[NHCOLL-L:2715] Re: who is using SPECIFY?

[liath at umich.edu]

There are a few departments at the Univ. of Michigan Museum of Zoology who are
using Specify. We began using Specify in the Mollusk Division about a year ago,
and have been fairly happy with it. We Chose Specify for several reasons.

1. We have a collection of roughly 250,000 lots, and no database. I had the
choice of either creating a database using either Access or Filemaker,
completing a previously started database design in Filemaker, or using an
existing database (Specify) that already had all of the features that I would
have written into my own. I chose to not recreate the wheel.

2. In my opinion, when compared to Access and Filemaker, SQL Server is by far
the superior program for database design and management. Among other things, it
can handle large databases easily, and can handle many simultaneous users.

3. When applying for an NSF Collections Databasing grant, I was told from many
sources that I would be more likely to obtain my grant if I used an NSF funded
program such as Specify. I got my grant.

4. I have met with the folks from Specify, and they have great future plans for
their program. Furthermore, every new version has had major improvements over
the last. They do not seem to be in any danger of losing funding, but they have
promised to open source the software in the event that funding is lost.

5. Specify  is free of charge.

As for the web features, I cannot say much about that. Due to University
constraints, I am not yet able to implement this feature. I currently export my
catalog to a MySQL database which is available online through our website
http://www.ummz.lsa.umich.edu/mollusks/databases/

There are some potential problems with Specify that I would like to point out.

1. The program is highly configurable. I like this feature, but it does mean
that the person responsible for the database must set up the program to suit
their own needs. This initial step has been very frustrating to many people
learning Specify for the first time.

2. The report designer is not user friendly, however the program designers are
trying to resolve this issue in future versions.

3. Conversion from older databases to Specify, as with any database conversion,
can be very difficult. Due to the table compexity in Specify, you cannot do
this yourself. This also means that although you can export your data into just
about  any format, you cannot import data directly from a spreadsheet or text
file. For me this isn't much of a problem, because I didn't have a database to
convert, but  the programmers at Specify have agreed that this is an important
issue that will be addressed in the future.


-- 
Liath Appleton
Collection Manager - Mollusks
Univ. of Michigan Museum of Zoology
1109 Geddes Ave.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1079




On 6/16/05, Regina Wetzer <rwetzer at nhm.org> wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
> I'm interested in learning if you are using SPECIFY as your collection
> management tool, and if so, what you perceive are its strengths and
> shortcomings.  I am contemplating using it for sizable invertebrate
> collections and would love your input.  At present we are happily using
> self-rolled Access and Filemaker databases.  One of SPECIFY's attractions is
> it web front end.  Is it worth the transition?
> Regina
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Regina Wetzer, Ph.D.
>
> Research and Collections
>
> Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
>
> 900 Exposition Blvd.
>
> Los Angeles, CA  90007
>
> Tel. 213.763.3217
>
> http://isopods.nhm.org
>
> http://collections.nhm.org
>