We may now ask ourselves: What would be the scope of the entries? For discussion, we suggest:
1. Author list; giving author, title, number of words, location, character.
2. Title index.
3. Subject or character index.
You will readily see the elements of a dictionary catalog here, and it is debatable whether to separate the entries in the three groups as above, or to alphabet them together. Shall we double star the 100 best and star the 500 next?
Are not these questions too perplexing, is not the labor of compilation too arduous, and is not life too short for the reading and classifying all these titles, for one person to attempt this task alone? It has seemed so. Hence this question mark rampant, hence this interrogational presentation, hence this request for co-operation. Without the subject characterization one man could do it, but would not one of the most valuable features be omitted?
With definite assignments, under an editor-in-chief, is not this index possible? Is it not needed?
In the discussion it was brought out that the Chicago public library had made a list of fairy tales, that the Cleveland public library had begun a list of short stories not in periodicals, and that titles of stories frequently occur in reference lists on subjects like, for example, Hallowe'en.
After a discussion of Mr. Drury's paper, Mr. ROBERT KENDALL SHAW, librarian of the Worcester (Mass.) free public library, spoke on the subject
IS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CENTRAL REFERENCE BUREAU DESIRABLE?[9]
This subject has been so fully treated in recent years, notably by Mr. Lane in an address at Oberlin college in June, 1908, and in several reports of the Association of college librarians, that only an outline will be attempted here.
[9] Abstract.