Paul,
I started using it because I know very little about databases (still
don't). I used it to keep track of statistics on our 1100 churches and
their monthly giving to missions (I spent the last 6 years doing
communications to raise funds).
Send me you email address and I'll send you some samples.
I know it can do much more that I use it for. The great thing is I can
add things to it myself or talk to our IT guys if I need help. It is
also fully cross platform (MAC-PC) which is helpful for a MAC user like
me in a PC office. I know you can get a server version to that multiple
users can access the same database and you can also get a run-time
engine.
Jane Turner at U of Victoria Archives uses it. She sent me two sample
databases. Here is her info:
Jane Turner, University Archivist
University Archives
University of Victoria Libraries
P.O. Box 1800 STN CSC
Victoria, BC V8W 3H5
Help this is helpful.
Jim
> ----------
> From: Paul Henry
> Reply To: A forum for discussion for the Archives Assoc. of
> Ontario
> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 11:26 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Databases
>
> Jim,
>
> I've never used FileMaker in an archival environment, so I didn't try
> to
> speak to its usefulness. I've downloaded a trial copy off the web, for
> comparison purposes, and will let you know.
>
> I'd be interested in learning how it's used at PAOC.
>
> Paul
>
> At 11:05 2001-05-28 -0400, you wrote:
> >Paul,
> >
> >I believe you will find that FileMaker Pro can accomplish all of
> these
> >tasks including the relational ones and has the advantage of being
> much
> >easier to use.
> >
> >Jim Craig
> >James D. Craig
> >Archivist
> >The Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada
> >[log in to unmask]
> >905-542-7400
> >
> >
> >> ----------
> >> From: Paul Henry
> >> Reply To: A forum for discussion for the Archives Assoc. of
> >> Ontario
> >> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 11:33 PM
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Re: new address
> >>
> >> At 15:01 2001-05-24 -0400, you wrote:
> >> >I have been looking at Inmagic for archive software. Our school
> >> supports
> >> >Microsoft Access and the head of our IT department believes that
> we
> >> should
> >> >use it.
> >>
> >> Here's a quick comparison between the two:
> >> http://www.tdm.com.au/compare.htm
> >>
> >> While the seemingly trite "because it's Microsoft" may work for
> some,
> >> you'll note that DB/Textworks (Inmagic) has features better suited
> to
> >> archival tasks, such as:
> >>
> >> Indexing and browsing by field
> >> Boolean searching
> >> Stop words and other sorting functions
> >> Indexing modes, logging, and reporting
> >>
> >> And most importantly:
> >> Unlimited field lengths, all fully indexed by term and keyword.
> >>
> >> The DOS version is free. The Windows version is available under
> >> various
> >> licensing arrangements.
> >>
> >> The only serious bugaboo in Inmagic (also not available in Access
> >> without
> >> some programming) is the lack of recursively relational linking. By
> >> this I
> >> mean the ability to store multi-level descriptions (fonds, series,
> >> file,
> >> item) in the same database file and automagically display them
> >> hierarchically in reports. For that, you need GenCat (Eloquent
> >> Systems).
> >> GenCat has its own problems, but I used it successfully at the
> >> National
> >> Archives for a number of years.
> >>
> >> I hope this helps you convince your IT department to let you use
> >> Inmagic.
> >>
> >> Good luck.
> >>
> >> Paul
> >>
> >
> >
>
|
