[WEB4LIB] Access2002 vs. SQL .. which way do we go?

[Gimon, Charles A]

We're doing something similar here at the Minneapolis Public Library:

http://www.mplib.org/periodicals.asp

This is perfectly happy running on Access 97 for now. The page itself 
uses ASP and Perl. 

We may be enhancing this at some point to take advantage of one of the 
subscription-based services that offer this info. I'm expecting that
we'll be able to import updates from such a service into our existing
database without a lot of fuss.

--Charles Gimon
  Web Coordinator
  Minneapolis Public Library



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vicki Falkland [mailto:rch.library at wch.org.au] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 7:46 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: [WEB4LIB] Access2002 vs. SQL .. which way do we go?
> 
> 
> dear all,
> 
> our library is planning to convert our static HTML journals 
> list into a
> dynamic list. i am a total newbie when it comes to dynamic 
> websites and
> databases. i do follow threads posted here on this topic, and 
> have searched
> the Archives, but i need to ask something about different 
> methods please ...
> 
> CURRENTLY: our journal titles are all contained in an 
> Access(2000) database
> (by a colleague), which we use to print hard copy lists and 
> reports, but
> the web version is hand-coded (by me). therefore, we are 
> maintaining two
> lists. 
> 
> THE ORIGINAL PLAN: with help from our organisation's 
> webmaster (for a fee;
> our webmaster charges for his time and expertise), we would 
> move the info
> from the Access database into SQL, which i presume would mean 
> we'd have to
> learn SQL to maintain it. we would also have a web-based 
> admin page set up
> so that either of us could edit the (single) list as necessary.
> 
> THE PROPOSED NEW PLAN: my colleague has now suggested that 
> Access2002 is
> miraculous and will do everything we want without having to 
> bother with
> SQL, or the webmaster, or the webmaster's fee (although of 
> course there
> would be the cost of upgrading Access). the claim is that 
> Access2002 is
> more "flexible" than SQL, and that it will be easier for us 
> to maintain.
> 
> i'm nervous .... and not convinced that Access2002 is the answer.
> can anyone give me reasons (in simple terms please!) why i'm 
> wrong to think
> this proposed new plan is a Bad Idea ? 
> 
> i'm willing to BE convinced, but i need to hear it from 
> someone far more
> experienced and knowledgable on this topic than myself OR my esteemed
> colleague :)
> 
> thanks,
> vicki
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Library Information Technology Support Officer
> 
> ===============================================
> Women's and Children's Health
> J.W. Grieve Library
> Royal Children's Hospital
> Flemington Rd, Parkville, Vic, 3052
> Ph: (03) 9345 7010
> Fax: (03) 9347 8421
> Email: rch.library at wch.org.au
> Internet: www.wch.org.au/library
> ================================================
>