Open Source Systems for Libraries

I know someone has already mentioned this and I am not trying to
perpetuate the naysayer role, but...One of the biggest hurdles I could
see to switching to an open source ILS from a vendor supplied solution
is data conversion.  In other words, I think most would agree that basic
functionality such as serials control needs more work, and that could
perhaps be addressed as others are suggesting, by coordinated effort,
pooling of money, or whatever.  But don't forget the conversion part of
this equation.  It's one thing to get the basic functionality in place,
it's quite another to readily be able to convert existing systems to
whatever open source ILS is chosen.  My experience recently working for
a prominent ILS vendor was that this was one of the greatest sources of
dissatisfaction with customers.  I'm working as part of a consortium now
to implement another prominent ILS vendor's system and the consortium
has just recently had to come to the conclusion that they must junk all
of their acquisitions data as conversion won't occur in time without a
lot more development work, which just isn't going to happen.  So, back
to zero.

Maybe, as again I think someone has said, conversion will be a primary
vendor role in future.  It's a huge factor for libraries to consider.
Witness the wording of the Saskatchewan document to wit that converting
III data to another system would be more of a headache than it's worth
and arguing for upgrade to the latest version instead.

Also what is working against this kind of development historically, at
least in some institutions, is there a bad taste in university
administrators' mouths over the expensive homegrown ILS developments
that occurred in the early '70s and '80s.

Still and all, I hope either a scalable single OSS ILS or distributed
pieces that mesh well and are OSS based, or both, will come to pass.

Steve

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Steve Oberg
Electronic Resources Librarian & Assistant Professor
http://www.tayloru.edu/library/

Editor, Bits & Bytes Column, _Serials Review_
http://sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00987913

elewis@... writes:
>John, Having reread the comment I don't draw that conclussion.  

Well, exegesis is a tricky business :) ...

For what it's worth, here's my interpretation:
>
>I certainly don't fault them, and didn't plan on proposing a Koha solution
>>to them (or any other oss solution for that matter). 
 
...plus...
>
>Sometimes renting is the only viable solution at the time you need a
 
>house.  
equals "not proposing U.Sask buy the Koha house in its present state."

>
>Many (most?) people who are renting percieve the
>>benefits of owning their own home and put aside a little money to help
>>make that possible.
equals "put aside a small percentage of the overall ILS (or library
operating) budget to incrementally develop OSS solutions"

> I'd really like to have some widely available text that talks
>>to the many benefits that investment will bring.
...plus...
>
>>That's really the key (to me), and it seems that many libraries (or
>>library boards) don't seem to get it.
equals "need to educate the decision makers"

Of course, the "buying vs. renting" analogy does break down a bit when
attempting to fully describe the benefits of the OSS approach, because OSS
houses expand to shelter as many people as want to use them,  which is not
a  characteristic behaviour of houses. ( ie "buying vs renting" doesn't
completely get at the system-wide benefits I was trying to describe in my
previous message).

John



>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Durno [mailto:jdurno@...]
>Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 3:22 PM
>To: oss4lib-discuss@...
>Subject: Re: RE: [oss4lib-discuss] Saskatchewan and OSS
>
>
>elewis@... writes:
>>That analogy is overly simplistic.  It implies that your buying a
>>completed
>>house what your proposing is a "Jim Walter" home sold for a steal at 60
>>percent complete.
>
>Actually, I don't think that's what Pat is suggesting. As he says, he's
>not actually proposing the University of Saskatchewan adopt the present
>version of Koha as an ILS.
>
>Extending Pat's renter-saving-to-buy analogy:
>
>If a consortium of forward-thinking universities were to set aside a small
>percentage of their ILS budgets & staff time to either extending Koha or
>developing an alternative open source ILS -- or some modular components,
>as Art suggests -- over time they would come to own an increasing amount
>of their mission-critical software, bringing their costs down, and
>increasing their level of flexibility.
>
>The investment made by each site would be minimal, the return would be
>great.
>
>As an example of how this can work, I would cite the GODOT linkserver/ILL
>requesting module project,  led by Simon Fraser University (SFU) for the
>COPPUL consortium <http://godot.lib.sfu.ca/godot/>. Our consortium (BC
>ELN) also makes use of it, with the result that the 31 post-secondary
>libraries in BC ELN have access to a high-quality linkserver for a very
>small fraction of what it would cost to licence a commercial linkserver
>product. Frankly, I doubt most of our sites would be able to afford the
>commercial products, although they sure appreciate having the technology.
>
>So it's clear that the OSS approach means expanded access and lower costs
>for libraries (and by extension, those who fund them). The cost advantage
>for one or two libraries might be small, but the potential for system-wide
>savings is huge. And yet, oddly, outside of BC and the COPPUL consortium
>there has been very little uptake of GODOT. This suggests to me that Pat
>is absolutely right in suggesting that we need to work on educating the
>decision-makers, who can tend to be over-cautious and unwilling to look
>beyond the immediate needs of their organization when allocating
>resources.
>
>John
>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Pat Eyler [mailto:pate@...]
>>Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 1:00 PM
>>To: oss4lib-discuss@...
>>Subject: Re: [oss4lib-discuss] Saskatchewan and OSS
>>
>>
>>On Tue, 6 May 2003, David Dorman wrote:
>>
>>> Let's not be too quick to fault the University of Saskatchewan and to
>>> propose a solution which may not meet its library's needs.
>>
>>I certainly don't fault them, and didn't plan on proposing a Koha
>solution
>>to them (or any other oss solution for that matter).  I was more
>>interested in laying out something of a call to action in the form of a
>>rebuttal.  I'd really like to have some widely available text that talks
>>to the many benefits that investment will bring.
>>
>>That's really the key (to me), and it seems that many libraries (or
>>library boards) don't seem to get it.  Choosing a proprietary solution is
>>like renting a house and choosing an oss solution is like buying a house.
>>Sometimes renting is the only viable solution at the time you need a
>>house.  You'll still be stuck living in someone elses house, not being
>>able to make the changes you'd really like, and having fewer financial
>>(tax breaks, etc.) and social benefits (a lasting connection to
>>neighbors, etc.).  Many (most?) people who are renting percieve the
>>benefits of owning their own home and put aside a little money to help
>>make that possible.
>>
>>I think that being able to point to a document that made this comparison
>>very obvious would be a great benefit to the oss4lib community.
>>
>>-pate
>>
>>> It's
>>> asking a lot of an institution to spend $900,000 to build a solution
>>> that will take an indefinite amount of time to develop when
>>> functioning solutions already exist and can be purchased and
>>> implemented within months.  We all know that OSS represents a more
>>> effective and efficient development model for libraries than
>>> proprietary software, but lets also remember that the commercial
>>> model also represents a significant advance over the inhouse
>>> development model.  The trick is to combine the two approaches in a
>>> way that will enable an OSS library management system (LMS) to
>>> compete in the library market in the way that other OSS is being
>>> successfully marketed in the broader computer industry and in a few
>>> niche markets in the library field.
>>>
>>> A viable OSS LMS will not be built overnight.  It has taken 25 years
>>> for proprietary LMS software developers to get as far as they have,
>>> and while an OSS development process may be faster, it is not a magic
>>> bullet.  Pieces of OSS--MARCJ4 for example--are already being used by
>>> LMS vendors.  This is a trend that will accelerate.  I suspect that
>>> we will see an increasingly mixed market of OSS and proprietary
>>> software in libraries.
>>>
>>> Doing worthwhile thing well takes time.  An OSS LMS is inevitable,
>>> but, I suspect it will take something like the following elements to
>>> dramatically speed up the development of one that can play with the
>>> big dogs:
>>>
>>> 1.	a foundation willing to commit a several hundred thousand
>>> dollars to a development effort
>>> 2.	a library or library system with savvy system staff, a
>>> functioning LMS they are in no
>>> 	rush to replace, and a willingness to commit staff time to
>>> testing out a new system
>>> 3.	an OSS LMS that has proven itself to be well designed that
>>> can serve as the core software
>>> 	for the project
>>> 4.	a commitment of at least a half dozen programmers around the
>>> world who are willing and
>>> 	able to participate in an OSS develoment effort.
>>>
>>>
>>> >On 5/5/03 6:31 PM, Pat Eyler <pate@...> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>  This was my point exactly.  $900,000 would buy a *lot* of
>>development.
>>There
>>> >>  are additional benefits that could be derived from investing in OSS
>>as
>>well:
>>> >>
>>> >>    * the money could be provided as seed money or as an endowment to
>>fund
>>> >>      a local group to do the work -- this would benefit the local
>>economy,
>>> >>      improve the local tax base, and generate goodwill for the
>>library
>>> >>
>>> >>    * the U of Saskatchewan could steer the development to provide
>>exactly
>>> >>      the features they wanted, without having to convince a
>marketing
>>> >>      department that it was a good idea
>>> >>
>>> >>    * the U of Saskatchewan could turn around and redistribute their
>>new
>>ILS
>>> >>      other libraries in the region as desired.
>>> >
>>> >I think these are interesting points. Yes, 900K is a lot of money, and
>>I
>>> >think it would be possible to create an ILS that does the
>functionality
>>> >desired, if some of us were willing to dump our day jobs.
>>> >
>>> >Often times I see us spend our money and get little return. Money
>spent
>>to
>>> >develop open source software goes back into the community through
>>shared
>>> >experience, shared code, and the proliferation of best practices and
>>open
>>> >standards.
>>> >
>>> >--
>>> >Eric Lease Morgan
>>> >University Libraries of Notre Dame
>>> >
>>> >(574) 631-8604
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >-------------------------------------------------------
>>> >This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
>>> >Welcome to geek heaven.
>>> >http://thinkgeek.com/sf
>>> >_______________________________________________
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >oss4lib-discuss@...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oss4lib-discuss
>>> >see also http://oss4lib.org/
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> David Dorman
>>> Lincoln Trail Libraries System
>>> 1704 West Interstate Drive
>>> Champaign, IL  61822-1068
>>> Phone:  217-352-0047 ext. 209
>>> Fax:  217-352-7153
>>> E-mail:  ddorma@...
>>> Web Site:  http://www.ltls.org
>>>
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>> Enterprise Linux Forum Conference & Expo, June 4-6, 2003, Santa Clara
>>> The only event dedicated to issues related to Linux enterprise
>solutions
>>> http://www.enterpriselinuxforum.com
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>> oss4lib-discuss@...
>>>
>>>
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oss4lib-discuss
>>> see also http://oss4lib.org/
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------
>>Enterprise Linux Forum Conference & Expo, June 4-6, 2003, Santa Clara
>>The only event dedicated to issues related to Linux enterprise solutions
>>www.enterpriselinuxforum.com
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>oss4lib-discuss@...
>>
>>
>>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oss4lib-discuss
>>see also http://oss4lib.org/
>>
>>
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------
>>Enterprise Linux Forum Conference & Expo, June 4-6, 2003, Santa Clara
>>The only event dedicated to issues related to Linux enterprise solutions
>>www.enterpriselinuxforum.com
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>oss4lib-discuss@...
>>
>>
>>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oss4lib-discuss
>>see also http://oss4lib.org/
>
>
>
>
>
>John Durno
>Project Coordinator
>BC Electronic Library Network
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Phone: 604-431-3024 
>Toll free: 1-800-663-1663 x3024
>Fax: 604-431-3381
>Email:   jdurno@...
>Web: http://www.eln.bc.ca
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>Enterprise Linux Forum Conference & Expo, June 4-6, 2003, Santa Clara
>The only event dedicated to issues related to Linux enterprise solutions
>www.enterpriselinuxforum.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>oss4lib-discuss@...
>
>
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oss4lib-discuss
>see also http://oss4lib.org/
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>Enterprise Linux Forum Conference & Expo, June 4-6, 2003, Santa Clara
>The only event dedicated to issues related to Linux enterprise solutions
>www.enterpriselinuxforum.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>oss4lib-discuss@...
>
>
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oss4lib-discuss
>see also http://oss4lib.org/





John Durno
Project Coordinator
BC Electronic Library Network
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Phone: 604-431-3024 
Toll free: 1-800-663-1663 x3024
Fax: 604-431-3381
Email:   jdurno@...
Web: http://www.eln.bc.ca

On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 02:34:32PM -0500, Oberg, Steve wrote:
> My experience recently working for a prominent ILS vendor was that this 
> was one of the greatest sources of dissatisfaction with customers.  

Sounds like a great inroad for open source developers. As one of the
developers of MARC/Perl [1] I've been involved in several pro-bono projects 
involving the import/export and transformation of MARC data. The open source
community has a really well developed toolset for dealing with all sorts of data
transformations. In many ways this aspect of open source work is much easier
than the development of an open source ILS. Since there is a known source, and 
a target.

> I'm working as part of a consortium now to implement another prominent 
> ILS vendor's system and the consortium has just recently had to come to 
> the conclusion that they must junk all of their acquisitions data as 
> conversion won't occur in time without a lot more development work, 
> which just isn't going to happen.  So, back to zero.

That's very unfortunate, and it is indicative of the strangle hold some  
companies put on libraries that do not have the resources to implement the data
transformations themselves. The ILS market is not huge, and with most of the
systems already equipped with web interfaces one wonders how they will continue
to make money over the next 10 years. I think the spaces between these systems,
and new systems that leverage existing data in new ways is open terrain
available for homesteading. 

//Ed

[1] http://marcpm.sf.net

On Tue, 6 May 2003, John Durno wrote:

> elewis@... writes:
> >John, Having reread the comment I don't draw that conclussion.
>
> Well, exegesis is a tricky business :) ...

but made easier by the fact that the original author is still around ;^)

>
> For what it's worth, here's my interpretation:
> >
> >I certainly don't fault them, and didn't plan on proposing a Koha solution
> >>to them (or any other oss solution for that matter).
>
> ...plus...
> >
> >Sometimes renting is the only viable solution at the time you need a
>
> >house.
> equals "not proposing U.Sask buy the Koha house in its present state."


Absolutely.  I see the U.Sask document to be a convenient, public
statement that says "Proprietary good. OSS bad." (an oversimplification).
Because it's a public document, responding to it in a public way could
provide an avenue for discounting some of the negative perspectives that
free software is currently seen through.

To be very plain:
  U.Sask has already made up their mind, and I don't think we could change
it if we wanted to.  Right now, I don't want to.  I do want to convince
libraries ion general that contributing time, talent, or money to oss4lib
projects is a good thing, and that they should do it *even if they aren't
using a free software ils yet*.

>
> >
> >Many (most?) people who are renting percieve the
> >>benefits of owning their own home and put aside a little money to help
> >>make that possible.
> equals "put aside a small percentage of the overall ILS (or library
> operating) budget to incrementally develop OSS solutions"
>
> > I'd really like to have some widely available text that talks
> >>to the many benefits that investment will bring.
> ...plus...
> >
> >>That's really the key (to me), and it seems that many libraries (or
> >>library boards) don't seem to get it.
> equals "need to educate the decision makers"
>
> Of course, the "buying vs. renting" analogy does break down a bit when
> attempting to fully describe the benefits of the OSS approach, because OSS
> houses expand to shelter as many people as want to use them,  which is not
> a  characteristic behaviour of houses. ( ie "buying vs renting" doesn't
> completely get at the system-wide benefits I was trying to describe in my
> previous message).
>

True enough, no analogy is perfect.  I still think that buying versus
renting helps tell part of the story.  Perhaps falling back on 'Stone
Soup' can help tell the other part.  Or maybe we need a brand new
story/analogy.

-pate


> John
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: John Durno [mailto:jdurno@...]
> >Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 3:22 PM
> >To: oss4lib-discuss@...
> >Subject: Re: RE: [oss4lib-discuss] Saskatchewan and OSS
> >
> >
> >elewis@... writes:
> >>That analogy is overly simplistic.  It implies that your buying a
> >>completed
> >>house what your proposing is a "Jim Walter" home sold for a steal at 60
> >>percent complete.
> >
> >Actually, I don't think that's what Pat is suggesting. As he says, he's
> >not actually proposing the University of Saskatchewan adopt the present
> >version of Koha as an ILS.
> >
> >Extending Pat's renter-saving-to-buy analogy:
> >
> >If a consortium of forward-thinking universities were to set aside a small
> >percentage of their ILS budgets & staff time to either extending Koha or
> >developing an alternative open source ILS -- or some modular components,
> >as Art suggests -- over time they would come to own an increasing amount
> >of their mission-critical software, bringing their costs down, and
> >increasing their level of flexibility.
> >
> >The investment made by each site would be minimal, the return would be
> >great.
> >
> >As an example of how this can work, I would cite the GODOT linkserver/ILL
> >requesting module project,  led by Simon Fraser University (SFU) for the
> >COPPUL consortium <http://godot.lib.sfu.ca/godot/>. Our consortium (BC
> >ELN) also makes use of it, with the result that the 31 post-secondary
> >libraries in BC ELN have access to a high-quality linkserver for a very
> >small fraction of what it would cost to licence a commercial linkserver
> >product. Frankly, I doubt most of our sites would be able to afford the
> >commercial products, although they sure appreciate having the technology.
> >
> >So it's clear that the OSS approach means expanded access and lower costs
> >for libraries (and by extension, those who fund them). The cost advantage
> >for one or two libraries might be small, but the potential for system-wide
> >savings is huge. And yet, oddly, outside of BC and the COPPUL consortium
> >there has been very little uptake of GODOT. This suggests to me that Pat
> >is absolutely right in suggesting that we need to work on educating the
> >decision-makers, who can tend to be over-cautious and unwilling to look
> >beyond the immediate needs of their organization when allocating
> >resources.
> >
> >John
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Pat Eyler [mailto:pate@...]
> >>Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 1:00 PM
> >>To: oss4lib-discuss@...
> >>Subject: Re: [oss4lib-discuss] Saskatchewan and OSS
> >>
> >>
> >>On Tue, 6 May 2003, David Dorman wrote:
> >>
> >>> Let's not be too quick to fault the University of Saskatchewan and to
> >>> propose a solution which may not meet its library's needs.
> >>
> >>I certainly don't fault them, and didn't plan on proposing a Koha
> >solution
> >>to them (or any other oss solution for that matter).  I was more
> >>interested in laying out something of a call to action in the form of a
> >>rebuttal.  I'd really like to have some widely available text that talks
> >>to the many benefits that investment will bring.
> >>
> >>That's really the key (to me), and it seems that many libraries (or
> >>library boards) don't seem to get it.  Choosing a proprietary solution is
> >>like renting a house and choosing an oss solution is like buying a house.
> >>Sometimes renting is the only viable solution at the time you need a
> >>house.  You'll still be stuck living in someone elses house, not being
> >>able to make the changes you'd really like, and having fewer financial
> >>(tax breaks, etc.) and social benefits (a lasting connection to
> >>neighbors, etc.).  Many (most?) people who are renting percieve the
> >>benefits of owning their own home and put aside a little money to help
> >>make that possible.
> >>
> >>I think that being able to point to a document that made this comparison
> >>very obvious would be a great benefit to the oss4lib community.
> >>
> >>-pate
> >>
> >>> It's
> >>> asking a lot of an institution to spend $900,000 to build a solution
> >>> that will take an indefinite amount of time to develop when
> >>> functioning solutions already exist and can be purchased and
> >>> implemented within months.  We all know that OSS represents a more
> >>> effective and efficient development model for libraries than
> >>> proprietary software, but lets also remember that the commercial
> >>> model also represents a significant advance over the inhouse
> >>> development model.  The trick is to combine the two approaches in a
> >>> way that will enable an OSS library management system (LMS) to
> >>> compete in the library market in the way that other OSS is being
> >>> successfully marketed in the broader computer industry and in a few
> >>> niche markets in the library field.
> >>>
> >>> A viable OSS LMS will not be built overnight.  It has taken 25 years
> >>> for proprietary LMS software developers to get as far as they have,
> >>> and while an OSS development process may be faster, it is not a magic
> >>> bullet.  Pieces of OSS--MARCJ4 for example--are already being used by
> >>> LMS vendors.  This is a trend that will accelerate.  I suspect that
> >>> we will see an increasingly mixed market of OSS and proprietary
> >>> software in libraries.
> >>>
> >>> Doing worthwhile thing well takes time.  An OSS LMS is inevitable,
> >>> but, I suspect it will take something like the following elements to
> >>> dramatically speed up the development of one that can play with the
> >>> big dogs:
> >>>
> >>> 1.	a foundation willing to commit a several hundred thousand
> >>> dollars to a development effort
> >>> 2.	a library or library system with savvy system staff, a
> >>> functioning LMS they are in no
> >>> 	rush to replace, and a willingness to commit staff time to
> >>> testing out a new system
> >>> 3.	an OSS LMS that has proven itself to be well designed that
> >>> can serve as the core software
> >>> 	for the project
> >>> 4.	a commitment of at least a half dozen programmers around the
> >>> world who are willing and
> >>> 	able to participate in an OSS develoment effort.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> >On 5/5/03 6:31 PM, Pat Eyler <pate@...> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >>  This was my point exactly.  $900,000 would buy a *lot* of
> >>development.
> >>There
> >>> >>  are additional benefits that could be derived from investing in OSS
> >>as
> >>well:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>    * the money could be provided as seed money or as an endowment to
> >>fund
> >>> >>      a local group to do the work -- this would benefit the local
> >>economy,
> >>> >>      improve the local tax base, and generate goodwill for the
> >>library
> >>> >>
> >>> >>    * the U of Saskatchewan could steer the development to provide
> >>exactly
> >>> >>      the features they wanted, without having to convince a
> >marketing
> >>> >>      department that it was a good idea
> >>> >>
> >>> >>    * the U of Saskatchewan could turn around and redistribute their
> >>new
> >>ILS
> >>> >>      other libraries in the region as desired.
> >>> >
> >>> >I think these are interesting points. Yes, 900K is a lot of money, and
> >>I
> >>> >think it would be possible to create an ILS that does the
> >functionality
> >>> >desired, if some of us were willing to dump our day jobs.
> >>> >
> >>> >Often times I see us spend our money and get little return. Money
> >spent
> >>to
> >>> >develop open source software goes back into the community through
> >>shared
> >>> >experience, shared code, and the proliferation of best practices and
> >>open
> >>> >standards.
> >>> >
> >>> >--
> >>> >Eric Lease Morgan
> >>> >University Libraries of Notre Dame
> >>> >
> >>> >(574) 631-8604
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >-------------------------------------------------------
> >>> >This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> >>> >Welcome to geek heaven.
> >>> >http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> >>> >_______________________________________________
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >oss4lib-discuss@...
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oss4lib-discuss
> >>> >see also http://oss4lib.org/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> David Dorman
> >>> Lincoln Trail Libraries System
> >>> 1704 West Interstate Drive
> >>> Champaign, IL  61822-1068
> >>> Phone:  217-352-0047 ext. 209
> >>> Fax:  217-352-7153
> >>> E-mail:  ddorma@...
> >>> Web Site:  http://www.ltls.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -------------------------------------------------------
> >>> Enterprise Linux Forum Conference & Expo, June 4-6, 2003, Santa Clara
> >>> The only event dedicated to issues related to Linux enterprise
> >solutions
> >>> http://www.enterpriselinuxforum.com
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> oss4lib-discuss@...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oss4lib-discuss
> >>> see also http://oss4lib.org/
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>-------------------------------------------------------
> >>Enterprise Linux Forum Conference & Expo, June 4-6, 2003, Santa Clara
> >>The only event dedicated to issues related to Linux enterprise solutions
> >>www.enterpriselinuxforum.com
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >>oss4lib-discuss@...
> >>
> >>
> >>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oss4lib-discuss
> >>see also http://oss4lib.org/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>-------------------------------------------------------
> >>Enterprise Linux Forum Conference & Expo, June 4-6, 2003, Santa Clara
> >>The only event dedicated to issues related to Linux enterprise solutions
> >>www.enterpriselinuxforum.com
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >>oss4lib-discuss@...
> >>
> >>
> >>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oss4lib-discuss
> >>see also http://oss4lib.org/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >John Durno
> >Project Coordinator
> >BC Electronic Library Network
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >Phone: 604-431-3024
> >Toll free: 1-800-663-1663 x3024
> >Fax: 604-431-3381
> >Email:   jdurno@...
> >Web: http://www.eln.bc.ca
> >
> >
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------
> >Enterprise Linux Forum Conference & Expo, June 4-6, 2003, Santa Clara
> >The only event dedicated to issues related to Linux enterprise solutions
> >www.enterpriselinuxforum.com
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >oss4lib-discuss@...
> >
> >
> >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oss4lib-discuss
> >see also http://oss4lib.org/
> >
> >
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------
> >Enterprise Linux Forum Conference & Expo, June 4-6, 2003, Santa Clara
> >The only event dedicated to issues related to Linux enterprise solutions
> >www.enterpriselinuxforum.com
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >
> >
> >oss4lib-discuss@...
> >
> >
> >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oss4lib-discuss
> >see also http://oss4lib.org/
>
>
>
>
>
> John Durno
> Project Coordinator
> BC Electronic Library Network
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Phone: 604-431-3024
> Toll free: 1-800-663-1663 x3024
> Fax: 604-431-3381
> Email:   jdurno@...
> Web: http://www.eln.bc.ca
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Enterprise Linux Forum Conference & Expo, June 4-6, 2003, Santa Clara
> The only event dedicated to issues related to Linux enterprise solutions
> http://www.enterpriselinuxforum.com
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> oss4lib-discuss@...
>
>
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oss4lib-discuss
> see also http://oss4lib.org/
>