[431] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Library Automation--Comments & Questions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Public-Access Computer Systems For)
Fri Jun 5 10:53:59 1992
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 09:40:10 CDT
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
From: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <LIBPACS%UHUPVM1.BITNET@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
6 Messages, 116 Lines
1) Full-text retrieval systems
2) Papyrus
3) INMAGIC and Other Library Systems
4) Shelflist
5) TSR Programs
6)
Please reply to the authors, not PACS-L. Thanks, Dana
*-----
From: mjd@sql.sybase.com (Mary Durham)
Subject: full-text retrieval systems - opinions, experiences sought
Our library is investigating full-text retrieval products. I would
appreciate hearing from anyone having experience with Verity's Topic,
IDI's BASISplus, or others. Our choice needs to be multi-user and
run under UNIX. Client/server architecture preferred. We plan to
import a variety of online document types - lengthy structured text,
email messages, etc. - and want to have controlled vocabulary
available for consultation or automatic term substitution. Specific
questions are (1) How well does the system handle large numbers of
hits - presenting them to the user, refining the search? (2) What is
the installation/implementation curve really like? (3) How satisfied
are you and your users with the controlled vocabulary facility?
Thank you for whatever information you can share. I'll gladly
summarize to the list.
Mary Durham
Corporate Technical Library
Sybase/SQL Solutions
mjd@sql.sybase.com
voice 617-238-6251
*-----
From: pfa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (PF Anderson)
Subject: Re: Papyrus
I had heard word of mouth that Papyrus had been bought out.
Are they still in existence? I thought they were being phased out....
Pat Anderson
pfa@nwu.edu
*-----
From: "Vickie L. Banks" <21602VB@MSU>
Subject: INMAGIC and other library systems
I'm looking for some libraries that are using the online cataloging system
called INMAGIC. Alternatively the Winnabago, Follett or the Bibliofile
systems would be interesting to discuss. I'd prefer to talk with
someone using the OPAC module of the system, as we're considering
getting one in part for patrons to use.
Major criterion is that it run on a PC. I'm assuming that similar
to getting a word processor, there are a couple of these that
are the recognized standard good ones a person might want to get, but
I don't know how to pick them out of the group of library systems
in the catalogs.
I'm specifically trying to find out how easy conversion to the system
was, and what advantages and problems have arisen with use. If you or your
library is using one of these and you could give me a contact person,
I'd really appreciate it.
Vickie L. Banks
21602VB@MSU.EDU
*-----
From: huangj@uwwvax.uww.edu
Subject: shelflist
We are interested to hear from those libraries that since they have
an online catalog, have ceased maintaining a card shelflist what
their experiences have been. We use LS/2K which does not generate
a listing in good shelflist order, so we would particularly like to
hear from LS/2K users. Thank you very much in advance. Please respond
to me directly. I'll be glad to share and summarize the responses.
Joyce L. Huang
Head, Technical Processing Service
University of Wisconsin - Whitewater
Whitewater, WI 53190
Huangj@uwwvax.uww.edu
414-472-5516
*-----
From: Urban Lejeune <lejeune@pilot.njin.net>
Re TSR Internet Guides.
Would you (Michael Hart) please tell me what TSR programs you are
using and where you obtained them. I think a lot of list members would
be interedted in this answer.
Thanks
Urb
*-----
Subject: Re: Library Automation--Comments and Questions
From: "Dave Bates, Whitney Library, GE CRD (518-387-7538)"
<bates@rdsunx.crd.ge.com>
One possible solution is a product available from Gandalf,
which (if I remember this correctly) is basically a
LAN which is connected to a UNIX network via TCP/IP. The
advantage of this over Soft-PC is that the DOS programs are
running on a 286 (or 386) chip, not software which is emulating
hardware instructions. You'll probably do better with products
which actually have a 286 or 286 chip built in, rather than trying
to emulate the machine level instructions. I'mnot sure, but I
thought SUN had a workstation which had both regular SUN hardware
and DOS hardware, and so could run DOS applications efficiently
under UNIX.
Dave Bates
GE Whitney Library
