Home » Posts tagged 'gpo' (Page 49)
Tag Archives: gpo
AALL & SLA Support GPO Funding, Will you?
On May 1, 2007, Mary Alice Baish of the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) testified in support of full funding for the Government Printing Office (GPO) before the House Committee on Appropriations for AALL and the Special Libraries Association (SLA). While readers know that FGI has its differences with GPO, it plays a vital role in informing American citizens through its publishing, the Federal Depository Library Program, and of course, GPO Access. In addition, GPO's proposed Future Digital System (FDSys) could be a vital PART of any government information ecosystem of the future. Like every other federal agency, GPO has been operating under a continuing resolution which held it to FY 2006 funding even though we are nearly at FY 2008. As Mary Alice points out, fully funding GPO’s request of $45.61 million for the Salaries and Expenses (S&E) account that funds the FDLP; $109.54 million for Congressional Printing and Binding; and $26.82 million for the revolving fund is vital for several reason including:
- The S&E request includes necessary funds for the cataloging, indexing, and distribution of Federal publications in print and electronic formats to depository libraries and other recipients designated by law.
- Providing money for digitizing pre-1976 cataloging records; cataloging documents harvested from agency Web sites and improving the GPO Access system.
- To provide GPO with GPO with the ability publish all the important congressional documents of the 110th Congress. In addition, $5 million of the CP&B request is needed to ensure that the 2006 U.S. Code, compiled by the Law Revision Counsel, is published and distributed to members of Congress and depository libraries in a timely fashion.
- Provide the last third of funding to bring FDSys online.
- Helping GPO to fulfill its partnership agreements with libraries around the country.
200704171530 FDLP-DLC GPO OPEN FORUM
Unofficial Transcript of unofficial audio session provided by James Staub. Non-anonymous corrections are welcome. 200704171530 FDLP-DLC GPO OPEN FORUM BS MP cannot be here, so GS will be facilitating as incoming Chair, pinch-hitting 1533 GS this is your chance to ask about anything 1534 Sandy M, UKY – issue 4 under digital distribution – depositories, specifically the regionals, do have a preservation mandate. Regionals are required to do preservation in the new handbook CE SM is correct. 1535 George Carlson, Santa Claire University – pushing to non-FDLP could maybe be set up through sales TedP the capability is there, and I appreciate the carrot approach 1537 David S, CA state library – digital deposit – I see nothing in this paper about access to deposited digital content. There were analogies made to the tangible world and title 44 this morning, but the big responsibility should be provision of access. Are we talking about a safety net for preservation instead? CE re: access – the foundation of Title 44 is access. DS my access question: if you imagine the FDSys as fully functional, would a library with digital deposit have to provide access to files under their custody if users could have access to exactly the same content through FDSys CE yes. Under title 44. DS even if exactly the same content is available under FDSys? TB ... DS when I think of the number of docs retrieved from EPA harvest pilot, I think of uncontrolled documents streaming into depositories unorganized – how will depositories provide access to the files on their servers when FDSys will have an evolved search and retrieval interface TB perhaps a depository will not determine that FDSys does not meet their search and retrieval needs RD need for redundancy is important – you should not necessarily trust the GPO. This redundancy is important. AM when we talk digital deposit, we talk about two types of files – the access copy, like a pdf, and the preservation master copy in a more raw format. To me, the current equivalent would be, yes, you have to provide access to the deposited materials. PH ok i have the files, now what do i do with it? That's the question AM I've got the box of books – do I SuDoc or Dewey PH will GPO provide tools for search AM we've historically gotten the print things, and it's been our responsibility to – I pay for cataloging, for processing. The administrative costs will be different 1547 Pat Ragens, U NV Reno – what is the advantage to remaining a depository – and what is the advantage to a library's users? TB the key differentiation – at this point we're not sculpting digital deposit is a requirement, but an option. Every service we provide with the FDSys has a cost, and we want to make sure that the services we offer are the right ones. PR I think it's important that this be articulated clearly – reundancy is necessary but not at the level of 1400 depositories RA to think that the same rules that apply today will apply 6 years from now is wrongheaded. PR mentioned staff expertise – this is our main point and what we continue to bring to the table. GS we have not yet solved the regional issue w/r/t digital deposit. If it is a voluntary program – I can see reuse of materials, e.g., Missouri river flooding project we're working on now. 1552 AM FDSys presentation slide on search left side blue band list of links – I thought FDSys was going to subsume GPO Access. I have a bee in my bonnet about GPO Access and the archive of DLC minutes. LL links on the left are strictly for release 1B only. AM when will subsume happen? LL 1C 1555 KS FDSys will not include numeric data? Celine DeLucky we have been concentrating on publications – the final published versions. KS that's a no CD that's the current scope for the current release. It doesn't exclude this format in the future KS I sense a desire to keep the FDLP going on. The big carrot at this point is push. I think the most valuable stuff you can push is data. TB could you define data? KS could be something you define as a publication, e.g., CPI. PH NTIS and DTIC data American Comnunity Survey XX Notre Dame – a lot od census stuff. There are definable data sets. They are not growing or changing, but presented as published. AM bureau of economic analysis page, census bureau page publications, these are the kinds of things, USGS material, water data. Data are our life. The answer has got to be yes and soon XX UKansas there are 2 things that need to happen. The stuff needs to come. Publication – someone else is telling me the outcome. Data – I can define the question Amy West – something about tangible CDROM titles and something else 1602 Jeff Bullington, U Kansas – OMB manual of statistical programs of the US Govt to id areas and publications. 5.5 billion dollars a year = important. CE there is a precedence for having numeric data in the FDLP via CDROM. Numeric data should be in the scope of the FDLP. Loise Trek Gangler, U Co Denver? Once in FDSys, will docs be crawled by popular search engines? TB yes, unequivocally 1604 Mary Martin, Clairemont – assumption GPO would determine what was not in the scope of FDLP from harvesting – how will GPO do this? If you have a technology, will you put it on the front end to keep from harvesting out-of-scope documents? User needs: data files, legislative documents... for docs broken into several files, will GPO be recomposing them into a single publication? KB harvest pilot had 3 different crawls so we could tweak the crawl rules to better capture. We're using old FDLP scope definition – public interest, education. ...moving the bottleneck from discovery to description... we have used similarities to help harvesting RD. in many ways harvesting is a technology in its infancy. When you try to apply human scope, you get... GS we are in the midst of a fundamental transformation of what a publication means. We are thinking of journals in terms of articles. That may or may not require another look at Title 44 – or what a publication means RD that's one of the things we are taking a fresh look at – how we define a publication in Title 44. Putting the pieces back together and defining a pulication PH we would receive publications with links to datasets – ultimately data globs. You can collect all this information, but how are you going to effectively deliver it? GPO should focus on delivering publications, with data collection coming a little later. Otherwise, dispersed focus leads to failure. CE we also need to look at how our agencies define publication – and this comes from OMB. GS time for one more question... 1614 [her again], Colorado College – what areas of training is GPO considering? I started in my career focused on reference, but am now focused on tech services. I can get basic training, but specialized training, e.g., Map cataloging, is hard to come by. Lance X, we're open to suggestions for what the community wants and needs 1616 Dan , NM? I appreciate that the GPO staff is all here – do you guys have a village people chorus you could do for us? We all agree that redefinition is necessary in Title 44, and we need to plead before Congress, and we're here to help you with this RD this is a great team to work with. I believe in transparency. As we pursue partnerships, we keep council informed. Similar evolution in Title 44 language. Thanks to John Shuler et al for GIO presentation yesterday. We are interested in pursuing this. 1619 BS - COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS TO GPO slide title DLC Recommendations and priorities Vision doc did not have an action plan. We are close to embarking on that. We are making recommendations now to GPO. GPO has a lot of worthwhile initiatives now, and we would like to offer recommended priorities. There is reality underlying this – GPO is working under a continuing budget, and thank GPO for continuing to ask the hill for increased funding. I do not want to see this list as a long term priority list – perhaps through FY 2008. We still live with the implications of priority cataloging today 1623 GS slide intro 1623 slide recommendation 1 expedite development of FDSys, including incorporation of content on WAIS platform. Rapidly. AM this is the key – and we've been hearing this from GPO. I've been hearing that GPO would move off WAIS since 2001 and I'm not happy and I think I need to say that. This is a system essential to our democracy. It has to be done, and done as soon as reasonably possible. Mary Barton?, University of Clairemont Colleges – if GPO Access is to be moved to FDSys... CFR, US Code are currently available through GPO Access – how would we expect CFR to appear on the new system. We depend on it being constantly updated – how would that work? GS M? KarenS wrt CFR – we have eCFR... M? [I just don't get her questions...] paper CFR updated once a year... KS all WAIS data will be available in FDSys – we've been migrating everything into xml/pdf format. [something] not a part of the original scope of the system... 1631 Larry Meyer, San Bernadino, version control and authentication should take care of Mary's concern. In our field it is important to know what the CFR state was two years ago and not just the current version 1632 Beth F, Northwestern University – expediting trusted digital repository status doesn't happen through RLG/OCLC EF [Council sitting between AM and DD, ALA]: GPO should build toward trusted digital repository, but the specific certification will require a commitment. If FDSys will not be built to be this, what will take this function? Will GPO contract that out to a third party? 1635 AM law community – can you give me a sentence on authentication and version control to put in this recommendation? 1635 GS BF makes a good point – we might want to break this certification out EF ... 1636 slide recommendation #2 GPO review current projects and initiatives with the goal of seamless integration... PH 1636 slide recommendation #3 GPO harvest web-based documents 1637 slide recommendation #4 GPO establish a registry of depository librarians who are experts in specific parts or functions... WW grand bargain – govt printed info, libraries disseminated publications. Now both ends of that bargain are falling apart thanks to electronic distribution. GPO is less dependent on FDLP to disseminate publications, but there is still great value in the program libraries. There is not an evident grand bargain – new – to sign into, but there is something to take us forward. As a manager, I would be happy to have a specialist whose relationship with the national opened up a field of other specialists. TB we need to look at the definition of expert – self-declared, by committee? WW selected by depository libraries themselves. That would be the first cut, open to revisions. BS there's also the expertise of the collections – I wouldn't want to make the definition so narrow as to threaten the creation of the network LH new directory will include special collections field, and we can add a special expertise field. BS another example – cataloging expertise GS our definition of expert is being challenged in the world of the Web. Our definition is an important question – perhaps use Web 2.0 references AM browse topics can be used to identify community members – and web 2.0 potential in browse topics – also hopefully integrate these ??, ? University – agrees with BS – not just subject expertise ?? U TX Arlington – what does this directory look like? GS the devil's in the details. Something that needs to be fleshed out WW plenty of room for experts of all kinds 1647 recommendation #5 GPO coordinate and support item level cataloging of digitized works... PH GPO needs to work hard with partners to get this done. I view GPO as tool provider, like wikipedia, except GPO would certify their contributors. [includes retrospective cataloging bullet] 1649 recommendation #6 GPO partner with libraries and other institutions on digitization projects... PH important for GPO market to agencies and certified partners the standards/specifications. 1650 recommendation #7 GPO provide an online venue for collaboration, etc... 1651 recommendation #8 GPO focus on specific DIGITIZATION projects requiring unique treatments... 1651 recommendation #9 GPO evaluate any assessment proposals... KS this can't happen alone – FDLP must pitch in to each recommendation. That's our new bargain. And in the process, we get new expertise and recognition as leaders. This is a partnership. WW common theme – they are all recommendations of the era of electronic information exchange, and each creates a new modelg for GPO/FDLP relationship 1654 KB #9 clarification, please BS the old assessment programs focused on collections and not services. We agree that there has to be that relationship between the handbook and the assessment, but there's a lot of expertise that does not get assessed ?? Ukansas – it's important to know when the requirements facilitate service. KB I'll take this into tomorrow's presentation on assessment AM I was also thinking about including these assessments into our other assessments of service at the library. These are the things I need to be encouraged to think about – not how many pieces of paper I've processed. RD thanks to council for the recommendations – we have found them valuable in the past, and believe they will be useful to us now. I believe that they are achievable. AM's comment about GPO talking without delivering – this team believes in transparency and doing what we say we will do – or at least let you know we can't. 1659 GS this is a living document. Please provide input. Continue reading
GPO LOCKSS Report: Mistakes and Irrelevancies
As I mentioned a few days ago, the final analysis report of the GPO LOCKSS Pilot Project is now available on GPO Access at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/lockss/index.html. The comments that follow are based on analysis by Jim A. Jacobs and Daniel Cornwall. The most disappointing thing about the report isn't so much that GPO rejects LOCKSS as a distribution mechanism, but its reasons for doing so. The 19 page report doesn't read as much like an evaluation of software than as a document defending a previously made decision on the basis of mere assertions, many of which have nothing to do with LOCKSS itself. We believe the biggest problems with this report fall into two categories; 1) statements about LOCKSS that appeared to be based on a lack of understanding about how LOCKSS works and 2) negative statements made that have little connection to LOCKSS. Under the second class of problems is one so big that Jim will provide a separate posting on this issue. This is the issue of IP authentication. GPO repeats the non-scalability of IP authentication as a major stumbling block to using LOCKSS as a distribution channel. The report never explains why IP authentication is so important to GPO and that will be the subject of Jim's posting. So, what else is wrong with this report? Let's start with some statements about LOCKSS that as a participant in LOCKSS both as publisher and library simply don't make sense. Page 12 - LOCKSS may have format migration issues similar to CD-ROMs and other tangible electronic media in depository libraries. I'm not positive I really know what this means, but if they're talking about LOCKSS hardware, that's no more of an issue than having computers in libraries at all. LOCKSS caches are just regular computers as the report itself says. Because content is duplicated on other LOCKSS caches, migrating hardware is as simple as buying a new computer, installing LOCKSS, picking your content and sitting back as content is reloaded from other caches. If GPO is referring to file format migration, LOCKSS researchers have been working on that issue since 2005 and have come up with a promising approach. Page 12 - Explore options for making content available from a single site that would allow LOCKSS libraries and non-LOCKSS libraries to access content from the same source. This would eliminate duplication of effort required to make content available to both groups of libraries. If you check out any of the nonrestricted materials available through LOCKSS, whether it is Alaska State Documents or BioMed Central Journals, all content available through LOCKSS is already available to non-LOCKSS users from the same interface. No duplication of effort is needed. Simply have the content available in some kind of human-intuitive archive units, and people and LOCKSS caches alike are happy. Unless GPO has plans for restricting public domain government information, this just isn't an issue. Page 12-13 - However, formatting the content to enable LOCKSS use could require more clicks than the current model for non-LOCKSS users to access the content. All LOCKSS needs are issue dates organized by year or some other suitable Archival Unit. Seems to me that is how most journals are laid out. No more clicks would be involved. GPO could have bolstered it's case by providing an example, but I just can't think of one. Page 11 - If LOCKSS were to become the only distribution method for e-journals distributed to the FDLP, all depositories would have to join the LOCKSS Alliance. No. Only libraries wishing to build local digital collections and pursuing preservation through multiple copies. Otherwise the model of access instead of custody will continue to operate. Making content available through LOCKSS is a matter of providing a publisher manifest page and writing a LOCKSS plugin. LOCKSS doesn't restrict your content any more than you already do. No library would be forced into LOCKSS unless GPO chose to make it a requirement. Finally, there is the unspoken issue that indicates a lack of understanding about LOCKSS. GPO consistently refers to LOCKSS as a system of distribution, but never mentions its preservation value. LOCKSS has proved itself since 1999 in the area of commercial journals. I would think that any evenhanded evaluation of LOCKSS would need to examine its a capability as a preservation system, which is has done for eight years longer than FDSys has. The second major problem area is that this purported evaluation of the LOCKSS technology is sprinkled with negative comments that have little to do with LOCKSS itself. In this category I'd put:
- Some libraries may want to “weed†publications from their caches in order to regain disk space at times. (page 11)
- It is unclear what percentage of FDLP libraries want to utilize LOCKSS for e-journal content. (page 11)
- It is not clear whether libraries that do want LOCKSS want it as an exclusive service to depositories, or whether they simply want to enable libraries to archive content locally. (page 11)
- Many agencies will complain if they believe GPO is taking business away from their Web sites by republishing content on GPO Web sites. (page 11)
- The depository library community has not been surveyed to determine whether there is wide enough support for LOCKSS to use it as the only e-journal delivery mechanism to justify requiring all libraries to receive e-journal content through LOCKSS. (page 12)
GPO LOCKSS Report Released
If you haven't seen it already, the final analysis report of the GPO LOCKSS Pilot Project is now available on GPO Access at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/lockss/index.html. I strongly advise you read both the executive summary and the full 19 page report. When you finish reading, come back and leave us a comment or three. I'll have more to say about this report later, but I wanted to give you a chance to look the report over before I start examining the problems with it. Continue reading
GPO’s Budget and Priorities
April 1, 2007 / Leave a comment
The news of the Government Printing Office's (GPO) funding for next year is not encouraging. After flat-funding in 2006 and 2007, Congress is now considering the GPO budget for 2008. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), chairwoman of the House Appropriations Committee's Legislative Branch Subcommittee, said that the focus has to be on GPO's mission of printing first and foremost, and the transformation aspects, while still important, are secondary. "What happens to the systems if we can't fund it?" she asked.
At a time when 92 percent of all documents are available online Mike Wash, GPO's chief technical officer, said that accessibility will not be hampered. We might amend that by saying "accessibility will not be hampered...yet." Wash did say that the plans to add capabilities could be affected.
Here at FGI, we've often argued that it is a bad idea to rely on a single government agency (i.e., GPO) to provide the "single authoritative source" for "permanent preservation for public access" to all Federal documents (A strategic vision for the 21st century). One reason for our concern is that inadequate funding of GPO could reduce or even eliminate access to information that is essential to citizens. Every agency must pick and choose and set priorities and Congress must set priorities among all government programs. That is simply the way things are. As we noted elsewhere:
If GPO can't get funding in 2008 for transformation and adding capabilities, will it be able to always keep online everything that citizens need or everything that is important to your library's users? Or will it "come down to priorities" for what is kept freely available and what is taken offline or what becomes available "on a cost recovery basis" (A strategic vision for the 21st century)? Will we find those pointers in our OPACs pointing to a message that says "not enough funding to keep this online" -- or pointing to the GPO bookstore?
We may find that one of GPO's original planning documents was prescient when it said that it would maintain information online for "as long as usage warrants" (Electronic Information Access and Dissemination Services of the Federal Depository Library Program). When it comes down to priorities (and it will -- it already is), if we only have one "authoritative source", it will be Congress and GPO that decide what is "warranted" and what is not.
Continue reading →Continue Reading →