- Email: [email protected]
Subject catalogue
Book reviews
269
which characterizes this work is neatly exemplified by this latter entry. It is one of numerous entries entered more than once, not for the convenience of the searcher, but due to error. Turnbull, C. M. becomes Turnbull, C. Y., the 1977 publication date becomes 1978 in the second entry, the 384 pages become 386 pages, the above abstract is replaced with a shorter, more objective note. The number of such errors is unacceptably high for such a work. The author alphabetical sequence is followed by the ‘Bibliographical Index to i.e. the original 8,000 entries are re-arranged under broad the Abstracts’, descriptors, or key terms. The result is wholly predictable in that lengthy sequences of undifferentiated items have to be scanned for specific topics. For example, the heading ‘Asia’ includes 320 or so individual entries. This sequence is first divided by form, book or journal, and then, within each form sequence Within the period sequences the chronologically by date of publication. arrangement is alphabetical by author. Simple enough, perhaps, but it would have been nice to have had it explained somewhere in the three volumes. Analysis of this, and like headings not only reveals the clumsiness of the search and retrieval process, it also makes clear that the bibliography cannot be selling for its currency. Of the 300 plus entries under ‘Asia’ only 12 items are dated 1978 or 19 79. This in a 19 79 supplement, published in 1980. Exactly what are librarians meant to be buying? It would help to have the intentions of the compilers made clear. An author index is provided. The entries are linked to the main sequence by numbers. A tedious ‘shift the cost to the consumer’ ploy common enough in modern bibliographies but, in this case, not exacting too heavy a price because, apart from a prolific author named Et Al, there are few authors with more than three items to their names. Quite reasonably bibliographies might be expected to reduce bibliographical uncertainty. From the examples given it might be inferred that the compilers of this work did not subscribe unconditionally to such a view. The author index shows with what finesse they are able to manipulate uncertainty to bring about the downfall of those who think they know the name of an author. Leontief, Leontef. W., Leovtief-are they the same person? They would seem to be. Would it be safe, then, to suggest that Lofland, J. and Lofland, L. H. are different persons? What mystery has brought H. Mills to be known simply as ‘H’? Who is ‘And Simon Roger’ ? Why are joint authors not listed? Enough doubt is created to unman the stoutest-minded bibliographer. Finally, a ‘List of Periodicals Included in the Supplement’ is provided. Around 2,300 journals are listed, including numerous foreign titles. In keeping with the rest of the work, and by now no surprise, at least 50 titles are duplicated while others are names of publishers not journals. In short, the editors of this work have a great deal to do if even the most basic criteria relating to bibliographical adequacy are to be met. N. Roberts
Institute for World Economics. compiled and revised by P. Tanghe. 3v. (German-English Subject catalogue; edition) Kiel, Bibliothek des Instituts fur Weltwirtschaft an der Universitat Kiel, 1980. This work is described by the publishers as a ‘Thesaurus Okonomie’, the title-page informs that it is a subject catalogue, while the introduction explains
270
Rook remews
that the work represents the ‘existing subject index (of- the Library of the Institute for World Economics) converted to a thesaurus’. Since no bibliographical descriptions are associated with the index terms the claim to be a subject catalogue may be dismissed. Is it a thesaurus? The displays of terminological and conceptual relationships (BT, NT, RT, USE, etc.) follow thesaural conventions, as do the so-called systematic displays of terms intended to complement the alphabetical sequence. On the other hand, a number of descriptors have a decidedly un-thesaural appearance, whether in German or English e.g. CHURCH AND STATE, ALCOHOL POLICY BY TARIFF, AGRICULTURE AND ATOMIC ENERGY, INjURY TO HEALTH-OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS. The level of pre-coordination in such headings, together with the frequent use of inverted forms, suggest that the compilers may not have freed themselves entirely from the subject heading tradition. Can it be said then that the“philosopy’ of descriptor creation found in this work is inappropriate to a thesaurus ? Suggestions that the thesaural form is associated uniquely with particular linguistic and coordination level practices have to be treated warily. Especially so when a language with the combinational power of German is being considered. In English it is clear that COAL-COMPETITION BETWEEN DIFFERENT KINDS OF COAL would not be easily accepted as a thesaural descriptor; the German equivalent KOHLENARTENWETTBEWERB, however, presents no problems. While KAUTSCHUKANBAUUNTERNEHMUNGSFINANZIERUNG is a straightforward, single-word, descriptor RUBBER PLANTATION FINANCE might seem unnecessarily pre-coordinated. But if linguistic practices and levels of precoordination are not infallible indicators of the thesaural form, what remains? Only, it would seem, the association of a structural vocabulary with a or manipulative, post-coordinate, facility. If it is possible to coordinate descriptors at will then it is difficult to deny thesaural status to any kind of structured, controlled, index language. Of course, in certain languages, the knowledge that descriptors are to be used in a post-coordinate fashion may condition the form of thesaural terms and the different result may be sufficient to distinguish a sub.ject heading from a thesaural descriptor. However, this latter distinction is an insufficient basis for a unique definition of a thesaurus. At first sight this may seem rather paradoxical. After all thesauri were devised to handle problems of language and structure, so why cannot a definition based on these central issues be thought sufficient ? The effects of different linguistic practices have been mentioned. To these must be added the often ignored fact that traditional lists of subject headings were created for precisely the same purpose as thesauri and differed, fundamentally, only in that they were associated with non-manipulative systems. There is no indication in this work whether the descriptors are intended to be employed in a post-coordinate mode. Whether it is a thesaurus or not cannot be decided here. The vocabulary contains 6,035 subject terms and some 8,000 cross-references. Interestingly, the work of converting the existing sub.ject index into thesaural form was undertaken in preparation for planned cooperation leading to ‘a common economics subject access . . . both nationally and internationally’. The details of this cooperation are not explained but there are grounds for viewing the expectation with a degree of scepticism. Given that international access is not likely to be based upon the German language, given that the stilted, sometimes unusual, English descriptors are unlikely candidates for international use and given the noted reluctance of social scientists generally to confine expressions of’
Book reviews
their ideas to standardized then claims of this work thought, at best, unproven.
271
language fbrms approved to facilitate international
by information communication
scientists, must be
N. Roberts B. Loughridge
Raymond Wacks. The protection of ,brivacy (Modern Legal Studies). 1980.xx,185pp.ISBNO421268409,O421268506Pbk.
London:
Sweet and Maxwell,
Everyone approves of privacy, especially for himself. The more there are of us, and the more complex and intrusive modern life becomes, the more demands for protection against encroachments upon privacy, are heard. One particularly resounding complaint was voiced in Boston, Mass. m 1890 by two lawyers, after press intrusion upon a family wedding. In the heat of rage Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis declared that there was a common law right to privacy, and that theirs had been violated. This statement was sympathetically received by the general public and throughout the U.S.A. statutes and cases embodying the concept began to appear. Legislative and judicial caution were overriden by the feeling that if privacy were not on the statute book then this must be an oversight and it ought to be so-a sentiment expressed quite recently in the U.K. by Lord Denning. What then is the problem with privacy. 2 If everyone agrees that it is desirable, what is the issue? As Mr. Wacks demonstrates, a ma,jor problem of’ privacy is that of a breakdown of the barrier between common usage of the word and legal definition of it. Privacy has travelled far and wide in the past ninety years, across many jurisdictions, and now can be found in many contexts; among others, breach of confidentiality, denial of abortion, telephone tapping by the police, and the control of personal information stored in computer systems. The author’s view is that ‘ “privacy” has become as nebulous a concept as “happiness” or “security”. Except as a general abstraction of an underlying value, it should not be used as a means to describe a legal right or cause of action.’ (page 2 1) It is his opinion that by good fortune English law has not incorporated the concept of privacy in any context, and that it would be wise to avoid doing so in future. Our legislators and ,judges are suspicious of high-sounding statements concerning vague rights and privileges whose violation it is difficult or impossible to identify and for which it is equally hard to provide practical and enforceable remedies. We are therefore without either a statutory or a common law concept of’ privacy. Mr. Wacks examines those areas of law into which other ,jurisdictions have introduced ‘privacv’; intrusion, publicity, computers and data storage, and misuse of an individual’s identity. He considers whether ‘privacy’ is a proper or useful concept in these contexts, and states what remedies English law already provides against misconduct in each instance. Although concluding that privacy can have no useful place in our system, he is by no means satisfied with the protection currently afforded by English law. For example, our laws concerning intrusion still do not encompass non-physical intrusion, and the use of electronic listening devices and long-range cameras outside the property of the complainant are not against the law; the powers of our police to tap telephones would probabl) not survive examination by the European Court ofJustice; the Press Council has proved itself an unformidable watchdog over intrusive press activities; we do not regulate private detectives; the law of defamation offers protection against false,
269
which characterizes this work is neatly exemplified by this latter entry. It is one of numerous entries entered more than once, not for the convenience of the searcher, but due to error. Turnbull, C. M. becomes Turnbull, C. Y., the 1977 publication date becomes 1978 in the second entry, the 384 pages become 386 pages, the above abstract is replaced with a shorter, more objective note. The number of such errors is unacceptably high for such a work. The author alphabetical sequence is followed by the ‘Bibliographical Index to i.e. the original 8,000 entries are re-arranged under broad the Abstracts’, descriptors, or key terms. The result is wholly predictable in that lengthy sequences of undifferentiated items have to be scanned for specific topics. For example, the heading ‘Asia’ includes 320 or so individual entries. This sequence is first divided by form, book or journal, and then, within each form sequence Within the period sequences the chronologically by date of publication. arrangement is alphabetical by author. Simple enough, perhaps, but it would have been nice to have had it explained somewhere in the three volumes. Analysis of this, and like headings not only reveals the clumsiness of the search and retrieval process, it also makes clear that the bibliography cannot be selling for its currency. Of the 300 plus entries under ‘Asia’ only 12 items are dated 1978 or 19 79. This in a 19 79 supplement, published in 1980. Exactly what are librarians meant to be buying? It would help to have the intentions of the compilers made clear. An author index is provided. The entries are linked to the main sequence by numbers. A tedious ‘shift the cost to the consumer’ ploy common enough in modern bibliographies but, in this case, not exacting too heavy a price because, apart from a prolific author named Et Al, there are few authors with more than three items to their names. Quite reasonably bibliographies might be expected to reduce bibliographical uncertainty. From the examples given it might be inferred that the compilers of this work did not subscribe unconditionally to such a view. The author index shows with what finesse they are able to manipulate uncertainty to bring about the downfall of those who think they know the name of an author. Leontief, Leontef. W., Leovtief-are they the same person? They would seem to be. Would it be safe, then, to suggest that Lofland, J. and Lofland, L. H. are different persons? What mystery has brought H. Mills to be known simply as ‘H’? Who is ‘And Simon Roger’ ? Why are joint authors not listed? Enough doubt is created to unman the stoutest-minded bibliographer. Finally, a ‘List of Periodicals Included in the Supplement’ is provided. Around 2,300 journals are listed, including numerous foreign titles. In keeping with the rest of the work, and by now no surprise, at least 50 titles are duplicated while others are names of publishers not journals. In short, the editors of this work have a great deal to do if even the most basic criteria relating to bibliographical adequacy are to be met. N. Roberts
Institute for World Economics. compiled and revised by P. Tanghe. 3v. (German-English Subject catalogue; edition) Kiel, Bibliothek des Instituts fur Weltwirtschaft an der Universitat Kiel, 1980. This work is described by the publishers as a ‘Thesaurus Okonomie’, the title-page informs that it is a subject catalogue, while the introduction explains
270
Rook remews
that the work represents the ‘existing subject index (of- the Library of the Institute for World Economics) converted to a thesaurus’. Since no bibliographical descriptions are associated with the index terms the claim to be a subject catalogue may be dismissed. Is it a thesaurus? The displays of terminological and conceptual relationships (BT, NT, RT, USE, etc.) follow thesaural conventions, as do the so-called systematic displays of terms intended to complement the alphabetical sequence. On the other hand, a number of descriptors have a decidedly un-thesaural appearance, whether in German or English e.g. CHURCH AND STATE, ALCOHOL POLICY BY TARIFF, AGRICULTURE AND ATOMIC ENERGY, INjURY TO HEALTH-OCCUPATIONAL ILLNESS. The level of pre-coordination in such headings, together with the frequent use of inverted forms, suggest that the compilers may not have freed themselves entirely from the subject heading tradition. Can it be said then that the“philosopy’ of descriptor creation found in this work is inappropriate to a thesaurus ? Suggestions that the thesaural form is associated uniquely with particular linguistic and coordination level practices have to be treated warily. Especially so when a language with the combinational power of German is being considered. In English it is clear that COAL-COMPETITION BETWEEN DIFFERENT KINDS OF COAL would not be easily accepted as a thesaural descriptor; the German equivalent KOHLENARTENWETTBEWERB, however, presents no problems. While KAUTSCHUKANBAUUNTERNEHMUNGSFINANZIERUNG is a straightforward, single-word, descriptor RUBBER PLANTATION FINANCE might seem unnecessarily pre-coordinated. But if linguistic practices and levels of precoordination are not infallible indicators of the thesaural form, what remains? Only, it would seem, the association of a structural vocabulary with a or manipulative, post-coordinate, facility. If it is possible to coordinate descriptors at will then it is difficult to deny thesaural status to any kind of structured, controlled, index language. Of course, in certain languages, the knowledge that descriptors are to be used in a post-coordinate fashion may condition the form of thesaural terms and the different result may be sufficient to distinguish a sub.ject heading from a thesaural descriptor. However, this latter distinction is an insufficient basis for a unique definition of a thesaurus. At first sight this may seem rather paradoxical. After all thesauri were devised to handle problems of language and structure, so why cannot a definition based on these central issues be thought sufficient ? The effects of different linguistic practices have been mentioned. To these must be added the often ignored fact that traditional lists of subject headings were created for precisely the same purpose as thesauri and differed, fundamentally, only in that they were associated with non-manipulative systems. There is no indication in this work whether the descriptors are intended to be employed in a post-coordinate mode. Whether it is a thesaurus or not cannot be decided here. The vocabulary contains 6,035 subject terms and some 8,000 cross-references. Interestingly, the work of converting the existing sub.ject index into thesaural form was undertaken in preparation for planned cooperation leading to ‘a common economics subject access . . . both nationally and internationally’. The details of this cooperation are not explained but there are grounds for viewing the expectation with a degree of scepticism. Given that international access is not likely to be based upon the German language, given that the stilted, sometimes unusual, English descriptors are unlikely candidates for international use and given the noted reluctance of social scientists generally to confine expressions of’
Book reviews
their ideas to standardized then claims of this work thought, at best, unproven.
271
language fbrms approved to facilitate international
by information communication
scientists, must be
N. Roberts B. Loughridge
Raymond Wacks. The protection of ,brivacy (Modern Legal Studies). 1980.xx,185pp.ISBNO421268409,O421268506Pbk.
London:
Sweet and Maxwell,
Everyone approves of privacy, especially for himself. The more there are of us, and the more complex and intrusive modern life becomes, the more demands for protection against encroachments upon privacy, are heard. One particularly resounding complaint was voiced in Boston, Mass. m 1890 by two lawyers, after press intrusion upon a family wedding. In the heat of rage Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis declared that there was a common law right to privacy, and that theirs had been violated. This statement was sympathetically received by the general public and throughout the U.S.A. statutes and cases embodying the concept began to appear. Legislative and judicial caution were overriden by the feeling that if privacy were not on the statute book then this must be an oversight and it ought to be so-a sentiment expressed quite recently in the U.K. by Lord Denning. What then is the problem with privacy. 2 If everyone agrees that it is desirable, what is the issue? As Mr. Wacks demonstrates, a ma,jor problem of’ privacy is that of a breakdown of the barrier between common usage of the word and legal definition of it. Privacy has travelled far and wide in the past ninety years, across many jurisdictions, and now can be found in many contexts; among others, breach of confidentiality, denial of abortion, telephone tapping by the police, and the control of personal information stored in computer systems. The author’s view is that ‘ “privacy” has become as nebulous a concept as “happiness” or “security”. Except as a general abstraction of an underlying value, it should not be used as a means to describe a legal right or cause of action.’ (page 2 1) It is his opinion that by good fortune English law has not incorporated the concept of privacy in any context, and that it would be wise to avoid doing so in future. Our legislators and ,judges are suspicious of high-sounding statements concerning vague rights and privileges whose violation it is difficult or impossible to identify and for which it is equally hard to provide practical and enforceable remedies. We are therefore without either a statutory or a common law concept of’ privacy. Mr. Wacks examines those areas of law into which other ,jurisdictions have introduced ‘privacv’; intrusion, publicity, computers and data storage, and misuse of an individual’s identity. He considers whether ‘privacy’ is a proper or useful concept in these contexts, and states what remedies English law already provides against misconduct in each instance. Although concluding that privacy can have no useful place in our system, he is by no means satisfied with the protection currently afforded by English law. For example, our laws concerning intrusion still do not encompass non-physical intrusion, and the use of electronic listening devices and long-range cameras outside the property of the complainant are not against the law; the powers of our police to tap telephones would probabl) not survive examination by the European Court ofJustice; the Press Council has proved itself an unformidable watchdog over intrusive press activities; we do not regulate private detectives; the law of defamation offers protection against false,