|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1992 09:12:48 CDT Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu> From: "Angella Lambrou. Health Sciences Library. McGill U" <CZSK@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA> To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu> ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- A few weeks ago I posted a request for information from sites who had implemented the MDAS/Notis module. I was especially interested in sites who were using MDAS to access the MEDLINE database. A number of PACS-L and MEDLIB subscribers voiced interest in my sharing the responses, so here they are. Many thanks to everyone who responded. Your responses were greatly appreciated. Because of the length of the responses this message has been divided into two parts. Angella Lambrou <CZSK@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA> -------------------------------------------------------------- From: Natalie King <NKING@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU> At Wayne State's Shiffman Library we decided to go with the LAN version CDPlus for our MEDLINE access. We are a NOTIS site and we are loading other databases on MDAS (Wilson indexes and current contents so far). The down side of NOTIS MEDLINE is more than just the inability to explode--which is an enormous problem. Add onto that the inability to print in a stream and to download. Also, each record is many screens long. Also every search must be completed in one statement. CD-Plus MEDLINE just seemed so much better. ----------* From: cra@med.pitt.edu (Caroline Arms) I'm not sure if anyone else from Pitt will respond to your request. I'm hardly the appropriate person because I was not involved directly in the decision, but I do know roughly what happened here. The central library system started exploring bibliographic database systems when the medical library was already exploring MEDLINE systems through the Health Sciences Libraries Consortium (medical libraries in Pennsylvania). HSLC was plumping for CD-PLUS, but Falk Library (the medical library at Pitt) was also involved in the more general evaluation process. Once it became clear that MDAS was likely to be chosen on the basis of compatibility and least need for customization, Falk decided to get CD-PLUS, and MEDLINE was crossed off the list for databases to be loaded on MDAS. The lack of explosion was one reason. The inability to print in any reasonable fashion was another. I gather that the latter problem is due to go away with the next version of NOTIS. ----------* From: BSEAGO@Ruby.VCU.EDU I work at Tompkins-Mc Caw Library at the Medical College of Virginia/Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, Virginia. We began using NOTIS in 1989 and brought up Medline on MDAS. We realize that it doesn't have the explode capability, but our patrons LOVE it. When it's down they drive us nuts. They can dial into it from their offices too. What they don't like is that you can't download citations. I think our biggest problem with Medline is that our computer people underestimated the size and the complexity of the file (we maintain 5 years plus). We also had 2 five year Medline subscriptions on CD. These, of course, have the explode capability. We've just cancelled the 2 five year subscriptions and replaced it with one full Medline on CD (back to 1966). We think this will complement Medline on NOTIS well. By the way, we have 8 Catalog/ Medline stations near the reference desk (7 with printers) and they're almost always on Medline when we walk around and look. Oh, one other thing, the hook to holdings is nice so users can tell if we have the journal and what volumes and issues without leaving Medline. I guess I'd have to say it's certainly not perfect, but our users are crazy about it. We just recently (in the last month) brought up the Wilson databases (we're part of a university library system so both holdings are on the catalog). Tomorrow Psyc and Eric are coming up. We imagine that Psyc will have a pretty big impact at our library, but not the others. It's too early to say how the patrons like them. ----------* From: SGLOGOFF@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU In reply to your message on PACS-L, I'd like to make a couple short comments. I worked at the U of Delaware in Systems from 85-91. The U of Del has run NOTIS since then on an IBM mainframe. The Library Director opted to go with BRS search software to run external databases on the IBM 3090 rather than NOTIS MDAS. I felt this was a bad choice as did most of the libns. It introduced yet one more search engine and lacked the hook to serials capability that NOTIS provides. I think the MDAS product is clearly superior to using another if you are running NOTIS. Here at the U of Arizona we just completed the procurement process for a new system. NOTIS is offering MDAS on a Unix platform. they had proposed an RS6000 powerserver to us but you might find that it runs on other hardware platforms. IN any case, it is an excellent way to go. Your computing center staff may well prefer running it on a separate Unix machine than adding more memory and disk to the IBM mainframe. It should be far less expensive that way. Sorry, but I'm out of my league making any comments on the MEDLINE part.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |