[529] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
E-3-OPAC
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Public-Access Computer Systems For)
Fri Jun 19 15:04:09 1992
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1992 10:07:00 CDT
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
From: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <LIBPACS%UHUPVM1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
2 Messages, 44 Lines
*-----
From: "A. Ralph Papakhian" <PAPAKHI@IUBVM>
Organization: Indiana University Music Library
Subject: Re: E-3-OPAC
Well I'd like ANY generation opac/information retrieval system
to enable one to find, easily, all of the manifestations of
Beethoven's third symphony. Doesn't sound like a hard trick does it?
But I bet that little enhancement won't happen before speech
recognition.
Most cordially,
A. Ralph Papakhian, Music Library (Co-Listowner for MLA-L@IUBVM)
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405
(812) 855-2970 papakhi@iubvm.bitnet papakhi@iubvm.ucs.indiana.edu
*-----
From: "Peter Graham, Rutgers U., (908) 932-2741" <GRAHAM@ZODIAC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: E-3-OPAC
Charles Hildreth says, among other things,
>present-day,
2nd-generation OPACs are not very effective in meeting the information access
needs of library users...
Charles, can I suggest a less negative way of putting that? For a couple
of reasons:
1) They are I believe easily as effective as card catalogs, which people
have used and gained benefit from for generations;
2) Stating this so negatively is frankly a slap in the face at two decades
of work by dedicated library professionals who have been bootstrapping
information access inch by inch, based on a consensus by the entire -- yes the
entire -- library community that this was the right way to go;
3) Your suggestions 1-7 are very good ones on improvements to the present
OPAC (which may indeed get renamed); but that does not mean what has been done
is worthless.
I don't think the car-model-year-marketing approach to information systems
values enough what has been done, even though I support fully your wish
(and practical good work) to improve on it.
Now let's go on to what you want to talk about, which sounds good.
--pg
