Re: Database language

[Marc Truitt <mtruitt at uh dot edu>]

umm... but don...

why would we wish to maintain (and keep synchronized) two databases, 
when all we really want is a standards-compliant, accessible backend for 
the one we already have?  sure, you *could* do as you suggest, but it 
introduces all sorts of really messy and unnecessary complexities as to 
out-of-sync databases, links to subsidiary (acquisitions, circulation, 
serial check-in) records, etc.  i have no desire to maintain a 'shadow 
ILS' just for searching.  btdt.

i'd much prefer that my vendor recognized that at the end of the day, 
the stuff in *my* ILS belongs to *me*, and further that i should be 
entitled to do with it as i please, including querying it, changing it, 
moving it, linking it, etc.

oh, and by the way, one of my staff here reminded me of a fourth 
advantage -- in addition to the three i listed yesterday -- that an sql 
backend would present.  this one has gnawed at me since day-one here, 
and i'm really surprised that i forgot it yesterday... why on earth 
should i have to *pay* for a fixed number of slots (of fixed size, no 
less!) to query my own stuff?  if i wish to store hundreds of queries 
against my data, why should i be paying Innovative for the privilege?

essentially, for anyone still unpersuaded by the sql argument, the 
bottom line is that the issue is all about *control*.  i haven't seen an 
Iomega advertisement recently, but i recall that a year or so ago, the 
firm pushed its Zip drive solution with the slogan 'Because it's *your* 
stuff.'

what i want is for Innovative to recognize that its my stuff, and to 
provide a database backend that will give me affordable, scalable and 
standards-compliant access to that stuff.

cheers,

- mt

Zhou, Don wrote:
> Has anybody ever thought about exporting the new data you cataloged each
> day and then importing it into mysql? Then you can have your own search
> interface. 
>
>
> Don
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: innopac-bounces at innopacusers dot org
> [mailto:innopac-bounces at innopacusers dot org] On Behalf Of Gimon, Charles A
> Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 9:08 AM
> To: 'IUG INNOPAC List'
> Subject: RE: Database language
>
>
>
> > 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;
>
>
> Or to restate that....you could build your own web interface to the
> catalog,
> and do pretty much whatever you want. Building screens just to search
> the
> catalog
> could probably be done super-easily. Doing things that interface with
> circ,
> placing holds for example, you'd need more of a documented API (that is,
> you'd 
> have to know more about the internals of the system and how the bits of
> it
> work together...) My sense is that for smaller, local customizations it
> would
> be a godsend. Rebuilding the whole web opac from the ground up with all
> its
> functionality might not be worth it.
>
>
> > 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';
>
>
> Absolutely. Positively. Definitely.
>
> --Charles Gimon
>   Web Coordinator
>   Minneapolis Public Library
> --