One of the initial challenges RILM faced in 1967 was developing a numbered classification system that would allow for a logical and effective organization of abstracts within each issue. In addition, it was crucial to establish a method for creating see-references and cross-references to help readers find related information across different sections. After extensive investigation, comparison, and consultation, the RILM classification system was established and proved to be highly effective, particularly for Western literature. Early RILM classification numbers were paired with the RILM number itself, providing essential information for indexing and referencing. For example, a number like 67/177ap26 indicated that the abstract was from 1967 (67), with 177 referring to the specific entry, “ap” denoting the type of item (in this case, an article in a periodical), and the superscript number (26) signifying the RILM classification, which in this example, related to the Classical period.
The classification number allowed early users of RILM Abstracts to quickly assess whether they were interested in a particular record. However, by the time the fourth issue of RILM Abstracts was published, it became clear that the subject index needed to be based on a more structured intellectual framework. The computer-generated indexes of the early 1960s were overly simplistic, took up too much space, and often wasted the reader’s time. To address this, RILM set out to create an efficient and user-friendly index that merged both authors and subjects into a single alphabetical list, providing enough detail to help users quickly locate the information they sought. In doing so, RILM effectively combined human expertise with machine-assisted techniques, striking a balance that leveraged automation while retaining the flexibility and nuance of human editorial control.
