[MCN-L] MWeb Universal
On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 09:57 -0400, Chuck Patch wrote: Hi Stephen, This is really interesting. ... looks like you are inches away from being able to create a PastPerfect Consortium. Thanks, Chuck, Actually MWeb Universal can do that now. Try http://searchbaltimore.pastperfect-online.com to search a consortium of three Baltimore museums. The current release is suitable for consortia of any museums, not just PastPerfect sites, since it can search any CMSs or databases without exporting, FTPing or Z39.50. MWeb Universal has been tested with 50 databases at once. Thanks! Stephen - Stephen Toney Systems Planning toney at systemsplanning.com http://systemsplanning.com MWeb, CAPS, MARCView, and MARConvert are trademarks of Systems Planning
[MCN-L] MWeb Universal
Hi Stephen, How do you deal with ranking search results from various sources? The Baltimore example seems to side-step ranking. It displays hits segregated by database. Cheers, G?nter -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Toney Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 7:03 AM To: Chuck Patch Cc: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: Re: [MCN-L] MWeb Universal On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 09:57 -0400, Chuck Patch wrote: Hi Stephen, This is really interesting. ... looks like you are inches away from being able to create a PastPerfect Consortium. Thanks, Chuck, Actually MWeb Universal can do that now. Try http://searchbaltimore.pastperfect-online.com to search a consortium of three Baltimore museums. The current release is suitable for consortia of any museums, not just PastPerfect sites, since it can search any CMSs or databases without exporting, FTPing or Z39.50. MWeb Universal has been tested with 50 databases at once. Thanks! Stephen - Stephen Toney Systems Planning toney at systemsplanning.com http://systemsplanning.com MWeb, CAPS, MARCView, and MARConvert are trademarks of Systems Planning ___ You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu) To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit: http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l The MCN-L archives can be found at: http://toronto.mediatrope.com/pipermail/mcn-l/
[MCN-L] MWeb Universal
Hello Gunter, At present MWeb Universal sorts alphabetically by the brief name of the database, subsorted by the type of content. Ranking is a good idea and we will add it to a future release. Thanks for the suggestion! Stephen - Stephen Toney Systems Planning toney at systemsplanning.com http://systemsplanning.com MWeb, CAPS, MARCView, and MARConvert are trademarks of Systems Planning On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 11:29 -0400, Waibel,Guenter wrote: Hi Stephen, How do you deal with ranking search results from various sources? The Baltimore example seems to side-step ranking. It displays hits segregated by database. Cheers, G?nter -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Toney Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 7:03 AM To: Chuck Patch Cc: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: Re: [MCN-L] MWeb Universal On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 09:57 -0400, Chuck Patch wrote: Hi Stephen, This is really interesting. ... looks like you are inches away from being able to create a PastPerfect Consortium. Thanks, Chuck, Actually MWeb Universal can do that now. Try http://searchbaltimore.pastperfect-online.com to search a consortium of three Baltimore museums. The current release is suitable for consortia of any museums, not just PastPerfect sites, since it can search any CMSs or databases without exporting, FTPing or Z39.50. MWeb Universal has been tested with 50 databases at once. Thanks! Stephen - Stephen Toney Systems Planning toney at systemsplanning.com http://systemsplanning.com MWeb, CAPS, MARCView, and MARConvert are trademarks of Systems Planning ___ You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu) To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit: http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l The MCN-L archives can be found at: http://toronto.mediatrope.com/pipermail/mcn-l/
[MCN-L] MWeb Universal
Dear Stephen, While I don't mean to rain on your parade, I have to admit that my question was a little bit tongue-in-cheek. The library community has been trying to get meaningful ranking of federated search results to work for the better part of 10 years now. At this point, it's widely acknowledged that ranking is the Achilles heel of federated search, and even with the best technology, a limitation which can't be completely mediated. I'd say that a lot of the early enthusiasm about federated searching as the solution to integrating datasources, especially at scale, has dissipated by now. Having said that, I can see the usefulness of this kind of search for a limited number of datasources, such as library, archive, museum collections. It's a great first step to see all the content in one place! Cheers, G?nter -Original Message- From: Stephen Toney [mailto:to...@systemsplanning.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 8:40 AM To: Waibel,Guenter Cc: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: RE: [MCN-L] MWeb Universal Hello Gunter, At present MWeb Universal sorts alphabetically by the brief name of the database, subsorted by the type of content. Ranking is a good idea and we will add it to a future release. Thanks for the suggestion! Stephen - Stephen Toney Systems Planning toney at systemsplanning.com http://systemsplanning.com MWeb, CAPS, MARCView, and MARConvert are trademarks of Systems Planning On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 11:29 -0400, Waibel,Guenter wrote: Hi Stephen, How do you deal with ranking search results from various sources? The Baltimore example seems to side-step ranking. It displays hits segregated by database. Cheers, G?nter -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Toney Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 7:03 AM To: Chuck Patch Cc: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: Re: [MCN-L] MWeb Universal On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 09:57 -0400, Chuck Patch wrote: Hi Stephen, This is really interesting. ... looks like you are inches away from being able to create a PastPerfect Consortium. Thanks, Chuck, Actually MWeb Universal can do that now. Try http://searchbaltimore.pastperfect-online.com to search a consortium of three Baltimore museums. The current release is suitable for consortia of any museums, not just PastPerfect sites, since it can search any CMSs or databases without exporting, FTPing or Z39.50. MWeb Universal has been tested with 50 databases at once. Thanks! Stephen - Stephen Toney Systems Planning toney at systemsplanning.com http://systemsplanning.com MWeb, CAPS, MARCView, and MARConvert are trademarks of Systems Planning ___ You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu) To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit: http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l The MCN-L archives can be found at: http://toronto.mediatrope.com/pipermail/mcn-l/
[MCN-L] MWeb Universal
Thanks, Gunter, You are right, of course, that ranking is essential for keyword searches for information, as on Google. However, MWeb is different in two ways: First, it is designed for searching for objects rather than information, such as found in museum and library catalogs. If a user is searching for ruined mill, what ranking algorithm could determine which paintings s/he wants most? Second, MWeb's Advanced Search, boolean, phrase seaching, and subsets allow the user to be specific about what objects are wanted, in order to reduce the result set to a manageable size. These features have proven useful in MWeb Universal installations of up to several million records. For hundreds of millions, or billions, that's a different problem. Of course, these features rely to some extent on the quality and consistency of the data. For library catalogs specifically, perhaps we should continue the dialog offline as this is a museum community. The dialog is much appreciated! Stephen - Stephen Toney Systems Planning toney at systemsplanning.com http://systemsplanning.com MWeb, CAPS, MARCView, and MARConvert are trademarks of Systems Planning On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 12:40 -0400, Waibel,Guenter wrote: Dear Stephen, While I don't mean to rain on your parade, I have to admit that my question was a little bit tongue-in-cheek. The library community has been trying to get meaningful ranking of federated search results to work for the better part of 10 years now. At this point, it's widely acknowledged that ranking is the Achilles heel of federated search, and even with the best technology, a limitation which can't be completely mediated. I'd say that a lot of the early enthusiasm about federated searching as the solution to integrating datasources, especially at scale, has dissipated by now. Having said that, I can see the usefulness of this kind of search for a limited number of datasources, such as library, archive, museum collections. It's a great first step to see all the content in one place! Cheers, G?nter -Original Message- From: Stephen Toney [mailto:toney at systemsplanning.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 8:40 AM To: Waibel,Guenter Cc: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: RE: [MCN-L] MWeb Universal Hello Gunter, At present MWeb Universal sorts alphabetically by the brief name of the database, subsorted by the type of content. Ranking is a good idea and we will add it to a future release. Thanks for the suggestion! Stephen - Stephen Toney Systems Planning toney at systemsplanning.com http://systemsplanning.com MWeb, CAPS, MARCView, and MARConvert are trademarks of Systems Planning On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 11:29 -0400, Waibel,Guenter wrote: Hi Stephen, How do you deal with ranking search results from various sources? The Baltimore example seems to side-step ranking. It displays hits segregated by database. Cheers, G?nter -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Toney Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 7:03 AM To: Chuck Patch Cc: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: Re: [MCN-L] MWeb Universal On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 09:57 -0400, Chuck Patch wrote: Hi Stephen, This is really interesting. ... looks like you are inches away from being able to create a PastPerfect Consortium. Thanks, Chuck, Actually MWeb Universal can do that now. Try http://searchbaltimore.pastperfect-online.com to search a consortium of three Baltimore museums. The current release is suitable for consortia of any museums, not just PastPerfect sites, since it can search any CMSs or databases without exporting, FTPing or Z39.50. MWeb Universal has been tested with 50 databases at once. Thanks! Stephen - Stephen Toney Systems Planning toney at systemsplanning.com http://systemsplanning.com MWeb, CAPS, MARCView, and MARConvert are trademarks of Systems Planning ___ You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu) To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit: http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l The MCN-L archives can be found at: http://toronto.mediatrope.com/pipermail/mcn-l/
[MCN-L] MWeb Universal
I agree with Jay. And let's not forget that the market this demonstration piece (PastPerfect users) showcases is one where federated search is something both truly unusual and highly beneficial given the frequency with which these collections are small and not easily accessible. Chuck Patch On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Jay Hoffman Jay at gallerysystems.com wrote: Dear Stephen, G?nter et al, First, congratulations to Stephen for making an interesting project available. I would like to weigh in on this conversation, lest everyone reading it think that the statements about federated searching should be accepted without challenge. I don't agree that one should assume that enthusiasm about federated searching ... has dissipated by now. Maybe for now would be a more appropriate way to put it. There seems to be so many experts with so much experience in this field in the museum informatics space (this is another tongue-in-cheek statement). There is still research and development taking place in federated/distributed searching and more interesting things to come, including ranking. Stephen's project is an interesting step in the right direction and I think we should look at the benefits of the architecture before being dismissive. The notion that the technology might only be good for a limited number of data sources will also soon be dispelled. Best, Jay Jay Hoffman, CEO Gallery Systems 261 West 35th Street, 12th Floor New York, NY 10001 jay at gallerysystems.com +1.646.733.2239 -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Waibel,Guenter Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 12:41 PM To: toney at systemsplanning.com Cc: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: Re: [MCN-L] MWeb Universal Dear Stephen, While I don't mean to rain on your parade, I have to admit that my question was a little bit tongue-in-cheek. The library community has been trying to get meaningful ranking of federated search results to work for the better part of 10 years now. At this point, it's widely acknowledged that ranking is the Achilles heel of federated search, and even with the best technology, a limitation which can't be completely mediated. I'd say that a lot of the early enthusiasm about federated searching as the solution to integrating datasources, especially at scale, has dissipated by now. Having said that, I can see the usefulness of this kind of search for a limited number of datasources, such as library, archive, museum collections. It's a great first step to see all the content in one place! Cheers, G?nter -Original Message- From: Stephen Toney [mailto:toney at systemsplanning.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 8:40 AM To: Waibel,Guenter Cc: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: RE: [MCN-L] MWeb Universal Hello Gunter, At present MWeb Universal sorts alphabetically by the brief name of the database, subsorted by the type of content. Ranking is a good idea and we will add it to a future release. Thanks for the suggestion! Stephen - Stephen Toney Systems Planning toney at systemsplanning.com http://systemsplanning.com MWeb, CAPS, MARCView, and MARConvert are trademarks of Systems Planning On Fri, 2009-03-13 at 11:29 -0400, Waibel,Guenter wrote: Hi Stephen, How do you deal with ranking search results from various sources? The Baltimore example seems to side-step ranking. It displays hits segregated by database. Cheers, G?nter -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Toney Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 7:03 AM To: Chuck Patch Cc: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: Re: [MCN-L] MWeb Universal On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 09:57 -0400, Chuck Patch wrote: Hi Stephen, This is really interesting. ... looks like you are inches away from being able to create a PastPerfect Consortium. Thanks, Chuck, Actually MWeb Universal can do that now. Try http://searchbaltimore.pastperfect-online.com to search a consortium of three Baltimore museums. The current release is suitable for consortia of any museums, not just PastPerfect sites, since it can search any CMSs or databases without exporting, FTPing or Z39.50. MWeb Universal has been tested with 50 databases at once. Thanks! Stephen - Stephen Toney Systems Planning toney at systemsplanning.com http://systemsplanning.com MWeb, CAPS, MARCView, and MARConvert are trademarks of Systems Planning ___ You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu) To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit: http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l The MCN-L archives can be found
[MCN-L] MWeb Universal
Anything that moves us closer to a methodology for making unified discovery across different collections a routine reality is worth celebrating. I wholeheartedly agree with Chuck on that vision, and am delighted to see what MWeb has done, and much looking forward to future developments Jay hints at. These projects and products demonstrate the immense power of bringing data together, and hopefully will motivate the museum community as a whole to take a long hard look. If federated search turns out to be a useful tool to achieving the vision of searching across many museum collections at a time, I'm on board. At the same time, I think it is also worth having a look at what others who have pursued this path have to say. Here are some of the main issues with federated searching as gleaned from the library experience with it. At first glance, these seem to apply in a museum context as well. * You usually have to wait until all targets respond, so your wait-time for a search result can be fairly long in a federated search. * You usually only receive a specific subset of records with hits from each target at a time. * Since you only have a subset of actual records with hits in hand, you are fairly restricted in your ability to offer faceted browsing. * You usually have to depend on the ranking the original target provides you, and to harmonize rankings between results from different targets is a challenge. To put it simply, it's difficult to assess whether the first hit from database A is as important as the first hit in database B, or whether the first 5 hits from database A are much more relevant than the first hit from database B. That means you are usually restricted to just show hits segregated by the different databases, not integrated into a single run-on search result. In the UK, the national museums and galleries have just launched Creative Spaces (http://bm.nmolp.org/creativespaces/), which also relies on federated search, and there have been discussions about the pros and cons of federated search in that context as well. I'd be happy to learn more about how these issues can be addressed from Stephen and Jay. For those who have the patience to wade into another community's discourse to learn lessons for our own, I'll recommend this article by Jonathan Rochkind, which gives a good background to what I've tried to summarize above: http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6413442.html Cheers, G?nter -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Chuck Patch Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 12:57 PM To: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: Re: [MCN-L] MWeb Universal I agree with Jay. And let's not forget that the market this demonstration piece (PastPerfect users) showcases is one where federated search is something both truly unusual and highly beneficial given the frequency with which these collections are small and not easily accessible. Chuck Patch On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Jay Hoffman Jay at gallerysystems.com wrote: Dear Stephen, G?nter et al, First, congratulations to Stephen for making an interesting project available. I would like to weigh in on this conversation, lest everyone reading it think that the statements about federated searching should be accepted without challenge. I don't agree that one should assume that enthusiasm about federated searching ... has dissipated by now. Maybe for now would be a more appropriate way to put it. There seems to be so many experts with so much experience in this field in the museum informatics space (this is another tongue-in-cheek statement). There is still research and development taking place in federated/distributed searching and more interesting things to come, including ranking. Stephen's project is an interesting step in the right direction and I think we should look at the benefits of the architecture before being dismissive. The notion that the technology might only be good for a limited number of data sources will also soon be dispelled. Best, Jay Jay Hoffman, CEO Gallery Systems 261 West 35th Street, 12th Floor New York, NY 10001 jay at gallerysystems.com +1.646.733.2239 -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Waibel,Guenter Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 12:41 PM To: toney at systemsplanning.com Cc: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: Re: [MCN-L] MWeb Universal Dear Stephen, While I don't mean to rain on your parade, I have to admit that my question was a little bit tongue-in-cheek. The library community has been trying to get meaningful ranking of federated search results to work for the better part of 10 years now. At this point, it's widely acknowledged that ranking is the Achilles heel of federated search, and even with the best technology, a limitation which can't be completely mediated. I'd say that a lot of the early
[MCN-L] MWeb Universal
G?nter - In some respects you are right. I believe the technology has still only scratched the surface. I have been working with distributed technology searching of museum data for a few years now and offer the following from my own experience: As you know, museum data are different from library data in their level of uniqueness, complexity, physical attributes such as medium and technique, conservation data, exhibitions history, imaging and other attributes. The fact that the success rate or level of achievement falls short doesn't mean the technology should be dismissed. We should take a positive approach here, not a critical one. Other architectures also have their shortcomings, but that doesn't mean we should be shooting holes in them while those pursuing them work on making them useful. All of the items you have cited could be problems from your point of view. That is fine, but your points are a bit near-sighted. Just because Star-Trek-level, multi-lingual, thesaurus assisted, ranked, easily discoverable (without harvesting), near-real-time updated database searching hasn't been achieved yet through distributed means should not imply that it can't eventually do all those things. In an attempt to not lose sight of the original project, Chuck's comment is also important. There are probably a lot of regional, domain specific groups or other affinities that could benefit from distributed technology today and can take advantage of it as is. Based on this thread, I would like to invite any museums/individuals interested in participation in distributed searching to get in contact with me. We are forging ahead with our eMuseum Network project. I believe a cooperative effort between Gallery Systems' eMuseum Network project, Stephen's MWeb project and other such projects are worth pursuing. Best regards, Jay -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Waibel,Guenter Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 5:49 PM To: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: Re: [MCN-L] MWeb Universal Anything that moves us closer to a methodology for making unified discovery across different collections a routine reality is worth celebrating. I wholeheartedly agree with Chuck on that vision, and am delighted to see what MWeb has done, and much looking forward to future developments Jay hints at. These projects and products demonstrate the immense power of bringing data together, and hopefully will motivate the museum community as a whole to take a long hard look. If federated search turns ou??t to be a useful tool to achieving the vision of searching across many museum collections at a time, I'm on board. At the same time, I think it is also worth having a look at what others who have pursued this path have to say. Here are some of the main issues with federated searching as gleaned from the library experience with it. At first glance, these seem to apply in a museum context as well. * You usually have to wait until all targets respond, so your wait-time for a search result can be fairly long in a federated search. * You usually only receive a specific subset of records with hits from each target at a time. * Since you only have a subset of actual records with hits in hand, you are fairly restricted in your ability to offer faceted browsing. * You usually have to depend on the ranking the original target provides you, and to harmonize rankings between results from different targets is a challenge. To put it simply, it's difficult to assess whether the first hit from database A is as important as the first hit in database B, or whether the first 5 hits from database A are much more relevant than the first hit from database B. That means you are usually restricted to just show hits segregated by the different databases, not integrated into a single run-on search result. In the UK, the national museums and galleries have just launched Creative Spaces (http://bm.nmolp.org/creativespaces/), which also relies on federated search, and there have been discussions about the pros and cons of federated search in that context as well. I'd be happy to learn more about how these issues can be addressed from Stephen and Jay. For those who have the patience to wade into another community's discourse to learn lessons for our own, I'll recommend this article by Jonathan Rochkind, which gives a good background to what I've tried to summarize above: http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6413442.html Cheers, G?nter -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Chuck Patch Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 12:57 PM To: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: Re: [MCN-L] MWeb Universal I agree with Jay. And let's not forget that the market this demonstration piece (PastPerfect users) showcases is one where federated search is something both truly unusual and highly beneficial
[MCN-L] MWeb Universal
Systems Planning has just released MWeb Universal 2.0. MWeb Universal provides integrated/federated searching of any number of databases on any number of servers. Since the databases are searched in their native form, there is no need to export them or send them to a central site. Databases may include any CMS, database systems like Oracle and MySQL, and library MARC21 records in their native format. Search features include keyword and phrase searching, boolean, truncation, and the ability to restrict searches to specific fields. Each site may customize the searches, displays, and interface. Low price with no annual fee. Free support is included. For more information and slideshow, please see http://systemsplanning.com/mweb/universal.asp All comments and inquiries are welcome! - Stephen Toney Systems Planning toney at systemsplanning.com http://systemsplanning.com MWeb, CAPS, MARCView, and MARConvert are trademarks of Systems Planning
[MCN-L] MWeb Universal
Hi Stephen, This is really interesting. The demo system choked up on me when I tried it this morning, but I'll try it again some other time. I assume that the each system that is to be part of the universal search has to have a database connector installed that is part of this system? What is the connector? My favorite slide, because it illustrates one of the problems involving taxonomy, is the search for vase, which features a record for a Gibson guitar. But this looks like you are inches away from being able to create a PastPerfect Consortium. Chuck On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 6:58 AM, Stephen Toney toney at systemsplanning.comwrote: Systems Planning has just released MWeb Universal 2.0. MWeb Universal provides integrated/federated searching of any number of databases on any number of servers. Since the databases are searched in their native form, there is no need to export them or send them to a central site. Databases may include any CMS, database systems like Oracle and MySQL, and library MARC21 records in their native format. Search features include keyword and phrase searching, boolean, truncation, and the ability to restrict searches to specific fields. Each site may customize the searches, displays, and interface. Low price with no annual fee. Free support is included. For more information and slideshow, please see http://systemsplanning.com/mweb/universal.asp All comments and inquiries are welcome! - Stephen Toney Systems Planning toney at systemsplanning.com http://systemsplanning.com MWeb, CAPS, MARCView, and MARConvert are trademarks of Systems Planning ___ You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu) To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit: http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l The MCN-L archives can be found at: http://toronto.mediatrope.com/pipermail/mcn-l/
