.e., do not index the
same concept at more than one level of specificity. E.g., do
not index a document on bark beetles as pests with both BARK
BEETLES and INSECT PESTS.
2.8. However, do index the same concept both broadly and narrowly
if it is so treated in the article. E.g., a document may
discuss analytical techniques in general, but concentrate
upon gas chromatography in specific detail; index with both
ANALYTICAL METHODS and GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY.
2.9. Give serious consideration to reflecting the level of
specificity in the document in your indexing. E.g., index
camel milk with the descriptor CAMEL MILK, not MILK; index
dairy effluents with the descriptor DAIRY EFFLUENTS, not
EFFLUENTS.
2.10. However, be aware that to do so may not always be appropriate
or necessary. E.g., a Materials and Methods section might
identify the cattle used in an experiment as Holsteins, but
whether to index the breed concept depends upon whether this
aspect of the study is emphasized in the document.
2.11. There is no limit to the number of concepts which can be
indexed for a particular document, and exhaustivity is often
correlated with indexing a large number of concepts per
document. However, this is not necessarily true. The
interplay of exhaustivity and specificity determines how many
concepts are indexed. E.g., under some circumstances, it may
be desirable to index a document covering many aspects of a
subject with just one broad, general concept; such a document
is exhaustively indexed at the proper level of specificity
with only one concept.
2.12. In indexing, treat equally concepts which are treated equally
in the document. E.g., a document discusses five specific
parameters of blood chemistry, giving approximately equal
weight to all five; either index all five individually or
index to a broader concept that encompasses all five (BLOOD
CHEMISTRY), but do not index just two or three of the five.
If, however, two of the five are emphasized significantly
more than the other three, it is appropriate to index those
two specifically, and also use BLOOD CHEMISTRY. (See 2.8.)
For further discussion of accurate representation of concept
emphasis, consult Indexing Policy Memorandum No. 2, July 17,
1989.
2.13. Generally, do not index concepts which are present only
through implication or speculation. E.g., a document on
metabolism of omega-3 fatty acids should not be indexed with
the concept DISEASE PREVENTION, even though an understanding
of omega-3 fatty acid metabolism may ultimately aid in
reducing the incidence of cardiovascular disease.
2.14. However, sometimes an implied concept must be indexed to
provide the proper context for the other concepts. E.g., a
document discussing pathogenicity of a parasite for a pest
insect should be indexed with the concept BIOLOGICAL CONTROL
even if the author does not use this term.
2.15. Documents usually contain references in the text to related
work of other authors. In particular, the all-important
INTRODUCTION may contain a brief literature review as a
background to or a rationale for the present study. Do not
be misled into indexing concepts that represent work not
conducted as part of the research described in the document
at hand.
The classification scheme used for indexing AGRICOLA is the AGRICOLA Subject Category Codes with Scope Notes (Modified AGRIS) and the controlled vocabulary is the CAB Thesaurus. These two indexing languages are independent of one another in the sense that each is a distinct system used to represent the subject content of a document. The Category Codes assigned to a document should represent that document as completely as possible and without any necessity to refer to the descriptors assigned, and vice-versa. Naturally, this is not to say that there will not be relationships between the codes and the descriptors, but to point out that they are used separately, not in combination with one another, to represent the document. Indeed, there may well be what appears at first blush to be redundancy in assignment of codes vis-a-vis descriptors and vice-versa. Descriptors representing the same concepts represented by the assigned Category Code(s) should always be assigned, though most often the descriptors will be more specific than the codes to which they relate. To put this another way, a user should be able to comprehend why each Category Code was assigned by examining the assigned descriptors. The reverse, however, is not necessarily true; descriptors may be used to bring out aspects of the article which are not represented by the codes because these aspects are not treated in sufficient depth or with sufficient emphasis to merit assignment of a code. In expressing concepts in the indexing languages, aim for as much CONSISTENCY as possible in applying Category Codes and descriptors to represent concepts. Use the same code(s) and the same descriptor(s) to represent the same concept each time you index that concept. Our indexing will be valuable to AGRICOLA users only insofar as it is CONSISTENT.
NAL, as the U.S. input center, is a major contributor to AGRIS, a
decentralized agricultural database maintained by FAO, the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. It is therefore
important that AGRICOLA and AGRIS Category Codes be compatible.
AGRIS codes were found to be insufficiently specific for indexing
AGRICOLA and the scheme was expanded, but in a manner which assured
easy conversion of specific AGRICOLA codes into broader AGRIS codes.
In the AGRICOLA Category Code scheme, the field of agriculture is
divided into 21 broad subject areas. Each of these areas is further
subdivided, but even the subdivisions are very broad. Each of the
subdivisions carries an alphanumeric notation consisting of one
letter (which remains the same within one of the 21 broad subject
areas) and three numbers. Each code also has a 'title,' known as a
'section heading' (e.g., notation: J800 = section heading: Soil
Conservation).
There are some hierarchical relationships within the scheme, e.g.:
L830 Animal Diseases -- General
L831 Animal Diseases -- Fungal
L832 Animal Diseases -- Bacterial
L833 Animal Diseases -- Viral
The scope of each code is described by fairly lengthy notes, perhaps
100 words or more. Included among these Scope Notes may be
cross-references indicating other codes which might be appropriate
instead of, or in addition to, the code at hand.
There is an alphabetical index to the section headings and Scope
Notes.
The Category Codes are used for:
1. searching the database for broad subject areas, and
2. arranging entries in the print version of the AGRICOLA database,
the Bibliography of Agriculture.
3.1.1. Assign up to three (3) Category Codes per document.
3.1.2. Assign the codes in descending order of importance; use the
first Category Code to represent the major topic discussed.
(Remember that this code determines where the document
appears in the Bibliography of Agriculture.)
3.1.3. Use relator codes (K001, L001, L002, L003, M001) to narrow
the focus of large categories.
3.1.3.1. Never place relator codes in first position.
3.1.3.2. Never use relator codes without assigning at least
one other code.
3.1.4. Assign Category Codes on the basis of the subject of the work
actually conducted in the study at hand; do not assign them
on the basis of what the subject can be used for.
3.1.5. Follow the instructions in Scope Notes that sometimes specify
the order in which certain codes should be applied.
3.1.6. Never assign codes on the basis of the alphabetical index;
always consult the Scope Note itself before assigning a code.
3.1.7. Emphasize pests and diseases over the normal processes of
plants and animals.
3.1.8. Be alert to problems in, or the need for changes to, the
Scope Notes. Write a brief, informal memo (on 8 1/2 x 11
inch paper) to the Category Code Coordinator detailing the
problem. Keep a copy of this note in your Category Code
notebook. It will be useful when you are asked to comment on
new versions of the Scope Notes.
NAL uses a controlled vocabulary, the CAB Thesaurus, which is
compiled and maintained by CAB International in cooperation with
NAL. This thesaurus is also used to index CAB Abstracts. It
includes approximately 56,000 terms/phrases, of which approximately
47,400 are DESCRIPTORS, or preferred terms, and 8,600 are
NON-DESCRIPTORS, or lead-in vocabulary. These terms are arranged in
a single alphabetical (word-by-word) sequence.
Although there is a large number of precoordinated descriptors in
the thesaurus, the basic approach is that of post-coordination,
where concepts are combined (coordinated) at the retrieval stage
rather than at the indexing stage.
Each descriptor is accompanied by a WORD BLOCK which shows the
descriptor's relationship with other descriptors in the thesaurus.
There are three types of relationship represented in the word
blocks:
HIERARCHICAL RELATIONSHIPS
BT Broader Term
NT Narrower Term
The BT/NT relationship is basically a generic/specific or part/whole
relationship, although the CAB Thesaurus does contain hierarchies
based upon relationships other than these two.
Hierarchies may contain up to seven (7) levels and all levels are
displayed with each descriptor.
ASSOCIATIVE RELATIONSHIPS
rt related term
This is used to represent relationships other than hierarchical.
The 'rt' relationship is approximately equivalent to a 'see also'
relationship.
PREFERENTIAL RELATIONSHIPS
uf used for
USE use
The 'uf' and USE relationships are reciprocals of one another
employed to relate synonyms, quasi-synonyms, and terms which stand
in various other relationships to one another. The term following a
'uf' designation is a non-descriptor, a non-preferred term. The
term following a USE designation is a descriptor, a preferred term.
The USE relationship is approximately equivalent to a 'see'
relationship. USE instructions are not optional, and must be
followed.
Two other elements may be present in a word block:
- a SCOPE NOTE, which may define or limit or give instructions for
the use of a descriptor; and
- a HISTORY NOTE, which indicates usage of the descriptor over time,
e.g., when it was added to the thesaurus, what descriptor(s) was
used to index the concept before it was added, etc.
3.2.1. If the term to which you first refer is a descriptor, always
examine its complete word block before assigning it to a
document.
3.2.2. Choose the most specific suitable descriptor in the word
block.
3.2.3. If the most suitable specific descriptor in the word block is
any other than the descriptor to which you first referred,
examine the word block of the descriptor which you judge to
be most suitable. The importance of this step cannot be
overstated.
3.2.4. If the term to which you first refer is a non-descriptor,
proceed to the word block for the preferred descriptor and
examine it completely. Never assign a descriptor on the
basis of a USE reference without consulting the word block
for the descriptor. Again, the importance of this step
cannot be overstated.
3.2.4.1. You may discover that the term to which you are being
referred is in the wrong hierarchical context for the
document at hand.
3.2.4.2. You may discover that a narrower term of the term to
which you are being referred is more appropriate/specific.
3.2.5. Do not index the same concept at two different levels of the
hierarchy, i.e., do not assign both a BT and one of its NT's
to represent the same concept. (See 2.7; but see also 2.8
and Notes to Indexers, No. 9, November 1986).
3.2.6. Do not assign a descriptor to a concept that is inconsistent
with the context of the descriptor's hierarchy. This is a
critically important principle in indexing. If an indexer
does not follow this instruction, s/he runs the risk of
seriously misleading a user and negating the value of using a
controlled vocabulary. We should be able to guarantee our
users that we apply descriptors as consistently as possible.
See: Notes to Indexers, No. 7, June 1986.
3.2.7. It will often be necessary to assign more than one descriptor
to index a single concept. E.g., both COMPUTER TECHNIQUES
and MAPPING are needed to represent the concept of "computer
mapping."
3.2.7.1. On the other hand, do not use two descriptors to
represent a concept when a precoordinated descriptor for the
concept exists. E.g., for "amino acid biosynthesis," use
AMINO ACID METABOLISM, not AMINO ACIDS and BIOSYNTHESIS.
3.2.8. If you don't readily find a descriptor or combination of
descriptors which represents a concept, be persistent.
3.2.8.1. One good source is the KWOC index of the thesaurus.
3.2.8.2. Another possibility is to search the AGRICOLA
database on CD-ROM. Search for the concept free-text (i.e.,
as it occurs in titles and abstracts) and look to see what
descriptor(s) other indexers have used to represent it.
3.2.9. Presently, there is only one rule concerning the order in
which descriptors are arranged. (See 3.2.10.) Many indexers
do consider concept importance, word proximity, and other
factors in arranging descriptors, but such considerations are
not mandatory.
3.2.10. The first descriptor should represent the major thrust
of the material being indexed and should belong to one
of the following groups if at all possible:
3.2.10.1. names of animals.
3.2.10.2. names of plants.
3.2.10.3. names of foods.
3.2.10.4. names of feeds.
3.2.10.5. names of products.
3.2.10.6. names of international organizations.
See also Notes to Indexers, No.8, October 1986.
3.2.11. Use geographic descriptors liberally. Consider their
application for any of the following situations or
subjects:
3.2.11.1. Geographical term in the title.
3.2.11.2. Map in the article.
3.2.11.3. Survey carried out.
3.2.11.4. Field research carried out.
3.2.11.5. Flora or fauna of a region studied.
3.2.11.6. New taxa or other taxonomic information are a topic.
3.2.11.7. Organizations or institutions are a significant
topic.
3.2.11.8. The article is biographical in slant.
3.2.11.9. The article is or contains a case report or a case
study.
3.2.11.10. Economics.
3.2.11.11. History.
3.2.11.12. Legislation, jurisprudence, or politics.
3.2.11.13. Education/training.
3.2.11.14. Sociology.
3.2.11.15. Land and/or water resources.
3.2.11.16. Ecology, including pollution.
3.2.11.17. Meteorology/climatology.
3.2.11.18. Epidemiology.
3.2.11.19. Human ecology.
3.2.12. As with subject descriptors, apply the most specific
appropriate geographic descriptor, e.g., NOVA SCOTIA not
CANADA, MIZORAM not INDIA.
3.2.13. Do not apply geographic descriptors for experimental
research unless the work involves field tests. If the
work is conducted in a laboratory or a greenhouse, use
of a geographic descriptor is usually not appropriate.
3.2.14. The geographic origin of a strain or line may sometimes
be significant in a way that warrants use of a
geographic descriptor even if the work is done in vitro.
Note, however, that this does not apply to geographic
words appearing in the nomenclature of strains of
bacteria and other organisms.
3.2.15. For articles in which subjects (animals, plants, humans)
originating from one country/area are studied in a
country to which they have migrated or been imported, do
not apply a geographic descriptor for the country of
origin. Apply the geographic descriptor for the country
in which the subjects were studied; indicate their
geographic or ethnic origin in some other way. E.g., an
article about food habits of Cubans living in Long
Island would take NEW YORK and ETHNIC GROUPS as
descriptors. If CUBAN-AMERICANS is not in the title, it
could be used as an identifier. (See section 4.)
However, this practice obviously should be applied only
in the case of living subjects studied in a natural
environment. E.g., an article about insect specimens
collected in Ghana and studied in a laboratory at
Harvard University would take GHANA, not MASSACHUSETTS,
as its geographic descriptor.
3.2.16. For plants and animals, the CAB Thesaurus may contain
descriptors for the scientific (Latin) name, the common
name, or both, for the same organism. In applying these
descriptors to agriculturally related plants and
animals, follow these general guidelines:
3.2.16.1. Use the scientific name for plants through
harvesting.
3.2.16.2. Use the common name for plants as commodities.
3.2.16.3. Use the common name for domestic animals.
3.2.16.4. Use the scientific name for pests and pathogens.
3.2.16.5. Use the scientific name for wildlife.
3.2.16.6. Certain articles may require both scientific and
common names. Such articles may include, but are not limited
to, those which emphasize the genetics/breeding of plants and
animals, especially with respect to genetic effects on the
products of these plants and animals. E.g., an article
discussing the fiber characteristics of cotton produced by
these two different species of Gossypium and their hybrids
would require COTTON; GOSSYPIUM HIRSUTUM; and GOSSYPIUM
BARBADENSE.
3.2.16.7. For scientific names, use the greatest level of
specificity available in the thesaurus in field 650. This
might be order, family, genus, or genus and species. If
necessary, reflect a greater level of specificity in field
653. (See 4.5.)
3.2.16.8. In cases where the use of a scientific name is
mandated by these guidelines but is not available in the
document at hand, it is the responsibility of the indexer to
seek it out. Often a quick way to do so is to search the
AGRICOLA database on CD-ROM. However, common names are
highly variable and often very localized. Therefore, if an
indexer cannot trace the scientific name at any level of the
taxonomic hierarchy with some degree of certainty within a
reasonable period of time, it may be necessary to use a term
such as MEDICINAL PLANTS, RUBBER PLANTS, WEEDS, INSECT PESTS,
etc., in field 650.
3.2.17. Be alert to the possible need to propose descriptors for
addition to the thesaurus. Guidelines and forms for
proposing terms are available as an Appendix to this
Guide (Appendix B).
4.1. Identifiers are uncontrolled subject terms not found in the
CAB Thesaurus either as descriptors or non-descriptors.
4.2. Identifiers are not validated at data entry against any
authority list.
4.3. Use identifiers for significant local geographic concepts.
E.g., add MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN, to field 653 if the city
itself is emphasized. (WISCONSIN will of course be entered
in field 651.)
4.4. Use identifiers for clarification of some abbreviations,
acronyms, initialisms, etc., in document titles. E.g., UTM
in a title is explained by adding UTERINE MILK in field 653.
4.5. Use identifiers for taxonomic names. E.g., the species
SENECIO ARVENSIS is not in the thesaurus and so must be
entered in field 653. (SENECIO, which is in the thesaurus,
will represent this species in field 650.)
4.6. Use identifiers for proper names not in the thesaurus. E.g.,
DISASTER ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1988; ALABAMA HOME ECONOMICS
ASSOCIATION; COALITION FOR PEACEFUL SCHOOLS.
4.7. Do not repeat exactly title words or phrases as identifiers.
However, if you think it may be useful, you may enter in
field 653 some variant of a title word or phrase. E.g., for
the title "Negatively taxed farm expansion investments," it
was decided that NEGATIVE TAXES was a valuable entry in field
653.
4.8. Do not use as identifiers terms which appear in the CAB
Thesaurus as descriptors even if the thesaurus descriptor
represents a concept other than the concept associated with
the term in the document at hand. E.g., the descriptor
GRANULATION carries a BT1 PLANT DISORDERS. It is not
permissible to enter GRANULATION in field 653 for a document
that discusses granulation in some other context, such as
fertilizer technology.
4.9. Do not use as identifiers terms which appear in the CAB
Thesaurus as non-descriptors. It is mandatory to follow the
USE instruction in the thesaurus instead. E.g., the
descriptor instructs: "sunlight USE solar radiation." It is
not permissible to enter SOLAR RADIATION in field 650 and
SUNLIGHT in field 653.
4.10. Always use some descriptor from the CAB Thesaurus which
represents each concept being used as an identifier, even if
the descriptor is very broad. E.g., when you add in field
653 EVOLSONIA TEXANA, a fossil plant that is not represented
in the thesaurus even at the family level, add PLANTS in
field 650.
4.11. Do not use long phrases as identifiers; identifiers should be
in the same general format as descriptors. E.g., EFFECT OF
ROTOTILLING ON GARDEN YIELDS is not an appropriate
identifier.
4.12. Use identifiers liberally, but never as a short-cut to avoid
searching the thesaurus for an appropriate descriptor.
4.13. Identifiers that you find yourself using frequently may be
good candidates for proposal as new descriptors. (See
3.2.16.)
References
AGRIS -- Guide to Indexing. 23 (Rev.1) Rome: FAO-AGRIS, December
1982.
MEDLARS Indexing Manual. Part II. Bethesda, Md.: National Library
of Medicine, 1981.
British Standard Recommendations for Examining Documents,
Determining Their Subjects and Selecting Indexing Terms.
BS6529:1984. London: British Standards Institution, 1984.
Appendix A
A Checklist of Indexing Errors
It may be helpful to use this checklist to evaluate your own
indexing. It gives indexers a good indication of the kinds of
errors for which reviewers check during quality review in the
Indexing Branch.
1. Failing to index a significant concept.
2. Indexing of a concept with an inappropriate term.
2.1. Assigning term which is too broad.
2.2. Assigning term which is too specific.
2.3. Assigning term which is in the wrong hierarchical context.
2.4 Assigning term which is inconsistent with Scope Note.
3. Indexing of a concept that should be ignored.
3.1. Insufficient information on concept to warrant retrieval
effort.
3.2. Represents work not conducted as part of the research
described in the document at hand.
4. Indexing of the same concept at more than one hierarchical
level.
5. Failing to index all components/facets of a concept.
6. Failing to index significant negative results.
7. Failing to index with equal weight concepts which are treated
with equal weight in the document.
8. Indexing for implications or speculations.
9. Indexing routine techniques, methods, or procedures.
10. Failing to index significant geographic concept.
11. Assigning geographic term which is insufficiently specific.
12. Assigning geographic term for laboratory/greenhouse research.
13. Failing to assign Category Codes in proper order.
13.1. Failing to assign Category Codes in descending order of
importance.
13.2. Failing to assign Category Codes in order mandated by
Scope Notes.
14. Using relator Category Codes in first position, or alone.
15. Failing to assign some descriptor to represent each concept
which was assigned a Category Code.
16. Failing to assign some descriptor to represent each concept
which was assigned an identifier.
16. First descriptor does not represent major thrust of article or
belong to an acceptable group. (See 3.2.10 for acceptable
groups.)
17. Failing to define title acronyms/abbreviations/initialism in
either the descriptor or the identifier fields.
18. Assigning an identifier that repeats a term in the document
title.
19. Assigning a thesaurus non-descriptor as an identifier.
20. Assigning an identifier inappropriate in format and/or length.
Appendix B
Guidelines for Completing "Proposed Changes in CAB Thesaurus" Forms
1. Please type all submissions.
2. The tone of any text in the "Justification" and "Additional
comments" sections of these forms should be neutral and
business-like.
3. Follow conventions of capitalization and indentation used in the
thesaurus itself, i.e., capitalize descriptors, use lower case
for non-descriptors, etc.
4. Use a separate form for each proposed change.
"Present descriptor" section of form:
5. In this section of the form, enter any existing CAB
descriptor(s) related to your proposed change together with page
number(s).
5.1. It is very important that you search diligently for such
descriptors.
5.2. Consider spelling variants, synonyms, and quasi-synonyms
before proposing a new descriptor.
5.3. Consider also that a combination of existing CAB descriptors
may express a concept adequately.
6. If you are proposing a new USE reference to an existing CAB
descriptor, enter that existing descriptor and its page number
in this section of the form.
"Proposed descriptor" section of form:
7. When proposing a descriptor, observe the following:
7.1. Descriptors should always be nouns, noun-phrases, or gerunds.
7.2. Noun-phrases should be written to exclude prepositions unless
doing so violates accepted English usage.
7.3. Adjectives are used only with nouns, e.g., RED LIGHT. CABI
is adamantly opposed to the use of adjectives standing alone
as descriptors.
7.4. Singular vs. plural: Use the singular form for processes,
properties (attributes), and unique things. Use the plural
for classes of things.
7.5. Use natural word order. If deemed necessary, propose the
inverted form as a non-descriptor.
7.6. Avoid punctuation, including hyphens, if at all possible.
7.7. Use scientific rather than lay terminology. The lay term may
be proposed as a non-descriptor.
8. When considering proposal of a new descriptor, always ask
yourself these two questions:
8.1. Will this descriptor be used often enough to justify its
addition to the thesaurus?
8.2. Does this descriptor represent a concept which can be
consistently and reliably differentiated from any other
concept?
Do not propose the descriptor unless you can answer "yes" to both
of these questions.
"Justification for change" section of form:
9. Authorities and references cited in support of proposed changes
need not comply with any standard format, but the citation
should be complete enough bibliographically that there will be
no difficulty identifying the source, e.g., name of book, author
or editor, place of publication, publisher, date, page
number(s).
10. The first source to consult when justifying a proposal is
AGROVOC, FAO's multilingual thesaurus of agricultural
terminology. CABI, NAL, and FAO are all interested in
compatibility between the CAB Thesaurus and AGROVOC; CABI will
thus prefer an AGROVOC term in most cases over those from other
sources. Always indicate on your form any related terms you
find in AGROVOC.
11. For justification, consider other thesauri; specialized
dictionaries, handbooks, monographs, and textbooks; and numbers
of postings for the proposed concept in relevant databases.
Generally, do not use all-purpose dictionaries.
"Hierarchy and rt" section of form:
12. You must supply at least one BT1 (Broader Term) for each
proposed descriptor (except in the rare instances when you may
be proposing a new top term). This suggested BT1 must be a
valid descriptor in the CAB Thesaurus or a term you are
proposing concurrently.
13. The relationship between a term and its BT should, in most
cases, be a generic one, i.e., the broader term should denote a
class of concepts of which the narrower term is always a member.
The part-whole relationship is also acceptable in some cases,
e.g., for descriptors representing geographic locations, those
representing anatomical parts of an organism, those representing
disciplines. The thesaurus presently contains hierarchies based
on relationships other than these two types, but we wish to
avoid adding any more.
14. Provision of NT's (Narrower Terms) and rt's (related terms) is
optional. If you choose to do so, these should also be either
valid descriptors in the thesaurus or terms you are proposing
concurrently.
"Additional comments" section of form:
15. A term is assumed to include any of its common definitions. If
certain definitions are to be excluded from the scope of the
descriptor or if uncommon definitions are to apply, this should
be made clear. The two primary methods of clarification would
be hierarchical placement or a scope note. Please supply the
scope note if one is needed.
16. If the Indexing Branch coordinator, CABI, or users will
encounter any difficulty in finding a definition for the term,
please supply one in this section of the form. Indicate the
source for the definition if the source does not appear in the
"Justification" section of the form.
Proposed Changes in CAB Thesaurus
___ New descriptor
___ New non-descriptor (i.e., USE reference)
___ Delete descriptor
___ Delete non-descriptor
___ Add rt (related term)
___ Delete rt (related term)
___ Change in hierarchy
___ Problems with existing USE and uf references
___ Spelling variance/error
___ Substitution
___ Word meaning/semantic variance
___ Other (Please specify) __________________________________________
Present descriptor, if any (CABT, p. )
Proposed descriptor or proposed USE reference
Justification for change: Authorities, reference where proposed term
was used, number of postings in relevant databases, etc.
Hierarchy and rt: Supply a BT1 either already existing in CABT or
being proposed at this time or say why you cannot do so (mandatory).
Supply NT's and rt's either already existing in CABT or being
proposed at this time (optional).
Additional comments relevant to the proposed change: Definition,
proposed scope note, etc.
Submitter's name, affiliation, phone/fax number, e-mail address
NAL Publications and Databases
