Because it's the government,silly.They' re not supposed to do anything efficiently. Roger Kulp 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" To: 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. > http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/06078/navcc.html > > > > > 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 > > www.media-matters.net > 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. > > www.sammasystems.com > 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 >> >> Mike >> -- >> [log in to unmask] >> http://www.mrichter.com/ >> > --------------------------------- Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.