We have just purchased GENCAT, a relational database program built on
ADVANCED REVELATION software. What is different about it as opposed to
virtually all relational systems out there is that fields are of
unlimited length, can repeat as often as needed, and support subfields.
We have also purchased the MARC import/export add-on module, which is
very recent, as it wasn't available, I don't think, until a short while
ago.
 
The software is not cheap, $5,000 for the whole business, but looks as if
it will do everything we would like.
 
We have only just gotten our feet wet with the software, but are briging
down one of their consultants to train our staff for 3 days. This was
another requirement we had, that the MARC software be easily customizable
by our staff, since we have numerous requirements beyond simple MARC
cataloging software. (Plus, the manual that came with GENCAT doesn't deal
extensively with customization.)
 
If I can answer any questions about GENCAT, I will be happy to do so, but
can answer them more fully after our training at the end of this month.
 
Margaret
 
Margaret Byrne
National Moving Image Database
 National Center for Film and Video Preservation,
The American Film Institute
Los Angeles, CA
[log in to unmask]
 
 
On Tue, 5 Apr 1994, Leonard Will wrote:
 
 
-------------------[snip]---------
 
> 2. Relational databases. I fully agree with the recommendations that a
> relational (or object oriented) database is the likely system for the
> future, but I wonder about the point which Jim Croft picked up that such
> systems are not good at handling chunks of text. This is my main concern.
> I saw a demo of a large and much-hyped relational data base a year or so
> ago in which the salesman had to admit that there was no way of editing
> a few lines of text in an input screen, and that it had to be exported
> to a word processing package such as Word Perfect to make a few changes.
>
> Most RDBMS packages seem to have a "memo" field, though perhaps only one
> such field per table, and this seems a potentially serious constraint on
> what curators can write. A "free-text" package may be "bolted on" to
> process such fields and make their contents searchable, but they do not
> seem to be fully integrated with the rest of the system. You are either
> searching "text" or "structured fields" and have to switch systems to
> change from one to the other rather than being able to mix them freely
> in a search query.
>
> Is there no system which gives the economy and convenience of splitting
> data into relational tables but without the restriction of fixed-length
> fields? Am I worrying about this unnecessarily? Can almost all object
> records be chopped into chunks of 256 characters or less, to fit into
> limited-length fields?
>
> Leonard Will
>
> --
> Leonard Will                                Tel: +44 81 366 7386
> Information Management Consultant           Fax: +44 81 366 0916
> 27 Calshot Way, ENFIELD, Middlesex          Email: [log in to unmask]
> EN2 7BQ, United Kingdom
>