GPO LOCKSS report: Why LOCKSS vs. FDsys?
I do not understand why the GPO report on LOCKSS ( GPO LOCKSS Pilot: Final Analysis, Government Printing Office, April 12, 2007) seems to take an "either LOCKSS or FDsys" approach.*
It is my understanding that FDsys uses the Open Archival Information System (OAIS) reference model and that LOCKSS is 100 percent OAIS compatible (OAIS Formal statement of Conformance to ISO 14721:2003).
To me, this means that the bulk of the work that GPO did to get content ready for LOCKSS would be work that would also prepare content for FDsys. If that is true, the two systems are not incompatible, but complementary. It should not be necessary for GPO to choose one or the other, but, instead, could choose both.
The report notes in its Final Recommendations that "GPO’s emerging enterprise architecture requires that new applications be compatible with FDsys or face the risk of near-term obsolescence" but it does not explain how LOCKSS does not meet this criterion.
In both the report and the Clarification, GPO says that it would require 9 FTEs to harvest and re-publish content to GPO servers in a LOCKSS-friendly format and only 1 FTE to write LOCKSS plugins. This is the "much larger use of staff time" that evidently is the primary reason GPO is using to decide to "devote its resources to the development of FDsys..." and devote no resources to using or enabling use of LOCKSS.
This leads me to more questions about the GPO LOCKSS report. Perhaps these can be addressed at DLC?
- In what way does LOCKSS fail to meet the criterion that "that new applications be compatible with FDsys"
- In what way would content processed for LOCKSS not be usable by FDsys?
- What will the cost be to process into FDsys the 592 serial titles identified in the GPO LOCKSS report?
Finally, the report consistently refers to LOCKSS as a "distribution" system and ignores LOCKSS as a preservation system. The report only mentions the benefits of LOCKSS once ("IP authentication for over 1260 depositories would be cumbersome, and may not be cost effective in relation to the benefit received." p.6) but does not specify what GPO sees as the benefits of LOCKSS. I would suggest that a better evaluation of LOCKSS by GPO would have included the benefits of LOCKSS, particularly as a redundant (fiscally, physically, and technologically) preservation system, and would have included a perspective of LOCKSS as complementary to FDsys, not a competitor to it.
* The report says that GPO tested the LOCKSS technology "as a potential precursor to GPO’s Future Digital System (FDsys)" not as a complement to FDsys. It speaks of a choice between "duplicating effort" or requiring all libraries to use LOCKSS. It sets up scenarios such as "If a title such as this were to be distributed through LOCKSS only..." and "If LOCKSS were to become the only distribution method for e-journals distributed to the FDLP..."
Continue readingState Libraries in Second Life: KS and SC
As promised the last time I did a Second Life related posting, I visited the virtual branch of the State Library of Kansas.
I was impressed on two levels. First by how well the virtual space works as exhibit space, as shown by this photo of some author posters:
I was also impressed by how much state government information is being dispensed through this virtual branch. Information on maps, statistical information, governor messages from 1861 forward. It was presented in a way that wasn't too difficult to use by these information kiosks:
Finally I just liked the look of the building, which is framed by a delicate rainbow:
While scouting out the State Library of Kansas, I came across the building below which proclaimed itself as "Reserved for the South Carolina State Library."
Not much there yet, but interesting that two State Libraries have staked a claim in Second Life. You can read more about the SCSL experiment at their library's IT blog.
Is it is a good way to serve government information? I'm not sure, but it's good to see people experimenting. Definitely worth visiting if you've got the bandwidth and hardware to run Second Life without ripping your hair out.
One thing I *am* sure about is that museums work for me in Second Life. Once you get used to moving and looking around, it feels like a pretty credible experience of wandering through exhibits. I hope to see more museums in Second Life.
What do you all think?
Thanks to Flickr for image hosting! Continue reading
Millions and Millions of Government and Military Web Pages Archived by NARA and The IA
Last year we posted a note on ResourceShelf about the “2004 Presidential Term Web Harvest†containing more than 75 million .Gov and .Mil web pages, equal to about 6.5 terabytes of data. It's a project of NARA and The Internet Archive. The archived sites can be browsed or keyword searched. Now available is the 109th Web Harvest. What does it contain? + More than four million pages (42 GB) crawled and archived between 11/11/06 and 12/11/06 + Browse by Members Name + Browse by Committee Name + Browse by Leadership + Browse by House or Senate Organizations Go to: http://www.webharvest.gov/collections/
The harvest produced a public reference copy of the web sites for the purpose of continual availability to the public, and also produced a record copy to be retained in the holdings of NARA…Web sites included in the harvest were identified from information provided by the Web Systems Branch of the House Information Resources staff and by Senate webmasters in the Offices of the Secretary of the Senate and the Sergeant at Arms.A bit more on ResourceShelf including a comment by Librarian of Congress, James Billington, about the average lifespan of a web site. Continue reading
100 Milestone Documents
One of my new favorite sites is 100 Milestone Documents This page from ourdocuments.gov is a compilation of 100 documents from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) that highlight key events in U.S. history (1776-1965). Each document includes an image, description and transcript. Continue reading
GPO, LOCKSS, IP Authentication, and the future of FDLP — more clarification needed
April 11, 2007 / Leave a comment
If you have not had a chance to read the message from Joseph P. Paskoski (Clarification on GPO LOCKSS report), I encourage you to do so. It does indeed help clarify GPO's intentions in ways that, I believe, seriously endanger long-term, free, public access to government information.
For those confused by the recent thread about GPO, LOCKSS, and IP authentication, allow me to try to summarize what we now know:
GPO is not "advocating" use of IP authentication for LOCKSS.
On the other hand, GPO is considering "an exclusive service for depository libraries" and is recommending exploring "other user authentication options" to implement such a system.
Further, GPO is only willing to "consider" (not guarantee) making content available without user authentication. This is evidently true of FDsys as well as any use of LOCKSS.
To me, this means that GPO is, indeed, planning a two-tier system of digital distribution: one exclusively for depository libraries (and, presumably, free) and, by implication, a second system presumably for the general public and based on cost recovery.
For this to work, GPO would have to do two things. First, it would have to restrict what FDLP libraries can do with the content they receive, either through technological locks or limitations, or licensing restrictions (including restrictions on re-distribution). Second, if GPO offered any content to the general public for free, it would have to offer similarly technologically dumbed-down, less-than-fully-functional, non-reusable content -- much the way Amazon offers one-page-at-a-time viewing of books as a teaser to get you to purchase the entire book. (For more on this see Why does GPO want to use IP Authentication?)
This model seems clear: distribution to depository libraries for free, but with limitations on use, location, and so forth; and distribution to the general public for a fee.
This sounds like an implementation of what GPO's strategic vision promised: a commitment to "free and ready public access to" government information "in partnership with Federal Depository libraries" while maintaining a separate, fee-based channel to meet its commitment to "distribute, on a cost recovery basis, copies of printed and electronic documents and other government information products to the general public," [emphasis added] (A strategic vision for the 21st century).
Why is this a threat to long-term, free, public access to government information? Imagine what such a system would look like to your users: They could use the net to get what they need, but they may have to pay or use a dumbed-down version. Or they could go offline, go to their library and use a "free" version, which would also have DRM or licensing restrictions, or both.
This is a far cry from DLC's underlying assumption that "much of the access to federal information resources is available 24/7 on the Internet" (Knowledge Will Forever Govern" A Vision Statement For Federal Depository Libraries In The 21st Century).
What this sounds like to me is a revival of the GPO bookstore concept for the digital age with the (fee-based) bookstore as the primary means of access to most government information and the go-to-the-library-building FDLP as the "free" path. This puts libraries and free access as second-tiers, non-networked alternatives for users. It would mean that libraries would be unable to participate in the open and free flow and re-use of government information (Web 2.0, Semantic Web, etc.). It is a vision of government information closer to Jack Valenti's vision of movie distribution than to Jefferson or Madison's visions of government information.
Imagine what this would mean to FDLP libraries and their ability to preserve access to information. Would systems like LOCKSS even be permitted? Or would locked-down-with-DRM or technologically-dumbed-down free versions made available to libraries be technically (or by license) un-preseravable?
I may be misinterpreting GPO's statements and I hope I am. I would welcome hearing further clarifications from GPO including that it does not intend to use DRM and that it does not intend to restrict what FDLP libraries or others can do with free content. I would welcome hearing from GPO that it does not intend to provide dumbed-down or technologically locked or functionally-disabled content for free while providing fully-functional content for a fee. I invite GPO to commit itself to open, free, reusable, preservable, distributable, unencumbered, fully-functional government information. I urge DLC to insist on digital distribution so that FDLP libraries can be fully functional online partners in the organization and preservation of government information and not by-standers who hope GPO will get funding to do so.
GPO could also show its good faith by continuing to study LOCKSS as one (not the exclusive) method of preservation and not just a method for distribution. The project could be expanded to include more than just e-journals. GPO could evaluate automated harvesting using tools that automatically create new directory structures and actively seek ways to help other depository libraries participate (e.g., reviewing automated harvesting).
Perhaps there can be some discussion of these issues at DLC.
Until we get further clarification, we'll all be left wondering.
Continue reading →Continue Reading →