June 2, 1899. ] 



SCIENCE. 



769 



The next proposition under discussion 

 Avas as follows : "In the case of other lan- 

 guages the title shall be translated into 

 English, or such other of the above five 

 languages as may be determined by the 

 Eegional Bureau concerned, but iu such 

 case the original title shall be added when 

 the language is one which can be conven- 

 iently printed." 



Dr. Adler suggested that instead of the 

 last phrase the resolution shall read : " In 

 such cases the original title shall be added ; 

 if convenient it shall be printed in the 

 original script, otherwise in Roman script."' 

 Professor Foster inquired of the Japanese 

 delegate whether the Japanese language 

 could be conveniently written in Roman 

 script and whether educated Japanese could 

 read transliterations of Japanese, and re- 

 ceived an aiSrmative replj'. The amend- 

 ment was then unanimously agreed to. 



The question arose in connection with 

 this matter as to the meaning of the term 

 'regional bureau,' and Professor Riicker 

 explained that it had been decided to em- 

 ploy this term instead of the word ' Na- 

 tional ' because it might happen that one 

 nation, as, for instance, the British Empire, 

 may have more than one bureau, whereas 

 some of the smaller countries, like Holland 

 and Belgium, might unite in a single bureau. 

 If there was anj^ objection, he said, to ' re- 

 gional,' the term ' Collecting Bureau ' might 

 be employed. 



M. Otlet desired to add to the resolution 

 the phrase ' to diminish the number of 

 necessary translations,' which he pointed 

 out as being extremely desirable, but the 

 President thought this question might be 

 more conveniently raised at a later stage. 

 The entire resolution as amended was then 

 carried. 



Professor Foster then moved that "the title 

 shall be followed by every necessary refer- 

 ence, including the j'ear of publication, and 

 such other symbols as may be determined." 



The next resolution was " Subject- entries, 

 indicating, as briefly as possible, the par- 

 ticular subjects to which the communica- 

 tion refers. Every eflbrt shall be made to 

 restrict the number of these subject-entries. 

 Such subject-entries shall be given onlj' in 

 the original language of the communica- 

 tion if this be one of the five previously 

 referred to, but in other cases in English, 

 or in such other language as has been used 

 in translating the title." 



M. LaFontaine pointed out what seemed 

 to him certain inconsistencies in subject- 

 , entries presented in the schedules, and 

 thought that the idea of the subject-entries 

 was not fully understood, but both Pro- 

 fessors Foster and Armstrong combatted 

 this idea. Dr. Adler pointed out the difB- 

 culty of grouping the subject- entries satis- 

 factorily in view of the fact that the anal j'sis 

 could be made in five languages, but Pro- 

 fessor Riicker explained that the alphabet- 

 ical arrangement would be according to 

 English words. 



Chevalier Descamps stated that the book 

 issue would require the repetition of titles, 

 and that on the whole it would be more eco- 

 nomical to repeat them entire. To this 

 suggestion Professor Ai-mstrong agreed, 

 pointing out that its necessity had been 

 recognized by the Committee. 



M. Deniker inquired as to the relative 

 value of the terms subject-entry and catch- 

 word. Was the subject-entry to be sub- 

 ordinated to the significant word, or vice 

 versa ? Professor Foster explained that the 

 subject-entrjr was to give an idea what the 

 paper was about, the sj'mbols to aid in 

 keeping the Card Catalogue in order, and 

 the significant words to aid the student who 

 did not carry the sj'mbol in his mind. 



M. Deniker replied that it was now clear 

 to him that what was proposed was not 

 simplj' a catalogue, but an analysis. What 

 limits he asked, would be imposed. Thus 

 four or five subject-entries might be given 



