RE: Database language

["Strouse, Mary" <STROUSE at law dot edu>]

Um, I've hesitated to chime in because this discussion could so easily tip into areas that Innovative might consider proprietary (whether you or I would consider them proprietary is a separate matter). I can say with 100% confidence that the company is committed to transitioning to an open-source SQL-compliant backend over a number of releases. This is ongoing development, not a separate product. Details are available through your sales consultant.

What is not clear is whether/when customers will have direct access to SQL-based search and reporting functions to replace the existing proprietary report-writing features. In the same way that our Millennium server runs on a UNIX box but most of us do not have shell access, it is not a given that the turnkey sites will have direct access to the power of open-ended SQL querying their database.  An enhancement request should focus on that.

Mary

Mary M. Strouse
Head of Technical Services
Judge Kathryn J. DuFour Law Library
The Catholic University of America
Washington, DC
(202) 319-5547   strouse at law dot cua dot edu
http://law.cua.edu/library/


-----Original Message-----
From: innopac-bounces at innopacusers dot org
[mailto:innopac-bounces at innopacusers dot org]On Behalf Of Marc Truitt
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 11:47 AM
To: IUG INNOPAC List
Subject: Re: Database language


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
> --
--
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