Data breach at USDA
USDA exposes citizen data These data breaches at various government entities have been happening so frequently that they don't even seem all that shocking anymore. But, of course, exposure of American citizens' data is serious business, especially when it's related to those citizens' receipt of federal aid. Since I'm not a hacker, I have to wonder: how did the private information of so many people became available to the public via the open Web? What measures are in place, or are lacking, in terms of protecting this information at the federal level? The USDA owes us an explanation. Continue reading
Open Formats Legislation Killed in Florida
According to an article in in Linux.com (Microsoft's 'Men in Black' kill Florida open standards legislation By: Robin Miller et al. Linux.com, April 17, 2007), legislation in the state of Florida that would have required the state to develop "a plan and a business case" for using open file formats in documents the state creates was removed from the legislation after Microsoft lobbyists complained about it. Within 24 hours of the amendment being added three Microsoft-paid lobbyists started pressuring members of the Senate Committee on Governmental Operations (COGO) to remove the words they didn't like from Senate bill 1974.
David Berlind has pointed out (Linux.com: Microsoft issues campaign funding ultimatum to open standards legislation backers, ZDnet.com, April 18th, 2007) that the Linux.com article relies on a lot of anonymous sources and, in a quick check of Google News and LexisNexis this morning, I didn't find any other sources verifying the story, yet.
Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that Microsoft and others who have lots of money invested in proprietary document formats would oppose legislation requiring open formats. Matt Asay (Microsoft tries to maintain its monopoly...are you surprised?, Inforworld, April 18, 2007) quotes the Linux.com article and notes:
Microsoft has tens of billions of dollars to protect.... Microsoft will do everything in its power to block open source and open standards. It has, in a very real sense, a fiduciary duty to try to kill it.
We at FGI are strong advocates of open formats for government information because we believe that open formats provide a better opportunity for open exchange, reuse, and preservation of public information. University of Florida political science student Gavin Baker, one of the authors of the Linux.com article, has a useful presentation online (Sustaining the Information Society: New (and Old) Conflicts in the Knowledge Economy, by Gavin Baker, Presented at Campus & Community Sustainability University of Florida Oct. 25-26, 2006) that makes the point quite well. The Linux.com article says of the presentation:
...use of open data formats isn't just about short-term financial savings, but is also about long-term preservation of knowledge; ... proprietary data formats come and go at a dizzying rate, but with open, standardized ones we have a chance to read today's saved information in 50 or 500 years, even if Microsoft or Corel or (fill in popular word processor vendor) is long gone, along with its patented or otherwise "protected" data formats.Continue reading
DLC Proceedings via podcast / conference page
We have updated our Spring 2007 Depository Library Council Conference page with audio recorded by FGI Volunteer James Staub. James, hard worker that he is, also contributed some rough transcripts. As with our prior conference audio offerings, we suggest you play the sessions through headphones. Because we have to take along a portable audio recorder and can't always sit near the speakers, the audio quality suffers. But the bits I've heard are still listenable. But we have something NEW to offer as well. For the first time anywhere, DLC recordings are being offered as a true podcast. We're not talking about posting a zipped folder of audio files weeks after Council closes. We're talking about content being automatically delivered to your iPod, other portable MP3 player, or desktop computer. All you have to do is to subscribe to the podcast feed in iTunes or your favorite podcatcher software. So, if you are a podcast listener, plug in http://feeds.feedburner.com/FgiPodcast into that podcatcher and start listening. How much did it cost us to set up a podcasting feed? Zero. We set up a free blog on Blogger, plugged it into Feed Burner to create something that podcatchers could latch onto and use free storage sites like OurMedia, etc to host the files. It's true that the audio quality of the recordings is far from perfect. But that isn't the fault of podcasting it. GPO or a third party COULD podcast their higher quality audio in the same way and bear no expenses beyond the recording they are already doing. Since we created a feed to distribute the DLC audio that James Staub worked so hard at getting for us, you can count on seeing an FGI podcast in the relatively near future. The audio quality will be much higher because we'll control the audio equipment. If you have suggestions for what should be in a FGI podcast, let us know either by commenting or sending a message to admin AT freegovinfo.info. Continue reading
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
200704171330 FDLP-DLC WEB HARVESTING
Unofficial Transcript of unofficial audio session provided by James Staub. Non-anonymous corrections are welcome. 200704171330 FDLP-DLC WEB HARVESTING 1333 start 1335 KATHY BRAZEE[?] slide title session in the fall focused on technologies, this session will focus on management GPO is developing a digital repository. One way we capture is web harvesting. 1337 slide harvesting pilot project - pilot project with two vendors independently crawled EPA web site 1338 slide ongoing harvesting activities – defines semi-manual 1339 slide harvested content management plan 1340 slide major issues PURL assignment Sudoc policies cooperative cataloging 1340 slide Persistent Uniform Resource Locators 1341 slide Superintendent of Documents policies SOD 304 harvesting policy defining in-scope publications 1341 slide cooperative cataloging potential volume of cataloging is a big issue – pilot harvesting discovered a boatload of publications 1343 slide Harvesting complete publications 1345 slide ongoing technology discovery 1346 CINDY ETKIN slide SOD 304 policy statement – previously ID 74 1347 slide sod 304 policy statement review we can guarantee that there will be changes to this policy as a result of the harvesting pilot. I have a packet of all the questions and issues of policy that needs to be addressed 1348 slide brainstorming list of policies that need re-evaluation 1349 slide assumptions GPO will continue to develop more fully automated GPO will continue to GPO... 1350 slide general assumptions rewind to previous slide WW council senses harvesting is a powerful technique for finding fugitive documents. It is also beautiful in that it makes content searchable. Downside is that this content does not come with a cataloging record, which turns into a huge burden on your staff. EPA harvesting pilot.retrieved so many docs, that you would seriously hold up harvesting if you were to try to catalog everything. If GPO has an opportunity to make govt info searchable, they should do this now, and let cataloging catch up later 1353 WW you will harvest in accordance with policy... I think policy should be written to allow access by the American people. If it's not, it's the policy that should be changed, not the harvesting process. 1353 slide general assumptions LSCM will continue to be responsible for scope determinations... Material harvested but not within scope... WW if you need to harvest, it is because an agency is not following Title 44. Why ask permission from an agency that is already breaking the law? If they don't have the resources to comply, then they don't have the resources to evaluate harvesting AM there are agencies that partially comply. E.g., EPA. We lose materials from the regional offices. The Census Bureau has played well, but we still might want to harvest. I'm not sure that you can make your assumption that GPO will not be reorganized in the future. I don't think you can make this assuption 1357 PH private industry will scrape Web sites without permission. Sometimes agencies are grateful to have another outlet for their information CE SOD will be revised BS last phrase is interesting – there is a fear there as to who will be setting policies and in charge of how the harvesting is done. There needs to be more discussion as FDSys becomes a real system. Who is going to manage the harvested material? 1359 PH is this going to be demand driven – will there be a mechanism for libraries to go in and say I want this information? CE where's Robin? PH if it's demand driven, you will spend more time gathering what they want than what they don't need. RD going back to BS question – FDSys will enable the technologies, but the library unit makes those decisions BS content and content management should be managed by content specialists CE I will attempt to answer PH question – one of the questions is whether we whould prioritize harvest targets. We also have mandate of being comprehensive. So it's both. Amy West, U MN – if FDSys can ingest from external partners – you can use archive-it – scope would be a problem, but it seems like gathering more is more important WW scope issue is really the achilles heel of the pilot. The fix – have humans guide the crawler in advance. The pilot attempts tried to weed after the fact, but these judgements are difficult for computers. Better choice: trust an FDLP librarian to help guide the harvester on the front end. Matt Langraff – we came to a similar conclusion at the end of our pilot, and one of the recommendations in the white paper is to spend more time studying a site before harvesting. Work with FDLP, GPO staff, and/or agency webmasters. We are in the discovery phase as far as technology goes. RD – Lori talked yesterday about the DTIC contract for automated catalog record generation. We only have 20 staff on cataloging. We have to have automated ways to help with the cataloging piece. WW to be clear, I support this effort, but the chance of success is below 100%. How much of a partial solution can it be? RD there is still the human element that needs to be involved on both ends. PH GPO does not do the work, [huh? I think his point – use FDLP staff for cataloging] Lori Hall – we are looking at cooperative cataloging. Perhaps brief records. 1409 second assumption from same slide WW agreed 1409 slide general assumptions LCSM may use a combination of in-house... GS this document put together two unlike things – cataloging and harvesting. Harvesting should produce searchable results, cataloging should occur according to priorities. They are two separate things. ML – I completely agree with you – this has come to light since the white paper. 1411 #2 bibliographic records for Web harvested publications will be comlpeted in accordance with overall cataloging procedures WW harvest, make searchable, and available to the American people CE this is a decision GPO made before, not necessarily for harvested material 1412 slide general assumptions bibliographic records for Web harvested publications NO COMMENT LCSM will explore the use of automated... NO COMMENT 1413 KATRINA S slide Questions for Discussion 1.Are the assumptions stated above correct with respect to Web harvested publications WW some are fine, some are not Kathy Hale, PA State Library – when harvesting, did you encounter firewalls? Did you overcome them? ML yes, we hit impediments. Policy states we honor robots.txt, but our agreement with EPA allowed for permission to crawl. KH are you going to have to get specific permission to overcome each impediment? ML yes WW DOE does not protect or prevent people from seeing anything that is released. We only protect when there is a law that demands we restrict. GPO's mandate is for published material. If there is an access restriction, then it is not really a publication, and falls out of scope. RD intentionally or not, there is in scope material behind a robots.txt exclusion rule. 1417 Steve Wood, Penn State – assumptions seem to prevent agencies from assisting in harvesting or in cataloging ML white paper for pilot – more work needs to be done with the agency to discover in-scope content Gil Baldwin – a year ago, Richard Huffine and I served together on a committee on cataloging and developing a simple metadata scheme for agencies. Our recommended schema was not accepted by OMB KB ditto plus... 1421 Steve X Notre Dame – I don't want to take forward the baggage of a paper system. Title 44 pretty much gives you your collection development policy. Libraries don't stop buying things waiting for cataloging to catch up. 1423 slide should web harvested publications be identified as such in CGP? PH I believe people should know the source of the stuff they're looking at AM that's analogous to putting “this book is printed on acid-free paper†- it doesn't matter PH it may matter if you're only getting portions of the document. We want to get the information in there and then catalog it. WW the question presumes that the information is in the catalog in the first place. I'm not sure what information customer cares. BS this sounds like the electronic equivalent of the black dot RA the only reason we would want to designate is if the content were changed through the harvesting process DD the reason is for the agency, not for the public. The agency needs to know how GPO got it. KS GB in FDSys we will capture the source of any content in the system, including MODS records ML requirement of the harvester is to capture the date and time of the capture CE policy... catalog GS are we saying this should be in the descriptive metadata? Jerry Breeze, Columbia – are web harvested publications intrinsically different from the other formats GPO receives? I do not think so. 1429 slide should LSCM point PURLs at the live copy of a publication on the agency Web site or the archived copy... PH keeping them updated and cross-referenced is a full-time job. On the other hand, a big disclaimer needs to come with a big disclaimer BS should this question be updated to PURLs/handles RD yes. This to me is one of our most challenging questions KS I could argue both sides of this one MS no reason to believe that the agencies have the obligation to permanence that GPO does. It's your obligation GS ... [drops mic] ... in our institutional repository, departments won't play unless we drive traffic to their sites RD yep KS are you implying that GPO would not capture? RD not at all. WW OSTI always points to the live page, but we have a different mission than the GPO PH is there a statutory requirement to preserve that information... KS your users will get access to the live site and not the GPO site – your users are presumably looking for the subject and need live links. PH and on the archived side, links might point to outdated information AQ should point to both. Very simple. Our users want the material, regardless of where it's stored PH that would be pretty tough. You would need to make sure that you are in sync Pat Ragens, UNV Reno – implemented in the indefinite future, 20-30 years down the road. Recently, agencies were reorganized under DHS, and their web addresses changed. Might be best to point to GPO's copy but mentioned from whence it was obtained. David Sismowsky, CA State Library – does this question refer to the CGP as we know it today or FDSys? As I understood FDSys, we should be able to access the current version and all previous versions. We will need a multiplicity of links in any kind of search and retrieval system KB ... Ann Sanders, Library of MI – we had to go to both. Our users wanted both. We started pointing to the archived version, and that didn't work. 1439 slide are cooperative cataloging partenrships... all: yeah WW this is the only way 1439 slide are the cataloging levels outlined above acceptable? KB – this means abridged records GS I assume parters can enhance these records PH qualifying – certified parters – make sure they're authentic ?? UKY make sure GPO's symbol is on the record 1442 are there groups of publications that should be among those manually or semi-manually harvested by LSCM? KM clarifying – should GPO make sure we harvest in such a way that we capture the entire publication, e.g, with integrating resources KS the community should notice important things getting missed, and submit reports/requests to GPO KB ... KS you're wondering if the library community has things they want harvested now? KB we're looking for experience, best practices Kathy Hale – you're going to get a million different answers. I suggest you put this on the next Biennial survey 1444 slide what should GPO do with out-of-scope material accidentally harvested? WW throw it in the trash as soon as you find it AM I'm not sure how we can tell GPO what's missing in a project that hasn't started yet. DD NCES in their benevolent wisdom decided to break a single report into as many parts and versions as they possibly could. It will take a human to determine what's valuable. Amy West[?] seems like there are three questions 1.frequency of harvest 2.investment on guiding the harvester on the front-end 3.my real worry is the quantity of information that I don't know about. I want more stuff captured. 1449 KS I have more questions 1.25% of documents that were partial – why were they partial? ML – that's a rough estimate. Has to do with the way the information was reported back from the contractor. It doesn't mean that the whole document was not harvested. PH what you get with harvesting is a bunch of information, but you miss the links that tie it all together. Just pulling in information is not enough ML we considered that more and more through the pilot and had the vendors begin to tackle this issue by maintaining the agency directory structures. KB in one case I saw a PDF represent and entire publication, but the agency also posted chapter six as a separate file 1452 KS 2.so what comes next? ML main focus of this session was on management of harvested content – that's our immediate concern. There are a lot of different methodologies to do harvesting, but we don't want to jump in without more consensus on which practices to follow. Details of the next pilot are yet to be determined. WW your metric should be: we made a portion of information searchable that was not searchable before ML I completely agree – we should make that content searchable and accessible TimB we want to encourage you to move forward as quickly as possible 1455 [that lady again whose name I can't catch to save my life] I hear about so many technologies, how are you brining them together ML that's what we're trying to do. We have taken steps to align these projects together. ?? what about the LOCKSS piece? It seems to be a good way to distribute collections RD GPO is very supportive of LOCKSS. GPO engaged in a pilot project. The feedback we received – scalable sustainable supportable. At the end of the day, LOCKSS may neet these 1458 Steve Woods, Penn State – I want to communicate the urgency of our need for you to harvest. Our catalogs are not clean any more. We are moving to a good-enough standard. If we get hung up on making this a perfect, clean, nice neat thing, it will never get done. 1459 adjourn Continue reading