Xref: utzoo bionet.general:599 bionet.molbio.genbank:96 news.software.b:3854 sci.bio:2594 sci.chem:773 sci.physics:10790
Path: utzoo!utstat!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!bionet!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!ccnysci!phri!roy
From: roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith)
Newsgroups: bionet.general,bionet.molbio.genbank,news.software.b,sci.bio,sci.chem,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Creating Electronic Research Libraries
Keywords: Usenet M_Lesk Refer Software Terabyte_Optical_Disk_Devices
Message-ID: <1989Dec20.152543.18422@phri.nyu.edu>
Date: 20 Dec 89 15:25:43 GMT
References: <617@mbph.UUCP> <1989Dec20.011113.724@agate.berkeley.edu>
Sender: news@phri.nyu.edu (News System)
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City
Lines: 13

In <617@mbph.UUCP> hybl@mbph.UUCP (Albert Hybl) writes:
> Speaking for myself, I think a non-interactive search would be virtually
> useless [...] Assuming Santa has limited funds, I would urge him to put them
> only into programs and situations where interactive searches are possible.

	I absolutely agree.  This is the old batch processing vs. time
sharing argument all over again.  Batch lost out a decade or two ago, why
should we bring it back in the guise of bibliographic search systems?
--
Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy
"My karma ran over my dogma"