I agree with Alice.  I know that a lot of times there
is magic behind the curtain that allows something to
make more sense to those with the larger view than it
does to us end-users out here in the trenches, & I know
also that a few times over the years I've shot off my
fat mouth <muffled guffaws out in the gallery -- see,
I do hear you. <g>) with partly-baked conceptions due
to not having all the facts.  The PMID no doubt makes
it easier for things to integrate on a large scale, but
"the user is the user" & last I checked most of us
didn't have a data port in our temples we could hardwire
into the system with.  We like to be able to divine at
least a little info from a glance, & the UI has been
incredibly useful for that over the years.

I'm sure that at this point it's not possible to re-
integrate the UI into the picture since its demise has
been planned for so long but I for one will sure hate to
see it go -- its absence is just going to make our jobs
harder. :(

While the are a lot of libraries (academic & others) with
staffs large enough to specialize, most of us out here
are in 1- or 2-person operations & need all the grease on
the skids we can get.  The UI was one of those little things
that helped do that.

Bill Nichols
Eglin AFB, FL
[log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: Hadley, Alice [mailto:[log in to unmask]]

more worried by the implication that they are going to
stop creating MEDLINE UIs and will switch to PMIDs only.

chance they transcribed the number correctly.  With UIs I can tell at a
glance that if the article was published in 1996 and the number begins with
78 or only has 5 digits there is probably an error and I can grab the person

If all my clients used Loansome Doc, or gave me complete citations, or
printouts from MEDLINE, or photocopies of bibliographies it would not be a
problem, but working in a hospital I receive numerous partial citations in