HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: MEYERNL@VUCTRVAX.BITNET ((Nikki Meyer))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.notis-l
Subject: VITLS at Vanderbilt
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:46:43 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Date-warning: Date header was inserted by ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu
X-Envelope-to: notis-l@tcsvm.BITNET
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

If anyone sensed the shout heard 'round the world, it came from me.  As
most of you know, we have been working with NOTIS and Majors for 3 years,
trying to get a Majors tape to load using VITLS.  The problems were too
numerous to relate and some of them still remain a mystery.  Well, the
reason for the celebration here is that, upon returning from nugm, I found
a new Majors tape waiting for me.  This tape contained the new invoice for
this year.  When I ran LD900 this am - miracle of miracles - it worked!
Unfortunately, I cannot give you a definite reason.

Several thing took place around the same time.  First, I got fresh data on
the tape (our previous tape was old and all the records had already been
posted).  Second, our Medical library began using the 92/93 fund records
they had activated.  Thirdly, to account for an outstanding bug in the way
expense classes are processed, I had Majors hard code an expense class into
each of the detail records on the tape.  I believe one or a combination of
these factors did the trick.

I do have one note however.  In using LD900 as distributed in 5.1, you have
to include DLBL's (VSE) for the LSER files.  If you are not using LSER, you
will get a return code 8 out of program LD903.  This is because it cannot
find LSER holdings records if you are not using LSER.  While this shouldn't
happen, it is ok and the program will still work.

We are so pleased that this has finally worked.  This has been a headache
for 3 years for many people.  I got wonderful cooperation from Majors and
from my Medical library.  I also have to give a huge Thank You to Bill
Drewitt at NOTIS.  He has read more dumps and abends than any human should
have to and suggested the workaround for the expense class problem (which
is supposedly being fixed asap) that may have been the key.  I really
appreciate his help and insight.  If anyone is trying or anticipates trying
to load a Majors tape, don't hesitate to call me.  I think I can consider
myself an expert??

Now on to Swets!!!

***************************************************************************
/  Nikki Meyer TECH2                   /            Bitnet:
/
/ Library Information Analyst         /       MEYERNL@VUCTRVAX            /
/ Library Systems                     /           Internet:               /
/ Vanderbilt University               /  meyernl@ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu    /
/ Nashville, TN                       /    Phone: (615) 343 - 4427        /
***************************************************************************
From: SYSMLF@UOFT01.BITNET (Foley, Mary Lee)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.notis-l
Subject: Re: Missing Purchase Orders (LB060JC)
Date: 15 Oct 92 13:21:25 GMT
Organization: University Of Toledo
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              15 Oct 1992 08:53:07 EDT from <344PWCF@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU>

On Thu, 15 Oct 1992 08:53:07 EDT Daniel Kirchner said:
>                                    Upon looking at journals 3 (A&B), I
>find there are no entries for the missing POs.  But I do find the entries
>for those which made the trip OK.
>***I am looking for suggestions as to how it could come about that the PO
>   record never made it to the journal.***

We have been working on a similar problem.  We discovered that some "item
needed" notices were not being printed.  Further investigation has shown
that these records were not written to the appropriate journal (6) and that
other records are missing as well.  Perhaps your problem and ours are
related?  Ours is PPQ8514.

Mary Lee Foley                    University of Toledo
Software Specialist               Computer Services
SYSMLF@UOFT01                     Toledo, Ohio  43606-3390

+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  A truly wise man never plays leapfrog with a unicorn.               |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: batista@A1.RELAY.UPENN.EDU (Emily Batista)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.notis-l
Subject: Circ Oversight/rewrite
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:43:01 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <batista@a1.relay.upenn.edu>
Msg-Class: ALL-IN-1 V2.3 BL8-4 Rev. AAC 20-Dec-1988
Comments: To: notis-l@tcsvm.bitnet

For those of you who may not be familiar with the history of the 5.2
release plans, a quick recap:  When NSI first asked the Circ SIG to name a
committee of three to assist them with 5.2, the plan was to do a total rewrite
of the circ module in C rather than Assembler.  Thus we refered to the
Rewrite Committee.  Later, after much discussion with several NOTIS
customers, NSI dropped the idea of writing the new release in C, and is
back to enhancing the current programs.  We now use the term Oversight
Committee, since this group will oversee the changes proposed and written
by NSI, on behalf of the entire Circ SIG. I'm sure someone else can provide
more details if you want.

Emily Batista, Circ SIG Steering Committee
From: batista@A1.RELAY.UPENN.EDU (Emily Batista)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.notis-l
Subject: Circ rewrite principles
Date: 14 Oct 92 16:18:01 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <batista@a1.relay.upenn.edu>
Msg-Class: ALL-IN-1 V2.3 BL8-4 Rev. AAC 20-Dec-1988
Comments: To: notis-l@tcsvm.bitnet

"Retain current functionality" could be considered an overriding
guiding principle in our efforts to work with NSI on 5.2 circ enhancements.
At the Circ Rewrite session, the Circ SIG Steering Committee and Oversight
Committee invited comments from users on additional guiding principles.
Rather than specific enhancements, these are general ideas that apply to
the entire circ module.  One idea that the oversight team has already
incorporated into its description is: "do not increase response time for
charge and discharge transactions." Another comment from the session was:
"enhance ease of movement between and within records."

If you have any ideas for other guiding principles, please send them to me;
I will consolidate them and forward them to the oversight team.  Since Tom,
Bruce and Ed are meeting with NOTIS analysts on Nov. 10, please send them
to me before Nov. 3rd.

Thanks much for your input.

Emily Batista, Circ SIG Steering Committee
University of Pennsylvania Libraries, 3420 Walnut St., Phila, PA 19104-6206
215-898-7557; 215-898-0559 (Fax)
batistat@a1.relay.upenn.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: notis-l@TCSVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"notis-l@tcsvm"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.notis-l
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:26:00 EST
From:         "W.C. DIVENS" <N93774@PITTVMS.BITNET>
Subject:      Grateful Steers

It is a tradition here in Western Pa. that words spoken over an
open can of Iron City Beer are inviolate.  We take this stuff
seriously.  When, at the BSR, I said Leigh and Michael were some
of the finest folk I knew, it was gospel.

I just want to echo what I heard from so many...that the BSR was
a superb event.  We all know that these things just don't happen
of their own accord, they take a lot of work and planning.

Let me offer a public THANK YOU to the duo from Texas, for their work,
their planning and their obvious concern for the entire NUGM community.
Where else could it happen...who else could have pulled it off so
smoothly?

Thanks to both of you....and to all who attended.  Excellent...simply
the best.

Rusty
From: RKAIRIS@KENTVM.BITNET (Rob Kairis)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.notis-l
Subject: Re: Patron ID Expiring before End of Loan Period
Date: 9 Oct 92 13:00:16 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              7 Oct 1992 14:11:29 EST from <MARLENE@UCC.UWINDSOR.CA>

Marlene,

Before you start making code changes, you should know (if you do not already)
that you can turn off the function of shortening the due date if the patron's
ID expires before the normally anticipated due date by removing the RIDV flag
from LC101TB4.  Of course, if your policies are such that you do not want the
patron's due date to go beyond his/her expiration date, then this would not be
a solution.

Rob Kairis
Systems Librarian
Kent State University
From: 344PWCF@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU (Daniel Kirchner)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.notis-l
Subject: Missing Purchase Orders (LB060JC)
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:53:07 GMT
Organization: Central Michigan University
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Dear Friends,  a problem has arisen that leaves my clients without some of
the purchase orders they expected.  Upon looking at journals 3 (A&B), I
find there are no entries for the missing POs.  But I do find the entries
for those which made the trip OK.
***I am looking for suggestions as to how it could come about that the PO
   record never made it to the journal.***
Our journals hold about 4700 transactions each (A&B) and before one is
wrap-written, it would take us about 15 to 20 weeks worth of entries into
journal 3.  The journal records are CC, TT, and PO types.
We run LB010J3 weekly.  I wonder what events could take place to sporadically
prevent a transaction from being written to the journal.  I am told this
involves more than one ACQ operator, all experienced.  Is it possible to have
a hardware connection error that could do this without someone being alerted?
Any suggestions will be welcomed!
Thank you.

Dan Kirchner
TECH 1 Central Michigan University     "Underwhelmment Specialist"
FAX: (517) 774-4499 / VOICE: (517) 774-6643 / BITNET: 344PWCF@CMUVM
From: DSAGESER@UTAHLIB.BITNET (Dave Sageser)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.notis-l
Subject: Re: CHAT-L: Operating Systems
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:55:26 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Comments: To: malayna <MISAAC@UTAHLIB.BITNET>

I like it!!
From: AULZZ10@HUMAIN.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.notis-l
Subject: subscribe notis-l
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:13:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

sub aulzz10 Juanita W. Portis
From: 344PWCF@CMUVM.BITNET (Dan Kirchner)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.notis-l
Subject: Re: Missing Purchase Orders (LB060JC)
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:18:13 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2

Thanks, Suzanna Lengyel and Mary Lee Foley, for your responses to my query.
The records are 'AN' and should work OK.  I thought for a moment that it might
be a problem occuring during the switchover from journal A to journal B, or
vice versa, but my systems folks say switchovers will not cause this problem.
I have sent screen prints of order records and their respective hex prints
to NSI (PPQ8761).  Still stumped as to why the journal is not getting hit.
Mary Lee, I can't trace this yet to system activity, since it won't happen
when I want it to.  Perhaps this direction will bear fruit later.
For now, I am thinking about writing a program to create a phony LIREQP file
to make printing selected order file records into PO's by SYSIN demand.
If I can't find the cause, then, maybe at least I can save some poor person
from having to type out the POs by hand { in COBOL, of course   8^)  }.
Thanks to you both.  If and when I get the answer to the mystery, I'll
post it to the list.
Dan Kirchner
TECH 1 Central Michigan University     "Underwhelmment Specialist"
FAX: (517) 774-4499 / VOICE: (517) 774-6643 / BITNET: 344PWCF@CMUVM
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: notis-l@tcsvm.BITNET
X-VMS-To: in%"notis-l@tcsvm"
X-VMS-Cc: schyndel
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.notis-l
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:48:00 EST
From:         SCHYNDEL@FAUVAX.BITNET
Subject:      subscribe

    Subscribe notis malka schyndel
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Purdue University Libraries
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.notis-l
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 09:31:35 EST
From:         Alan Alexander-Manifold <ALANAM@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject: CHAT: 12 NUGM Sessions poem

Despite numerous requests, I am going to put all of my Bum Steer Roast
poems out on the list.  Be prepared!


My Twelve NUGM Sessions
Alan Alexander-Manifold, 10/9/1992

In my first NUGM session, Jane Burke said 5.1
        Is the best system money can buy!

In my second NUGM session, I heard that 5.1
        Still has lots of bugs,
        But it's the best system money can buy!

In my third NUGM session, I heard that 5.1
        Takes more disk,
        Still has lots of bugs,
        But it's the best system money can buy!

In my fourth NUGM session, I heard that 5.1
        Has no new reports,
        Takes more disk,
        Still has lots of bugs,
        But it's the best system money can buy!

In my fifth NUGM session, I heard that 5.1
        Came six weeks late,
        Has no new reports,
        Takes more disk,
        Still has lots of bugs,
        But it's the best system money can buy!

...

In my twelfth NUGM session, I heard that 5.1
        Executes more slowly,
        Uses more resources,
        Can't do complex check-ins,
        Leaves less space for help screens,
        Has poor I/O throughput,
        Still has macro coding,
        Has few circ enhancements,
        Came six weeks late,
        Has no new reports,
        Takes more disk,
        Still has lots of bugs,
        BUT...
                It's the best system money can buy!

                                                         \
       --Alan Alexander-Manifold               THe Online Resource
         Systems Implementation Manager        TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
         Information Technology Department       T         //
         Purdue University Libraries             T  H H  OOO  RRR
         West Lafayette, Indiana   47907         T  HHH//O O  RRR
         (317) 494-2857    FAX: 494-9007         T  H/H  OOO  R R
         alanam@purccvm          (BITNET)           \\
         alanam@vm.cc.purdue.edu (Internet)           \
From: MTG@CORNELLC.BITNET (Mike Garcia)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.notis-l
Subject: Technical solution to TS problem.
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:11:42 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Comments: To: NOTIS discussion group <NOTIS-L@TCSVM.bitnet>

Hello

I think I have a way of overcoming the Temp Stor problem that happens
with key-word searches.  From what I have seen, the keyword transaction
first resets an number of TS queues (which may not exist), and then
proceeds to build them.  These queues are used to detirmine the results
of the search.  The problem is that these quesues are not reset until
the next keyword search at the same terminal is executed.

My solution is to schedule another transaction, which is terminal
independent, to kick off in 5 minutes.  This transaction will then
purge the queues that the keyword transaction built.  If another
keyword transaction starts from the same terminal, the purge
transaction will be rescheduled for 5 minutes in the future.

The process of scheduling (or re-scheduling) the purge transaction will
be in a self-contained module, so all that is needed is a one line
change to the NOTIS code:

            DFHPCT TYPE=LINK,PROGRAM=SYSP032,COND=YES

SYSP032 will pass the terminal ID of the terminal doing keyword to the
purge transaction, so it will not need a terminal of its own.  (In
fact, the orginal terminal need no longer be defined to CICS).

If this causes problems, it can be turned off without changing any code
or bring CICS down.  You just disable SYSP032 via CEMT.

Can anyone see any flaws in this logic?


So far I have identified 9 queues which will need to be reset ( '----'
is the terminal ID):

            **----SS          **----KL          **----RL
            **----OL          **----DL          **----SK
            **----BD          **----HD          **----HL

Are there anymore queues I should be deleting?



Mike Garcia
Cornell University
              ______
             /      |   INTERNET:  MTG@CORNELLC.CIT.CORNELL.EDU
            |       |   AT&T Net:  (607) 255-3748
  _________/        |   USNAIL  :  Room 321
  >                 |              Computing & Communications Ctr.
 /        *  Ithaca |              Cornell University
|______________     |              Ithaca, New York   14853
               `_   |              USA
                 `__|   ICBMNET:   42 28 N 76 28 W Alt 995
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.notis-l
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 10:23:11 EDT
From:         timothy@ASA.UGL.LIB.UMICH.EDU
Subject:      Re: Stack variable processing messes up call number search
Comments: To: NOTIS-L@VM.TCS.Tulane.EDU
              "STEFFERJ%VUCTRVAX.bitnet@VM.TCS.Tulane.EDU" at Oct 13, 92 8:22 am

Ramona Steffey Madewell writes:
>
> By the way, several people at NUGM were talking about the problem
> with an S in a call number search.  That is working okay at
> Vanderbilt now, but I don't believe it is a NOTIS fix.  I think it's
> a fix that someone else wrote (maybe it was Tim Prettyman at Michigan).
> Tim, if it was you maybe you could post it again for the others who
> are just now encountering the problem?  What would we do without
> NOTIS-L?

They put a fix in 5.1, slightly different than mine.  I'll repeat mine for
those at 5.0.2:

In LPC102P, at label CHK4SVP:
CHK4SVP  DS    0H                                                 @MD12
         ST    R14,DSREGSV1        SAVE RETURN ADDRESS            @MD12
         TM    OPACFNDT,OPACFSVP   STACK VAR. PROC. ALREADY SET?  @MD12
         BO    CHK4SVP9            YES - EXIT                     @MD12
         CLI   OPACFNDT,OPACFKEY   KEYWORD SEEARCH?         <===insert
         BNE   CHK4SVP9              NO, SHOULDN'T BE HERE  <===insert
         SR    R5,R5               CLEAR REG FOR ICM              @MD12
         ICM   R5,3,OPACSRLN       GET SEARCH QUERY LENGTH        @MD12

Their fix is different in that it exits only for call number searches,
whereas mine continues only for keyword searches.  Since the error message
says something to the effect of "Only keyword search statements can be
combined", I figured that you only wanted to be in CHK4SVP if you were doing
a keyword search.  It probably doesn't make much difference unless you do
a lot of author/title searches with S1, S2 .. S10 in them.

Timothy Prettyman
Library Systems Office		313-764-0412
University of Michigan		INTERNET:  timothy_prettyman@um.cc.umich.edu
Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1185	BITNET:  USERLM5C@UMICHUM
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: notis-l@TCSVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"notis-l@tcsvm.bitnet"
X-VMS-Cc: BAH
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.notis-l
Date:         Fri, 16 Oct 1992 05:37:00 EST
From:         Barbara Hieber <BAH@PITTVMS.BITNET>
Subject:      GOVDOCS tapes - deduping records

I don't think my original message made it to the list, so I'll try
again.  This is in reply to the question about date/time contents of
008 fields in gov docs records.  We receive the Marcive tapes and
the dates in the 008 fields seem to be appropriate; that is, they
do not contain the same date/time for all records, and can be used
for de-duping.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Barbara Hieber                       PHONE:        (412) 648-7698 *
* Systems Analyst                        FAX:        (412) 648-1245 *
* University Library System           BITNET:           BAH@PITTVMS *
* G-33 Hillman Library              INTERNET:  BAH@VMS.CIS.PITT.EDU *
* University of Pittsburgh                     Pittsburgh, PA 15260 *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
From: ADLB001@MVS.MCGILL.CA (Ron Johnston)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.notis-l
Subject: keynotis
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:50:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Comments: To: Notis Discussion <NOTIS-L@VM.TCS.TULANE.EDU>

John Kolman, vp of systems development (ie programming) has stated
that keynotis and classic notis are the same product as far as his
group is concerned.  The difference is in the packaging.

It may be nit-picking, but there are instances in the source where
the program checks a flag to see if the environment is key or
classic.  I've stumbled across a couple of these but have not
followed the logic to see what the difference was.
From: BNICOL@LIB.AUBURN.EDU (Beth Nicol)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.notis-l
Subject: Re: Journal 4 Logged Datasets
Date: 14 Oct 92 23:02:13 GMT
Organization: Auburn University Libraries
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: NOTIS-L@TCSVM.BITNET
X-pmrqc:      1
X-mailer:     Pegasus Mail v2.3 (R3).

Michael, et al:

We gener journal 4 to tape every night and I have successfully used
these copies of the journal to feed into LB965 (?) to do forward
recovery.  You might try it out to make sure that you can read the
files, but I have had to use them, and it worked.  I have a gdg with
7 generations so that I could get back a whole week if I needed to.
Note:  I think that we clear journal 4 after backup each night.

Queen of the GDG's:



Beth Nicol                        ************************************
Automation Manager                * When in danger, or in doubt,     *
Auburn University Libraries       * Run in circles, scream & shout!  *
BITNET:  bnicol@auducvax          *          -R.Heinlein             *
INTERNET: bnicol@lib.auburn.edu   ************************************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU