VI. Ongoing Maintenance.
A. Protecting the Database from Hackers.
B. Avoiding Corruption of the Database.
C. Keeping Information form Non-Library Contributors Up-to-date.
D. Keeping Information from Library Contributors Up-to-date.
Refer to Section II. D. for information on record coding decisions made during the initial creation of the inventory database.
The copy of the database that is available for web access resides on the hard drive of a personal computer. It is vulnerable to hackers, and therefore should always be a copy of the master database, and should be refreshed from the master copy on an occasional basis. It is best if the web copy is set for view-only access, in order to lessen the possibility that data can be changed by unauthorized users. The master copy of the database, and any additional backup copies, should reside in a more protected area such as on a server and behind a firewall.
If the server crashes or power is interrupted while FileMaker and the database are open, it is possible that the database file can become corrupted. If this happens at any time, a backup copy of the database that was not open should be used as a replacement, and any changes made during the interrupted session will need to be re-keyed. It it good to make backup copies on a regular basis for this purpose. It is advisable to read the following article that explains how FileMaker works and how to avoid corruption of data: http://www.filemaker.com/ti/102102.html
1. Thomson/Gale PSM and Readex. The contributions from Primary Source Microfilm and Readex are gathered in a few collection records that represent large sets. The easiest means for keeping the data for these two vendors up to date would be to compare their holdings in the inventory database against their respective catalogs on an annual basis to discover new projects.
2. Law Library Microform Consortium. Jerry Dupont has received a description of how LLMC’s collections are represented in the inventory database. He is willing to supply LIPA, or whoever continues to maintain the database, with information about new additions to the LLMC categories for which individual titles were recorded.
3. Hein. Hein announces additions to their catalog through an email updating service. The person maintaining the inventory database can simply request to be added to this notification service.
4. LexisNexis CIS & UPA. LexisNexis issues a new price list each year with new titles highlighted in a grey shade. CIS and UPA titles are listed in separate sections. According to Dawn Zehner, Account Executive, she would be willing to notify LIPA if anything new did not make the printed price list.
5. Lawbook Exchange. Greg Talbot at LE indicated that the company would be happy to advise LIPA as they add additional titles to their “Reprint of Legal Classics” series, but did not explain how that would be done.
6. UMI/Proquest. UMI could not provide LIPA with an easy method for identifying new titles they might add to their law catalog. This probably means that each year the new catalog will need to be compared to the previous catalog as well as to what has been entered into the inventory database.
It will probably be helpful to retain the project survey, revising it as needed, and encouraging law libraries on a periodic basis to report new projects or update the status of previously reported projects. Although the issuance of a general email to some SIS and director listservs worked quite well to elicit information, some libraries responded only after direct contact. Therefore, it may be advantageous to also publicize any future solicitations for preservation project data in one of the national publications (e.g., AALL Spectrum).