Home » Library (Page 28)

Category Archives: Library

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.

Authenticity

Who do you Trust? The Authentication Problem

How do we know when a digital document is "authentic"? While many in the library and academic communities hope that there will be a technological solution, the reality is that technology alone cannot solve the problem of authenticity. A report this week of research at a Chinese university illuminates one reason for this: technical tools are subject to failure, compromise, forgery, and hacking.

The article reports a flaw in an official federal standard that was originally devised by the National Security Agency and is widely used to create and verify digital signatures in e-mail and on the Web. In fact, it is embedded in every modern Web browser and operating system. The CNET article notes that, while the flaw that Chinese scientists discovered in the "Secure Hash Algorithm" is "theoretical," it will eventually make it easier to forge electronic signatures.

But authenticity requires more than secure software. Even if we had a tool that could never be hacked and that would last forever, we would still only have part of a solution: the technical part. The other part of the solution is social: it is the issue of Trust.

Software provides the technical part of the solution

The technology of authentication provides a way to verify that a document is what it purports to be and determine if it has been altered or not. Document-creators can use software to create special files (called "hashes" or "signatures" or "keys") based on the original document. These special files are typically stored with a "trusted third party" -- neither the document creator nor the recipient. Document-users can then use software to check the authenticity of the document in hand against that "hash." The software is able to determine only if the document in hand is identical to the original. Even the smallest change (e.g., the insertion or removal of a blank space) will result in a report that the documents are not identical.

Trust is the social part of the solution

But this technological check does not solve the authentication problem by itself. The check against the hash is only as reliable as the trusted third party. The software just gives us a technical means of shifting who we trust -- instead of trusting the party that delivered the document to us, for example, we trust a third party that tells us that the hash is correct and authentic. If the hash isn't authentic and unchanged, the check against the hash is worthless.

This concept of a trusted third party is, therefore, an essential component of the authentication chain. That should lead us to an important question: who will we choose as our trusted third parties? This is important because the tools only work if we can trust the third party to do its job. In the case of government information essential to our democracy, this trust has to last forever.

Who do you trust?

Ask yourself who in society is the most trusted third party in delivering information? The government? The press? Publishers? Technology companies like Microsoft and Verizon?

What about libraries?

Now ask yourself what we will do if we think that technological-verification is all we need to ensure authentication and we find one day that the tools have failed as described in the CNET article.

A Social Solution built on Trusted Institutions and Legal Deposit

Trust is a social phenomenon, not a technical one. What if, instead of putting all our faith in potential technological "solution" for ensuring authenticity of government documents, we instead relied on the existing infrastructure of depository libraries to ensure authenticity through their collective possession of multiple copies of digital government publications, distributed by GPO at the time of their publication under the legal-mandate of 44 USC?

This solution promises to be a sound, sustainable one because it relies on libraries as the trusted repository of information. Libraries have a long, well-established social role of providing information; people trust libraries because of it. Libraries have a vested interest in ensuring that the information they provide is authentic and people trust them to do so because it is their primary mission -- not a byproduct of publishing or making money or the various missions of government agencies.

The trust people place in libraries in general can be increased in the digital environment by relying, not on one or two libraries, but on many libraries with different funding streams and missions. Any unforeseen compromise in one institution becomes a single error in a large system of information-provision. (See Article outlines bottom-up standards for digital preservation systems.) Even in the paper and ink world, forgeries are possible -- though more difficult than in the digital world -- and one important way we determine authenticity is by comparing multiple copies.

A different approach

This approach is subtly different from the approach of hoping for a technological solution to authenticity. It recognizes that the social issue of trust (along with the existence of multiple copies controlled by different parties) is paramount and the role of technology is secondary. The role of technology is simply to provide tools to help implement that trust. Indeed, if we used this social-trust legal-digital-deposit approach, libraries would still use technical tools (e.g., LOCKSS, PKI, state of the art hash technologies) to validate the integrity of digital files. Combine these tools with trusted institutions, legal deposit, and multiple copies under multiple jurisdictions and you have fail-safe a recipe for ensuring authenticity.

Summary

The problem with hoping for a technological solution was clearly articulated back in 2000 by Abby Smith, Director of Programs at the Council on Library and Information Resources.

Interestingly, the scholar-participants suggested that technological solutions to the problem [of establishing the authenticity of a digital object] will probably emerge that would obviate the need for trusted third parties. Such solutions may include, for example, embedding texts, documents, images, and the like with various warrants (e.g., time stamps, encryption, digital signatures, and watermarks). The technologists replied with skepticism, saying that there is no technological solution that does not itself involve the transfer of trust to a third party. Encryption -- for example, public key infrastructure (PKI) -- and digital signatures are simply means of transferring risk to a trusted third party. Those technological solutions are as weak or as strong as the trusted third party. To devise technical solutions to what is, in their view, essentially a social challenge is to engender an "arms race" among hackers and their police.
-- Digital Authenticity in Perspective in "Authenticity in a Digital Environment," Council on Library and Information Resources, Publication 92. (May 2000).

James A. Jacobs, November 3, 2005

Continue reading

Continue Reading →

Free Culture and the Digital Library

Ten days ago, I was privileged to be able to participate in a symposium, Free Culture and the Digital Library, at Emory University in Atlanta Georgia. The symposium included keynotes by Lawrence Lessig, Siva Vaidhyanathan, and Clifford Lynch and more than a dozen papers. The following are the notes I used for the presentation I gave and are based on the paper, Government Information in the Digital Era: Free Culture or Controlled Substance? by Karrie Peterson (NCSU Libraries, North Carolina State University) and James A. Jacobs (Data Services, University of California San Diego). We provide these notes now as a brief summary of the paper. This is not a transcript. ---- (1. Control) Karrie and I are here today to talk to you about government information. It may seem odd to you that we're talking at a session dealing with the problems of copyright and orphaned works about a body of information that, for the most part, is not copyrighted and therefore has little or no "orphaned works" problems. But, if you see the copyright issue as an issue of "control", then what we have to tell you fits right in. Today, to address issues of access to government information we have to deal with the same kinds of questions of control that haunt those who deal with copyrighted materials and orphaned works. specifically: who controls access? what information will be available? when will information be altered, changed, or withdrawn? where will users find information? how much will readers have to pay? The reason for this is that, in the digital age, control of government information is rapidly shifting from us (the public, libraries, multiple institutions, the free information-commons) to the federal government. This shift means that, where once the decisions about content of collections, organization of the collections, access points, utility, privacy of users, and no-fee access were all up to us, locally, now these are all controlled by the government. Unfortunately, this shift in control is not obvious and is masked by the enhanced access we've seen when the government puts information on the web. (2. history) We will mostly speak today about U.S. federal government information, though some of what we say applies to state and local government information as well. By "Government Information" we mean information collected, compiled, and created by governments in their official capacity. This is information created by us collectively with our tax dollars through government agencies acting under mandates of law. It is created for us and is the official public record of our democracy And, the law requires that the information created by the federal government must be freely available to the public. Examples of government information include: - information that the government collects, such as information about toxins in the groundwater; censuses of population and business; and so forth... - information about the performance of government, such as reports by the Government Accountability Office (on the effectiveness or legality of government policies;) - Congressional deliberations as documented in the Congressional Record and committee hearings, And, Government information comes in every imaginable form: as books, serials, maps, pamphlets, images, data, and so forth. --- Let's look at roles -- past and present. In the paper-and-ink world, the roles of government and libraries were clear: The government collected, assembled, and created information and printed and distributed it. At the point the information was distributed, the role of government in access to and preservation of that information essentially ended. Through a legislatively mandated program called the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP), the government deposited documents in depository libraries. The FDLP Libraries built collections of government information and provided access to and service for that information. The FDLP Libraries preserved the information, and, if a particular library wanted to withdraw an item, the program provided mechanisms to ensure that the document was preserved somewhere in the system of over 1000 libraries nationwide. --- In the digital world, all this has changed. One conservative estimate by the Superintendent of Documents (who oversees the FDLP) is that only 14 percent of federal government information is deposited in libraries now. So, it we know that something like 86% of all government information is available only from government-controlled web servers. (3. problems.) Unfortunately, the provision of "easy access today" is not the same as providing a "secure, sustainable information infrastructure" or guaranteeing long-term access. Let's examine, then, why it we should be concerned with government information only being available from gov. controlled web servers. There are several issues that we want to outline quickly for you. Most of these issues will be familiar to you in one form or another, so we'll cover them quickly... We see three categories of problem: technical, economic, and issues of control. -- Let's look briefly at the technical issues. Put simply, technological constraints, designed to protect copyrighted and licensed information may inadvertently limit and constrain access to government information. If, for example, peer-to-peer tools are made illegal or regulated in such a way as to make their use difficult or problematic, or if P2P technologies are undermined in a way that smothers innovation, then we will not be able to use such tools for dissemination and re-distribution of government information. (e.g. LOCKSS) If the government creates laws like the Induce Act or the Broadcast Flag regulation, these will affect how public domain materials can be used. It is not even clear that we will be able to use our own hardware to make lawful copies of public domain material if the hardware industry follows proposals to incorporate copy control technologies aimed at prohibiting unlawful copying. Then there is what I call the 'poison-pill' copyright problem. Non-copyrighted government information is being mixed with copyrighted information and served through proprietary interfaces and bundled with proprietary software in proprietary formats. The census data being distributed w/o fee to depository libraries is locked in a proprietary format that requires commercial software that only runs on current versions of windows. Imagine the dilemma of a librarian or a citizen being prevented by The DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) from reverse-engineering public domain government information wrapped in a proprietary interface. And we are seeing an increasing number of federal government web sites that have vague, disclaimers about part of the site containing copyrighted information. Most explicitly say that it is up to the user to figure out what is copyrighted and what is not and what the user is allowed to do and prohibited from doing. With the Internet Archive being sued for storing copies of copyrighted materials it makes us wonder if we will we be allowed to preserve government information by spidering and storing copies. Of course, it is possible that more reasonable laws, regulations, and industry standards will be developed and we won't find ourselves in a world where a DVD of a Presidential Press conference is locked down the same way as a new Hollywood blockbuster. But there is still a large potential problem of governments using the 'wrong' tools or using tools in the 'wrong way.' We saw examples of this recently when both the copyright office and FEMA said that they were developing web sites that required the Microsoft web browser Internet Explorer -- which is notoriously bad at conforming to open web standards and runs only on current versions of Windows. (no Mac or Linux users allowed.) And both agencies gave essentially the same explanation: they didn't have the time or money to develop web sites that conformed to open web standards. Governments will use the tools that are available and if those tools assume copy protection, digital rights management, and so forth, governments will create information that has those characteristics. Another example of this is the Government Printing Office's interest in using "Digital Object Identifiers" (DOI) for the reasonable purpose of better managing the pointers to online materials. Unfortunately, the intended purpose of DOIs includes checking the authority of a person to access a document, to protect copyright, and to prevent "piracy." How can we ensure that a technology designed to do these things for commercial users won't subvert legitimate use of public domain materials? -- Our concern about this is compounded when we look at issues of economics and control. Let's look next at problems that economic in nature. The first economic problem is the cost of keeping digital information available over time. Digital preservation, format and media migration, maintaining documents online--all are all expensive. This will put the cost of information access and preservation in competition with other federal budget items. Imagine Congress mulling over spending a few million dollars to maintain online access to employment data for women or minorities that is 10 or 20 years old, or an annual report from an agency that is now defunct, or "out of date" economic data. Imagine whether or not these expenses will get priority over national security, education, or social security. The second economic problem is that information is valuable and government agencies may want to sell their information rather than give it away for free. Government information that has economic value includes - aggregate census information that allows marketers to identify neighborhoods for locating stores or zip codes for directing ads, and a wide variety of information about individuals including: - who has bought or sold property, - who has married or divorced, - who has had a child or a death in the family, - gis data The problem in the digital age is that if agencies choose to sell digital information, they cannot make the same information available without charge -- even to libraries. They have to be sure that the information they sell cannot be re-used or re-distributed. They can do this with licensing restrictions or DRM technologies. We've seen dramatic evidence of this. An early attempt by the Government Printing Office to sell access to digital information it was simultaneously providing for free failed. Why would anyone pay for information they can get for free? We saw an example of this recently when the Library of Congress produced a PDF document that GPO made available to depository libraries w/o fee, but with severe restrictions on use because the document was a "product for which costs must be recovered." The restrictions included: * Files may "NOT be redistributed" * Access only on "the premises" * Digital access hidden from web crawlers * Digital access prohibited by users outside the library While it is easy to understand how a cash-strapped agency faced with a net cost of keeping information online might jump at the opportunity of turning that liability into an asset by selling that information, it is also easy to see how such policies result in citizens losing access to information. This could mean that Citizens and libraries would have to pay for access to public information. -- Another economic problem involves so-called competition between governments and the private sector. The publishing industry has argued for years that governments should not compete with the private sector. We see increasing amount of government information being privatized. most recently was a proposal to privatize a prestigious and important journal, "Environmental Health Perspectives" In the digital age, the private sector argues that the government should have a very limited role in the dissemination of information and offer online services only under limited circumstances "even if private-sector firms are not providing them" and that governments "should generally not aim to maximize net revenues or take actions that would reduce competition" If we rely only on the government to provide access to information it produces, we may find information leaving the public domain as it becomes privatized. -- A third problem is the issue of Control. There is and will probably always be a tension between openness and secrecy, between government control of information and citizen access to and use of information. While many government employees and politicians are very supportive of public access to government information, many are not. As they say in Washington, "information is power" and controlling access to information is a very great power. This is not, by the way, a Republican vs. Democrat issue or a liberal vs. conservative issue. Though many people have become more aware of this issue in the last few years as we saw the government restrict and withdraw information, this is not even a "post 9/11" problem; it is simply a fact of political life. There are many ways that the government can control information: - They can simply remove files that were public when they become embarrassing and hope no one has copies. When the government insists that the only way the public can get an "authentic" copy of a government document is to go to a government web server, removal of a file allows them to disavow "unauthorized" copies that may exist. - They can lock files with DRM technologies that allow their creator to limit who can read or use a document or even remove the the ability to read the file after it has been downloaded by a user. - Perhaps most insidious, though, is that government can do exactly what it is doing: take a *passive* role by "making information available" rather than *distributing* information. They can put a document on a web server, but not tell anyone it is there, issue no press release, do not call attention to it, hope no one notices. (We saw a particularly visible example of this recently when Bureau of Justice Statistics released a report that the administration found embarrassing. Rather than announce the report, the Justice Department opted not to issue a news release on the findings and simply posted the report online. Then they removed the director of Bureau who wrote the news release.) This is the government playing a passive role. Rather than actively distributing and announcing and listing information they just "make it available" and it is up to us to find what is new, what has been changed, and what has been withdrawn. Some see this as a good thing because it is an opportunity for librarians to make themselves useful in the digital age -- by trying to find information that the government no longer lists, or catalogs, or announces, or distributes. We believe, however, that this is a bad thing because the government is neglecting its responsibility to inform the public. It is the government taking a passive approach where it should take an active approach. We believe that this passive approach in inadequate and believe that we, as librarians, should be insisting that the government take an active role. -- All of these problems -- technical, economic, and control -- leave us with the concern that, if we don't have copies of government information in our control, in our libraries, in our Instituional Repositories, then we will not be able to guarantee long-term access to that information, free access, or user privacy. ------------------------------- SOLUTIONS We believe that the beginning of a solution to these problems is to rely on what we already have: a law (title 44 of USC) that requires deposit of govinfo into depository libraries. While this won't solve all the problems, we believe it is the first step that provides a foundation on which we can build. Government must provide digital information at the time of its release, w/o fee, to depository libraries. The information must be free of DRM technologies that lock down its use, and must be "fully-functional" digital versions, not less-than-optimal surrogates. And the information must be free of contractual restrictions that restrict use and re-use, distribution and re-distribution. How would this help? It would make sure that the actual digital information products are usable and reusable and fully-functional and not encumbered. This means that once a library or anyone has a copy, they will be able to post it and repost it and everyone will be able to use it and reuse it. "Documents" would not be technologically "withdraw-able." It would ensure that the government won't use licenses in place of copyright to restrict access, use, re-use, and re-distribution of information. --- One final thought. We see the issue of access to government information as analogous to the issue of access to academic journal articles. When we have access to journal articles online through publishers we gain a lot of convenience, but the publishers control what will be available, what will be withdrawn, who will have access, and at what cost. Access, preservation, user-privacy are, for publishers, objectives that are secondary to their primary mission of making money. If, however, authors deposit copies of their articles in our institutional repositories, we are in control of those collections. we decide what is available. we are able to ensure free-access and user privacy. it is our primary mission, not a secondary one. Similarly, if we rely only on the government for access to government information, we are not in control of that information and cannot ensure access, no-fee access, or user-privacy. if we have copies, though, we can do all that and help ensure better access, more use and re-use of the information. --- I want to close with a question for you. We would like to draw on your experience, ideas, and strategies. We believe that government information is essential to democracy. We believe that government must take an active role in distributing information w/o fees or restrictions. We believe that libraries should be able to perform their primary mission of keeping gov. information in the public domain, freely usable and re-usable. Our question to you is, What other strategies can we use collectively to accomplish this? Continue reading

Continue Reading →

Digital library technologies

Here at Free Government Information, we're extremely interested in the collection, dissemination and preservation of digital government information (for more background we point you to our manifesto of sorts) and feel that libraries have a vital role to play in this area. Cornell University has been at the forefront of digital preservation and has created a Digital Preservation Tutorial that gives a broad overview of the issues and challenges involved in digital preservation in general. With that in mind, we are creating a list of technologies that will be of interest and importance as we move toward a digital FDLP. We're focusing on digital technologies that get at the basic needs for digital preservation: collection or capturing of digital information, description (metadata creation), dissemination (as opposed to simple availability!), and long-term preservation. This list is a work in progress. If you know of other technologies, software, hardware, clients etc that you have used and would recommend to the community, please contact admin at freegovinfo dot info or leave a comment on this page so we can add to the growing list of useful resources.

  • Archive-IT: Web archiving service from the Internet Archive. The service allows institutions to build, manage and search their own web archive through a user friendly web application, without requiring any technical expertise or hosting facilities. Check out a list of their collections. (added 2/7/07)
  • Capturing Electronic Publications (CEP): A web site archiving system developed with Open Source software for Unix/Linux. CEP makes it possible for organizations to periodically download and retain archival copies of their evolving web site(s). CEP uses a web spider, wget, to traverse and download a target website's pages and CVS to archive the pages and their subsequent changes. CEP uses a variety of software packages to create, maintain historical data and provides summary statistics about the website's content. The packages used to create CEP include: Fedora, Apache, CVS, Perl, GD graphic tools, TreeTagger and Wget.
  • CONTENTdm OCLC Digital Collection Management Software. "CONTENTdm® makes everything in your digital collections available to everyone, everywhere. No matter the format — local history archives, newspapers, books, maps, slide libraries or audio/video — CONTENTdm can handle the storage, management and delivery of your collections to users across the Web."
  • cURL. A command line tool for getting or sending files using URL syntax. Curl is targeted at single-shot file transfers. Curl is not a web site mirroring program. Curl is not a wget clone.
  • Del.icio.us: del.icio.us is a social bookmarking site that allows users to bookmark and share Web sites. It also allows for collaborative collection projects like FGI's IAdeposit project where digital govt documents that are tagged "IAdeposit" in delicious are then uploaded to and preserved in the Internet Archive's US govt documents collection. So even if a library can't afford to build its own digital architecture, it can still participate in a digital collection project.
  • DSpace. Open source software that enables open sharing of content that spans organizations, continents and time. "DSpace is the software of choice for academic, non-profit, and commercial organizations building open digital repositories. It is free and easy to install "out of the box" and completely customizable to fit the needs of any organization. DSpace preserves and enables easy and open access to all types of digital content including text, images, moving images, mpegs and data sets." See also: duraspace.org.
  • EPrints. "EPrints is the most flexible platform for building high quality, high value repositories, recognised as the easiest and fastest way to set up repositories of research literature, scientific data, student theses, project reports, multimedia artefacts, teaching materials, scholarly collections, digitised records, exhibitions and performances."
  • Fedora Commons Repository software "The Fedora Repository software has been installed by institutions, worldwide, to support a variety of digital content needs. The Fedora Repository is extremely flexible and can be used to support any type of digital content. There are numerous examples of Fedora being used for digital collections, e-research, digital libraries, archives, digital preservation, institutional repositories, open access publishing, document management, digital asset management, and more." See also: duraspace.org.
  • Greenstone: Greenstone is a suite of software for building and distributing digital library collections. It provides a new way of organizing information and publishing it on the Internet or on CD-ROM in the form of a fully-searchable, metadata-driven digital library..... The aim of the Greenstone software is to empower users, particularly in universities, libraries, and other public service institutions, to build their own digital libraries.
  • HTTrack. HTTrack allows you to download a World Wide Web site from the Internet to a local directory, building recursively all directories, getting HTML, images, and other files from the server to your computer. HTTrack arranges the original site's relative link-structure. Simply open a page of the "mirrored" website in your browser, and you can browse the site from link to link, as if you were viewing it online. HTTrack can also update an existing mirrored site, and resume interrupted downloads.
  • [w:institutional repository] (IR): Many libraries (especially academic libraries) are building digital institutional repositories to collect and manage the content created by their members/professors/researchers. These software infrastructures offer soup-to-nuts tools for collecting, describing, accessing and preserving digital content. Examples include Dspace, Fedora, and EPrints.
  • Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe (LOCKSS): Open source software to collect, store, preserve, and provide access to local copies electronic documents. Using Peer-to-peer (P2P) architecture, libraries can compare, share and repair digital content. A Low cost digital library tool! Contact James Jacobs (jrjacobs AT stanford DOT edu) if you're interested in joining the USdocs private LOCKSS network.
  • Lucene. Apache Lucene is a high-performance, full-featured text search engine library written entirely in Java. Lucene is the guts of a search engine - the hard stuff. You write the easy stuff, the UI and the process of selecting and parsing your data files to pump them into the search engine, yourself.
  • Open Archives Initiative The Open Archives Initiative develops and promotes interoperability standards that aim to facilitate the efficient dissemination of content. OAI has its roots in the open access and institutional repository movements. Projects include the Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) and the Object Reuse and Exchange (OAI-ORE) standard.
  • Solr: open source enterprise search server based on the Lucene Java search library, with XML/HTTP and JSON APIs, hit highlighting, faceted search, caching, replication, a web administration interface and many more features.
  • SWISH-E: Simple Web Indexing System for Humans.
  • Teleport Pro: Web-based spidering tool. This one's NOT open-source and NOT free ($40), but has been recommended by an FGI volunteer as easy-to-use
  • Wget: An open source UNIX command line spidering tool used to retrieve files automatically off of web servers.
While not a specific technology package, people working in government-funded institutions should be aware of the Digital Preservation Network. According to their web site, the Network is "dedicated to forging a community of practitioners who are focused on the issues of preserving the digital records and publications of government. This online forum will be a repository for the exchange and discussion of ideas, research, strategy and documents that can be used by other practitioners in their organization. Membership into this community will be open to any practitioner employed in a government funded institution that is currently researching or participating in appraisal, acquisition, preservation or access of government records or publications." Most features require registration, but the front page features a good training calendar. Another initiative of note is the Digital Library Federation (DLF). DLF seeks to:
  • define, clarify, and develop prototypes for digital library systems and system components;
  • scan the larger technical environment for and encourage the development of potentially important trends and practices;
  • encourage technology transfer and information sharing between and among DLF members, and between DLF and appropriate commercial sectors; and
  • communicate technical directions and accomplishments of the DLF to a wider audience.
Continue reading

Continue Reading →

Depository Library Council Vision

In September, 2005 the Depository Library Council (DLC) published Federal Government Information Environment of the 21st Century: Towards a Vision Statement and Plan of Action for Federal Depository Libraries. Discussion Paper. They're currently collecting comments on their DLC Vision blog. FGI encourages everyone to read this document, post comments to the blog, to FGI, and, if you happen to be going to the Fall, 2005 Depository Library Council meeting in D.C., raise your questions and comments there. FGI's comments to this first draft of a vision for the future Federal Depository Library Program are below.

We think Daniel Cornwall's recent comments regarding the DLC Vision statement were thoughtful and thorough. We'd like to add a few additions and stress some of his more important points. We thank the DLC for opening the discussion on the future of the FDLP and offer this constructive criticism in the hope that the DLC will find some information of use to the final draft. We feel that there are strong reasons for having an FDLP into the future.

We believe that the draft could be greatly improved by changing its tone in Part I from a negative focus ("no longer exclusive...," "superseded FDLs," "curtain call for FDLP") to a positive vision of the role of libraries in the future. The tone of the current draft seems to imply that FDLP libraries need to recapture what was once a captive audience.

Rather than focusing only on "access" (and thereby ignoring and diminishing the importance for libraries to select, acquire, organize, and preserve information for a constituency), Part I could describe both the effects and opportunities of digital information distribution including the provision of new and better services. We believe that the vision statement would be improved if it, instead, took a more positive and innovative approach to the future, rather than looking to the past.

Here are some specific changes that could make it both stronger and more forward-looking.

  1. On the effect of the web on access, it would be more accurate to say that the web adds a new, welcome, and very useful way for some (though far from all) citizens to get information.
  2. The DLC vision should describe the opportunities for FDLs to facilitate access to ALL citizens. Many citizens still do not have broadband access, and Americans are now adopting broadband more slowly than they have in the past. Many government web sites are designed to be most effective if the user has broadband access. Therefore, there are opportunities for libraries to facilitate access to all citizens. (This can include providing public broadband terminals and having digital and print copies on hand in local collections.)
  3. The vision needs to recognize that the ability of users to "access" government information is not enough; libraries should make information easier to find and use. Digitally-distributed information provides opportunities for many different aggregations and views of the vast amount of information available from the government. We already see that, for the government itself, one "portal" is not enough. FirstGov, GPO Access, fedrnd.osti.gov, science.gov, Ben's Guide, and THOMAS are just a few of the "portals" available. We take the view that more-views-are-better because each can cater to a specific user group. Libraries have the opportunity to build such views based on their own collections that include, not just federal government information, but also information from local and international governments, private publishers and institutional repositories. Libraries should encourage and facilitate such use and re-use of government information and should actively participate in such use and re-use. Providing pointers to information on servers that are not controlled by the library is only one way to do this. A more secure and sustainable approach is to build actual digital collections. By building focused, locally controlled, digital collections that include government information as well as non-government information, libraries can make it easier for users to find information.
  4. While the DLC vision addresses some roles for GPO, it omits some crucial ones. One essential role for GPO is to provide no-fee, fully functional digital content. Another is to take an active approach to notifying libraries and the public of all new and changed content. Those looking for government information should not be required to browse or spider government web sites hoping to find new or changed information. The DLC vision statement should clearly state that GPO must actively notify libraries of new information based on library-defined profiles (similar to item lists) and either "push" new content to FDLP libraries or allow for the easy "pull" by libraries of content they select.
  5. The vision needs to identify roles that none but libraries will fulfill. The vision statement could describe at least some of these roles. These could include selecting and organizing and integrating materials from different sources (e.g., the federal government, private sector, other governments) to create integrated collections for particular constituencies; reusing and recombining information to create new information services; and preserving information. While the private sector and the government will certainly provide some useful tools and services, it would be wrong for the library community to assume that government or market priorities will always match the needs of our users. We should not assume that others will fill in gaps left by libraries shirking their responsibilities. Libraries must also recognize that the web has not created an environment where the private sector will assume responsibilities for no-fee, permanent public access to all information for all users forever. While it makes sense to use tools created by others (e.g., Google, GPO collection, private sector products etc.) as long as they exist and are useful, libraries should not ignore their own responsibilities for providing collections, tools, and services.

While the remainder of the draft promotes the concept of "service," those parts are negatively affected by Part I. Instead of describing a future in which libraries can offer enhanced services by making use of the opportunities of digital information, the services described are rather passive and do little more than piggy-back on services actually offered by others (government and private sector).

We offer some ideas of what might be a fourth "possible future for the FDLP" in our paper, Government Information in the Digital Age: The Once and Future Federal Depository Library Program (Journal of Academic Librarianship, May 2005, Vol.31, No.3, pp198-208.) particularly in the sections "The Once and Future FDLP" and "Stakeholder Roles." We won't repeat those ideas here, but instead will list a few small examples of possible future FDLP library services.

  1. Information should be used and reused. A first year graduate student created GovTrack.us which draws information from THOMAS, House and Senate pages, Congressional Budget Office, and Federal Election Commission and creates new information for tracking and researching activities of Congress. What if libraries did things like this? Libraries such as Oregon State University and the California Digital Library have done just such projects in the past and can do more of this in the future, especially if digital deposit is part of the future FDLP.
  2. The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) (trac.syr.edu) actively acquires information from the government through FOIA and other means and assembles it for public use. Libraries equipped to accept digital deposit would also be able to include in their collections FOIA-acquired information and "fugitive" documents; in so doing they would facilitate projects like TRAC by providing regular updates of public data through their digital selection, acquisition, and delivery technologies.
  3. Libraries regularly find broken "PURLs" and dutifully report them to GPO. If there was digital deposit, libraries could provide pointers to the local copy and the original so that when a PURL breaks, the user still has a copy of the document while the broken PURL is being fixed.
  4. All libraries do not have all the digital amenities of large, better-funded, libraries. Many of the users of such libraries may also lack the tools (e.g., broadband access, up-to-date hardware and software), training, and experience increasingly required to find, locate, and use information on the Internet. But even small libraries could help users by acquiring copies of needed information once and adding that information to a local collection (on a stand-alone PC, or even CD or DVD) so that users could get those documents instantly rather than re-downloading them. Digital deposit could also facilitate innovative collaborations between large and small libraries.
  5. While digital versions of information are often useful, the digital format is not always the most usable for simple reading, browsing, preserving, or even reference. Libraries could acquire ready-to-print versions of digital documents and print them for their print collection or provide a local print-on-demand service.
  6. Academic libraries are increasingly creating Institutional Repositories (IRs) for storing digital versions of academic research. Libraries could use those IRs for storing local copies of digital government information, thus creating integrated collections from multiple sources and providing the same tools for finding and locating government information that they provide for academic research.

It seems to us that the current draft assumes that GPO will provide permanent, no-fee access to all digital government information. GPO, however, does not have the ability to make such a guarantee. Because GPO is a government agency that is subject to rules and budgets set by others, is subject to pressure from the private sector not to compete, and even has a public printer who has characterized Congressional support for permanent public no-fee access as a "hand out" rather than as an essential role of government, the DLC vision statement should not base its possible futures for the FDLP on this assumption.

Finally, we are well aware that, while a few of us have been vocally advocating digital deposit for some time, govdoc-l and other forums have not had extensive discussion of this issue. Many librarians have been quiet while a few have expressed opinions. At freegovinfo.info we did a very un-scientific survey and received 153 (92%) positive responses to the question, "Should GPO deposit digital files in FDLP libraries?" As Daniel Cornwall has suggested (govdoc-l post on 9/22/05, Subject: "85% Library Support for local deposit of federal e-pubs?") GPO's own, more comprehensive poll of FDLP libraries shows that there are few libraries (15%) that have little interest in digital deposit which implies that most libraries are interested in digital deposit. Since GPO has explicitly asked FDLP libraries about the delivery of digital content to depositories through "Automatic push of content from GPO," we suggest that DLC should have in hand the full results of the GPO study before dismissing the option of digital deposit from its vision of the future. If hundreds of libraries express a high or very high interest in this, it would be consistent to offer a fourth possible future of digital deposit.

For over 150 years, the FDLP community has worked collaboratively to inform citizens. There are very few organizations that have lasted as long for such a noble cause. We hope the DLC's revised vision will reflect this fourth possible future for a strong, vibrant FDLP that we have described.

James A. Jacobs, James R. Jacobs, Shinjoung Yeo.

Continue reading

Continue Reading →

Comments on DLC Vision Draft

We think Daniel Cornwall's recent comments regarding the DLC Vision statement were thoughtful and thorough. We'd like to add a few additions and stress some of his more important points. We thank the DLC for opening the discussion on the future of the FDLP and offer this constructive criticism in the hope that the DLC will find some information of use to the final draft. We feel that there are strong reasons for having an FDLP into the future. Click here for the printer-friendly version of this post We believe that the draft could be greatly improved by changing its tone in Part I from a negative focus ("no longer exclusive...," "superseded FDLs," "curtain call for FDLP") to a positive vision of the role of libraries in the future. The tone of the current draft seems to imply that FDLP libraries need to recapture what was once a captive audience. Rather than focusing only on "access" (and thereby ignoring and diminishing the importance for libraries to select, acquire, organize, and preserve information for a constituency), Part I could describe both the effects and opportunities of digital information distribution including the provision of new and better services. We believe that the vision statement would be improved if it, instead, took a more positive and innovative approach to the future, rather than looking to the past. Continue reading

Continue Reading →

Latest Posts

Latest Comments

Blogroll

Archives

Meta

Archives

Powered by WordPress / Academica WordPress Theme by WPZOOM