Re: Database language

[ADRIENE LIM <ab7155 at wayne dot edu>]

I would agree with everything that Marc has said.  We did 
obtain the "Oracle option" not so much because it was just a 
good-sounding requirement to build into an RFP, but because 
it would bring real flexibility in querying and use of our 
data, and would bring easier interoperability opportunities 
for projects with campus systems and other external systems. 
Of course, the warning "be careful what you wish for" is 
true when there are growing pains in trying to develop the 
changes in upgrades, support, etc., that comes with this 
type of major development, and when the backend is not fully 
just an SQL-compliant database, but is really a multiple-
database-type of backend. Hopefully, these growing pains we 
Oracle sites are experiencing will one day be worth it.  But 
the growing pains were why I agreed with the wish for a 
fully SQL-compliant, fully populated rDBMS backend.

I will say that one downside of having SQL-compliance 
without Millennium's type of "Review Files" functionality ---
which is what we had with our previous Sybase-based ILS -----
was that staff had to rely on Systems staff much more for 
everything but the most simple of reporting functions, since 
SQL statements into MARC data strings and complex tables 
structures are not so easy to master, to say the least.  So, 
the best of both worlds, IMHO, will be for Innovative to 
continue to build in great client-based functionality for 
non-Systems staff to use as they are doing now (like Create 
Lists' MATCHES operator, for example), while at the same 
time continuing to exploit newer, stable technologies that 
will allow more flexibility and autonomy for those of us who 
wish to have more direct access to our own data. 

- Adriene, WSU 

---- Original message ----
>Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 17:46:05 -0600
>From: Marc Truitt <mtruitt at uh dot edu>  
>Subject: Re: Database language  
>To: IUG INNOPAC List <innopac at innopacusers dot org>
>
>hi steve,
>
>well, i've never really thought of myself as an 'IT 
bureaucrat' <grin>, 
>but here's my take...
>
>1)  an sql-compliant backend would be far more accessible 
for direct 
>querying by those of us who would like to link-to or build 
interfaces to 
>local data outside the ILS;
>
>2)  an sql-compliant backend would be a far more flexible 
means of 
>extracting reporting data from my ILS than the present 
black box, aka 
>'create lists';
>
>3)  data in an sql-compliant backend is more portable and 
thus far more 
>likely (not guaranteed, but likely) to ease my migration 
headaches, come 
>the day -- gasp! -- when i decide to pick up my marbles and 
go play in a 
>different vendors ILS sandbox. i realize that it isn't 
III's job to make 
>it easier for me to bail, but portability *does* matter 
nonetheless.
>
>i'm sure that if i thought about it for awhile, i could 
come up with 
>others; these are just off the top-o'my-head.
>
>hth,
>
>- m (aka 'IT bureaucrat') t
>
>-- 
>************************************************************
*************
>Marc Truitt
>Assistant Dean for Systems                      Voice  : 
713-743-8979
>University of Houston Libraries                 e-mail : 
mtruitt at uh dot edu
>114 University Libraries                        fax    : 
713-743-9811
>Houston, TX 77204-2000    [note new number!] -> cell   : 
713-201-0351
>
>
>"Well I left my happy home to see what I could find out
>I left my folk and friends with the aim to clear my mind out
>Well I hit the rowdy road and many kinds I met there
>Many stories told me of the way to get there ..."
>                                 -- Cat Stevens
>************************************************************
*************
>
>
>Metcalf, Steve wrote:
>> I'd be interested in hearing a bit about what the 
benefits would be.
>> My suspicion has been that this development is driven by 
IT
>> bureaucrats writing an sql-complicance requirement into 
RFPs as a
>> matter of policy.
>> 
>> Steve Metcalf The Evergreen State College
>> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: innopac-
bounces at innopacusers dot org 
>> [mailto:innopac-bounces at innopacusers dot org]On Behalf Of 
Adriene Lim 
>> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 2:20 PM To: 
mtruitt at uh dot edu; 'IUG
>> INNOPAC List' Subject: RE: Database language
>> 
>> 
>> I would LOVE this if it happened!  WSU could gain all of 
the benefits
>> of a fully functional, fully populated relational 
database, and using
>> SQL, without having to use the "Oracle option," if this 
were done.
>> 
>> - Adriene, WSU
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: innopac-
bounces at innopacusers dot org 
>> [mailto:innopac-bounces at innopacusers dot org] On Behalf Of 
Marc Truitt 
>> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 5:11 PM To: IUG INNOPAC 
List Subject:
>> Re: Database language
>> 
>> hi bill and zoltan,
>> 
>> has this ever been pushed as an enhancement request?  is 
there any
>> reason it could not be?
>> 
>> how about a virtual show-of-hands from those sites on 
this list that
>> would be seriously interested seeing Innovative migrate 
to an
>> open-source SQL-compliant back end?
>> 
>> UH would certainly support such an effort.
>> 
>> - mt
>> 
>> 
>> Bill Hudson wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Zoltan, I thought the same thing about the mysql 
migration after
>>> IUG last year,
>> 
>> but
>> 
>>> my sales rep checked for me and says that's not the 
case. There are
>>> 
>> 
>> numerous
>> 
>>> supporting databases in the system that are/will be 
converted, but
>>> the
>> 
>> core
>> 
>>> dbase will not be converted. I was not happy to hear 
that as we
>>> would love SQL compliance without having to pay for Mr. 
Ellison's
>>> sailing hobby.
>>> 
>>> If anyone has heard anything different from a reliable 
source, I
>>> would definitely like to know about it. Thanks, BH
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Bill Hudson, Manager Information Technology Services 
Library System
>>> of Lancaster County 1866 Colonial Village Lane, Suite 
107 
>>> Lancaster, PA 17601 V. 717.207.0500 F.717.207.0500
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message----- From: innopac-
bounces at innopacusers dot org
>>>> [mailto:innopac- bounces at innopacusers dot org] On Behalf Of
>>>> zoltan dot tomory at mobot dot org Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 
3:08 PM 
>>>> To: innopac at innopacusers dot org Subject: RE: Database 
language
>>>> 
>>>> Future plans seem to be that Millennium will be 
converted to a
>>>> MySQL database based system over something like a five 
or ten
>>>> year timeframe, phasing out the existing proprietary
>>>> database/database language, if my recollections from 
IUG'04 are
>>>> accurate.
>>>> 
>>>> Writing their own database--that's gutsy! Changing a
>>>> database--equally gutsy!
>>>> 
>>>> One thing from the technical information was not clear 
to me: The
>>>> Java Virtual Machine is platform independent & runs on 
a variety
>>>> of platforms including Windows, Mac, and a bunch of 
others. So
>>>> how come the Java clients typical of Millennium don't 
do Mac? The
>>>> purpose of the JVM is to translate Java code to machine 
code of
>>>> whatever platform there exists a JVM for with complete 
integrity
>>>> & my understanding is that Sun, author of Java, has 
suffered to
>>>> keep it so.
>>>> 
>>>> Zoltan Tomory
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---
>--
>This message was distributed through the Innovative Users 
Group INNOPAC list
>Public replies:  INNOPAC at innopacusers dot org
>Update your subscription options: 
http://innopacusers.org/mailman/listinfo/innopac