Willard McCarty <MCCARTY@vm.epas.utoronto.ca> (02/08/90)
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 3, No. 1015. Wednesday, 7 Feb 1990. (1) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 90 22:20:18 EST (51 lines) From: amsler@flash.bellcore.com (Robert A Amsler) Subject: Why telnet to a distant library catalog (2) Date: 7 February 1990 08:57:57 CST (30 lines) From: "Michael Sperberg-McQueen 312 996-2477 -2981" <U35395@UICVM> Subject: library conversion (3) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 90 12:59 EST (16 lines) From: "Tom Benson 814-238-5277" <T3B@PSUVM> Subject: Contacting MIRLYN (4) Date: 07 Feb 90 15:23 EST (14 lines) From: Jim Cahalan <JMCAHAL@IUPCP6.BITNET> Subject: Telnet how-to? (5) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 90 12:10 EST (29 lines) From: FMOFFETT@OBERLIN Subject: Response to discussion group referred to me by colleague (1) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 6 Feb 90 22:20:18 EST From: amsler@flash.bellcore.com (Robert A Amsler) Subject: Why telnet to a distant library catalog I think I see a pattern in the responses. For some types of searches, one finds a lot of possibly useful material--but then has to verify its utility by looking at the works in person; This mode of work seems to be associated with historical scholars. And in these cases people find remote telnet access to another library's catalog somewhat infuriating, i.e. ``I haven't got enough to do as it is--you expect me to worry about works I can't look at now too!'' However for OTHER types of searches one can't find anything relevant and in these cases the widest possible casting of the net (pun there) is needed to catch whatever exists anywhere. Acquiring two or three new works which one never knew existed isn't at all difficult--finding out that they exist can be exceedingly difficult. Thus remote access to a far-off library catalog with the chance of something new being found can be very useful. This user might typify their problem area as one in which there just aren't more than a handful of works known or one in which there is no known book that deals exclusively with the subject, i.e. ``Look, I think I already know the name of every work on this topic, and it will only take a few seconds to check, so if there is the slightest chance there is something I don't know of I'd take it.'' Additionally, there are other uses for such a system. (a) checking the status of a field by determining the number of works on its subject. (b) a check of what call numbers go along with a given subject, esp. in another classification system than the one used in one's own library. (c) looking for citations to new words for building a dictionary in the title keywords. (d) answering quick questions about what date a work was written, what an author's full name is, what publisher publishes works in a given subject area. (e) assessing the capabilities of a different library system interface to point out to one's local computer support staff what to add or not to do in bringing up a local system (f) transcripting bibliographic records for other uses (2) --------------------------------------------------------------39---- Date: 7 February 1990 08:57:57 CST From: "Michael Sperberg-McQueen 312 996-2477 -2981" <U35395@UICVM> Subject: library conversion Matthew Gilmore describes a library which has closed its card catalog without having completed a retrospective conversion of its holdings as having done a "botched job" of automation. While I agree with Marian Sperberg-McQueen that having to consult multiple catalogs for a single library is a drag, this condemnation (it happens to be the library I serve in my small way as a computer programmer) makes me a bit defensive. Does M.G. regard the automation process as having been botched at all the schools which have closed their card catalogs? Many of them, including all the really large ones I know of, have not yet completed a retrospective conversion, and those that did closed the card catalog long before the retrospective projects ever finished. How many research libraries did *not* close their pre-AACR2 card catalog when they moved to AACR2? Stanford, Princeton, the Library of Congress -- all botchers? If closing an old catalog before it has been completely converted to a new form is a "botched job", then clearly it is not UIC but the majority of the Anglo-American library community which M.G. regards as having botched things. This is not an unheard-of opinion, but it's not quite what I heard him say. Sorry if this sounds a bit tetchy, but MG's dig caught me fairly square in the ribs. Michael Sperberg-McQueen (3) --------------------------------------------------------------24---- Date: Wed, 7 Feb 90 12:59 EST From: "Tom Benson 814-238-5277" <T3B@PSUVM> Subject: Contacting MIRLYN Because I'd find it useful to consult the Wilson files on the University of Michigan system, I tried logging on to the MIRLYN system (at 35.1.1.6). Logging in went through properly, but my screen filled with garbage. Local consultants tell me that it is because I am using a VT100 emulator (YTERM) to log on to my university's mainframe in CMS, from an IBM PC. Does anyone know of a way to get MIRLYN to talk without this problem? Thanks. Tom Benson Penn State University T3B@PSUVM (4) --------------------------------------------------------------21---- Date: 07 Feb 90 15:23 EST From: Jim Cahalan <JMCAHAL@IUPCP6.BITNET> Subject: Telnet how-to? The several postings singing the praises of Telnet convince me that it's worth looking into. May I bashfully ask for advice for the uninitiated? How does one access Telnet? Can one do it from one's home computer over BITNET? Or does one have to do it through one's home library that is already hooked up to Telnet? Clarifications (and specific directions, if feasible) for the layperson would be appreciated. Thanks, Jim Cahalan, Graduate Literature <JMCAHAL@IUP.BITNET> English Dept., 111 Leonard, Indiana University of Pennsylvania Indiana, PA 15705-1094 Phone: (412) 357-2264 (5) --------------------------------------------------------------33---- Date: Wed, 7 Feb 90 12:10 EST From: FMOFFETT@OBERLIN Subject: Response to discussion group referred to me by colleague Subject " Why do you want telnet access to library catalogues? Marian Sperberg-McQueen largely answers her own question by speculating that telnet access to other university catalogues extends the opportunities offered by such databases as OCLC and RLN to verify bibliographic information, to discover additional items, to ascertain access, and to expedite action on interlibrary loan requests. But what she herself describes as a "diatribe" on the subject of card catalogs is frankly puzzling to me, and seems to reflect a locally bad experience. I don't recognize the difficulties she describes, and suspect she needs to spend some time schmoozing with a good reference librarian at UIC in order to improve her search strategies. At the least she might disabuse herself of the notion that librarians operate under some naive illusion about how easy it is for users to search online databases independently, that they regard "online catalogs" as nirvana (!), that by providing access to new library search tools librarians think they have "relieved themselves of responsibility for service," etc. etc. Did anyone else appreciate the irony of an e-mail call for the return of the card catalog? Wow! William A. Moffett, Director of Libraries and President, ACRL FMOFFETT@OBERLIN