3.1023 Telnetting, cont. (238)

Willard McCarty (MCCARTY@vm.epas.utoronto.ca)
Thu, 8 Feb 90 21:37:53 EST

Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 3, No. 1023. Thursday, 8 Feb 1990.

(1) Date: 07 Feb 90 21:35:48 EST (16 lines)
From: James O'Donnell <JODONNEL@PENNSAS>
Subject: Telnet

(2) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 90 22:46:26 EST (27 lines)
From: John_Price-Wilkin@ub.cc.umich.edu
Subject: 3.1015 Telnetting: responses and queries (175)

(3) Date: Wed, 07 Feb 90 22:27:06 CST (26 lines)
From: Amanda C. Lee <ALEE@MSSTATE>
Subject: telnet libraries

(4) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 90 09:40 EDT (33 lines)
From: "David G. Durand" <DURAND@brandeis.bitnet>
Subject: Answer: what is telnet

(5) Date: Thu 08 Feb 90 10:02:51 (57 lines)
From: dusknox@skipspc.idbsu.edu (Skip_Knox)

(6) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 90 11:41:59 EST (26 lines)
From: Richard Giordano <rich@welchlab.welch.jhu.EDU>
Subject: Telnetting to online catalogs....

(7) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 90 14:49:50 EST (28 lines)
From: Randal Baier <REBX@CORNELLC>
Subject: AACR2 and TELNET library catalogs

(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 07 Feb 90 21:35:48 EST
From: James O'Donnell <JODONNEL@PENNSAS>
Subject: Telnet

From: Jim O'Donnell (Penn, Classics)

YTERM and VT100 don't seem to be the problem with Michigan. I've
accessed them with YTERM, CMS, etc., and CR'ed my acquiescence to the
allegation that my (IBM PC/AT) was actually a VT100, and the system
worked perfectly well. Any other technical suggestions anybody can
think of? For making a TELNET connection, consult your local computer
support person to find out what the protocol is. It will vary from
system to system, but basically TELNET is a kind of MCI or Sprint for
computers, congruent to BITNET or INTERNET. Get the access code to
Telnet, then dial the number, and you're there.
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------35----
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 90 22:46:26 EST
From: John_Price-Wilkin@ub.cc.umich.edu
Subject: 3.1015 Telnetting: responses and queries (175)

I think I might be able to answer Tom Benson's question and clarify
something about the connection, though I might be making an
unfounded assumption. Someone from Penn State's computing center
called to ask what might be the problem with trying to log into
MIRLYN from an IBM mainframe. Because of the way access to MIRLYN
is mediated by our computing environment, only VT100 and VT100
emulators will interpret the control characters correctly. Because
your (Tom) connection is being made through the mainframe, your
your mainframe rather than your VT100 emulator is the problem.
If you can make a connection directly over the Internet, you
shouldn't have any problem.

About the Wilson products: (1) someone has called them Wilsondisc
products connected to our catalog; in fact, they are the Wilson
databases loaded into our NOTIS software; (2) as I understand it,
they're licensed for use by U of Michigan affil. persons, and as
soon as we're able we're supposed to have password protection up.
Get it while the gettin's good.

John Price-Wilkin
U. of Michigan
(3) --------------------------------------------------------------31----
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 90 22:27:06 CST
From: Amanda C. Lee <ALEE@MSSTATE>
Subject: telnet libraries

After reading the recent postings about "why bother with other
libraries," I decided my reasons for doing it were somewhat lowly, but
after the prompting of a friend, I decided to send along my opinions
anyway. I won't speak for university libraries in general, but ours is
notorious for myscrewing up subject headings to high heaven. Especially
foreign language ones. I find it easier to get onto MELVYL, look up my
subject (assuming that Mississippi State probably doesn't have much that
California doesn't have), get authors and titles, and then look those
names up in our catalog. I figure it's alot harder to screw up
relatively concrete names than sometimes mysterious subjects. Of
course, a few problems still occur, when there's a _von_ or a _de_ or
such in the author's name, but at least then I know what mistake was
made, and where to find the card. So, no, I don't (or haven't as of
yet) use the catalogs to find obscure publishing dates or other such
scholarly stuff, just BOOKS!! Besides, it's fun to play around with,
since we miserable wretches here at MSU still have to plow through those
oh-so-tangible cards (at a library whose operating hours are quite
ridiculous, might I add).

(4) --------------------------------------------------------------39----
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 90 09:40 EDT
From: "David G. Durand" <DURAND@brandeis.bitnet>
Subject: Answer: what is telnet

I hope this is not the first of a flood of messages explaining the same
thing, but since I've locally just done most of the technical work to
connect our campus to the Internet, I have a spiel ready on the tips of
my fingers. Telnet is a program that allows remote login to computers
that may be very far away as if you had a local terminal connection. It
does require special software and hardware to get connected, and this is
unfortunately different from the setup required for bitnet access. The
telnet program can be used without a connection to the outside world,
but is typically only useful if one has a connection the the "Internet"
-- a large US research network connecting government, academic and
commercial research sites. In using Email, you have probably noticed
that some addresses have a large number of periods in the names of the
machine. These are addresses in the form that is required for the
internet. One can have both Internet and Bitnet access at the same site
-- we do here at Brandeis -- but many bitnet sites do not, as a major
advantage of bitnet for non-IBM sites is that the cost required for
connection to bitnet is typically much less than connection to the
internet. Anyone who wants to access library catalogs via telnet should
ask their local computer center or campus network organization if full
Internet access is available. The part about ful access is important,
as the person you ask may be thinking of mail access, rather than remote
login: electronic mail can be automatically routed from one network to
the other, but telnet access requires a direct conection to the Internet.
I hope that I've been able to fight my own tendancy to use computer
jargon well enough that this will be useful.
(5) --------------------------------------------------------------68----
Date: Thu 08 Feb 90 10:02:51
From: dusknox@skipspc.idbsu.edu (Skip_Knox)

Herewith a salvo fired from the other side regarding Telnet. I've heard
the reasons put forth in favor of do-it-yourself on-line searches of
other libraries and I remain unconvinced. This simply does not sound
like the way I work, so I shall set out the way I work and see if maybe
what's involved here is simply a difference in research styles. If I'm
to tackle a subject that is outside my field (as in, I took a course on
it once), I go to my local library to see what we have. To pick a
specific example, let's do Carolingian economic history. So I go get a
couple of books on Charlemagne and check their bibliographies. I take
that list back to my library and see what we have, including monographs,
sources and journals. We'll have a couple, anyway. From those works I
compile a larger list, this time of works that our library does not
have. Time for a trip to ILL. I go through that iteration some number
of times, depending on how thorough I intend to be. Eventually I wind
up with a short list of "unavailable" for whatever reason, usually of
books that are very old and rather obscure. I supplement this search
strategy with trips to the AHA RPA - that's the American Historical
Association's publication called Recently Published Articles. This lets
me do a search of recently-appearing stuff (it is also a publication
that has had a rocky history in the 80s; forgive me if its status has
changed again, as I've not looked at it in two or three years). Similar
bibliographic resources are available in the field of medieval history,
and I would consult those as well. By the end of this process, which of
course weaves through the course of actual research and writing, I wind
up with a veritable mountain of material, plus a small pile of
"unavailable." The way I read the E-search advocates, they now want me
to search some several libraries, compiling lists that will in large
part duplicate the stuff I have already, on the off chance that I will
score a hit from my "unavailable" list. Truly that does not seem worth
the effort. The other so-called advantage is that I could go Telnetting
as soon as I had my initial "not in my library they ain't" list and
circumvent ILL entirely. Again that seems a poor use of my time. I
don't know if this is at like the way others search, but it has always
produced for me far more books and articles than I knew what to do with.
And I honestly don't see a place in this for E-searching other libraries.
The one use I can see, and it is a real if rare one, is to find that book
that is so crucial to one's research, which my ILL says it cannot find
but which I just KNOW is out there somewhere. Of course, chances are,
it will be in some library that won't lend. Oh drat, I told myself I
wouldn't do sour grapes. I'd be interested to hear (read?) if those who
do use E-search regularly have a research strategy that is significantly
different from this.

(6) --------------------------------------------------------------37----
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 90 11:41:59 EST
From: Richard Giordano <rich@welchlab.welch.jhu.EDU>
Subject: Telnetting to online catalogs....

The real question in my mind is why look at a group of online catalogs
instead of going to a single source, such as RLIN or OCLC, whose
database will encompass those at the local institutions? (RLIN is
composed of many the large research universities, OCLC has virtually
everybody else.) As far as can tell, the answer is cost. Telnetting
to, say, Columbia or Princeton doesn't cost the user anything directly,
other than a charge, if any, of using your local computer system. If
you telnet to OCLC or RLIN, you--or someone--has to pay for the search
time you use on those systems. Like others who have responded, I think
that Sperberg-McQueen's situation regarding ILL is unique. Further, in
my own experience, I don't see much of a problem in searching a variety
of online catalogs. One reason why is, for better or for worse, so many
research libraries are using NOTIS software that if you learn one
catalog, you've learned a good portion of the others.

Richard Giordano
Council on Library Resources Project Director
Lab for Applied Research in Academic Information
School of Medicine
The Johns Hopkins University
(7) --------------------------------------------------------------36----
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 90 14:49:50 EST
From: Randal Baier <REBX@CORNELLC>
Subject: AACR2 and TELNET library catalogs

In reply to M.R. Spelberg-McQueen (2/3/90):

Actually, a small point, but AACR2 (Anglo-American Cataloging Rules, 2nd
ed.) is not responsible for the fact that library catalogs are now
computerized. AACR2 is a standardized format for the desciption of
bibliographic and non-bibliographic items (kits, videos, cassettes,
etc.) so that virtually any material that libraries collect can reside
with each other under the same "laws." The card catalog at UIUC has
cards that were created under AACR2, AACR2-revised 1988, AACR1 (ca.
1970), and older rule systems. Computerized library catalogs use
another standard known as MARC (MAchine Readable Cataloging) which
interprets the AACR2 standard into data fields that contain similar
types of information. For instance, titles are entered into field 245,
edition statements into 250, and so on. When you look for an item on a
computer catalog (e.g. TI=Finnegan's Wake) the computer searches a MARC
database/index for all occurrences of that string of words in all 245
fields. What appears on screen is then a choice of items that are
formatted to "look like" catalog cards that use the AACR2 format.
Actually, a search such as my example above will look in all fields that
contain "title" information, such as an article on Finnegan's Wake that
was part of a larger collection on Joyce (provided, of coarse, that it
was cataloged/coded that way in the first place).