October
20-22,
2003
Federal Depository Library Conference
October
20-22,
2003
Summary for St. Mary's Library Staff and San Antonio Area
Documents Users Group
by Kathy Amen
NOTE: GPO has published proceedings from this conference.
I have more information on "big picture" issues and less on specific operational topics this year, primarily because large chunks of conference time were spent with the Superintendent of Documents (Judy Russell) and the Public Printer (Bruce James) discussing and brainstorming the certain and possible changes on the horizon for our field.
The rest of this page is a summary of the larger issues and problems discussed, and some alternative solutions that were proposed. For information on the more specific, operational topics listed below, click on the appropriate link:
Misc. operational news (from the "big picture discussions" and other programs) | Serial Set management (Kathy's panel presentation) | Depository Promotion | Managing electronic collections | Documents Data Miner | Handouts from other programs
Big Picture Issues
The following issues were the major topics mentioned, discussed, and brainstormed about in various speeches and meetings:
1. Authentication. Ensuring that a file accessed by a user in an electronic environment is an authentic, uncorrupted "publication" is one of the most important technical problems facing GPO and its partners--libraries, agency publishers, etc. They are studying possible solutions:
2. Preservation. This issue has many different facets, ranging from the health of the depository program, to oft-discussed lists of "Essential Titles" to remain in paper, to making priorities in digitization projects. The first of these will be discussed in more detail in #4 below. "Essential titles" were mentioned and discussed in several formal programs and informal discussions. One session consisted of break-out discussions by type of library, and the idea of having different "Essential titles" lists for different types of libraries was one that everyone seemed to agree with (although some misgivings were expressed about how the different types of libraries would be defined and organized).
I had a nice visit with Sue Troyan from the State Library at the airport and she emphasized that we need to get everything we really want on our "Essential titles" list because anything not on that list probably won't stay in tangible distribution. This was the message regional librarians were given at their meeting which preceded the FDLC. She quoted no less an authority than Sheila McGarr on this topic. The current "Essential titles" list (for all libraries) is available at GPO. If you feel strongly that other items need to be included, contact Council at the link above.
At several different meetings, GPO's request for our input as to priorities for digitization was emphasized. Some suggestions from the small/medium academic libraries meeting:
The role GPO visualizes for itself in digitization is not necessarily to do all the actual digitizing, but to coordinate efforts of other agencies, research centers and library, with the aim of making a true digital collection, though physically dispersed. When asked about the preferred or standardized format for the collection, they said it is to be determined, and hopefully will be flexible. For some items PDF is perfect, for others, more sophisticated searching should be available.
One important preservation point that was made by different GPO folks: when they assign a PURL to an electronic document, at least from now on, this is a signal to us that GPO has either digitally backed up the document on their own servers, or has an iron-clad agreement in place with the publishing agency that the document will be permanently available on their servers. An important step forward for preservation of this material will be the opening of GPO's mirror site in Pueblo, which they hope to have up and running, at least in a limited mode, soon.
3. Version definition/control. This is another of those really thorny technical issues; how it's handled in the next few years will have far-reaching applications for our work and our patrons' access. In the print environment, we have fairly easy ways of distinguishing one edition of a study or reference book from another, one issue of a periodical from another. But in the electronic arena, when changes to files can be made so quickly, easily and seamlessly, these questions become much trickier. Different versions of some "publications," like bills, for example, or proposed regulations, can all be important for legislative research--not just the final or most current version. Some agencies still need to be educated that historical versions of their material must be preserved. Such a mundane topic as file-naming policy has already caused many problems in this area. Agencies often give the current edition of a reference, or a periodical, a filename such as "current.htm." Then what happens to last years edition, or last month's issue?
Some agencies handle this "archive" problem well, but others seem unaware of it. GPO is hoping to educate agencies, with the help of the agreement they entered into with OMB which recognizes GPO as the official organizer, gatherer, and disseminator of government information. Of course, they always have been this, in theory; we are hoping this new cooperation with OMB, which replaces that agency's ill-considered plan of last year to encourage agencies to bypass GPO, will both cut down on the fugitive document problem and result in agency web policies taking better care of archived material.
Another tricky type of material is databases. What constitutes a "version" of a constantly updated database?
4. "Legacy collections." I'll bet you didn't know that you have one of these. This was one of the most often heard buzzwords at the conference. It refers to our print collections, particularly as almost all new content in the program is to be electronic only. Management of these collections for maximum benefit to local clienteles and to the national system as a whole is a concern. Some librarians expressed concern that many selectives will just start discarding wholesale as the "legacy collections" become older. Needless to say, this is not advised! But GPO does hope to eventually have a "legacy collection" of its own, a collection of last resort with one copy of everything ever distributed in the program. It might not be at a single location; there might be partnership agreements with libraries with large collections to make a shared repository. One rather questionable remark that was made in discussions of this collection was that fewer sets of tangible documents could be more easily preserved--this seems to run counter to the current model, which is based on a print-based version of LOCKSS (see in #1 above). But it fits in with GPO's new vision of itself (in partnership with us, but defintely in charge) as the "guardian" of public access to information.
5. Carrots and barnacles: advantages and disadvantages of being a depository. The vegetative and nautical mixed metaphors were used throughout the conference as shorthand for 1) incentives to keep libraries in the FDLP, both in the short- and long-term; and 2) bothersome and/or outdated regulations that serve as disincentives for libraries to remain in the program. Most of the details of the various proposals related to this topic come under operational news. But generally, GPO seems committed to determining the correct mix of services and regulations to keep the program relevant and desireable, even as the traditional "carrot"--free print publications--withers away.
One of the most often mentioned "carrots" was a GPO-provided balance in a deposit account for libraries to use to purchase print copies of items not on the "Essential titles" list, or otherwise designated for distribution. The sales program at GPO is rapidly moving from a warehouse-inventory to a print-on-demand model. This print-on-demand program will likely be extended to depositories as well, so that if you wanted a print copy of something not distributed in print, you could still order it on-demand, and "pay" for it using the deposit account. You would have the option of adding to the amount placed in the account by GPO if you wanted more print publications. This is just a proposal. But it was mentioned often enough that it sounds like a good bet to eventually become reality. A related proposal was made that you could earn "credits" to your account by doing things like reporting lostdocs or inaccurate PURLS.
Other possible "carrots" mentioned for depositories in an almost all-electronic system would be access to databases and other sources ("leveraged publications" was the buzzword) that non-depositories would have to pay for (the Stat-USA model); free "authenticated" versions of publications; others would presumeably have to pay to be sure of authentication; access to digital collections, other services via a "guaranteed" port for faster access; access to specialized search tools for databases beyond what is available for free to everyone, etc.
Underlying many of these proposed "carrots" for depositories are changes that Bruce James (Public Printer) feels GPO has to make. He was able to get Congress to agree to 100% of his budget request this year for GPO (a 16% increase over last year). But he doesn't want to depend on being that lucky again--he wants GPO to make money. They have at least stopped losing money on the bookstore operations, as all except the DC store have been closed. But he asked us to help him come up with other ideas for GPO to make money. As you can imagine, just bringing up this topic caused a lot of consternation among the conference attendees, but James at least seems to be committed to the idea of free public access, through the depositories, at least, to government information, at least in the abstract. GPO personnel pointed out several times the drop in Federal Register subscriptions, for example, over the past few years. The FR has always been available for free in libraries, but many businesses felt the convenience of their own paper subscription was worth the cost. Now, of course, it's free to anyone online. James, I think (and I hope) just wants to try to recover some of this lost revenue, funds that he maintains are necessary to re-invest in the next generations of technology for GPO.
Some of the money-making ideas for GPO that were suggested by the attendees were:
James reiterated that any policies GPO develops should be acceptable to the depository community and should remain flexible, since technological and other change is constant.
