Home » Posts tagged 'access' (Page 12)

Tag Archives: access

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.

Delivery by FTP and RSS coming in FDSys

The Government Printing Office released a new technical document on the Federal Digital System (FDSys) called FDsys System Release and Capabilities v5.0, December 2007.

In paging through this document, I was pleased to learn that when the latest release (1C) is deployed, FDSys will support delivery of documents in formats including PDF by FTP and RSS. The sections making note of these new features are brief:

4.10.5 Delivery by RSS
FDsys will allow users to sign up to receive DIPs via RSS.


4.10.8 Delivery by FTP
Release 1C.4 builds upon 1C.2 by allowing users to request delivery based on user defined criteria.

Depending on how these features are implemented, it could be exciting for federal documents stakeholders including depository libraries.

As previously announced, I believe, people will also be able to get notifications of new content without having to get full file downloads:

4.10.22 User Notifications
Release 1C.4 will build upon Release 1C.2 by providing additional email and RSS notifications. Users will be able to sign up to receive notifications for system events, business events, and job processing events. This includes receiving a notification when now content is added to a collection or when there is a match to a user defined string.

According to the release schedule, some of these features will appear by November 2008 and others won't be ready till 2009. But it looks like GPO is on the right track and bringing out features long sought by many in the documents community. We at FGI are cautiously optimistic.

Continue reading

Continue Reading →

Free NYT + Free WSJ = Free Fed Info?

While we haven't been great at generating comments, I wanted to toss out a discussion topic and see where it goes.

As I hope many of you know, the New York Times has dropped subscriber charges and the uber-capitalist Wall Street Journal will follow suit in the next few months. The NYT found they were losing more in ad revenue than gaining in subscriptions. New WSJ owner Rupert Murdoch is on record saying that ad revenue is where the money is.

What, if anything, does the death of premium subscriptions for propriety content, mean for electronic federal information that gets sold? Not just the GPO Sales program, but NTIS, PACER, so-called cooperative publications and the rest? What is their future? Do they have one? At least the NYT and WSJ had copyrighted materials they could defend. With some exceptions, federal information is public domain. Once you get it out of a paid system, you can use it how you want. It's not quite that easy since a few federal fee-based databases are licensed, but it's mostly true.

We at FGI think there is answer -- that selling federal information, aside from being an affront to the taxpayers who paid for the the first time, will not be viable. It wasn't when GPO tried it in the early 1990s and it won't be now. Eventually fee-based gov't information will need to be provided freely, like NYT and WSJ. Though without the ads. It's not inevitable, but even the market seems like it may be trending that way. What do you think?

 

Continue reading

Continue Reading →

Wikipedia Scanner and government information

There's a very interesting article in Wired about a data mining tool developed to discover instances of whitewashing (e.g. editing in one's self-interest; presumably inappropriately) of Wikipedia entries. As has been noted before, Wikipedia has no authority control over the entries and is therefore particularly subject to self-serving or highly partisan edits. Now a clever grad student has developed a tool to identify those instances based on the version tracking built into wikis. While it doesn't necessarily identify a particular person, just knowing that, as described in the article, someone at Diebold HQ removed negative information about Diebold voting machines is adequate because it forces Diebold to prove they weren't the ones to make the changes. In short, it provides accountability by making use of the Wikipedia equivalent of the historical record. I mention this story because I think that this kind of activity is going to be increasingly important in determining what constitutes a real and/or official government publication. Traditionally, you held a government accountable by getting offiical documentation of its activities and holding on it for comparison with other official documentation. However, government information published electronically has made this a lot harder because of the changable nature of digital files. A longstanding concern of government information librarians with respect to electronic govnernment information has been how to know when changes have been made, what the changes consisted of and who made them. In this respect, the surging popularity of web 2.0 -style tools may be a great boon for government information. These tools -- wikis, online collaborative software like Google Documents or Zoho and so on -- derive their value from their ability to be shared. Government agency personnel are no different from anyone else - they've got work to do, a limited patience with messing around with how to do it and a desire to take the path of least resistance. So, for government employees, i.e. the folks creating government information, there's just as much reason to use these kinds of software as there is for me right now writing this post. And that means that neither the historical record nor legal accountability is necessarily lost, although it will entail expanding the definition of preservation of the historical record to include methods of acting on databases (creating data mining software to run against databases) in addition to the collection of objects (finding that last copy of a Serial Set volume) and any other activities that may become necessary as technology evolves. As with everything, the possibilities are not limitless. The Wikipedia Scanner was developed in cooperation with Wikipedia and required a full download of the whole database. Allowing that level of access is an option that individual agencies could turn on or off and certainly some agencies would never allow those levels of access to their publications. However, the agencies unlikely to play well with others in this scenario probably already don't provide much access to their information. For agenices that would be amenable to this kind of datamining, a benefit would be not just automated archiving (which the version tracking amounts to), but no-cost-to-the-agency management of those archives since they'll be allowing others to do it for them. Continue reading

Continue Reading →

Another Example of Access Bad, Ownership Good

Update 8/19/2007

It turns out that this story is both more complex and more unnerving than I present here. So while I am leaving up my original post as a historical record that I am falliable, I suggest you stop reading right now and go to my colleague Jim Jacob's very well researched pieces:

 

 

But the best part about Jim's story is that it doesn't end with hopeless fear. He suggests concrete actions you can take to ensure the gov't will not "googlize" our info away.  - Daniel


 

The BBC is reporting "Google is shutting down its premium video service, leaving users who have bought or rented content unable to view their videos in the future."

These people paid to access their content and now they not only can't have it, but according to the BBC, they won't be getting refunds, either.

If these same users had bought DVDs from a company that either went under or stopped selling them, these would be happy people watching their programs. But because they bought into an access model that assured them content would be available 24/7 on a third party server, they have nothing but their memories.

I'm positive Google didn't start up the service with the intention of shutting it down. They had every intention of being good to their users. But that was something that for whatever reason, they could not live up to.

Can you see where I'm going with this? The Government Printing Office wants us to accept a centralized model where we point to content housed in FDSys rather than depositing digital documents with the nation's Federal Depository Libraries. They assure us, just like Google assured their subscribers, that their servers will always be available to us on today's usage terms. But they can't really commit future generations of public servants any more than Google could keep its promise to its subscribers. And Google has WAY more money that GPO ever will.

Try to take some time this week to tell your Congress members that you want to see the decentralized depository system of the future, not another monolithic model that can be unplugged at will.

UPDATE: We have updated the information about this issue and its implications in a two part article:

 

Continue reading

Continue Reading →

GAO: Some federal scientists feel hemmed in by policies

The General Accountability Office was recently asked to look into whether federal scientists were being muzzled into media silence. They produced the report: Federal Research: Policies Guiding the Dissemination of Scientific Research from Selected Agencies Should Be Clarified and Better Communicated, GAO-07-653, May 17, 2007 Here is the abstract for your consideration (emphasis mine):

Researchers at federal agencies disseminate their research results through a variety of approaches, including scientific publications, presentations, press releases, and media interviews. Because of recent concerns about some federal researchers possibly being restricted from disseminating their research on controversial topics, GAO determined (1) the policies that guide the dissemination of federal research at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); (2) how effectively these agencies have communicated their policies to researchers; and (3) the extent to which researchers have been restricted in disseminating their research. GAO conducted a survey of 1,811 researchers randomly selected at the three agencies, and had a 66 percent response rate. Most of the NASA, NIST, and NOAA policies that guide the dissemination of federally funded research generally facilitate the dissemination process, but some do not. GAO found that overall NASA's policies, including its recently revised media policy, are clear and should help facilitate dissemination regardless of the dissemination approach used. At NIST and NOAA, GAO found that the agencies' policies for dissemination through publications and presentations were generally clear and should facilitate dissemination; but their policies for disseminating research through media interviews and press releases may hinder it. For example, because both NIST and NOAA are part of Commerce, researchers at these agencies must comply with department-level policies to disseminate their research results through media interviews or press releases, but Commerce's policies are outdated and can prevent researchers from meeting media schedules. Moreover, requests by NOAA researchers to share their research via media interviews and press releases may be further hampered because these researchers must also comply with their own agency's media interview and press release policies in addition to the Department of Commerce's. NOAA officials told GAO that because its media interview and press release policies lack clarity, they have been inconsistently interpreted by NOAA public affairs officials. According to GAO's survey, NASA, NIST, and NOAA have made efforts to communicate their dissemination policies to their research staff, but many researchers are not confident that they know how to comply with some of the policies. The agencies have communicated their dissemination policies through staff meetings, on agency Web sites, and in limited formal training. While 90 percent of researchers are confident that they understand the policies for publications, only about 65 percent are confident they understand their agency's media interview and press release policies well enough to comply with them. Similarly, almost half of the researchers across the agencies are unsure whether their agency's policy allows them to discuss their personal views on the policy implications of their research. Finally, only 25 percent of researchers across the agencies are aware of a process to follow to appeal denials of requests to disseminate their research. On the basis of responses to GAO's survey, 6 percent--or about 200 researchers--across NASA, NIST, and NOAA had dissemination requests denied during the last 5 years. One of the most common reasons researchers mentioned for these denials was that the topic of the research was sensitive or restricted for security reasons; in some cases, no reason was given. Most researchers at these agencies believe that their agency is more supportive of dissemination of research through publications and presentations, than dissemination through the media. Most NIST and NOAA researchers believe that their agency consistently applies the dissemination policies for each route of dissemination, while more researchers at NASA believe the agency consistently applies its policies for publications than believe the agency consistently applies its policies for press releases and interviews.
The full report is available at the link above. Continue reading

Continue Reading →

Latest Posts

Latest Comments

Blogroll

Archives

Meta

Archives

Powered by WordPress / Academica WordPress Theme by WPZOOM