Home » post » 200704170830 FDLP-DLC DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION

Our mission

Free Government Information (FGI) is a place for initiating dialogue and building consensus among the various players (libraries, government agencies, non-profit organizations, researchers, journalists, etc.) who have a stake in the preservation of and perpetual free access to government information. FGI promotes free government information through collaboration, education, advocacy and research.

200704170830 FDLP-DLC DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION

Unofficial Transcript of unofficial audio session provided by James Staub. Non-anonymous corrections are welcome.

200704170830 FDLP-DLC DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION

more than 100 in the room

0837 Moment of silence for Virginia Tech
0838 ANNOUNCEMENTS
get well card for Robin
thanks to the folks who made last night’s reception possible
new wifi code

0840 TED PRIEBY
key takeaway today – commitment to GPO’s mission of ready, free and permanent public access
slide title
0842 slide introduction
93% percent of new titles in FY2006 were available in EL
libraries can pull
FDSys will continue to allow pull
GPO is considering push
GPO is considering push via item selection
Retention obligations would have to be investigated
0844 slide 2005 biennial survey
might develop a detailed digital deposit survey to accompany 2007 biennial survey
18% indicated current download
33% willing to receive
most of these interested in only a small number of files
0846 slide October 2006 depository library council
many attendees interested in having digital distribution
issue: who owns the files
issue: what requirements are placed on libraries receiving the files
0848 slide definitions
pull … there are no retention or access requirements
0848 slide definitions
push…
0849 slide general assumptions
1.electronic files will continue to be available for pull
COUNCIL DOES NOT COMMENT
2.under FDLP distribution, push would happen
RA: is there going to be a retention requirement?
TB: currently Yes under Title 44 requirements, but we should be working with JCP to reevaluate
3.a high percentage don’t want to receive, and those that do want few files
GS: my institution has had a sea-change. In many ways, we don’t know what libraries will participate, because they don’t know what we’re asking yet.
BS: when you go out and re-survey, don’t ask how many files, but how much space can they contribute?
RA: I think GS is right – there is experience since the last survey. Some libraries are pulling. GPO needs to learn from their experience.
TB: To summarize: Council wants survey of community of institutions that are pulling
RA: It makes for a two part survey, and it would be worth it
U Kansas: [can’t hear, but has something to do with storage space]
0856 TB GPO has some metrics on space needs
TimB if GPO had surveyed for microfiche or CD-ROMS, they would have seen very little interest, too.
0857 4. redundancy is needed to ensure future public access, and FDSys will provide this capability, either by storage at multiple sites, by relying on preservation partners, or both mechanisms.
MS you’re talking about preservation masters?
TB yes
MS which is different from access copies pulled
TB I’m interested in conversation about both distribution – access files – and preservation masters
0859 5. GPO will distribute digital files optimized for public access…
GS if we have preservation partners, then 5 is only true of a subset of libraries
TB
0901 6. If aegis of FDLP, then Title 44 applies
NO COUNCIL QUESTIONS
0901 Richard A slide issues related to digital distribution
1.authenticated files accessed from a GPO server may display differently from individual files displayed on individual library servers
RA: why? Big question: will the content change?
2.costs associated with management and storgae of digital files are significant and can be a constraint on some libraries
3. depository libraries may have different system requirements and configurations for the servers where digital distributed files will be located
4. as a practical matter, selective and regional libraries will only be required to retain access derivative files so long as they work in their electronic delivery environment. This is analogous to current requirements for maintenance and care of tabgible documents, where due care…
0906 slide questions for discussion
1.file differences/synchronization
PH GPO must have unique identifiers plus timestamps – easier to compute than hashes
MS does the community feel replacement is appropriate, or do we want access to tracking versions
GS you’re asking how, and I'[m not going to weigh in on how. Preservation is nto our domain. When we talk about this, we are talking about bit-level preservation
TimB the best way: give us the files and let us play with them
RA have we got any experience yet with playing?

AUDIENCE
0910 Scott Matheson: data sync is useful for many libraries, but research orgs need the serialization of old copies. LOCKSS does this.
0911 Pat Ragens, U NV Reno – id parts and versions distinclty is essential. We have a small test project on congressional hearings related to NV. We used OCLC numbers at the beginning, but not sufficient in all cases – multipart publications scanned separately. Something like the OCLC number as unique identifier is established and worth pursuing
KS we do this at fed in st louis. We pull and save all iterations. GPO needs to offer options. Public libraries only want most current.
TB digital distribution – would profiles include “we want newest and latest only”?
PH some institutions might not want archival quality – deliver optimized files
AM that sounds like it contradicts what we research orgs want. I don’t want overlays, I want to track changes over time.
TB GPO wouldn’t overwrite…
AM we want both options – some will want only current versions

0916 Amy West, U of ? – current practice with tangible items doesn’t have a problem with keeping vs pitching superseded, why is this a problem in digital?
PH when you distribute in the field, systems crash, people lose stuff, and lose the means to reconcile their collection. They need these means.

0918 Steve Woods, Penn State – authentication – we’re going to play with pushed files, how can we maintain – and how can users determine – authenticity
RA you might not have the ability to play
Lisa Russel, GPO – if you change the file, you break the signature
PH what is the authentic version – the archival version?
LR a policy issue we’ll have to address
RD we would want to authenticate the preservation master. Access level will also be authenticated by GPO.

0921 Donna Kepp, Harvard – if a library decides to not pull or push, couldn’t we get these files anyway?
TB – yes
DK – will all versions be there?
TB – yes

0922 Dan Barkley, U NM – I don’t understand PH’s scenario
PH
DB
TB content will always be available through FDSys, but synchronization is still a constraint/risk
DB but you would still have access?
TB as long as they have access to the FDSys
DB we assume that anything we do would be in compliance with Title 44 – and the analogy with paper stands.
TB
DB being a regional, we would still get everything?
TB a policy issue
DB another comment: in one of the assumptions, there’s no clear articulation for preservation/conservation, but that’s an inherent responsibility, and we do it even without a clear mandate from Title 44

0926 RA meeting rearrangement – please forward questions after this session

? LA State U – pushing slightly different versions – can you notify which parts have changed?
TB version control – there will be version triggers, but how this gets conveyed is not yet determined.
PH this is a very expensive endeavor. We have discontinued this practice because of its cost.
? that’s what I was afraid of

0929 RA slide 2. should regionals have to accept and retain all digital files pushed to depository libraries? Are subsets or subject specialties going to be allowed for regional libraries
GS I think the answer to the first part is no. On the second question, absolutely.
TimB regionals need flexibility. We need to be able to play and determine what’s going on. Title 44 is subject to interpretation and definitions – definitions have changed from Judy Russel to TB’s presentation today. Changes in GPO staff change policy.
RA
BS I think the horse already left the barn. We aren’t required to have GPO Access pushed to us, and it will be hardr to convince my administration to do it now that the precedent has been set to the contrary.
Kdavis, ALA? Isnt the real issue access? Title 44 is about access and retrievability.
RD the question will be: are we talking about regional responsibility in terms of access or some other model – preservation-level masters

0935 Kathy Hale, PA State Library
question 1: no – I don’t think we have the server space. It would crowd out PA-specific stuff.

0936 Ann Sanders, Library of MI
1.No – for the tangible model, the out is sharing collection. Census information regional responsibility isn’t to house, but to ensure access
2.glad to see the phrasing, selection by agency is no longer appropriate

0938 Aimee Quinn, ? 1. yes – as a selective, I depend on the regional to have everything. I would be nervous without redundancy to back up FDSys
GS another way of asking question 2 – is 100% of the content available through regionals
AQ I believe in shared regionals – and I believe that the concept of the regional is vital
Cindy Etkin – redundancy is built into FDSys
?? Clairemont, CA – if everything is available on FDSys, I don’t understand why regionals would do this at all.

0941 slide 3. When GPO makes a new or changed version of a digital file available, what responsibility do the libraries have to inform their users about other versions?
MS at root this is a political question. We all want to trust our government. It is much easier to modify the record in an electronic environment. Do we trust the GPO as the keeper of the tablets? Are libraries in the position to protect this record across multiple versions? It is still a quesiton whether libraries comply with a withdrawal request.
AM my first instinct with this question is as a reference librarian. I am a large selective, and there is no way in hell I can tell all my users about the changes. In my mind, we need that information to travel with the file, as with printed material.
RA
BS if you push changes in a file, aren’t you pushing changes to the metadata, too? Something different – when things disappear from online access
PH we allow certain users to track changes – we handled changes through metadata

Amy West, U MN – depository material is changing by nature. Furthermore, my political inclinations color what changes I would note. Metadata/timestamp push could overcome this bias.

Steve X, U Notre Dame – when we glued pages into census publications, did we alert all users to this change? Stop trying to recalculate workflow based on new formats.
Regionals need to stop whining. Regionals should serve as regionals. Fulfill your obligations or become a selective.
0951 RA thanks for your passion
TimB if the IN regional became a selective, then he could not discard
PH technology allows you to do things you can’t do with tangible, e.g., mass emailing of changes

0953 slide 4. Is the role for the libraries wishing to receive the preservation level files to ensure redundancy for permanent public access? …
AM Yes.
RA
MS “wish” is troublesome. Standards are evolving for trusted digital repositories. I would like to know that the wishers are adhering to these standards, and that the standards are enforced
Elizabeth Cowell, Stanford, geographic distribution is important, so is administrative. We need other funding streams keeping things safe at other institutions.
?? UKY – the answer: yes. The redundancy is not just within the Federal Government, but outside. We might not want to take everything, but we need …
Steve Woods, Penn State. 2 and 4 ask – what happens if GPO becomes defunct? FDSys is great, but will it be around forever. Our responsibility is to maintain the integrity of our recorded history. Do we have a plan for the collapse of GPO – to retain all that has been spent to retain the system?
0957 Barbie Selby – role not only for libraries, but other internet orgs like archive.org, open content alliance, google
TimB digitization of technical reports – agency does not have the stuff we have. We cannot depend on them
KS
TB this is a policy decision – I don’t have a definitive answer
RD we support the public through the FDLP – the funding we receive is to do this, provide this access
PH private industry is very interested in public information en masse
AM I second that

1001 adjourn

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Archives