Thanks, all, for your helpful responses. It looks like Greenstone may be
the most workable solution for the moment, although I am intrigued by your
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 4:36 PM Julia Bauder <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi, Kyle,
> I did almost this exact thing several years ago (created an offline library
> catalog for a prison education program) and wrote it up for the Code4Lib
> Journal: https://journal.code4lib.org/articles/6225 . The code, based on
> an old version of VuFind, is incredibly outdated by now, but the principles
> should still hold, and it would work for #2 if you indexed article metadata
> rather than book metadata. I've indexed JSTOR metadata into VuFind (not for
> the prison catalog, for a different thing), so I know that works. Somewhere
> (I think) I still have the mapping I used to do that, and I'm happy to
> share it, if you want it. You would just need to sign a rider with JSTOR
> to get them to give you the files of metadata for JSTOR articles.
> Julia Bauder
> Social Studies and Data Services Librarian
> Consulting librarian for anthropology, economics,
> education, political science, sociology,
> global development studies, and policy studies
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 1:07 PM Kyle Banerjee <[log in to unmask]>
> > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 10:06 AM Kyle Breneman <[log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> > > My university has a program that offers classes at a nearby prison, and
> > > this program is about to get a bunch of new laptops. As many of you
> > know,
> > > prisons are pretty restrictive and inflexible regarding technology...
> > >
> > My gut reaction would be to schedule a meeting with people who decide
> > what's acceptable.
> > Many things presented as security measures are really compliance issues.
> > This means engaging people can help you avoid problems outright,
> > paths through gray areas in ways that pass muster, and make people who'd
> > otherwise shoot you down part of the solution.
> > Many environments subscribe to "checkbox" security model. Failure to meet
> > required checkboxes or triggering undesirable ones gets you rejected.
> > means your goal -- and the goal you present -- is to get all the right
> > boxes checked. Don't get too hung up on common sense or actual technical
> > merit.
> > You might want to have a couple approaches in your back pocket to propose
> > if the meeting goes really well. I suspect a more realistic expectation
> > would be to sent back to the drawing board. I'd avoid anything people
> > have trouble processing like the plague. People always say no when they
> > don't know what's going on, and that can color future interactions with
> > you. Good luck on your project
> > kyle