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" 
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
>> Mike
>> -- 
>> [log in to unmask]

Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.