[Anybody want to help me with timestamps on this “transcript”? – JS]
[I will. – Daniel]
The Basic Timestamps
[Audio recording begins after Ric Davis’ reading of Judy Russell’s letter]
0:00:00 Mike Wash describes progress on GPO’s Future Digital System (FDSys).
0:34:00 Questions from Depository Library Council.
0:44:00 Questions from the audience.
The Detailed Version
JR has emergency family business and will not be joining the conference.
RD is sitting in as JR and delivers her prepared remarks. [And somehow James S. managed to not record thisâ€¦]
RD offers a nod to the “unofficial” bloggers in the audience 🙂
The mechanics of Council business for this meeting: The Depository Library Council will develop a vision document to deliver to the Public Printer Wednesday morning.
Update on the Web discovery and harvesting project: there was too much time taken for the bidding process to work. GPO is canceling the initial procurement and initiating a new RFP.
The project will begin in January.
Update on Authentication: the GPO seal has been used and posted.
The final version of the Authentication white paper was posted this summer. [Draft version at: < http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/pubs/proceedings/05spring/cdqa/authentication_white_paper.pdf >. I’m having problems finding the final versionâ€¦]
Addressing a specific comment regarding the assumption “Documents residing on GPO Access are official, and retrospective authentication will be used to add integrity marks that reinforce this status”: GPO is adding a new footnote to the word “official” describing a difference between the legal meaning and the GPO meaning â€“ “Big-Oh” Official vs. “little-oh” official. GPO is also working to repair this discrepancy outside rhetorical footnotes.
Update on “no-fee” public access through the FDLP RD re-reads JR’s Thu, 8 Sep 2005 17:02:43 posting to GOVDOC-L Re: GPO does guarantee no-fee access. This statement did not seem sufficient [see discussion thread: msg msg msg], so a new statement has been issued, which includes that the GPO “does not expect” to restrict access to the FDLP libraries.
A draft statement of [system?] requirements includes something to the [very poorly quoted] effect of “GPO will not allow restricted or otherwise diminished access to digital assets through GPO Access.” There will be a footnote explicitly enumerating the scope of “GPO Access.”
Other definitions will be used from “Managing the FDLP Electronic Collection: A Policy and Planning Document”.
Update on the legacy collection digitization effort.
Brief statements are made on both LOCKSS and FDSys.
[James S.’s recording begins here]
0:00:00 Mike Wash delivers presentation [I imagine it will be posted soon on the FDSys presentations page.
FDSys is using METS packaging.
0:05:20 Metaphor: in the GPO FDSys House, we are currently in Release 1.A working on the foundation, the plumbing, and the electrical wiring.
0:06:15 Discussion of Industry DayIndustry Day 150 questions and answers are posted on the FDSys Web site.
Next week, white papers will be delivered.
00:06:55 Library Voice of User Survey… “Results good” and in line with the FDSys Concept of Operations.
MW acknowledges that there is a language clarity problem in the survey, and that many of the respondents might not have had a good grasp on the questions they were being asked.
The FDSys team will be setting up focus groups by the end of the month (October 2005) to discuss pinpointed topics defined by the survey results.
0:07:49 Program management office
MW emphasizes the need for this office in advocating for users’ needs and the effectiveness of products.
0:08:57 – Description of Release 1 of FDSys – Release 1 is minimum functionality. Release process has been divided up into 1a, 1b, 1c.
0:09:49 – Releases 2 and beyond will be responses to new technologies. Based on current conditions, MW forsees at least Release 2 and Release 3.
0:12:08 – Discussion begins on the types of capabilities that will be available in release 1. Release 1a is all about content – harvested, deposited and converted. Converted content starts out tangible and is converted to digital.
0:14:04 – Release 1b will be release of search and content delivery. Release 1c will be final release of functionality.
0:14:38 – Further discussion of Industry Day.
0:20:00 – Further discussion of the Program management office. Its main role is to work with the master integrator.
0:20:41 – Mentions that term of contract for master integrator is for a year with a possible extension.
0:21:20 – Discussion of release schedule. Some portion of the system will come out in July of 2006. Recording is garbled as to exactly what will come out then. Future releases intended to be put out on a six month schedule. MW said that industry reps called this an aggressive schedule and acknowledged this was so.
0:22:25 – Discussion of acquisition timeline. – Dec 1 issue RFP. Draft will be issued prior to that. GPO intends to make award in February 2006.
0:23:53 – Discussion of Library Voice of User Survey. Users interested in preservation and access to digital publications. MW felt that survey confirmed much of the initial work being done on FDSys.
0:27:05 – Further discussion of Program management office.
0:29:00 – A presentation slide lists the offices’ leaders’ names. Currently 11-13 staff.
0:32:55 – MW: “a lot of work to doâ€¦ the tough sledding is just starting.”
0:35:30 – GS: Where does the digitization of the legacy collection stand?
RD: November [something will happen then?]
0:37:00 – AM: What is the Franklin [OPAC/ILS/National Bibliography] go live date?
RD: The end of October. A second security scan of the hardware is needed. Data cleanup is ongoing.
0:38:55 – BS: Is there a library ILS question on the biennial survey?
RD: doesn’t know.
0:39:22 – ST: Is the aggressive timeline for the FDSys a problem for vendors?
MW: The timeline is pretty tight. Vendors might say they can do it. Luckily, complex content management systems are not unique to GPO; BUT the “customization layer” – the system requirements specific to the FDSys – might be grueling.
NARA had a complex system built and vendors are learning from that experience.
0:42:05 – JG: What is the financial situation of the FDSys? Are appropriations likely? Does the GPO think that the FDSys will generate income?
MW: $20 million from prior funds has been reprogrammed for the FDSys. This amount is a start, but not enough. JCP approval is required for actual spending.
RD: The FDSys platform must be “flexible” for the future. GPO intends for FDLP participants to maintain no-fee access; BUT the FDSys could also be used for revenue exploration.
0:44:55 – Michele McKnelly, University of Wisconsin – River Falls: asks RD to clarify the Big-O Official vs. little-o official line.
RD: Encourages the audience review the Authentication, Requirements, and ___ papers.
Generally speaking, there is a need for “official” and “authenticated” information.
little-o official = can we trace a document back to its original publisher/source? Legacy digitization provides a complication to this process…Provides example of digitizing a Congressional hearing from 1950s.
Big-O Official = some agencies have policies designating GPO Access copies as Official, while other agencies explicitly deny Big-O Official-ness to GPO Access copies.
0:48:35 – MP: Big-O Official = documents with legal effect. Provided examples of documents where print is the controlling copy.
0:49:44 – Julie Wallace, University of Minnesota: In the FDSys module chart, does “Content Submission” include Web harvesting?
BS: Wrap-up. Library vision paper is in version 1a!
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.