HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.libres
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:13:19 EDT
              <LIBRES@KENTVM.BITNET>
From:         EDITORS@KENTVM.BITNET
Subject:      LIBRES 2.12 CONTENTS

LIBRES 2.12

LIBRES:  Library and Information Science Research
(ISSN: 1058-6768 published monthly)
December 15, 1992
                        *********************************************
                        This issue is archived as LIBRES LOG9212
                        and can be retrieved via e-mail to
                        Listserv@kentvm or Listserv@kentvm.kent.edu or
                        via anonymous ftp to ksuvxa.kent.edu in the
                        library directory
                        *********************************************
Table of Contents
------------------
   FEATURE ARTICLE

1. Resource Sharing by Sci-Tech and Business Libraries:
   Informal Networking and the Role of Professional Associations.
   (1372 lines)  by Sharyn J. Ladner

   NOTES & QUERIES

1. Note: Accessing Databases of the National Library of Medicine through
   Electronic Mail (63 lines)
2. Note: Call for SCI/TECH Abstracts
3. Query: The Agrippa Project
4. Note: University of Toronto, Continuing Education Schedule

   ANNOUNCEMENTS

1. The Journal of Academic Media Librarianship:  E-Journal Announcement
   and Call for Papers

    LETTERS

1. Letter from the Editor

************************************************************************
*Copyright Declaration*

Messages posted on LIBRES are the intellectual property of the person who
originally posted the message.  Permission from the author prior to
re-publication in any other medium is required.  Notification of the
LIBRES editors before publishing or speaking about LIBRES would be appreciated.

The Editorial Group:
=====================================================================
Diane K. Kovacs - Chief     dkovacs@kentvm  dkovacs@kentvm.kent.edu
Julie Gedeon                jgedeon@kentvm  jgedeon@kentvm.kent.edu
Leslie Haas                 lhaas@kentvm    lhaas@kentvm.kent.edu
Tona Henderson              tah6@psuvm      tah6@psuvm.psu.edu
Don Kraft                                   kraft@bit.csc.lsu.edu
Elizabeth Lane                              elane3@ua1vm.ua.edu
Laure M. Mackay                             lmmackay@mailbox.syr.edu
Amey Park                   apark@kentvm    apark@kentvm.kent.edu
Kara Robinson               krobinso@kentvm krobinso@kentvm.kent.edu
Barbara Schloman            bschloma@kentvm bschloma@kentvm.kent.edu
====================================================================
The Advisory Board:
====================================================================
Barbara Berger
Tom Froehlich               tfroehli@kentvm   tfroehli@kentvm.kent.edu
Ellen Detlefsen             ellen@pittvms     ellen@idis.lis.pitt.edu
Rosemary Dumont             rdumont@kentvm    rdumont@kentvm.kent.edu
Stevan Harnad                                 harnad@princeton.edu
Ann Okerson                                   ann@cni.org
=====================================================================
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: University at Albany Computing Services
X-Acknowledge-To: <BEC@ALBANY>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mailbook
Date:         Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:38:25 EST
From:         Ben Chi <BEC@ALBANY.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Plaintext version of MAIL/MAILBOOK docs? (Not SCRIPT)
              11 Dec 1992 16:54:51 CST from <SCHAFER@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>

There was a recent thread on SCRIPT-L concerning SCRIPT <-> WP.  The
relevant exchanges were as follows:
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
From:         John Hagan <AS0JFH@BINGVMB.BITNET>
Subject:      Waterloo Script to Word Perfect??

. . . Is there a way to bring a formatted [Waterloo] Script file into
Word Perfect? . . .
=========================================================================
From:         Klaus Kretschel <RZ13@DLRVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Waterloo Script to Word Perfect??

If you don't find a better way to preserve the additional information
provided by control words, you can format your text for a terminal
device and put the output into Word Perfect.
=========================================================================
From:         Larry <0084P@NAVPGS.BITNET>
Subject:      script -> WPerf

Repeating an answer I got on this list not too long ago; might help if
you can get to IBM Script.

|The Office Document Feature is a separately chargable optional
|component of DCF, beginning with 3.2.  Also available via HESC.
|
|NUMBER   288-088
|DATE     880301
|TYPE     Programming
|TITLE    IBM DOCUMENT COMPOSITION FACILITY RELEASE 3.2 OFFICE DOCUMENT FEATURE
|
|ABSTRACT The Office Document Feature (ODF) of Document Composition
|Facility (DCF) (5748-XX9) Release 3.2 allows documents to be exchanged
|between DCF and office system products that implement Revisable Form
|Text Document Content Architecture (RFTDCA).  RFTDCA documents may be
|transformed for DCF formatting and printed using Advanced Function
|Printing (AFP) page printers and licensed program functions.  Documents
|may then be returned for further processing or distribution.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

So ODF looks like a pretty good solution if available.
                                             /b
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: New York State Legislative Bill Drafting Commission
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mailbook
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:18:56 EST
From:         Peter Flass <FLASS@LBDRSCS.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Plaintext version of MAIL/MAILBOOK docs? (Not SCRIPT)
              14 Dec 1992 13:35:03 CST from <SCHAFER@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>

On Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:35:03 CST Richard A. Schafer said:
>
>I do not  plan to maintain the  User's Guide in more than  one source format.
>Either I will convert to some new format (WordPerfect or Word), or keep using
>the old SCRIPT  format. Trying to do both  is just more than I  believe I can
>reasonably hope  to do. To  be honest, I'd *love*  to move away  from SCRIPT,
>and so  far the responses  have positive.  (I'll certainly keep  a plain-text
>copy of the file around for those places  who want it, though, but it will be
>the plain-text formatted version.)
>
If we're voting, *Please* don't get rid of the Script version.  PC formats
might be nice, but Script is ESSENTIAL.

=====================================================================
= PETER FLASS                               FLASS@LBDRSCS           =
= Systems Programmer                        tel (518)458-5114       =
= NYS Legislative Bill Drafting Commission                          =
= 1450 Western Ave.                                                 =
= Albany, NY  12203                                                 =
=====================================================================
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mailbook
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 12:31:37 EST
From:         Greg Monroe <MONROE@DUKEFSB.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: log w/o send

I, too, would like to have the log functions separate from the package,
but for different reasons...  I'm going to have to come out of the
closet for this, but..... I still use (sob...) PEEK (gasp) for quick
looks at mail....  e.g, seeing what the PUN FILE #### FROM THE-BOSS
is about quickly.  It's just plain faster for a single file than
firing up Mail, reading in all the LISTSERV mail, local junk, etc.

I have a REPLY XEDIT macro which let's me start RiceMail as a reply
note.  It'd be nice to have a quick LOG capability too.  I know it's
easy to put the notes into a notebook, it's not easy to do the indexing.
Without indexing, MailBook reindexing a large notebook can REALLY slow
you down (especially, on our old 4381-23 with the meter pegged at 100%)

In addition, having the log file functions separate would make it
easier for folks to create MAIL "add-ons".  For instance, I've got a
half done prototype for a Thread oriented ListServ mail reader.  (Sorry,
it's no where near being generally usefull)  Having the log functions,
separate would make it much easier to integrate with Mail.

My $.02 worth.

Greg Monroe  <Monroe@DukeFSB.BitNet>
Duke's Fuqua School of Business
Durham, NC  27708-0114
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: East Tennessee State University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mailbook
Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:06:35 EST
From:         Bill Williams <CMS2@ETSU.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Plaintext version of MAIL/MAILBOOK docs? (Not SCRIPT)
              11 Dec 1992 16:54:51 CST from <SCHAFER@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>

On Fri, 11 Dec 1992 16:54:51 CST Richard A. Schafer said:
> ...stuff deleted...
>Would a Microsoft Word or WordPerfect version of the document be useful
>to many people?  In many ways, I'd *love* to be able to do the document
>with Word on my OS/2 machine instead of having to continue to work with
>SCRIPT.

I know we would *love* to have a WordPerfect document distribution!
Most of the need for hardcopy is for 'handout' type stuff for seminars
on RiceMail and in all cases is provided by our User Services Division.
I (in the Systems Division) do not put the 'LISTING' out in the public
areas.  Users mostly rely on the HELP files and/or just use the package
intuitively, which says a lot about the friendliness of RiceMail!
Those who attend the introductory seminars can *really* go to town.

 ---------------------------------------
   Bill Williams -- ETSU Systems Support
    East
    Tennessee             (615) 929-6853
    State
    University        <CMS2@ETSU.BITNET>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: University of Connecticut Computer Center
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mailbook
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:27:33 EST
From:         John Hammond <MAILMNT@UCONNVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Plaintext version of MAIL/MAILBOOK docs? (Not SCRIPT)
              14 Dec 1992 13:35:03 CST from <SCHAFER@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>

I wholeheartedly concur with the vote for SCRIPT/DCF rather than a non-VM
solution.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: New York State Legislative Bill Drafting Commission
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mailbook
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:20:40 EST
From:         Peter Flass <FLASS@LBDRSCS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Using Micro Mouse during VM Mail

On Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:00:31 EST Gary Sponseller said:
>Since many users are no longer on IBM 3270s these days, how can you
>get a MAC, PC or Unix workstation to be able to use its mouse during
>tn3270 (or is there something better!?) session to VM to run Mail 92?

Some 3270 emulators (e.g. IRMA) do this within the emulator - clicking on
a screen field containg 'Fn', 'PFn', etc will be translated to the appropriate
AID and sent back to the host.

=====================================================================
= PETER FLASS                               FLASS@LBDRSCS           =
= Systems Programmer                        tel (518)458-5114       =
= NYS Legislative Bill Drafting Commission                          =
= 1450 Western Ave.                                                 =
= Albany, NY  12203                                                 =
=====================================================================
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mailbook
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 08:37:39 CST
From:         Chris Barnes <CBARNES@TAMVM1.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Plaintext version of MAIL/MAILBOOK docs? (Not SCRIPT)

On Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:27:33 EST John Hammond said:
>I wholeheartedly concur with the vote for SCRIPT/DCF rather than a non-VM
>solution.


Pardon my ignorance, but what is DCF?

Background: We (here at A&M) are trying to find an *easy* document
tool (that eliminates TeX) that can be used on all the platforms we
support here (that means VM, MVS/Wylbur, many flavors of Unix, VMS,
Dos, Windows, & Macs !).  So far, we are comming up short.  So far,
Wordperfect looks like the best thing we have going, but it's less
than ideal.....

      -----------------------------------------------------
Chris Barnes            |   President - Bryan/College Station
cbarnes@tamvm1.tamu.edu |         Retriever Club.
(409) 846-3273 (home)   |   "Dedicated to the betterment of
(409) 845-4437 (work)   |               the retrieving breeds"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Acknowledge-To: <19016007%SBAC@NERVM.NERDC.UFL.EDU>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mailbook
Date:         Sun, 13 Dec 1992 11:43:09 EST
From:         "Cromer, Dan" <19016007%SBAC@NERVM.NERDC.UFL.EDU>
Subject: Re: Plaintext version of MAIL/MAILBOOK docs? (Not SCRIPT)
              11 Dec 1992 16:54:51 CST from <SCHAFER@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>

On Fri, 11 Dec 1992 16:54:51 CST Richard A. Schafer said:
>....
>Would a Microsoft Word or WordPerfect version of the document be useful
>to many people?  In many ways, I'd *love* to be able to do the document
>with Word on my OS/2 machine instead of having to continue to work with
>SCRIPT.
>
>Richard

Yes, by all means, here's a vote for Word as one version of the
documentation, though actually I think the Microsoft .RTF format
would be the best for interchange with other systems.
By the way, have you considered making the programs available via
semi-anonymous FTP, with a shared guest logon and password provided
for all agencies who either were eligible for free copies or who had
paid the license fee?  Then you just announce that a new version is
available, and make distribution only to those on your list who were
unable to FTP.  It would spread out network traffic as people would
get the new version only when they were ready, and also we could
FTP only the documentation format we preferred, such as the SCRIPT,
LISTING, or .RTF files.  Of course, I'd still want the program
packages ("OCO" programs, help text, etc.) in VMARK format.
Something to think about....
Dan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Rice University, Networking & Computing Systems
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mailbook
Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 16:54:51 CST
From:         "Richard A. Schafer" <SCHAFER@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
Subject: Re: Plaintext version of MAIL/MAILBOOK docs? (Not SCRIPT)

Ken, there is a LISTING formatted file in the same part of the distribution
as the SCRIPT files.  Since you're going to reformat it into WP, you'll
need to strip off carriage control, and you probably will need to fix
the boxes around some of the figures.

Would a Microsoft Word or WordPerfect version of the document be useful
to many people?  In many ways, I'd *love* to be able to do the document
with Word on my OS/2 machine instead of having to continue to work with
SCRIPT.

Richard
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mailbook
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 09:02:00 CST
From:         Chris Barnes <CBARNES@TAMVM1.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Plaintext version of MAIL/MAILBOOK docs? (Not SCRIPT)

(I know this isn't Mailbook stuff, but since the discussion is going
on here........)


On Thu, 17 Dec 1992 08:54:08 -0600 you said:
>Document Composition Facility; just IBM-ese.

Where can I find more information about it?  Is it applicable across
platforms (coming from ibm, I would doubt it...)?


>You only want the Holy Grail, eh?

(from the song)  To dream the impossible dream!


>Tex was probably your best hope, in fact;
>it's much like SCRIPT, I gather, but with more of its own funky options.
>Since Tex is written in C (I presume), you'd have some chance of installing
>it on VM, if you have a C compiler.

Actually, it was originally written in Pascal (although there are now
C versions available).  We currently already have TeX running on VM,
VMS, Macs, PCs, and all our Unix machines.

>WordPerfect was making claims some
>years back of coming out with a VM version, but I guess they gave up.

Every platform but VM is at version 5.1   VM is at 4.2  (sigh).


>'Easy' is a relative term; if the tool is used across many platforms and a
>lot of people know about it, they will come to see it as 'easy'.

Actually, WP is very much like TeX in the way it operates (control codes
in the middle of the text to control the output).  But there is just
intrinsically easier in hitting "F6" to bold something than

    \font\tenbf=csbx10
    {\tenbf This is bold}

And if you have tables, graphics, etc. TeX (and script) is even worse
(*shudder*).

      -----------------------------------------------------
Chris Barnes            |   President - Bryan/College Station
cbarnes@tamvm1.tamu.edu |         Retriever Club.
(409) 846-3273 (home)   |   "Dedicated to the betterment of
(409) 845-4437 (work)   |               the retrieving breeds"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Rice University, Networking & Computing Systems
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mailbook
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:35:03 CST
From:         "Richard A. Schafer" <SCHAFER@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
Subject: Re: Plaintext version of MAIL/MAILBOOK docs? (Not SCRIPT)
              13 Dec 1992 11:43:09 EST from <19016007%SBAC@NERVM.NERDC.UFL.EDU>

On Sun, 13 Dec 1992 11:43:09 EST Cromer, Dan said:
 By the way, have you considered making the programs available via
>semi-anonymous FTP, with a shared guest logon and password provided
>for all agencies who either were eligible for free copies or who had
>paid the license fee?  Then you just announce that a new version is
>available, and make distribution only to those on your list who were
>unable to FTP.  It would spread out network traffic as people would
>get the new version only when they were ready, and also we could
>FTP only the documentation format we preferred, such as the SCRIPT,
>LISTING, or .RTF files.  Of course, I'd still want the program
>packages ("OCO" programs, help text, etc.) in VMARK format.
>Something to think about....
>Dan

Actually, I've already done that, essentially, although using LISTSERV
as a server, instead of ftp.  I created a new, closed-subscription mailing
list (MAILDIST), and subscribed all of the site contacts to that list, which
will be solely used for my making announcements to site contacts.  Then
LISTSERV filelists were setup for the package, with only the members
of the MAILDIST list being authorized to get files.  The package is
setup so that if I update one of the VMARC collections of files, everyone
automatically gets is.  There are additional packages for the individual
files which contacts can subscribe to, as well as the source files, and
source updates.

I do not  plan to maintain the  User's Guide in more than  one source format.
Either I will convert to some new format (WordPerfect or Word), or keep using
the old SCRIPT  format. Trying to do both  is just more than I  believe I can
reasonably hope  to do. To  be honest, I'd *love*  to move away  from SCRIPT,
and so  far the responses  have positive.  (I'll certainly keep  a plain-text
copy of the file around for those places  who want it, though, but it will be
the plain-text formatted version.)

Richard
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mailbook
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 08:55:10 CST
From:         "John H. Fuller" <JFULLER@UMINN1.BITNET>
Subject:      Wish List - Santa strikes back!

I had several responses regarding my wish list for:

   1. Flat file distribution lists
   2. Named lists for long lists

The  unanimous  opinion  is  that LISTSERV  (or  equivalent)  is  the
solution of  choice for  all right-thinking folk.  Thanks to  all who
responded.  (I've already implemented the above and was simply trying
to get Richard to do all the work  :-)  ).
 -- The Mad RetroFitter
--------------
John H. Fuller
Computer Information & Services           USPS:  CIS
Phone:    (612)-624-7788                         50 Coffey Hall
Bitnet:   JFULLER@UMINN1                         1420 Eckles Ave.
Internet: JFULLER@VM1.SPCS.UMN.EDU               University of Minnesota
                                                 St. Paul, MN  55108
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Organization: Temple University Computer Services -- Listserv Postmaster
X-Acknowledge-To: <OASIS@TEMPLEVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mailbook
Date:         Sat, 12 Dec 1992 15:33:52 EST
From:         Stan Horwitz <OASIS@TEMPLEVM.BITNET>

On Sat, 12 Dec 92 11:16:03 EST Peter M. Olson said:
>DEAR Users:
>
>    A friend told me about this command:
>
> MAIL 'username' (NOLOG EDIT FILE fn ft fm NOPROMPT SUBJECT subject text

 Change the EDIT option to NOEDIT.

     Also can someone tell me what the TRACE command does, I can't find info
>on the command in help.

  TRACE is usually a verb which  tells a particular program which was written
  in  a particular  computer  language  to display  each  command within  the
  program  as the  program executes.  This is  a handy  way of  detecting and
  fixing an error in a program.

Stan Horwitz
Listserv Postmaster
Temple University
Acknowledge to: OASIS@TEMPLEVM (or VM.TEMPLE.EDU)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mailbook
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 12:24:10 PST
From:         John Wical <UNCJWI@LLUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      log w/o send

   Is there a way to create a note, have it logged in a notebook,
have the noteindx updated, but not actually SEND the note?
   Can this functionality be easily added?

   I like to use notebooks to keep logs from various processes I work
on.  I have an EXEC that will add the headers to the log file.  This
exec can then do one of two things (with the current RiceMail):
   (1) Append the file to a notebook, which will not update the noteindx,
       and next time I use MAILBOOK to look at it, the index will need to
       be rebuilt (taking time).
   (2) SEND the mail message to myself and log it in a notebook during
       send (I do this by putting mail commands in the queue, and
       invoking mail).  This adds the mail message to my rdr/unread
       notebook, which i then need to delete.  This also clutters my
       screen with half a dozen messages (mail sent to..., mail received...,
       etc).

   Has anyone else found a need for such functionality?
   Has anyone else found a solution?
   Any info is welcome!

John Wical
Programmer/Analyst
Loma Linda University Medical Center
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mailbook
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:28:26 CST
From:         Landy Manderson <USTS034@UABDPO.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Plaintext version of MAIL/MAILBOOK docs? (Not SCRIPT)
              14 Dec 1992 13:35:03 CST from <SCHAFER@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>

On Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:35:03 CST Richard A. Schafer said:
>I do not  plan to maintain the  User's Guide in more than  one source format.
>Either I will convert to some new format (WordPerfect or Word), or keep using
>the old SCRIPT  format. Trying to do both  is just more than I  believe I can
>reasonably hope  to do. To  be honest, I'd *love*  to move away  from SCRIPT,
>and so  far the responses  have positive.  (I'll certainly keep  a plain-text
>copy of the file around for those places  who want it, though, but it will be
>the plain-text formatted version.)

The only problem with providing it in only one "pretty" format is that you'll
always lose some of the people who don't have the particular word processor
or don't have it connected to a printer capable of printing it out.  (I
thought that's where this thread started, was some people didn't have
SCRIPT...?)  Maybe we can find some net-volunteers to convert from the
primary format into other things?  I have SCRIPT/ODF (converts SCRIPT to/from
RFT:DCA) so I probably help with some of it.

(...the User's Guide in WordPerfect?...gag!...)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU