Newsgroups: bit.listserv.pacs-l
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 11:31:07 CDT
From:         Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <LIBPACS@UHUPVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      WINDO

4 Messages, 140 Lines
*-----
From: jahb@Lehigh.EDU (JENNIFER A. HEISE)
Subject: Re: WINDO
I guess the one overwhelming advantage that the WINDO gateway would have is
that the information would have to have a common format (you can't use
multiply stupid interfaces on the same dialin system), and be simple.
Also, one would only need 1 computer, one phone line, and 1 modem to access
it. Unlike the CDROMS, where you have to have computer with ALL THAT SOFTWARE
and the ability to switch disks.
So, even if the agencies were as obstructionist about WINDO as they are about
CDROM, access would be considerably improved.

Jennifer Heise                           Net: jahb@lehigh.edu
Reference Dept.,                         Phone: (215) 758-3072
Fairchild-Martindale Libraries #8A,  Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA 18015

"You know I don't know so many things, but I know what's been goin' on:
They put in a nickel, and they want a dollar song"

My opinions are my own. No one else would HAVE them anyway.
*-----
From:         Raeann Dossett <RAED    @vmd.cso.uiuc.edu>
Subject:      Re: WINDO
>I am going to play devil's advocate on the subject of WINDO.
>
>What factors are there in the WINDO legislation which lead us to
>believe that the GPO will do better with WINDO in developing
>consistent and usable interfaces than it has done with the CD ROM
>distribution service.

You can't look at government CD-ROMs and blame GPO for the fact
that they do not have consistent interfaces.  It is important to
remember that GPO just acts as the distributor of government
produced CD-ROMs to depository libraries. The development of
databases and choice of interface software takes place in the
agencies, like Census and USGS--GPO often doesn't even know about
these products until the disk is already mastered.  This fact of
decentralized development, carried out without input from some
central source such as GPO, is what has brought us this wildly
diverse world of government CD-ROM packages.

As a government documents librarian, I would be among the first to
admit that the dissemination of CD-ROMs in GPO's depository library
program has not always gone smoothly.  There are many reasons for
that, lots of which have nothing to do with anything GPO   can
control.  That seems largely the impetus for developing the concept
of WINDO--providing some centralization, drawing together resources
from across agencies, providing a common interface to the most
important databases.

Now, you still might want to scrutinize GPO's ability to make WINDO
real--obviously they will need to pull in more resources and
expertise than they have on hand right now.  The WINDO bill gives
GPO the ability to do that.  Remember, GPO is THE place where
taxpayers can look to recoup part of the investments we make each
year in the federal government's information activities.

Raeann Dossett
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
raed@uiucvmd.bitnet  OR  raed@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu
*-----
From:     ss3%weber.ucsd.edu@Sdsc.BITnet (ssdb admin)
Subject: WINDO
  >What factors are there in the WINDO legislation which lead us to
  >believe that the GPO will do better with WINDO in developing consistent
  >and usable interfaces than it has done with the CD ROM distribution service.

There are lots of things to be said about this, but the simplest is
that GPO is not responsible for the interfaces used on CD-ROMs; it
*could* have a say in the interface(s) for WINDO.  That is not to say
that WINDO will guarantee a common interface, but it should provide a
means of encouraging adoption of one or more useful, good interfaces.

jim jacobs
univ. of cal., san diego
jajacobs@ucsd.edu
*-----
From:         James P Love <LOVE@PUCC>
Subject:      Re: WINDO
The issue of GPO's competence is one consideration for WINDO, but
it has to looked at in the larger picture.  First, GPO was choosen
less for its competence than for two other important considerations.
First, unlike NTIS, it has a mandate to price information at
the incremental costs of dissemination (the so called rider
rate in title 44.

Second, GPO is a historic relationship with the Depository Library
Program, at is natural for them to integrate the service with
DLP.  This isn't really a trival issue.  Pressures to introduce
users fees on libraries (and library patrons) are immense.  GPO
not only works with the DLP, but librarians have clout on the
jcp.  How does this compare with things going on in the Science
comittees (no legislative appropriations for NTIS, Landsat
privatization, etc) or Government Operations (check out last
year's Paperwork Reduction Act, unless the title alone doesn't
indicate the general drift).

OMB's draft A-130 now gives agencies a green light to withhold
all electronic products and services from the DLP.  This is
a battle that the Gateway/WINDO join directly, in favor of the
DLP.

Third, GPO stepped up the plate when everyone else in government
was running for cover on this.  Where was NTIS or NARA a year
ago?  Where are they today?

Fourth, the Gateway/WINDO legislation requires annual public
comment on the entire range of Gateway/WINDO policies and
pratices.  If they screw it up the public will have an opportunity
to let them know, annually, and GPO has to respond to the
criticism.

Last, if GPO can't pull it off, you can take a program, that will
have mandate complete with good pricing rules (incremental cost,
DLP participation, public notice, etc), and give it to someone
else,  where the grass seems greener.  (LOC, NARA, NTIS, or
as GSE?).....

We have about two weeks to get these bills (s 2813/hr2772) moving.
It's time to try to put it over the top.  Contact the members
of the Senate Rules and House Administation committees and tell
them its time to mark these bills up.  The clock is running out.
jamie
-------------------------------------------
James Love, Director               VOICE:    609-683-0534
Taxpayer Assets Project            FAX:      202-234-5176
P.O. Box 19367                     INTERNET: love@essential.org
Washington, DC 20036
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU