<<snipped>> I know that the project to computerise and deliver all registered data has run out of money and stalled, but there cannot be major expense required to provide access to the recent registrations. <<snipped>> Alas, Tim, there would be a considerable amount of effort required to provide access to the recent registrations in their current database. While the database is there, that's just a tiny part of the costings. A big effort could be inserting a security system. The current system will be basically driven from a simple question - "Are you allowed to access the system, yes or no?" because my guess would be that any GRO staff at Southport can access any certificate. Once you're in, you're in and you stay in. Else the job couldn't be done. Whereas security for a online access by the rest of us is a different ball-game. Full access to the indices for the public (actually - not sure that's true - adoption stuff would surely be sealed off) but then access to certificate details restricted to the one you've paid for. Another aspect is that the current Southport system will be office hours only, allowing all weekends and nights for database back-ups, reindexing, etc, etc. A commercially available system would need to be 24x7 for world-wide access. In the end, the simplest thing (designing the system on the back of a fag-packet) would be to replicate an extract of the data from the Southport system into a dedicated online access database and application - at which point you're only using the analysis. It's not a start from base-zero, but it's not extensively helpful either. All the above is just gut feeling from me - but it does occur to me that maybe ScotlandsPeople works because it isn't the live GROS system, while DOVE etc failed because the costs of the dual purpose of live GRO and genealogical access became too much. How much of that costing was due to the duality? I don't know but it seems to me that it's got to be an element. Adrian B

On 22 Oct at 18:05, Adrian Bruce <[email protected]> wrote: > > <<snipped>> I know that the project to computerise and deliver all > registered data has run out of money and stalled, but there cannot be > major expense required to provide access to the recent registrations. > <<snipped>> > > Alas, Tim, there would be a considerable amount of effort required to > provide access to the recent registrations in their current database. > > While the database is there, that's just a tiny part of the costings. > A big effort could be inserting a security system. The current system > will be basically driven from a simple question - "Are you allowed to > access the system, yes or no?" because my guess would be that any GRO > staff at Southport can access any certificate. Once you're in, you're > in and you stay in. Else the job couldn't be done. Whereas security > for a online access by the rest of us is a different ball-game. Full > access to the indices for the public (actually - not sure that's true > - adoption stuff would surely be sealed off) but then access to > certificate details restricted to the one you've paid for. > > Another aspect is that the current Southport system will be office > hours only, allowing all weekends and nights for database back-ups, > reindexing, etc, etc. A commercially available system would need to be > 24x7 for world-wide access. > > In the end, the simplest thing (designing the system on the back of a > fag-packet) would be to replicate an extract of the data from the > Southport system into a dedicated online access database and > application - at which point you're only using the analysis. It's not > a start from base-zero, but it's not extensively helpful either. But this last is precisely all that anyone would ask me. No-one, unless they were mad, would expect the general public to have direct access to any master database. All that is needed is just s bog-ordinary enquiry system, as in sales enquiries, where the process starts with a copy of the relevant data on the master dabase. They must surely have such a program now to copy the to-be-released data on microfiche. Just take a copy of that data and offer it to the odd commercial outfit for a modest fee. > All the above is just gut feeling from me - but it does occur to me > that maybe ScotlandsPeople works because it isn't the live GROS > system, while DOVE etc failed because the costs of the dual purpose of > live GRO and genealogical access became too much. How much of that > costing was due to the duality? I don't know but it seems to me that > it's got to be an element. All we need is easy access to the same data that goes to the microfiche production system. This is not recreating the DOVE project as, if I understood it right, that got fouled up with the cost of transcribing the original records. The point I am making is that public access to the already 'public' data is ridiculously expensive and complicated for anyone who does not live on the doorstep of any of these repositories. The Civil Service could deliver that data to us almost certainly at no cost as the commercial operators would be delighted to do whatever is necessary to the data that goes into the current fiche production. Or is someone seriously suggesting that FreeBMD borrows a set of those fiche and transcribes them onto their indices? Indeed this is possible but it is a massive duplication of effort. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected] for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/