Because it's the government,silly.They' re not supposed to do anything efficiently.
Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote: I'd be happy if the current LOC digital presence were more accessible to us taxpayers (ie owners).
The searching online is just not anywhere near easy for a normal person. How come LOC can't contract
with Google or someone to make the online search interface easier and quicker? Also, as far as I've
experienced, there isn't a meta-search method, you have to find a specific collection and then
search it and lord help you if you pick too vague a term. Bottom line, I'm college educated and
pretty good at research and I've never had a lot of luck with any LOC website. I generally start
with Google and find if the LOC is the only place to get it, ask my friend who works there to help
me. As a taxpayer (ie owner) of the LOC, this makes me none too happy!
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Lindner"
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Digitizing libraries - OT comment
> My understanding is that the NAVCC (when fully up and running at full capacity) will in fact be
> significantly larger then other repositories that you mention. This was mentioned in passing by
> several vendors who responded to the RFC for the acquisition of the storage subsystem. I do not
> know personally if that is true, but the vendors responding were the players who would have been
> in a position to know that kind of information and I have no reason to doubt them. The
> repository for NAVCC is however very specialized due to the mission - and there are many things
> to look at with repositories on the scale that we are discussing - access for example is an
> important area. Some repositories may be smaller in terms of the amount of TB's stored, but may
> have very large bandwidth requirements due to the access requirements. Others may be much larger
> but could essentially be "dark" archives which collect information but have it only accessed
> infrequently - so which is "bigger" depends very much on how you define your terms.
> An article on the NAVCC is located here.
> Jim Lindner
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Media Matters LLC.
> SAMMA Systems LLC.
> 450 West 31st Street 4th Floor
> New York, N.Y. 10001
> eFax (646) 349-4475
> Mobile: (917) 945-2662
> Office: (212) 268-5528
> Media Matters LLC. is a technical consultancy specializing in archival audio and video material.
> We provide advice and analysis, to media archives that apply the beneficial advances in
> technology to collection management.
> SAMMA Systems provides tools and products that implement and optimize the advances in modern
> technology with established media preservation and access practices.
> On Dec 13, 2006, at 12:34 PM, Mike Richter wrote:
>> Jim Lindner wrote:
>>> This is a very interesting post, just one very quick comment. I have been a consultant for the
>>> Library of Congress for about 5 years now - and I can tell you for sure - absolutely - that
>>> those quotations of space are just - well - silly. Since the library does not even have a full
>>> accounting of exactly how large the collection is - and because it grows every minute
>>> (literally) these "estimates" really have absolutely no basis in fact. The Libraries
>>> collection includes many more types of objects then books. And even if you just consider the
>>> books - they are in many different languages - and what about the pictures in the books? There
>>> are illuminated manuscripts. In the National Audio Visual Conservation Center being built in
>>> Culpeper Virginia, the estimate is that many terabytes a day will be generated in the transfer
>>> of analog carriers.
>> Once upon a time, I had clearance to ask what the traffic and storage numbers were for NSA.
>> Since I never asked, I may speculate that it would make the LoC's efforts pale in comparison
>> [log in to unmask]
Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.