Administrative Notes 

Newsletter of the Federal Depository Library Program

Vol. 21, no. 07 GP 3.16/3-2:21/07 May 1, 2000 

Update on Superintendent of Documents Programs 

Remarks by Francis J. Buckley, Jr. 

Superintendent of Documents 

Before the Depository Library Council

April 10, 2000

Newport, RI 

Introduction 

Good morning. It certainly is a pleasure to be here in beautiful Newport and have this 

opportunity to speak to you at the first Depository Library Council meeting in the new 

millennium (depending on how one counts). 

National Library Week 

Since this meeting coincides with National Library Week, it gives me the opportunity once more 

to recognize the importance of the partnership between libraries and the government in the 

provision of access to government information to the public. The responsibilities assumed by 

depository libraries are especially important as a safety net for public access. But all types of 

libraries are supplying government information whether obtained through purchase or from the 

Web. 

Since 1958, National Library Week has been a national observance sponsored by the American 

Library Association (ALA) and libraries across the country each April. It is a time to celebrate 

the contributions of our nation's libraries and librarians and to promote library use and support. 

All types of libraries - school, public, academic and special - participate. I personally liked the 

National Library Week theme of a few years ago: Libraries Change Lives. We asked people for 

testimonials for how libraries had impacted their lives and we received wonderful heart-warming 

stories. But those of you on the front lines of documents reference probably could write such 

stories every day about the information you’ve provided to satisfy patron inquiries. 

This meeting here in Newport is certainly an excellent opportunity for all of us in the depository 

community to discuss and recognize the accomplishments, contributions and future of the FDLP 

during National Library Week. 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

Today’s Topics 

Today I have a number of topics I’d like to cover: first, a success story, Ben’s Guide. Then I’ll 

talk about permanent public access (PPA), a research project on government websites in which 

we have been participating, our online transition and some comments about our Sales Program. 

Gil Baldwin, T.C.Evans and other staff will be presenting many of our operational developments 

and I don’t want to steal their thunder. 

Ben’s Guide

I hope that by now you are all aware that GPO released Ben's Guide to U.S. Government for 

Kids in December 1999. With Benjamin Franklin as a guide, this powerful resource for students, 

parents, and teachers provides a fun and educational introduction to how the U.S. Government 

works based on information resources available through GPO Access. 

In its first month, the site received just over 100,000 retrievals. By February 2000, this number 

jumped to approximately 350,000. This marks a 197 percent increase. 

Since its release, Ben’s Guide has received excellent feedback and many forms of recognition, 

including the ALA’s 2000 Notable Children's Web Sites Award, USA Today’s Hot Site of the 

Week, and Pacific Bell’s Blue Web ‘n. 

Each day, our virtual Ben receives e-mail from individuals (especially children) all over the 

world such as Julian, age four, asking if Ben could come to his birthday party to Candice, eighth 

grade, asking, “Does a person running for president have to have lived in the U.S. for 14 

consecutive years?” 

That first question was easier than the second to answer. Staff responded that Ben was flattered 

about the party invitation, but he was not able to attend the party. He did wish the young writer a 

happy birthday. 

Now the second question was quite a stumper. The Constitution states that a person must be a 

natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old, and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. 

There is no mention if these have to be 14 consecutive years. 

Schools in this country are fostering the Internet as a learning tool. So, as we improve and 

enhance the capabilities of the site, we hope Ben’s Guide will continue to be utilized. Recently, 

an elementary school teacher in Illinois wrote that she used Ben’s Guide, “not only to increase 

[the student’s] knowledge of U.S. History but also to use this site to teach Internet navigation 

skills and to reinforce reading and writing skills.” 

We rely heavily on user feedback to improve Ben’s Guide. Please send any comments and 

suggestions to <askben@gpo.gov>. 

2 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

Permanent Public Access 

I have mentioned previously that GPO has been hosting meetings of participants representing 

U.S. Federal agencies, the national libraries, Congressional committees, public interest groups, 

and other organizations interested in issues regarding the preservation of, and access to, 

Government information published electronically. 

We held our third meeting just a few weeks ago. Staff from the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA) gave a presentation about their Electronic Records Archives Program–

Building the Archives of the Future, and George Barnum and Steve Kerchoff from Library 

Programs Service provided an update on the implementation of GPO’s Electronic Collection 

Plan and our nascent digital archive. Gil will be describing this in more detail, and both George 

and Steve are here to explain the program as well as discuss partnership possibilities. 

In the coming months, members of the PPA Working Group will be formulating goals. Some 

draft goals include: 

 Facilitating discussion among stakeholders engaged in digital archiving research or 

applications. 

 Providing a forum for sharing information among the participants, and informing a wider 

audience about U.S. Government PPA activities. 

 Identifying a set of core values regarding current and future public access to U.S. 

Government electronic information. 

 Developing and publicizing a set of "best practices" for digital archiving that will 

facilitate cooperation among agencies and organizations. 

 Identifying "at risk" electronic information and developing collaborative solutions or 

partnerships to ensure its permanent public accessibility. 

 Creating an environment to foster the development of collaborative PPA projects. 

 Formulating policies and programs to assure ongoing access to Federal government 

information. 

Staff from the Library Programs Service and the Office of Electronic Information Dissemination 

Services (EIDS) in conjunction with our Production staff are working on a public website on 

GPO Access that will include information about the group and its members, its goals, and links 

to resources relevant to the topic. The concept for such a website was broached only a few 

months ago and I am pleased that it will be a reality very soon. 

I believe that the activities related to these permanent public access meetings and the creation of 

the website will put GPO on the map as a leader in this area. 

3 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

Government websites

The rapidly changing Federal information arena poses a myriad of challenges to Government 

managers striving to keep pace. With increasing frequency, these challenges revolve around the 

publication and dissemination of Federal information on the Internet. As Government managers 

work through these challenges, they seek information on policy and best practices to aid them in 

the process. As you know, we commissioned the National Commission on Libraries and 

Information Science (NCLIS) to perform an assessment of agency plans for producing electronic 

government information products. It did not give us exact data but it validated our perceptions 

of a rapidly evolving, somewhat chaotic environment. We are now participating along with 

several other agencies in a new study being undertaken by the Information Use Management and 

Policy Institute, in the School of Information Studies at Florida State University. This effort, 

headed by Dr. Charles McClure, is designed to explore appropriate performance measures for 

Federal agency websites. 

The project began with Dr. McClure and his associates conducting separate meetings with each 

of the participating agencies to gather information to measure the performance of their websites. 

Among the topics GPO sees as important for Federal websites are depository library access, 

Permanent Public Access, how agency pages are located and retrieved on commonly used search 

engines, no fees or copyright-like restrictions, customer satisfaction ratings, user support, and 

training. Dr. McClure’s team will analyze what has been learned in these meetings and through 

follow-up information and develop a recommended set of criteria for agencies to use in 

evaluating website performance. These will be tested on participating agency sites and the 

results included in the project’s final report, scheduled for release in September of this year. 

Online transition 

The digital revolution and the facilitation of new products and services produced by Federal 

agencies and GPO for public use is having many impacts. You all are seeing it in the transition 

of the FDLP and Federal agency publishing to electronic formats, which has increased so 

dramatically in just several years. We do not see an end in sight. We are committed to 

providing access to Government information products in print or electronic formats as produced 

by the agencies or by GPO in cooperation with agencies for free FDLP public access. Resource 

constraints and legislative direction dictate that increasingly we will move to electronic versions 

and that we will not be able to continue simultaneous distribution of titles in two or even three 

formats. 

One of the side-effects of this publishing transition are concerns raised by publishers about GPO 

and indeed, other government agencies, making new electronic products available for free. We 

have certainly heard these arguments before about “value-added” government products and 

whether we should be involved in such ventures, dating back to the inclusion of microfiche in the 

FDLP. 

4 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

Recommended Specifications for Public Access Workstations 

As we continue our electronic transition, we are all faced with the challenges of the constantly 

evolving technology to access and use the government information being released in new 

formats. In our recent Biennial Survey, over 95% of the libraries reported meeting the 1996 

standard of providing, at a minimum, a low-end Pentium for public access. We presume most of 

the remaining libraries either provide mediated access to electronic government information or 

have older equipment. It is time now to raise the bar for both service provided and equipment 

used in depositories. We need to look at new standards for technology requirements for 

depository libraries currently to access the range of electronic government information. This is 

part and parcel of the proposals staff will be presenting to the Council here. 

Proposal #3 would revise the “Depository Library Service Guidelines for Government 

Information in Electronic Formats” to establish a service requirement for tangible electronic 

products. Gil will be discussing the proposals more fully, but this one represents an important 

step in order for the FDLP to move forward. 

Another proposal that LPS staff has put forth has to do with the Recommended Specifications for 

Public Access to Workstations in Federal Depository Libraries for 2000. As noted in the 

handout, these recommended specifications are intended to assist depository librarians in making 

informed purchases which will best achieve the goal of providing public access to Federal 

government information in a variety of electronic formats. 

We want to work with you on this transition. As new standards or guidelines are developed or 

other significant changes occur in the FDLP, we plan to communicate with depository library 

directors as well as the documents librarians to gain support for whatever needs to be done to 

move the FDLP forward. 

Sales 

For some time now, our Sales Program has been feeling the impact of the revolutionary changes 

in Government information dissemination. As agencies increasingly resort to the Internet and 

other non-print methods of publishing, the Sales Program has seen both a decline in sales volume 

and in the number of salable titles available. For example, sales of the Federal Register declined 

by $1.2 million, or 20.9 percent, between FY 1998 and FY 1999, and the Code of Federal 

Regulations declined by $3.9 million, or 63.9 percent. As a result, the Sales Program is losing 

money. We are working on short- and long-term strategies to deal with this situation, including 

price increases, cost-cutting measures, new methods of increasing public awareness of the 

products we sell, and an analysis of where a predominantly print sales operation will fit into the 

increasingly electronic future of Government publishing. 

As part of our strategic planning, we are also re-examining the role of our bookstores, as well as 

our reimbursable services activities in the Washington area and at our Distribution Center in 

Pueblo, Colorado. We have just completed a study of the Pueblo operation's future workload 

potential at the request of the House Appropriations Committee, since the overall declining 

workload in print publications distribution is a factor there too. 

5 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

Conclusion 

We continue to move forward into the electronic future. But sometimes it is interesting to take a 

look back. This is quite a week in history, as staff discovered. On this very day, April 10th 

(1912) the R.M.S. Titanic, one of the largest and most luxurious ocean liners ever built, departed 

Southampton, England, on its maiden voyage across the Atlantic Ocean. The Titanic, thought to 

be the world's fastest ship afloat and almost unsinkable, spanned 883 feet from stern to bow. It 

carried some twenty-two hundred passengers and crew. I assume you know the rest of the story 

and I certainly wouldn’t want to spoil it, in case you haven’t seen the movie. 

On a more contemporary note that directly affected many of us, thirty years ago today Paul 

McCartney announced that he was leaving the Beatles to go solo. 

April 12th is quite a milestone--the bloodiest four years in American history began when 

Confederate shore batteries opened fire on Union-held Fort Sumter in South Carolina's 

Charleston Bay. We know where that led. 

These might not be the most uplifting events to report on. However, on April 13, 1743, Thomas 

Jefferson was born. He said in a letter to John Adams in 1816 that “I like the dreams of the 

future better than the history of the past...” I am always pleased to have the opportunity to tell 

you about where we have been, but more about where we hope to go. I look forward to working 

with members of the Council over the next three days as we plot our future course in this ICE 

Age–Internet Changes Everything. 

Thank you.

6 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

Library Programs Service Update 

Remarks by Gil Baldwin 

Director, Library Programs Service 

Before the Depository Library Council 

April 10, 2000 

Newport, RI 

Good morning, everyone. I’m pleased to be here in the Ocean State where, according to Ben’s 

Guide to the U.S. Government, the state motto is “Hope.” And we all hope that you’ll find this a 

useful and interesting meeting. As part of our changes to the Council meeting format, we’re 

having fewer speakers this morning, with more time allotted to questions and answers. What I 

will do this morning is give you a topical overview of Library Programs Service (LPS) activities, 

with a preview of related programs and discussions for the rest of the meeting. 

It probably comes as no surprise that one of my themes will be to report on the transition to a 

more electronic Federal Depository Library Program. Although it feels like we’ve been 

transitioning forever, we are really just four years into the five-to-seven year transition we 

outlined in the strategic plan in our 1996 study. Last April we presented to Council a report on 

the progress of the electronic transition, and asked Council for some feedback on how we are 

doing. Council’s Electronic Transition Committee reviewed our April 1999 paper on 

Completing the Transition to a More Electronic FDLP, Council Discussion Draft 4/21/99, and 

the ET Committee report is available here for you. In our 1999 paper we asked, what would the 

FDLP look like in 3 years? 

The ET Committee is made up of some very smart people and they, probably wisely, did not 

attempt a prognostication. Nevertheless, let me take out my crystal ball. Perhaps the short 

answer is that, absent a legislative change, when the transition is over the FDLP will look pretty 

much as it does in 2000, only more so. 

 More information will be provided solely electronically; 

 More users will download more content; 

 There will be more emphasis on cataloging and locator services; 

 There will be more electronic acquisition and archiving; 

 There will be more partnerships for a greater variety of purposes. 

 There will also be expectations for more services, not just from GPO, but also more 

e to do. 

We are also likely to find it necessary to curtail some traditional products or services. 

services from libraries to users. 

Naturally, our ability to move forward on these issues is dependent upon the availability of 

resources. The continued pattern of level funding is a real concern for us, and we may find that

constrained funding prevents us from undertaking everything that you or we would lik

7 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

Proposals to Council 

Following up on these ideas we have made some proposals to Council that will be discussed at 

subsequent sessions. Copies of these are available at the registration desk. There are two in 

particular I want to call to your attention: 

Our proposal number 2 is to “Increase the Minimum Technical Requirements for Public Access 

Workstations in Federal Depository Libraries at Regular Intervals.” We’ve been inspecting 

based on the 1996 technical requirements of a low-end Pentium-chip workstation, and its past 

time to ratchet these up. The “Recommended Technical Specifications” for new public access 

workstations coexisted in a confusing way with the technical requirements used for inspections. 

We want to get these working together in a way that clears up the confusion, and results in better 

service to the public. We propose to establish a rolling schedule of announcing new 

specifications, giving you about 15 months of lead time, and then begin to use them as the 

requirements for inspections. You really want to look at the table of how this timeline will work. 

It’s hard to explain in words, but easy to visualize. [See Council recommendation 5, p. 55.] 

These technical upgrades are linked to a service proposal as well. Our Proposal number 3 is to 

“Revise the “Depository Library Public Service Guidelines for Government Information in 

Electronic Formats” to establish a service requirement for tangible electronic products. What 

this would mean is that all depository libraries must make tangible electronic products and 

services (CD-ROMs, DVDs, floppy diskettes) which they select available to the general public in 

a timely manner. While circulation of CDs and DVDs is encouraged, this alone does not relieve 

the depository of its duty to assist patrons in accessing the information. The depository must 

demonstrate a "good faith" effort in providing in-house assistance to patrons wishing to use CDs 

and DVDs. [See Council recommendation 1, p. 52.] 

The FDLP Digital Divide 

These proposals are essential steps to move the program forward. It has proven an effective 

strategy for change to incorporate electronic dissemination into the FDLP in tandem with the 

publishing agencies’ adoption of new technologies. But it is also essential for depository 

libraries to improve and expand their own capabilities to deliver electronic content to end users. 

We have done a preliminary analysis of the responses to the 1999 Biennial Survey of Depository 

Libraries. Over 95% of the responding libraries meet the minimum requirements for public 

access to electronic information provided through the FDLP. The 1999 survey responses show 

continued improvement compared to the results of the 1995 and 1997 Biennial Surveys. Over 

the corresponding time period the FDLP has evolved to the point at which the majority of new 

products disseminated to depositories are in online electronic format. We are very concerned 

that 61 libraries (4.6%) still do not offer even a minimal level of public access to FDLP 

electronic content. Of even greater concern is that 22 of the 268 (8.2%) public libraries do not 

meet this expectation. Over the coming year we will be considering various ways to close this 

digital divide within the FDLP. 

8 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

LPS Staff 

Let’s take a moment here to recognize the Library Programs Service staff here today. Would 

you please stand up and wave. 

 You already know Sheila McGarr, Chief of the Library Division. 

 Also here are Robin Haun-Mohamed, Chief of the Depository Administration Branch, 

and 

 Tad Downing, Chief of the Cataloging Branch. 

 George Barnum is LPS’ first Electronic Collection Manager. 

 Vicki Barber is Chief of the Depository Distribution Division. 

eathered the millennium change. Thank goodness we didn’t 

ave to use her plans, so you’ll never know how good they were, but Laurie and her staff were 

ank you! 

y at about 20% of the program titles, while microfiche has declined to 27%. Tangible 

lectronics, now almost all CD-ROM, have almost dropped off the charts, down to about 1/10 of 

t media. 

sing more on reducing duplication of 

rmats and media and on containing costs. We are taking a hard look at titles that are 

the online version, when an official, reliable electronic version is available. As part of this 

migration process, LPS is identifying groups of titles that agencies issue in both print and online 

 Sandy Schwalb, one of our Program Analysts, is here. 

 Steve Kerchoff, an Electronic Transition Specialist, is on loan to us from the Library of 

Congress, and 

 Willie Thompson, without whom we just couldn’t come to great places like Newport, and 

 Finally, there’s Laurie Beyer Hall, LPS’ Supervisory Program Analyst. 

While she’s here, I want to say that we all owe Laurie a big thank you for helping make Y2K a 

major non-event for the Federal Depository Library Program. Laurie and her team developed 

some of the strongest contingency plans in GPO, and she did everything possible to make sure 

that our legacy automated systems w

h

really on top of things. Th

New Titles in the FDLP 

Online electronic U.S. Government information is the most prevalent dissemination medium in

the FDLP, amounting to about 52% of new titles added this year. At the same time, the 

distribution of tangible products continues to decline compared to FY 1999. Paper is holding 

stead

e

1%. 

Since the beginning of the electronic transition, the LPS has concentrated on increasing the 

electronic content in the program. For the most part these increases have been funded from 

program savings resulting from agencies reducing the numbers of titles published in prin

Due to continuing funding constraints, our efforts are focu

fo

distributed in both tangible and online electronic formats. 

Migrating Products from Microfiche to Electronic--Bills and GAO reports 

LPS is phasing out the physical distribution of certain FDLP microfiche titles and migrating to 

9 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

versions. When LPS determines that the content of the online version is substantially equivalent 

or superior to the print version, LPS selects the online version for the FDLP. 

LPS staff met with personnel from the General Accounting Office (GAO) and determined that 

nearly all GAO publications are available online, either from the GAO web site or from GPO 

Access. Therefore, except for unusual cases, LPS will discontinue distributing GAO 

publications in microfiche as of September 30, 2000. 

LPS will also discontinue distribution of the Congressional Bills on microfiche effective with the 

last of the 106th Congress Bills. Bills are permanently accessible on GPO Access beginning 

with the 103rd Congress. [See Council recommendation 9, p. 55.] 

FDLP Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) 

George Barnum and I have briefed you many times on the four components of the FDLP/EC, 

and how the assurance of permanent public access is an essential element as we migrate away 

from tangible products to solely online dissemination. During our Permanent Public Access 

Working Group meetings, we have identified another condition under which products become 

eligible for the FDLP/EC. This condition occurs when the issuing agency itself has made a 

commitment to keeping its electronic publications permanently accessible. An example is the 

National Library of Medicine, and we are just beginning to consider the ramifications of this 

commitment on FDLP product selection and library retention decisions. 

FDLP/EC Archive 

The archive component of the FDLP/EC is now in operation. It’s not a prototype any more. 

Issues of two publications in the FDLP/EC recently became unavailable from their agency 

source and users are being redirected, via the PURL, to archived copies on GPO servers. Except 

for the intermediary access screen that explains the status of the publication and the date of its 

capture, the process is seamless and invisible to the user. This is the process that George 

Barnum and Steve Kerchoff demonstrated at the recent ALA Midwinter Meeting. 

Electronic publications acquired for the FDLP/EC in online form only (with no tangible 

equivalent in the FDLP) are being captured, documented, and stored. GPO staff are still learning 

to effectively manage a multiplicity of file types, formats, and web design issues, but are actively 

transferring earlier experimental captures to the archive server, and are adding newly acquired 

publications regularly. 

OCLC Archiving Project 

However, we are still pursuing the vision of a distributed electronic archive, as we described in 

our 1998 plan for Managing the FDLP Electronic Collection. Electronic content may be stored 

on GPO servers, at the originating agency, at partner sites, or at other external sites, or at 

combinations of these. To this end, we continue to meet and work with OCLC to develop the 

requirements, technical infrastructure, and the business model for digital archiving from OCLC. 

We are very encouraged by the attention that OCLC is paying to this matter, and we hope that 

10 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

our efforts will lead to a service that benefits many different libraries. One of the ideas that we 

are discussing with OCLC is how to incorporate the archival resource harvest, transfer, storage, 

retrieval, and maintenance functions into a consolidated software “toolbox.” 

GPO Joins CORC 

In January 2000, GPO joined OCLC’s CORC (Cooperative Online Resource Catalog) project. 

From 1999 through the present, OCLC has extracted data from more than 4,000 GPO produced 

OCLC records with PURLs (Persistent Uniform Resource Locators) for inclusion in the CORC 

database. Membership in CORC entitles GPO to contribute to OCLC’s development of CORC’s 

data extraction software and other software features and to evaluate CORC for potential LPS 

applications. Tad Downing and Laurie Hall will provide more information on CORC and other 

cataloging and locator services issues during their Tuesday morning session. 

New Depository Shipping Contract

You all know the litany of shipping problems that began last August. These involved our 

distribution contractor, Potomac Business Center (PBC), and their subcontactor, United Parcel 

Service. 

In light of problems with batching, misdirected shipments, delayed receipts and resulting 

processing problems for depository libraries, LPS elected not to exercise its contract option year 

with Potomac Business Center (PBC). Previous mail contracts have covered all GPO mailers 

and were not specific to the needs of the Federal Depository Library Program. Unfortunately, 

this resulted in more generic contractual language with insufficient safeguards for quality service 

to libraries. However, because of the many inconsistencies in the performance of this past 

contract, LPS is now able to segregate its pick up and delivery requirements and has completed a 

much-strengthened Statement of Work to begin the procurement process for an upcoming 

mailing contract. GPO’s Procurement Office announced the requirement for pick up and 

delivery services in the Commerce Business Daily on March 2, 2000. In addition, LPS began 

date stamping all outgoing boxes in early March, and is also upgrading its TanData system to 

increase the ability to track depository materials from the time shipments leave GPO to the time 

shipments arrive at depository libraries. All changes should be in place by mid-June, 2000. 

FDLP Desktop 

I hope that most of you are regular users of the FDLP Administration Web pages on GPO 

Access. As you know there’s a lot of content there, in fact there are about 700 pages worth. And 

sometimes it’s not so easy to find the article, product, or service that you want. Since the fall 

Council meeting we’ve had a team going over these pages and trying out different ways of 

organizing the content. We’ve come up with a prototype design for a new set of pages that we’re 

calling the FDLP Desktop. Steve Kerchoff will be presenting the FDLP Desktop on Wednesday 

morning, and you are welcome to give us some feedback there. We also encourage you to take 

the URL home and check out the test site, and tell us what you think. We hope to finalize our 

new design and put it in place later this spring, once we’ve gotten feedback and had a chance to 

work with it. 

11 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

So that’s a very selective overview of what the Library Programs Service has been doing. For 

more details, relevant Web addresses, and more, I call your attention to the various handouts, 

reports, and proposals available at the registration table. Thank you all for coming today, and we 

look forward to a great week. 

GPO Access Update 

Remarks by T.C. Evans

Assistant Director, Office of Electronic Information Dissemination Services 

Before the Depository Library Council

April 10, 2000 

Newport, RI 

It is always nice to have the opportunity to update you on the ever-changing state of GPO 

Access. Those who know me would probably say that I am rarely at a loss for words anyway, 

but with GPO Access as a subject I am never short of material. As always, I want to publicly 

thank all of the hardworking people at GPO whose efforts to expand and improve our service 

provide me with this material. The challenges of developing and maintaining our everexpanding electronic collection keep these hardworking individuals fully occupied and they 

deserve our thanks. 

I also like to express our thanks to the users who participate in this development process by 

letting us know what works and what could use a little work. The value of their feedback cannot 

be overstated. In fact there will be several good opportunities during this conference to share 

your insights with us. On Tuesday afternoon, at 2:00 there will be an open forum on GPO 

Access and on Wednesday morning at 10:30 we will have an open discussion on evaluating our 

success in getting the pages of GPO Access indexed properly by major search engines. In 

addition, please feel free to discuss your ideas for improving GPO Access with me at anytime 

during the conference. 

As part of our feedback process we conduct an online survey of GPO Access users on a regular 

basis. Our most recent survey concluded on January 3, 2000. Only 281 responses were 

received, 19% of which were from users who identified themselves as representing depositories. 

Some of the survey’s key findings were: 

 When asked how they learned of GPO Access, 31% of the respondents indicated that they 

had found us through an Internet search, 25% by exploring links from other sites, 11% 

through a class, 9% through a Federal depository library, 7% through word of mouth, 6% 

through articles or notices, 4% through a GPO Access gateway library, 3% at a conference, 

12 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

and 4% gave other answers. The class answers were significant in that they were all write-in 

responses. 

 In terms of frequency of use, 44% of respondents indicated that they use GPO Access at least 

once per week, 24% use it a few times per year, 20% use it every few weeks, and 12% use it 

once a year or less. Responses from depositories showed higher use, with 39% using GPO 

Access daily, 38% at least once per week, and 17% every few weeks. 

 When asked what they use GPO Access for, 27% checked tracking legislation, 26% legal 

research, 26% patron assistance, 26% for academic research of various types, 21% business 

decisions, 21% homework, 19% checked public policy, and 11% teaching. There were also 

some interesting write-in responses, including 9% personal use (one indicating it was 

research for a science fiction novel), 2% library administration, 1% buying GPO stuff. 

 The use of finding aids results were interesting in that there was a great deal of differentiation 

between depository and non-depository respondents. For instance 74% of depository 

respondents indicated they use the online version of MOCAT, while 45% of non-depository 

respondents checked it. It was still the most used at 51% overall, with the LSU Agency 

Internet Sites coming in a close second at 49%. This order was reversed for non-depository 

users. Some complaints were included for the online catalog relating to dissatisfaction with 

how it works and how far back it goes. On the humorous side, one respondent took the time 

to complain about FedWorld. 

 High marks were received on users finding the information they need, the timeliness of the 

formation, and user support. 

s 

with larger monitors and are using faster connections that in any of the previous surveys. 

r 

s. 

ad distribution to ensure the 

est possible system response based on the factors we can control. 

st 

that GPO Access retrievals would have been even higher if more bandwidth had been available. 

in

 Also of note was the shifting technology of respondents. More seem to have better system

Moving on to system performance, our efforts to provide the fastest possible response times 

continue. Data indicates that the BigIP server controller array has definitely provided a superio

balancing of our user load and effectively distributed the workload throughout our resource

We have encountered some delays in upgrading our bandwidth and this continues to pose 

problems during the busiest hours of the day. A moratorium on projects that require work under 

the streets is causing the latest delay, but we continue to work closely with our ISP to maximize 

performance through the existing circuitry. We anticipate completion of the bandwidth upgrade 

in the next few weeks and will continue to monitor utilization and lo

b

Our efforts to better quantify GPO Access use has also proceeded. February was the busie

month ever on GPO Access, with almost 23.3 million downloads recorded. Usage of the 

recently added Ben’s Guide to U.S. Government continues to grow quickly. In its first three 

months 750,000 retrievals have been recorded for Ben, with more than 340,000 in February 

alone. Based on our monitoring of the bandwidth utilization reports, it is reasonable to assume 

13 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

It should also be noted that there is some unknown amount of additional usage that is 

unmeasurable. Aside from individuals sharing files they have downloaded from GPO Access, 

there is an increasing amount of institutional caching that cannot be measured. For example, 

America Online frequently caches popular items to speed access for their users. Even though we 

have discussed the possibility of gaining some usage numbers with them, it remains unlikely that 

any useful measurements will be gained in this area. 

GPO Access now contains more than 106,000 electronic titles and points to over 68,000 others. 

This represents a growth rate of almost 6% for the fiscal year-to-date. There are almost 1,500 

databases available on GPO Access, which is also a significant increase over the same time last 

year. 

Little has changed in terms of the popularity of individual GPO Access pages. Many users 

appear to be bookmarking pages for specific applications and returning directly to those pages in 

the future. The Federal Register application is the most popular starting point, followed by the 

page that allows multiple databases to be searched at the same time. In third place we find the 

page that allows users to browse that day’s table of contents for the Federal Register. For the 

month of February, the release of the Budget by OMB raised two of those pages into the top-ten, 

pushing traditional top-ten pages out. 

Since the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is far and away the numerical leader in documents 

downloaded, it is somewhat surprising that none of the CFR pages show up in the top-ten entry 

pages. Further examination revealed some reasons why this is the case. Browsing appears to be 

much more popular than searching and many browsers are interested in only a specific area of 

the CFR. Each of these separate areas can be individually bookmarked so that the user can 

immediately go to the section that interests them most. This spreading of entries into the CFR 

application prevents it from showing up in the reports, but it is still clearly the most popular 

application on GPO Access. 

The GPO Access User Support Team handled almost 7,000 inquiries in February, the most since 

last April. Of these approximately 4,500 were telephone calls and over 2,400 were e-mails. 

I have already mentioned that our redesigned Online Bookstore was receiving more traffic. This 

rising traffic is translating into increasing electronic sales. New data indicates that more users 

are starting to submit their orders electronically, rather than printing them out and sending them 

in. We continue to learn as much from our users about creating the electronic ordering 

environment that is right for them and to translate what we have learned into improved customer 

service on our secure site. 

One part of the GPO Access mission is to improve access to official Federal government 

information. One important aspect of this is facilitating the ability of potential users to find our 

electronic information resources through major search engines. As a result, we have undertaken 

an ongoing project to evaluate how our resources are presented by these search engines and to 

work towards improving this performance. We recently completed the third evaluation and the 

results indicate that our efforts are bearing fruit. More detail will be provided in the Wednesday 

morning discussion and we hope you will help us in this effort by helping us refine the tags we 

14 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

imbed in our Web pages and improving the searches that we used to evaluate search engine 

performance. 

In this latest evaluation, the most effective search engines at returning GPO Access resources in 

their results were: 

1. The Open Directory Project at 58% 

2. Google-Uncle Sam at 54% 

3. IWon at 51% 

4. Snap at 51% 

5. HotBot at 49% 

6. Northern Lights (fee-based) USGovsearch at 43% 

7. Google at 40% 

8. Go.com at 37% 

9. GoTo at 37% 

10. Webcrawler at 33% 

The other engines evaluated, presented alphabetically were About, AlltheWeb, AltaVista, 

AOL.com, DirectHit, Excite, Governmentguide (AOL), LookSmart, Lycos, Magellan, MSN 

Search, Northern Light (free), Yahoo, and Yep. 

My organization recently took over responsibility for managing the operation of the U.S. Fax 

Watch system. The service is still available at (202) 512-1716. We recently sent out some 

updated instructions on using this system to the various listserves, including GOVDOC-L. We 

suggest that you obtain the latest copy of the Index of Available Shipping Lists prior to 

requesting any individual list. The index is updated every Friday. In the future, we also expect 

to add the capabilities for you to receive documents via e-mail and the Web, in addition to fax. 

If you have specific questions about your fax requests or are having trouble with your 

transmissions, please contact the Fax Watch Manager at <eidsnetfax@gpo.gov>, ATTN: 

Faxwatch Manager or by fax at (202) 312-0114. 

At this point I would like to spend a few moments describing some of the recent changes to GPO 

Access. Of special note are: 

 On April 3, 2000 – Conclusions of Law and Order: In State of New York, ex. rel. Eliot 

Spitzer, et al., v Microsoft Corporation <http://usvms.gpo.gov/> became available.

 The second volume of the Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States for 1997, 

covering July-December was added this past Friday. Additional volumes will be 

included as they become available. 

 Supplement 3 to the U.S. Code is now complete (titles 1-50) for laws in effect as of 

January 28, 1998. Supplement 4 has been added and contains titles 1-41 for laws in 

effect as of January 5, 1999. 

 The Economic Report of the President, 2000 was made available in February. 

15 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

 The FY 2001 Federal Budget Documents are also available. 

 Deschler’s Precedents of the Unites States House of Representatives was released in 

January and secure order links have since been added to the page for anyone wishing to 

purchase a paper copy. 

 The GPO Access Online Bookstore has a new and easier to remember URL. The address 

is now simply <http://bookstore.gpo.gov>. 

In addition to the improvements already described, there are some upcoming changes to GPO 

Access that bear mention. They are: 

 New, easy to remember URLs are also being prepared for the main GPO Access page and 

for the library services page. 

A Statutes at Large application is under development. 

ested by the Court are being processed so that a release can be made in the 

d by 

emand climbs beyond acceptable 

PO Access Online Bookstore are underway. Each is 

designed to improve a potential customer’s ability to locate and purchase the products 

 is continuing its rapid evolution. I remind you how important your 

edback is to this process and I hope you will continue to take the time share your ideas for 



 Development of a website for the U.S. Supreme Court is nearing completion. The final 

changes requ

near future. 

 Work on the daily updated electronic version of the Code of Federal Regulations, known

as the e-CFR is progressing in conjunction with the quarterly update cycle. The current 

target for release is around the first of the year. 

 The Internet bandwidth available to service GPO Access customers will be increase

150% in the near future. Part of the reason this effort has taken this long is that the 

project includes the installation of the infrastructure necessary to quickly provide 

additional bandwidth increases in the future. With this new circuitry, we will be able to 

incrementally add bandwidth as necessary when d

ranges on the currently used circuits. 

 A number of enhancements to the G

they need from our Sales Program. 

As you can tell, GPO Access

fe

making GPO Access better. 

16 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

Disposition of Depository Collection to the National Archives and 

Records Administration 

Remarks by George Barnum 

Electronic Collection Manager 

and Robin Haun-Mohamed 

Chief, Depository Administration Branch

Before the Depository Library Council 

April 11, 2000 

Newport, RI

[George] 

It's been something of my role since arriving at GPO to be the official teacher of "Archives as a 

Second Language" for librarians and "Library as a Second Language" for archivists. This is in 

part because I have some archives training, and because that fits with an ever-increasing need for 

our work in the FDLP to dovetail with work going on at the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). 

Last fall Council made a recommendation asking us to report on the status of deposit of non-print 

tangible materials with the National Archives. Robin and I will to describe for you what 

procedures we have in place for all tangible items in the FDLP, and we’ll give you a small taste 

of what we've heard from our friends at NARA about what the future holds. 

First, let's talk about what the law requires, and what that means. The Federal Records Act 

requires that all government agencies take a variety of steps to ensure that the essential evidence 

of the functions of government are appropriately preserved. NARA and agencies work together 

to develop record retention schedules which guide the lifecycle of records and the process of 

selecting which records have ongoing value and are thus to be retained, and which are to be 

destroyed. Bear in mind that we're talking about a staggering mass of material to be considered 

here, everything from interoffice memoranda to fair copies of treaties. 

A revised GPO records schedule appeared in 1996. Under that schedule, it is a requirement that 

publications cataloged in the Monthly Catalog of U.S. Government Publications are to be 

retained permanently and transferred for that retention to the National Archives. In this sense, 

the "residue" of the cataloging process, these copies, with the various marginalia and notes added 

as part of the cataloging process, are evidence of the carrying out of a statutory function, namely 

the cataloging and indexing function specified in 44 USC 1701. It needs to be emphasized that, 

although these are Federal agency publications, the evidence they provide is not of the operation 

of the creating agencies, but rather of the cataloging and indexing function at GPO. In other 

17 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

words, these publications do not meet individual agencies' records retention requirements, only 

GPO's. 

[Robin] 

What is a Federal record? This can vary from agency to agency. NARA and agencies decide 

which Federal records will be accessioned and archived. It is important to remember that not all 

records are kept for permanent retention. Records management in the Federal government is a 

statutory responsibility of the Archivist of the United States and the heads of Federal agencies, as 

defined in 44 USC, Chapters 29 and 33. 

The Federal Records Act, 44 USC, Chapter 33, defines Federal records as "all books, papers, 

maps, photographs, machine readable materials, and other documentary materials, regardless of 

physical form or characteristics, made or received by an agency of the United States Government 

under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business and preserved or 

appropriate for preservation by that agency or its legitimate successors . . ." 

For GPO, all tangible government information products in all formats that have been cataloged 

by the Library Programs Service are subject to the regulations as essential evidence of GPO's 

statutory function of cataloging and indexing. 

In GPO, the Support Services office is responsible for meeting GPO's requirements for record 

retention and scheduling with the Federal Records Center and the National Archives. LPS works 

with this office to ensure the records are sent to the Federal Records Center as scheduled, in a 

timely manner. 

A records center is a storage area for records no longer needed for everyday use. Records in a 

records center may be either temporary records (those waiting for their destruction date) or 

permanent (those waiting to be transferred to the Archives.) The material while at the Federal 

Records Center in Suitland, Maryland technically remains under the control and authority of the 

GPO until the material is then transferred to the National Archives for accession. The depository 

material is kept as a collection and the finding aid used by Federal Records staff and archiving 

staff for this collection is the Monthly Catalog. 

The physical products (paper, microfiche, maps and posters) are sent to the Federal Records 

Center every four years, coinciding with the Presidential terms. To prepare the material for the 

Federal Records Center, LPS boxes the material in acid free containers, which must be labeled 

according to specific instructions. Paper documents are placed in SuDocs order and each box is 

labeled with box number and accession number. Oversized maps and posters must be packed 

and wrapped individually. All cataloged products are sent to the Federal Records Center, with 

the exception of the tangible electronic products, and as I said earlier, George is going to handle 

that discussion. The material is kept for eight years at the Federal Records Center before it is 

transferred to the Archives. 

For publications converted from paper to microfiche format, there are three categories of 

microfiche produced. The first generation silver halide master copies are sent to the National 

18 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

Archives and Records Administration (NARA) every four years according to the established 

schedule for depository records. The second generation silver reproducible microfiche are used 

for reprints for depository claims as needed until these copies are transferred to the Library of 

Congress every two years. The diazo copies, sent to the Federal depository libraries, are the 

copies the catalogers use for producing the cataloging record. These are also sent to the Federal 

Records Center on the same schedule as the rest of the cataloged material. 

Material that is sent to the Federal Records Center and then NARA is not always easily 

accessible. For depository material, NARA is a collection of last resort. For missing microfiche, 

you will want to contact the Library of Congress if the regional library cannot locate the required 

material. GPO and LC have an Interagency Agreement to send all second generation silver 

microfiche to LC for the collection. LC has agreed under the Interagency Agreement to provide 

copies of the microfiche material for libraries according to their established prices. 

In a nutshell, this is the process GPO follows for sending records to NARA. 

For additional information on the Federal Records and Retention process, please see Agency 

Recordkeeping Requirements: A Management Guide, National Archives and Records 

Administration Management Guide Series 1995. It is available online at the NARA site at 

<www.nara.gov/records/pubs/adequacy.html>. 

[George] 

The records schedule for GPO from 1996 deals only with traditional paper and microform 

materials. In 1997, the records management officials in GPO (in the Office of Support Services) 

initiated a request to NARA for additional scheduling of tangible electronic products from the 

FDLP. 

In order for electronic products to be eligible for transfer to NARA, the products must be in a 

format independent of any software (such as retrieval software). The most common 

manifestation is ascii text. NARA has maintained that it can only assure preservation if the 

material is in a readily preserveable format. Obviously, most depository CD/ROMs do not meet 

this requirement. 

During the review process, GPO officials withdrew the request, and it has not, to date, been 

reinstated. We can easily predict that the outcome of such a request would be that the products 

are ineligible for transfer. In the absence of any schedule providing otherwise, such records are 

considered permanent and must be retained by the agency. The very good news is that we have 

retained all the depository CD-ROMs, as well as other tangible electronic products. 

The further good news is that, in the course of their development of new systems that we all hope 

will handle the mass of electronic Federal records, NARA, in cooperation with the San Diego 

Supercomputing Center, has unveiled plans for an electronic archival system that may potentially 

address the issue of format dependence or independence. 

19 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

To describe NARA's concept in broadest terms, they are specifying requirements for a system 

that will receive electronic records without regard to medium, store the information 

independently of software used to create or retrieve it, and deliver the information based on a 

sophisticated electronic interpretation of what the particular records need in order to be presented 

to a user. This system will be developed over the next five years. 

This closes the circle for us, and it's very encouraging news, since it provides not only a possible 

solution for the dilemma about what’s to become of all manner of electronic records, but will fit 

in with the efforts we have undertaken already to preserve access to agency publications in 

electronic form. For now, the tangible electronic products are appropriately retained, and will be 

able to be scheduled at some time in the not-impossibly distant future for transfer to the 

electronic system. 

Cataloging and Indexing Program Update 

Remarks by Thomas A. Downing 

Chief, Cataloging Branch

Before the Depository Library Council 

April 11, 2000

Newport, RI 

Good morning, everyone. It is a pleasure to be here with you this morning to provide a summary 

of cataloging services and to present some news concerning the Cataloging and Indexing 

Program. This background will set the stage for the discussion of our “Cataloging and Locator 

Services Report” and related proposals. 

BIBCO 

As many of you know, the Library Programs Service has for many years been a member of 

CONSER (Cooperative Online Serials), NACO (Name Authority Cooperative), and SACO (the 

Subject Authority Cooperative). These are national cataloging cooperative programs that do 

much to assure the acceptance of quality cataloging records within your respective institutions. 

Several years ago, these cooperative programs and the recently formed BIBliographic 

COoperative program, or BIBCO, became part of the national Program for Cooperative 

Cataloging, or PCC. Are you with me so far? Be assured, no acronyms testing will be conducted 

during the course of Council. 

Well, it is a pleasure to announce that PCC program managers at the Library of Congress 

recently invited us to join the BIBCO program. We are pleased that this invitation was extended 

to us, have already completed BIBCO training, and have issued guidelines for catalogers. 

20 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

GPO Now Has OCLC National Level Enhanced Status 

I would also like to announce that OCLC has recently granted our catalogers National Enhanced 

Status. National Enhanced Status means that our catalogers are authorized to modify all OCLC 

records, including those produced by the Library of Congress and other national libraries. 

Catalogers recognize that some of the meanings and distinctions associated with these 

memberships or authorizations may not be obvious to everyone. However, it is important to note 

that our efforts take place in the context of national programs and that our national Cataloging 

and Indexing Program has made steady progress to achieve full membership in all components of 

the Program for Cooperative Cataloging and in producing records for the national databases. 

Many people have contributed to our efforts to produce quality cataloging records and it is 

gratifying to see that the Library of Congress, OCLC, and the Program for Cooperative 

Cataloging recognize the success of these efforts. I would like to take this opportunity to thank 

current and past members of Council, current and past members of the ALA GODORT 

Cataloging Committee and the many librarians within the depository community who, over the 

years, have been generous in their advice and their support of our efforts. 

GPO and OCLC’s CORC Project 

During the past two years many of us have heard increasingly more about OCLC’s CORC, or 

Cooperative Online Resource Catalog Project. CORC is a project that has the backing of 

OCLC’s considerable resources and is here to stay. OCLC’s development of CORC software is 

a creative and ongoing effort to make effective use of meta-data tagging to support harvesting of 

data that may be used in cataloging online resources. 

Cataloging Branch personnel are evaluating CORC for its potential use in cataloging online 

resources. Most recently, two of our Cataloging Branch catalogers have been trained in the use 

of CORC and are engaged in a review of the potential that CORC applications may have for 

GPO cataloging operations. 

Cataloging Branch Operations 

And speaking of operations, you may wish to jot down the following production and backlog 

statistics. During the first six months of FY 2000, from October 1999 through March 2000, we 

received a total of 11,558 pieces and were notified of 310 online titles on Browse Electronic 

Titles (BET) that required cataloging. Cataloging Branch personnel processed 14,010 pieces. 

Included in this processing is the cataloging of 363 electronic titles. As you can tell, thus far this 

fiscal year, production exceeds receipts. 

The backlog of physical work to be processed consists of approximately 9,300 pieces, as of 

March 31st. Most of this work consists of serials in microfiche from prior years. This figure 

represents an increase of only some 400 additional pieces since the end of FY 1999. Considering 

that one cataloger left early in FY 2000, this increase is by no means unreasonable. This 

vacancy has been posted and we hope to make a selection soon and train a new cataloger within 

the next eight to nine months. 

21 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

Looking to the future and anticipating efforts to add an increasing number of online resources to 

the electronic collection, we have also asked Congress for FY 2001 appropriations to fund the 

addition of three full time catalogers. We also expect that, as catalogers retire, we will replace 

them as soon as possible. 

Most current works identified by BET are cataloged before posting. Recently published online 

works are a cataloging priority and represent some of the more prominent publications that are 

published by agencies. Given this situation, we make concerted efforts to catalog electronic 

titles before or within one week of posting on BET. Many of the 98 titles in the BET backlog are 

serials from Fiscal Year 1999. 

Maintenance of PURLs 

One increasingly important element of operations concerns our efforts to maintain PURLs for 

providing continued access to an increasing number of online resources. At present, we estimate 

that approximately 4,300 PURLs provide access to online titles. We estimate that a combination 

of PURLs and active URLs that have not yet been converted to PURLs may provide access to 

approximately 10,000 works. 

PURLs provide an essential function that supports the human decision-making that is an 

important component of identifying, choosing, and maintaining links to online resources. We do 

not have sufficient personnel resources to maintain online access by continually changing URL 

data in bibliographic records. At present, PURLs remain the best and most efficient available 

resource for re-directing users to active links. PURLS software, despite some false reporting of 

broken links, makes it possible for us, through human efforts, to maintain access to works that 

remain available via the Internet. Were it not for PURLs, it would not be possible for us to 

maintain access to most of the approximately 4,300 more recent online works that form an 

important component of GPO Access. As links are broken and restored, access to older works is 

provided via PURLs in the 856 field. The most recently active URL is then recorded, for 

information,not access, in the 530 field for works also available via the Internet, or in the 538 

field for works available only via the Internet. 

And on this note of converting old URLs to PURLs, I would like to take this opportunity to 

thank Tim Byrne and his colleagues on the Government Documents Round Table Cataloging 

Committee for development of the “PURL Alert Service” on GOVDOC-L. This announcement 

service informs people of titles that have recently been converted from URL access to access via 

PURLs and meets a need that has been expressed for some time. We appreciate this initiative 

and the effort that was required to establish this service and know that it is appreciated by many 

readers of GOVDOC-L. 

In recent months we have had discussions with senior OCLC personnel concerning PURLs. As a 

result of these discussions, OCLC has asked us to provide them with suggestions for improving 

PURLs software. Several years ago OCLC personnel upgraded PURLs software, per our 

request, to make a new release available that would check and report broken links. We look 

forward to working with OCLC on improving PURLs software. 

22 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

Notify Us if “Better” Links Are Now Available 

Much of our PURLs related effort depends, in part, on the many of you who report broken or 

inappropriate links to us. In recent months, a number of people have notified us that better links 

are now available to resources. The issue here is not that links are inactive, or that they lead to 

the wrong resource, rather that “better,” more direct links have become available since the 

publication was cataloged. 

In some instances, when we cataloged a resource, the best, most stable link at the time of 

cataloging was through a search screen or clickable index. After works are cataloged, better, 

more suitable direct and stable links may become available. If you know of a better, more direct 

link to a title, please let us know about it. We are as eager to make these corrections as we are 

to restore broken links. 

Maintenance of the Web Edition of the Catalog of Government Publications 

Our staff are now making corrections to records, eliminating duplicate records, and updating 

records in the Catalog of United States Government Publications on the web. Working with 

GPO production personnel, we have developed effective procedures that result in appropriate deduplication and improvement of records. At present two people spend approximately two hours 

each day in maintaining the website. 

We are able to identify most of the records that need to be corrected or that need to be eliminated 

because they are duplicates. However, as with PURLs, we would appreciate hearing from you if 

you have identified records that require correction or if you have discovered duplicate records for 

the same title. As time permits, we will improve the Catalog on a daily basis and, as with 

PURLs, we expect this effort to be an ongoing task. 

Catalog of Government Publications 

And, speaking of the Catalog I would like to take a moment to provide some statistical 

information concerning this resource. At the present time, the web edition of the Monthly 

Catalog contains 142,210 records produced since 1994. Approximately 10,000 records provide 

online access via PURLs or URLs. 

Distribution of Monthly Catalog Related Products 

I would like to provide information concerning the distribution status of Monthly Catalog related 

products. First, the good news is that Monthly Catalog records are consistently available for the 

use of the Cataloging Distribution Service, Library of Congress, and other institutions, in 

accordance with monthly schedules. The availability of these records at the Federal Bulletin 

Board application means that most libraries with commercial tape services are receiving records 

in a timely manner. 

The less positive news relates to the distribution of the Monthly Catalog and its related products. 

We estimate that the Year 2000 paper edition of the Periodicals Supplement should be 

23 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

distributed to depository libraries late this month. We estimate that the Congressional Serial Set 

Catalog for the 103rd Congress also should be distributed to depository libraries by the end of 

April. 

The January 2000 CD-ROM issue of the Monthly Catalog is expected to be distributed late this 

month. This issue, and all subsequent monthly issues, will contain the Periodicals Supplement 

for 2000. The delay in distribution is due, in part, to the recent award of a contract to L&M 

Optical of Brooklyn, New York. 

Please be advised that Monthly Catalog CD-ROM editions for 2000 are a new cumulation. 

Consequently, please retain the January 1998 through December 1999 CD-ROM edition of the 

Monthly Catalog. The December 1999 issue of the Monthly Catalog in paper was distributed in 

March. The CD-ROM edition of the December 1999 issue should be distributed to depositories 

later this month. Those who receive the December 1999 CD-ROM edition of the Monthly 

Catalog should retain this issue because it includes both the 1998 and 1999 Periodicals 

Supplements as well as two years of Monthly Catalog issues for 1998 and 1999. 

Conclusion 

In concluding this presentation I would like to note that we have achieved much in terms of 

membership in national cooperative cataloging programs and that we meet or exceed national 

cataloging standards. We also work as productively as possible to provide timely cataloging of 

recently published online and paper publications. We are consistently making cataloging data 

available on a timely basis from the Federal Bulletin Board application and are now able to 

maintain the Catalog of Government Publications application on the web. We are not dependent 

upon an integrated library system and are maintaining our own catalog, which is current to 

within 24 hours of producing records in OCLC. 

However, the paper and CD-ROM editions of the Monthly Catalog are consistently late and the 

software limitations on publishing the CD-ROM edition make it impossible for us to publish a 

disc that contains more than twenty-four months of data. Although libraries select both products, 

the actual frequency of using these products is not clear. We are also concerned about the costs 

and utility of the continued publication of a new Serials Supplement and the current 

Congressional Serials Set Catalog in paper editions. 

Laurie, who is next on this morning’s program, will present some ideas and proposals concerning 

the future scope of products and services. I believe that Laurie’s presentation will stimulate 

some thinking and discussion and look forward to hearing your thoughts on these matters. I 

thank you for your time and look forward to meeting with you today and tomorrow. 

Thank you. 

24 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

Cataloging and Locator Tools Proposals 

Remarks by Laurie Beyer Hall 

Supervisory Program Analyst 

Before the Depository Library Council 

April 11, 2000

Newport, RI 

Good morning! I’m Laurie Hall, Supervisory Program Analyst in the Library Programs Service 

(LPS). For those of you who are somewhat unfamiliar with job titles in the Federal government, 

I head up the team of systems and project analysts responsible for developing new LPS products 

and services and maintaining many of the existing ones. That’s why I have been asked to brief 

you on the report “GPO’s Cataloging and Locator Services: Action in Progress and Proposals for 

Change” [see report, p. 41 and Council recommendation 7, p. 54]. 

In October 1999, the Depository Library Council recommended that GPO and LPS conduct a 

review of our online locator tools and services to “evaluate the need, redundancy and the 

organization of current tools.” The discussion of this issue began in the 1999 Spring Council 

meeting and was continued by a number of LPS staff, including former Electronic Transition 

Specialist Judy Andrews and members of the Electronic Collections Team. 

The current offering of tools and services evolved since the beginning of the electronic transition 

in the mid-1990’s, and some originated during the tenure of the first Electronic Transition 

Specialists. Products were enhanced when modifications were feasible and staff was available. 

Each tool was usually maintained by one staff member, independently from the other locator 

tools and services. 

With the Council recommendation in hand and a deadline looming, staff got down to the 

business of gathering and analyzing data and crafting specific proposals. 

For the purposes of this review, we focused our analysis on the six specific locator products that 

are primarily created and maintained by staff of the Library Programs Service. These are: 

1. The Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP) also known as MOCAT online 

2. Browse Electronic Titles 

3. Browse Topics 

4. GILS applications 

5. Federal Agency Internet Sites – the partnership with Louisiana State University 

6. Pathway Indexer 

Knowing that our users are from the library community and the general public, we didn’t want to 

eliminate any tools because we felt there was utility in all of the services and tools we were 

offering. The browse tools served the users who like to browse and the search tools filled the 

25 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

need for those users who were more comfortable and experienced with searching. We also knew 

that the applications we created 3 years ago needed technological fixes. There was some 

redundancy among tools as well. When deciding what kind of changes we would propose, we 

identified several objectives that we hoped to meet: For the USER, these were to: 

1. Eliminate redundancy 

2. Make the services easier to use 

3. Provide more comprehensive coverage of electronic resources 

4. Continue to ensure that electronic resources in the FDLP/EC are authoritative. 

Given our previous experience in maintaining the current tools, our goals for LPS were to: 

1. Create tools that incorporate electronic resources 

2. Better integrate electronic resources in the LPS workflow 

3. Simplify maintenance 

4. Make more effective use of staff resources 

5. Find better technological solutions to support LPS operations 

Data Analysis 

Before we came up with specific proposals, we gathered statistical data from various sources to 

assist in the analysis. We looked at 6 months worth of data that was gathered from GPO Access 

logs and data from Question 43 of the 1999 Biennial Survey. Question 43 asks “If you use the 

cataloging and locator tools and services and which ones.” We also relied on feedback we 

received from the community via askLPS and input you have given us directly. (Some of the 

data are available in attachment 1 of the handout). These data helped us identify the tools and 

services that were used heavily and those that were used less frequently. The Catalog of 

Government Publications was the most heavily used. That was not a surprise to most of us. We 

were a little puzzled by what we thought were low hit counts for the Browsable services. After 

checking with a few libraries which maintain similar browsable services, we felt that our hit 

counts for Browse Topics and Titles were pretty consistent. 

Based on this analysis, LPS crafted 6 proposals for your consideration. These are: 

1. Find a partner for Browse Topics 

2. GILS browse page consolidation 

3. Find a Pathway Indexer partner 

4. Refocus Browse Electronic Titles 

5. Phase out publication of the CD-ROM MOCAT 

6. Reconfigure the paper MOCAT 

The first four proposals make changes and/or modifications to 4 of the existing Locator Tools 

and Services.

26 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

Browse Topics

A partnership to maintain the Browse Topics seems to us to be a great fit. Topics is by its nature 

user-driven, and you know what subjects and topics your patrons are asking for and can keep the 

existing topics more current. Currently, individual topics are created and maintained by 

volunteer librarian partners, with assistance of an LPS staff person. Based on the success of that 

model, we would like to have a partner assume overall coordination of the entire Topics 

resource. GPO would still have an oversight role, as we do with all of our partnerships. Many of 

you have expressed an interest in partnership opportunities and Steve and George may be 

contacting you in the near future. 

GILS 

Our second proposal is to simplify the GILS applications. The usage data indicates that the 

GILS applications are used heavily. We have heard from many of you who were confused by 

the three choices of types of GILS records and didn’t understand the subtle differences in record 

sets. We are proposing to combine the Browse GILS Records by Agency and the Browse GILS 

pointer records into a single browsable tool. The Browse Pathway GILS Records will be 

eliminated. These records were created by LPS staff and are not recognized as official and 

authoritative by publishing agencies according to the GILS mandate. This process will eliminate 

redundant records and the additional maintenance burden associated with offering similar sets of 

records. 

Pathway Indexer

According to the statistical data that we analyzed, use of the Pathway Indexer was very low. The 

application has always been high-maintenance, and the technology is based on the Harvest 

freeware that is no longer supported. In cooperation with Office of Electronic Information 

Dissemination (EIDS), LPS is investigating newer technology solutions provided by an external 

partner like Google or GovBot. 

Browse Titles 

Our next proposal is to redesign the Browse Electronic Titles to improve the current awareness 

value of this tool. Over the years, as the list of titles continues to expand, the BET began to lose 

its browsability. With over 3000 entries, the current BET is very maintenance intensive. We are 

proposing that the BET organized by agency as it currently exists be eliminated. We will 

continue to offer the New Additions, now called the NET (New Electronic Titles) every week for 

four weeks, which is approximately 100 new titles offered per month. Our goal is to catalog all 

new electronic titles in NET before the weekly list is posted each Friday. 

Additional Proposals 

These are the 4 major proposals that directly impact the locator tools and services we provide. 

Two specific proposals in the report impact the publication of two tangible cataloging products. 

I’ll just go over what is being proposed. 

27 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

1. LPS is proposing to phase out the production of the CD-ROM version of the Monthly 

Catalog after all of the issues for the year 2000 are completed. It is expensive to produce 

and the publishing schedule is very slow. The cataloging records in the CD-ROM are 

more readily available in the CGP. An annual cumulation on CD may be an alternative. 

2. The 2nd proposal is to make the print Monthly Catalog and Periodicals Supplement 

current awareness lists of products arranged by classification number. The current 

MOCAT process, as many of you know, is based on early 1970’s technology that is very 

expensive and very difficult to maintain. By reconfiguring the paper MOCAT, we can 

migrate the publication to a desktop application that can be produced in LPS. This 

process will shorten the production time, increase accuracy and timeliness of the product 

and reduce costs while still meeting our statutory obligations. [See Council 

recommendation 7, p. 54.] 

In Progress 

By adopting these 6 product proposals, LPS can shift staff resources to work on projects that will 

enhance the complete suite of locator tools and services. As you consider these proposals, I 

would just like to highlight some projects that are currently underway in LPS that help us gather 

information to meet the goals and objectives that we have identified earlier.

1. CGP maintenance – Staff has begun a project to clean up many of the records in the 

CGP. Our proposal to reconfigure the BET will help us focus on the new additions 

while encouraging users to search the CGP as the most comprehensive resource for 

identifying, locating and accessing both tangible and online products. 

2. LPS/CORC Participation – To gain experience with alternative bibliographic 

description methods, and to provide access to a more comprehensive range of electronic 

resources, we are currently exploring OCLC’s Cooperative Online Resource Catalog 

(CORC) project as the first tentative steps to integrating “cataloging” with “metadata.” 

We are negotiating with the United States Institute of Peace to attempt a small pilot that 

will bring previously inaccessible resources with high research value created by the 

Institute into the FDLP/EC, with MARC records that derive from metadata tags. This 

will involve not just examination of our own cataloging processes, but close 

collaboration with United States Institute of Peace to provide useful metadata.

3. CORC/OCLC archiving project – As Gil Baldwin mentioned in his presentation 

yesterday, LPS continues to meet and work with OCLC to develop a business model for 

digital archiving, including defining the requirements and technical infrastructure for 

this potential joint project.

4. The BET Retro Project project is being coordinated by members of the Electronic 

Collection Team to ensure that all resources previously posted to the BET receive 

cataloging records in the CGP and if necessary, are archived. 

28 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

5. GILS work- Staff in Office of Electronic Information Dissemination (EIDS) continues 

to perform on-going maintenance activities for existing GILS records. 

6. Technology Planning –LPS staff are in the planning phase of a project to replace key 

systems in LPS to create better technological solutions that support LPS operations. 

I want to thank you for allowing me to brief you on these proposals. We will take questions now 

and for those who haven’t had an opportunity to digest these proposals and need a good night’s 

sleep to think about it all, Tad and I will be available tomorrow morning for additional questions.

Report on GPO’s Transition to a More Electronic FDLP 

By Depository Library Council 

Electronic Transition Committee 

April, 2000

Newport, RI 

The Electronic Transition Committee has analyzed the following GPO reports: 

 Completing the Transition to a More Electronic FDLP, Council Discussion Draft, 4/21/99 

[see p. 36] 

 Progress Report on the Transition to a More Electronic FDLP, 1996-1999 [see 

Administrative Notes, v. 20, # 8, 5/1/99) 

The Committee looked at the following issues: 

 Are the assumptions stated valid? 

 Are there additional assumptions which should be considered? 

 What actions should GPO take to strengthen the FDLP in light of these assumptions? 

ities deferred valid? 

 What are the next steps of the transition and how should GPO be positioning itself for a 

ectronic FDLP? 

 Are the current activities of GPO appropriate? 

 What other activities should GPO undertake? 

 Has GPO effectively met the milestones in the Progress Report? 

 Are the reasons for activ

more el

Introduction

29 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

The Committee is pleased with the progress of the electronic transition and encourages GPO to 

continue its development of the electronic program. The Committee is concerned that outside 

influences may restrict GPO’s ability to accomplish all of its goals. For instance, GPO is 

dependent upon Congress for funding and if Congress does not approve additional fun

certain projects may not be undertaken or some “traditional” services, including dissemination 

multiple formats, may have to be c

ding, then 

in 

urtailed. Also, the Committee understands that GPO is only 

ne piece of the government information environment and while GPO may be successful in its 

ar 

w information will be located and managed in the near future. Technology and 

ongressional politics will continue to shape GPO’s ability to make a successful transition to a 

te within its Congressional authority and funding. 

ithin these restrictions it is critical that GPO adapt to the changing technical and political 

. Are the assumptions stated valid? 

he Electronic Transition Committee agrees with the assumptions as stated and that they are 

continue. 

ess 

portance unless prodded by regulations, policies, and/or public 

demand. Many Federal agencies do not understand the concept of PPA and its 

aising the level of awareness among agencies about 

PPA issues. Agencies will need to be educated as to the role of PPA in the life cycle of 

ithin 

g publications within the Monthly Catalog and promoting access 

through depository libraries. Agencies who rely on the Internet for dissemination may 

o

transition, the entire Federal government may not. Developments in technology and 

librarianship/archives make it difficult to plan for the future. We do not know what standards 

will exist for tomorrow’s access. 

Libraries are also struggling with managing all types of electronic information and lack a cle

vision as to ho

C

more electronic FDLP. GPO must opera

W

environment. 

1

T

valid. 

The Committee has the following comments and observations: 

#3 The trend toward decentralized Federal printing, publishing, and dissemination will 

a. The Committee suspects Federal agencies will not consider permanent public acc

(PPA) of much im

relationship to NARA activities. PPA and archival activities should not be viewed as 

competitive but rather complementary practices to ensure access to government 

information. 

b. There is also a role for education, r

information. This education needs to be targeted to various levels of responsibility w

an agency. GPO can provide leadership in PPA by providing information and/or 

demonstrations on best practices. 

c. Dissemination will vary from agency to agency dependent upon their philosophy of 

public access to Federal information and their statutory and regulatory requirements. 

Dissemination of information has always varied but many within government equate 

Internet publishing to dissemination. GPO assisted in the dissemination of tangible 

products by includin

30 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

miss the opportunity to promote their publications through the FDLP. GPO is trying to

continue cataloging and locating services in an unstructured environment and faces 

unique challenges. 

d. Internet technology facilitates wide exposure to Federal information with the ultim

goal of providing access for many Americans without geographical restrictions. Not a

Americans are connected to the Internet and those that are connected have varying lev

of ability to access the i

ate 

ll 

els 

nformation found there. Libraries play a critical role in providing 

equipment and networking to enable those without Internet capabilities to access 

g 

PO, 

r tools 

and to make references to related databases or to search a variety of databases 

with one interface. GPO had a good start with the Pathway Indexer. However, this needs 

s 

ill not need to be a depository library in order to locate and use Federal information. Some 

ries can benefit from the 

DLP is significant and should be viewed as a positive development. GPO needs to develop 

 agencies to the user or to libraries will continue to occur. 

While this may be the unintended consequence of technology, it is important to realize 

government information. Decentralized agency Internet publishing will require new

skills for librarians who must have in-depth knowledge of Internet sites and locatin

resources found there. 

e. Decentralization is not new to the Federal government, but Internet publishing, as 

compared with GPO publishing, compounds the problem of locating government 

information. Finding aids are more critical in the Internet environment, but they need to 

be easy to use and standardized across government Internet sites when possible. G

with other Federal agencies, needs to employ a distributed search technology that 

searches across a variety of sites, metadata and content resources. The search tools need 

to be integrated with each other. Technology should not be used to mimic the pape

but rather to enhance access to information. The web makes it possible to merge 

resources 

to be further developed, merged with existing government search engines such as 

GovBot, or eliminated, with GPO partnering with another entity to provide similar 

services. 

#5 The number of depository libraries will stabilize around 1300 libraries; most of the losses

will be among small public and Federal agency libraries; there will be limited offsetting new

designations from the Congressional redistricting following the 2000 census. 

The Committee sees implications to this assumption. The number of libraries will probably 

decrease, but the number of libraries who access Federal Internet sites will increase. Librarie

w

may view this development as negative but the implication that all libra

F

resources with the idea that every library provides the public with government information. 

2. Are there additional assumptions which should be considered? 

a. The trend to shift costs from

that libraries will struggle with different issues such as printing, formatting, archiving,

and instruction on technology in addition to the required knowledge of the government 

information environment. 

31 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

b. Depository libraries will not be able to individually preserve (refresh and migrate, 

download from websites, etc.) electronic publications for PPA in the way that they have 

for print-based publications. GPO’s electronic archive, although valuable, falls short of 

c. Government agencies and the private sector will continue to independently develop tools 

 if 

op and 

d 

g 

 viewed negatively if restricted 

to a certain segment of the population or if citizens are charged twice - first for the 

unobstructed public access to government information. 

ation disseminated through public/private partnerships. 

d access 

ederal 

information. Librarians will use the White House or the Library of Congress web sites 

Fingertips,” GPO should undertake a marketing project in order to sell itself to librarians 

a. GPO needs to further develop marketing efforts. This may require additional travel and 

ository 

capturing all of the publications that would have been preserved in the print environment. 

Likewise, NARA will continue to suffer from inadequate resources to keep up with the

flow of publications in need of processing for PPA. 

and resources to locate government information. These development efforts will take 

different tacks, requiring knowledge of the methods employed by the most used tools

GPO Access is to be aligned to provide the most authoritative results for those users. 

d. Partnerships between the government and the private sector will continue to devel

increase. The partnership between NTIS and NorthernLights serves as an example. 

Internet competition is intense and government budgets are tight. When agencies an

private companies have an opportunity to develop services that are beneficial to both, 

they will create partnerships. While partnerships may be beneficial in providin

increased access to government information, they can be

creation and second for the access to government information. For partnerships to be 

successful, they must improve services or access, and must maintain free and 

e. Intellectual property law will continue to be murky and unsettled and will complicate 

access to government inform

f. GPO may at times compete with other government agencies for funding and authority yet

also collaborate with other government agencies for the greater good of increase

to government information. 

g. GPO needs to promote its resources and tools outside of the FDLP. GPO should market

itself to all libraries in order to build a broader base of support for its mission. 

Particularly, GPO should market electronic publications that are available on their server 

to libraries. Typically, librarians do not consider GPO as a key access point to F

first. Building on the slogan “Official Federal Government Information At Your 

as one of the first sites to consider when searching for government information. 

3. What actions should GPO take to strengthen the FDLP in light of these assumptions? 

conference funding as well as increasing marketing skills of GPO staff. Marketing 

initiatives must be directed to the wider library community, not primarily to dep

librarians. For instance, GPO should consider advertising in library journals. 

32 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

b. GPO and Congress should consider revising the definition of a depository library or 

 the 

learly, many of the resources on GPO Access and in the 

FDLP Electronic Collection benefit all types of libraries and enable disintermediated use 

ip to 

e process, the Monthly Catalog, or BET, nor why they 

are organizationally separate pages and not easily found on GPO Access. Resources need 

ng 

e 

r 

and “point-of-need” instruction 

for the public or librarians. Modules and tutorials could be either interactive or easily 

itory librarians in their outreach efforts. GPO would 

need to develop a comprehensive plan to use GPO staff and depository librarians to 

xcellent 

tory librarian expertise in providing training and 

examples of best practices. 

perhaps adopt new language that includes all libraries. The definition is tied to 

Congressional directives and it may not be possible to expand Title 44. However,

opportunity for outreach may be possible. 

c. GPO needs to develop tools and resources with the needs of all libraries in mind. The 

current resources are developed specifically for FDLP or they assume a working 

knowledge of the depository library system and the Federal government. Libraries with 

new staff, and non-depository libraries, may not be familiar with such resources as BET 

or even the Monthly Catalog. C

by a growing segment of the public. The Committee recommends that GPO build upon 

the success of their relationship with depository libraries and expand their relationsh

the greater library community. 

d. GPO needs to develop services which are beneficial for all citizens; not just depository 

librarians. Current finding aids and resources assume knowledge of the depository 

program and structure of the Federal government. A layperson accessing online services 

may not understand the legislativ

to be clear as to their purpose and integrated into the GPO Access web pages. Involvi

citizens in the advisory process of development or in feedback groups may provide som

insights into how tools are used. 

e. GPO needs to develop training activities that reach a wider audience than depository 

librarians. Training modules may include the fundamentals of government publishing,

governmental and commercial finding aids, and how to use GPO online services. The 

training modules should be created so that they may be used at many points: training fo

depository librarians, training by depository librarians, 

downloadable so they could be integrated into local training programs or used for selfteaching. Depository librarians would likely serve as a resource for GPO in providing

input to assist in developing resources for all libraries. 

f. To increase training opportunities for all libraries, the role of the inspectors could evolve 

to include that of trainers. Or, GPO may develop trainers specifically assigned with 

responsibilities to conduct training beyond GPO Access. Training which is now 

conducted for GPO Access could be integrated into a seminar for locating and using 

government information. Inspectors could provide training for the trainer for depository 

librarians that would assist depos

conduct training throughout the U.S. The Depository Library Conference is an e

example of GPO coordination and deposi

33 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

g. GPO needs to make PPA a constant drumbeat in their communication with, and 

education of, Federal agency publishers. 

h. GPO needs to be active in standards development in areas such as cataloging and 

e 

 and can adapt 

procedures as the environment changes. To accomplish this effort, recruitment standards 

if 

usly 

bases and websites. A comprehensive and easy to use search engine is critical 

in promoting access to government information and to the marketing efforts of GPO. 

nting 

d 

w models of organization. The Committee recommends that GPO 

broaden its sights and begin to explore ways to focus the agency on managing the 

, whether it be in print or electronically 

disseminated. 

4. re the current activities of GPO appropriate? 

g. 

, 

GPO Access, and GPO LPS web pages. The Committee views the GPO page and the 

GPO Access/SuDocs pages as separate pages. The Committee recommends that GPO reevaluate its website and try to simplify the organization and the language of the site. 

digitizing in order to keep pace with technology and to have an influence over th

development of those standards. 

i. GPO needs to develop a workforce that is technologically savvy

may be altered to include technology skills. Some existing GPO staff may need 

retraining or additional training to enhance their existing skills. 

j. GPO needs to conduct a comprehensive review of their current finding aids/tools to see 

they are relevant and meet the needs of the users. (Recommended by Council, fall 1999) 

k. GPO needs to develop finding tools including a search engine that will simultaneo

search data

Excellent and easy finding aids will promote GPO’s services and enhance GPO’s 

visibility. 

l. GPO’s internal structure is organized around the production of print. Providing pri

and dissemination services to Congress and Federal agencies is still a fundamental 

mission of GPO. However, it is clear that new information dissemination patterns woul

benefit from ne

information product through its entire life cycle

A

a. The Committee recommends that GPO define “superseded” under the scope of archivin

b. The Committee commends GPO for the positive development of GPO Access. However, 

it is not clear even to depository librarians the relationship between the GPO web site

34 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

5. What other activities should GPO undertake? 

The Committee recommends that GPO take a strong training role. It is likely that there will be 

fewer depository libraries but an increased usage of government information. GPO needs to 

expand its focus beyond depository libraries to all librarians. 

6. Has GPO effectively met the milestones in the Progress Report? (#1-24) 

The Committee agrees that GPO has met the milestones. 

#8 Continue to monitor the technological capabilities... 

GPO needs to evaluate the readiness of depository libraries and continue to advise librarians on 

the appropriate equipment necessary for a depository library. (Council recommendation, fall 

1999) 

7. Are the reasons for activities deferred valid? (#25-28) 

The Committee agrees that deferred activities are appropriate. 

a. The Committee recommends that GPO continue to press for appropriations to complete 

the electronic transition. Specifically, the Committee recommends that additional 

funding be secured for technology grants. The grants may be the initial step in 

developing partnerships for PPA activities. 

b. The Committee concurs with GPO to not monitor costs for online services. Most 

libraries assume these costs for all online services and it is recognized as overhead costs 

or costs paid for by the user. 

c. The Committee acknowledges scanning activities as cost prohibitive. However, this is an 

option which may be considered in the future. The Committee recommends that GPO 

continue to monitor this possibility. 

8. What are the next steps of the transition and how should GPO be positioning itself for a 

more electronic FDLP? 

The Committee has addressed this question under #3. 

Conclusion

The Committee appreciates GPO’s commitment to an electronic transition. The dynamic, highly 

competitive nature of the electronic information environment will continue to challenge GPO 

and FDLP activities. Budget restraints, Congressional directives, and internal philosophical 

differences may prevent GPO from achieving all of desired results of the FDLP community. The 

Committee realizes that GPO is not able to undertake all the initiatives and suggestions stated in 

this report. GPO is not entirely in control of its own destiny. GPO must depend upon Congress 

35 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

36 

for funding and legislative direction, and on agencies for cooperation. The Committee is willing 

to work with GPO in identifying the most critical needs and assisting in articulating these needs 

to Congress. The Committee believes that GPO has achieved significant results and is on the 

correct path to continued success. The Committee recommends that GPO continue to build upon 

its traditional roles and emerge in the electronic environment as a more proactive and 

technologically savvy information provider. The Committee is confident GPO will play a vital 

role in the dissemination of government information in the electronic information environment. 

Electronic Transition Committee 

Permanent Public 

Access/Archives 

Subcommittee 

Duncan Aldrich, Chair, 1998-1999 Locator Subcommittee 

Maggie Farrell, Chair, 1999-2000 Paula Kaczmarek, Chair 

Julie Wallace 

Access Subcommittee Diane Garner, Chair Cathy Hartman 

Fred Wood, Chair T.C. Evans Diane Eidelman 

Linda Fredericks Bob Hinton 

Kathy Tezla Andrea Sevetson NCLIS 

Mary Alice Baish 

GPO Liaisons 

Fran Buckley 

Gil Baldwin

George Barnum 

Completing the Transition to a More Electronic FDLP 

Council Discussion Draft 4/21/99 

NOTE: This is a longer version of the discussion paper dated 3/24/99 that was given to Council 

at the Spring 1999 meeting. Each of the action areas has been expanded with potential action 

items or considerations. Council is invited to review and comment on this paper to facilitate the 

development of goals and milestones for the transition to a more electronic FDLP. Any actions 

and milestones developed should fit into a timeframe from now through the end of FY 2001. 

According to the strategic plan in GPO’s 1996 Study, the FDLP electronic transition will be 

complete at the end of FY 2001. What should the FDLP look like in 3 years? What actions are 

necessary to attain this outcome? 

A. Assumptions: 

1) By FY 2002 we will have completed the major portion of the transition. After that the FDLP 

will continue to evolve in response to developments in information technology, agency 

publishing practices, and the legislative and information policy environment. 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

2) Continuing technological developments will drive publishing, information dissemination, and 

library services. 

3) The trend toward decentralized Federal printing, publishing, and dissemination will continue. 

4) The statutory basis for the program will not significantly change; there will still be 

unresolved issues of overall Government information policy. 

5) The number of depository libraries will stabilize around 1300 libraries; most of the losses 

will be among small public and Federal agency libraries; there will be limited offsetting new 

designations from the Congressional redistricting following the 2000 census. 

6) The allocation of GPO program resources will continue to shift from acquiring and 

disseminating tangible products to managing the FDLP electronic collection. There will be a 

parallel trend in depository library operations. 

7) The mix of depository products will change in tandem with agency publishing practices. 

When agencies publish both print and electronic versions of a product GPO’s general 

approach will be to select the electronic version for the FDLP, especially for titles currently 

considered appropriate for conversion to microfiche. However, the FDLP will include paper 

for core products as long as agencies publish in paper. 

8) Providing cataloging and locator services for Government information products will remain a 

critical and growing GPO role. 

9) Demographic changes, advancing technology, and a population more comfortable with 

computer use will change the perception and expectations of the FDLP among both 

depository librarians and public users. 

10) There will be increased demands upon the Government to provide training and user support 

for electronic products and services. 

Discussion: 

 Are these assumptions valid? 

 Are there other relevant assumptions? 

 What actions should GPO take to strengthen the FDLP in light of these assumptions? 

B. Potential Action Items and (as yet undated) Milestones 

The above assumptions will lead us to define management direction and major activity areas for 

GPO and other FDLP stakeholders. Most of these may impact GPO, depository libraries, and/or 

Federal publishing agencies. In your comments, please specify who the affected or responsible 

party might be and when, in your view, the action should happen. 

37 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

1. Permanent Public Access, Storage, and Archiving 

Develop a working prototype electronic archive and related procedures (GPO, 1999). 

Archiving (“storage”) - obtain publicly accessible server space for our experimental archives. 

Examine and obtain appropriate hardware and software. Most immediate need is “grabbing” 

software. Potential copyright/intellectual property issues of web caching. 

Establish the storage sites mix between: 

 In-house 

 Remote, but still GPO 

 Partner sites 

Define scope of archiving. 

 Should “superseded” versions be retained? 

 Which products or collections are already archived and which are endangered? 

 Should databases be archived at specific intervals? 

 Should only the latest version of a database be retained? 

Migration/Transformations: We should guarantee authentic nature of the “data” not necessarily 

the search & retrieval software. 

Significant steps toward permanent access: 

(a) Dedicating sufficient resources (financial and staff) to archiving. 

(b) Authentication. Evaluate options and implement a solution that will verify that 

documents are authentic, and will aid in persistence. 

(c) Archiving (Establish criteria for inclusion, test, implement technology) 

(d) Establish policies and procedures. 

(e) Develop a model system for agency notification of changes and new products. 

(f) Study + define a strategy for migration/refreshment of data. 

2. Information Delivery, Format issues, Products in the FDLP 

Product Mix - FY1999 (Oct – March) Online 40% 

 Paper 20% 

 MF 40% 

 CD-ROM < 1% 

All tangible products down by 10% compared to last year. 

Online delivery mechanism – need to establish a migration path from WAIS to ? 

38 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

Determine, on an annual or semiannual basis, a mix of formats based on user need, product 

availability, and GPO resources. This suggests a more active management approach toward a 

specific target. 

Fully implement the “electronic only where appropriate” goal, defining the core more carefully 

and developing a mechanism for instituting permanent access. 

Gather up-to-date cost information and establish a role for scanning in the Collection generally. 

Determine if there is justification for format conversion for retrospective materials. 

Determine the role and implications of scanning to take the place of MF conversion for limited 

application for retrospective conversions. Look at contracting for scanning to use instead of MF 

conversion. Need to develop model contract specifications. 

Should a goal be to use scanning for the print to electronic “conversion,” replacing the current 

print to microfiche conversion? 

3. Locators and Bibliographic Control 

Continued responsibility for cataloging both print and electronic products; value to users to 

identify and locate all types of products from a combined tool. 

Investigate potential of/participate in OCLC’s CORC research project. 

Investigate possible use of non-MARC records for Internet resources; e.g. Dublin Core. 

Need for integrated systems and processes – reduce use of legacy systems. 

Need to define future of the indexer. Refer users to a non-Governmental search engine or site? 

Advanced Search Facility (ASF)? 

4. Notification and Discovery 

Develop a model system for agency notification of significant changes and/or new products. 

We need to notify agencies when we “grab” their content for archiving, and initiate a dialog to 

help us manage the products. 

Investigate/search for partner agency to develop notification methods that don’t burden the 

agency. 

Establish authentication routines that will identify changes. 

Come up with single easy way for agencies to notify us of new electronic products. At front end 

– automated? 

39 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

Possible to use Pathway Indexer, ASF, or other indexer or robot in the discovery process? 

Most vital element for agencies is to notify us of significant changes. 

Depository library community, news media, etc., needs to advise GPO of new products. GPO 

will probably not have staff to do intensive “site mining.” 

5. Authentication 

Need to monitor, investigate, learn more about. 

Issues: What about authentic nature of information on sites other than the .mil or .gov domains. 

Short-term goal: Need a disclaimer on SuDocs site about sites were pointing to. 

What are the technology solutions? Example: Authentication through watermark. 

How do we incorporate authentication routines in our archives? 

What is the role of non-Governmental entities in developing an authentication solution? 

6. Partnerships 

New model for partnerships based on view that GPO will take a more active role and that the 

agencies’ role will be reduced, at least at the point of initiating the partnership. State Dept. level 

of participation is atypical. 

Develop a comprehensive approach to engage agencies; get a partnership “package” together to 

help potential partners understand roles and responsibilities (GPO, 1999-2000). 

7. Outreach 

 

General arenas: 

 Publishing agencies. 

 Within GPO, to improve coordination and consistency of message. 

 To the depository library community. 

 To the general public. 

Expand efforts to learn about archiving policies, practices, costs, etc., at domestic nonGovernmental and international sites. 

8. Organizational Changes 

GPO – Need to develop a cross-organizational team to do outreach to agencies. Should include 

LPS, EIDS, Sales, Customer Service, Procurement, Production. 

40 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

Are there other possible cross-organizational teams? 

Personnel allocations/staff makeup in LPS and GPO shifting incrementally. Do we need a 

reorganization? What would it look like? 

9. Training and User Support; Product Support 

Training for new depository librarians. 

Increased expectation that GPO be knowledgeable about both the content and the operation of 

FDLP electronic products. 

10. Services for librarians administering depositories. 

“Virtual reference desk.” 

Need to develop easier-to-use, more effective Web presence. 

11. Measuring Depository Library User Satisfaction 

Encourage depositories to undertake user surveys or other data gathering and analysis to measure 

user satisfaction and ultimately improve services to the public. Emphasize services based on 

electronic information. 

GPO’s Cataloging and Locator Services: 

Actions in Progress and Proposals for Change 

[See related Council recommendation 7, p. 54.] 

In October 1999 the Depository Library Council recommended “that GPO conduct a 

comprehensive review of online locator and finding aid tools to evaluate the need, redundancy, 

and organization of current tools. The report should also address possible development of new 

tools. The review process will require Council and depository library input as well as an analysis 

of available statistics.” 

This review is taking place in the context of the transition to a more electronic Federal 

Depository Library Program (FDLP). Many of the transition activities to date have emphasized 

changes in the formats and media in which FDLP information is published, disseminated, and 

kept permanently accessible. It is now appropriate to reexamine the cataloging and locator 

services and related outputs provided by the Library Programs Service (LPS) in order to develop 

plans for future development and improvement. 

41 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

This paper describes actions already in progress to improve these online cataloging and locator 

services. It presents, for Council’s consideration, four Government Printing Office (GPO) 

proposals relating to these online services, along with two additional proposals pertaining to the 

tangible cataloging output products derived from GPO’s cataloging records. 

Objectives

GPO’s objectives are to: 

 Improve the users’ ability to identify, locate, or link to relevant content, by reducing the 

potential confusion to users of GPO’s cataloging and locator services and providing more 

comprehensive coverage to the print and electronic publications in the FDLP, especially of 

products in the FDLP Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC). 

 Assure that cataloging and locator service records created by GPO for an electronic resource 

link to an official and authoritative copy of the resource, whether the content is on GPO 

Access, in the FDLP/EC archive, at the originating agency site, or at an FDLP partner site. 

 Evolve LPS’ processes and organization to better manage an environment in which online 

electronic information is the predominant dissemination format for the FDLP. Operationally 

this requires integrating the acquisition and bibliographic control of electronic resources into 

the regular LPS workflow. 

 Maximize productivity, simplify maintenance of the cataloging and locator services, accept 

more metadata from external sources, and more effectively utilize the data LPS creates. 

ts to maximize their utility, simplify 

production, and reduce resource requirements. 

iscussion 

l 

n external constituency rather than on the internal processes 

ecessary to support the product. 

 Modernize the mix of cataloging output produc

D

The discussion of cataloging and locator services in this paper applies to the services that are 

maintained by GPO and/or a partner and are used to identify and locate products in the FDLP 

tangible and electronic collections. In describing an existing or proposed service, this paper wil

focus on the end product used by a

n

42 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

GPO is working to enhance the design, scope, and operation of some of the cataloging and 

locator services now offered by GPO and its partners. Six products1

 were considered in this 

review. LPS staff considered usage data compiled from the 1999 Biennial Survey, the GPO 

Access Web logs, Council and user input, as well as some four years’ experience with these 

services. Based on these factors, LPS intends to move toward the following mix of GPO 

services and partner services. 

1) GPO Services: 

 Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP; “Monthly Catalog on the Web”) 

 Current awareness service for new additions to the FDLP/EC, replacing today’s Browse 

Electronic Titles (BET) 

 Simplified browsable GILS application 

2) Partner Services: 

 Federal Agency Internet Sites (maintained by Louisiana State University) 

 ent 

ithin GPO actions are already underway to: 

ated or made accessible through the FDLP, whether in tangible or online electronic 

format. 

 FDLP/EC. Investigate incorporating CORC and/or Dublin Core 

in a variety of metadata schemes, PURL assignment, Web resource capture, and 

 

 Browse Topics 

Pathway Indexer replacem

Actions Underway

W

1) Enhance the CGP application, with the goal that cataloging records represent everything 

dissemin

2) Participate in OCLC’s CORC project to gain experience with alternative means to describe

and link to content in the

records into the CGP. 

3) Work with OCLC to develop an integrated, CORC-based software module that incorporates 

cataloging 

archiving. 

1 The six products reviewed (in order of usage, from greatest to least) are: 

- Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP) <www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/dpos/adpos400.html> 

- Browsable GILS applications <www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/gils/gils.html> 

- Browse Topics <www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/dpos/pathbrws.html> 

- Browse Electronic Titles <www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/dpos/btitles.html> 

- Federal Agency Internet Sites (LSU) <www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/dpos/agencies.html> 

- Government Information on Selected Internet Sites (Pathway Indexer) <www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/dpos/searche.html> 

43 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

4) Conduct the initial requirements analysis and other planning directed toward the acquisition 

ainframe 

systems that support essential LPS operations. 

nline Cataloging and Locator Services: Proposals for Council Consideration

 are created 

d primarily on information from the U.S. Government Manual, and are not 

recognized as official and authoritative by the agencies. GPO will continue to partner with 

cts listed on NET so they will 

appear in the searchable CGP as soon as possible. These steps should improve the focus of 

identifying, 

locating, and accessing both tangible and online products. 

d online. 

he data are also provided to the Library of Congress for redissemination to subscribers. The 

e resources required to produce the tangible products and will 

llow greater dedication of resources to the online cataloging and locator services. 

The CD-ROM edition’s design is not optimal, it is slow and expensive to 

publish, and it replicates content presented in the CGP on GPO Access. A possible 

and implementation of a commercial, off-the-shelf replacement for the legacy m

O

GPO proposes to: 

1) Develop a depository library community partnership to assume administrative responsibility

for the Browse Topics application. GPO will continue its oversight and policy direction role.

2) Simplify the browsable GILS applications. Two current pages, Browse GILS Records by 

Agency and Browse GILS Pointer Records, will be combined into a single browsable tool. 

The Browse Pathway GILS Records will be eliminated. Pathway GILS Records

by LPS staff base

publishing agencies to facilitate those agencies’ fulfilling their mandated GILS 

responsibilities. 

3) Replace the Harvest shareware-based Pathway Indexer by identifying an external partner to 

provide this type of service. The Pathway Indexer is the least-used current service. 

4) Improve the current awareness value of Browse Electronic Titles (BET) by posting weekly 

lists of online resources added to the FDLP/EC. The service will be renamed New 

Electronic Titles (NET). NET entries will appear in a true title arrangement, instead of the 

BET’s current arrangement by agency. After four weeks, the oldest NET list will be moved

to an NET archive. LPS will prioritize cataloging all produ

the BET while encouraging users to search the CGP as the prime resource for 

Tangible Cataloging Output Products: Proposals for Council Consideration

GPO currently publishes the Monthly Catalog in three formats: paper, CD-ROM, an

T

proposed changes will reduce th

a

Specifically, GPO proposes to: 

1) Phase out production of the Monthly Catalog CD-ROM edition following completion of the 

2000 issues. 

alternative is to reduce the frequency of the Monthly Catalog CD-ROM edition to an annual 

cumulation. 

44 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

2) Change the print Monthly Catalog to a browsable current awareness list of products arrange

in classification number sequen

d 

ce. This will speed up the announcement of new FDLP 

products by allowing LPS to produce the print edition via desktop publishing. This will 

ents of 44 USC 1711. 

Attachment 1: GPO Cataloging and Locator Services Usage Data from GPO Acces

TO Mo

Av

shorten production cycles, reduce costs, and will still meet the monthly “pamphlet” format 

requirem

s Web 

Logs, 1999

May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct TALS nthly 

erage 

Catalog of U.S. Govt. Pubs. 1 1 1 1 2 2 5566 7658 7968 5486 0065 0132 1 1 06875 7813

GILS 1 1648 1580 1402 1589 1647 5550 4 5 4 3 6 94232 15705

Browse Topics 3824 3718 3640 3592 4627 4902 24303 4051

Browse Electronic Titles, 3664 3830 3435 2989 3580 3726 21224 3537

What's New 

Federal Agency Internet 

ites - LSU 

2489 2666 2261 2256 2821 3048 15541 2590

s

Pathway Indexer 1346 1556 1301 1295 1374 1532 8404 1401

Attachment 2: Depository Library Usage: Bienn vey D

e following

Yes Did not kno

about 

Know about,

not how to u

Not usefu

ial Sur ata 

Question 43: Do you use th ?

w but 

se 

l 

Catalog of U.S. Govt. Pubs. 1211 25 23 76

GILS 905 60 127 243

Browse Topics 902 236 67 130

Browse Electronic Titles, 936 215 81 103

What's New 

Federal Agency Internet 

ites - LSU 

1210 74 13 38

s

Pathway Indexer 974 238 43 80

Attachment 3: Subscription and FDLP S Data for Monthly Catalog Print and CDProduct I Deposi

Co

Copies S

election

ROM Products

tem no. tory 

pies

old Price

CD-ROM (full) 0557-C 887 19 (subscription) $199.00 

Paper (abridged) 0557-D 334 140 (subscription) $52.00 

Periodicals Supplement 

1999 

0557-D01872 18 (annual) $32.00 

Congres

Catalog

rmined 

g 2000)

sional Serial Set 

, 103d Congress 

0557-B 399 to be 

determined

to be dete

(sprin

45 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

Proposal 1: Redefine Depository Library Size Categories 

[See Council recommendation 3, p. 53.] 

 Revise the volume counts used to define small, medium, and large depository libraries. LPS 

proposes the follow

Medium 250,000 – 1,000,000 

Lib 2: 

 items are in your library system? Include Federal 

depository and non-depository materials, all formats, and all collections and libraries under 

iew of your library director. 

s 

ies in the large and small categories, with about 41% of the 

epositories falling within the medium range. The new size classifications will provide a more 

eflection of the library. 

 volumes 

meet the 

on and scope. 

onversely, libraries selecting within the scope of their mission and fulfilling patrons’ 

rmation needs may fail to meet the selection standard. 

h the 

item selections in the next update cycle and provides librarians the 

pportunity to refine their selections to meet the standard defined in the Instructions to 

f this proposal is approved, this information will appear in the packet sent to all depositories in 

ing: 

Small < 250,000 

Large > 1,000,000

raries will be categorized based on the library’s 1999 Biennial Survey response to question

How many cataloged and uncataloged

the purv

Rationale 

The present definitions were first used in 1987. They must be revised to reflect the growth of 

library collections. Based on the results of the 1999 Biennial Survey, this new delineation place

roughly the same number of librar

d

accurate r

At Issue 

These designations are used frequently to compare peer depository libraries during the self-study

and inspection processes. Collection Development is one area where the comparison can have 

detrimental effects on a library. Using the standard prescribed in the Instructions to Depository 

Libraries, libraries should select at a level that is at least half of the average rate of libraries of a 

similar size and type. The present definitions, for example, place libraries with 600,000

in the same classification as libraries with more than 10,000,000 volumes. In trying to 

selection standard many libraries are forced to select beyond their missi

C

government info

Effective Date 

GPO proposes to adopt the new definitions on October 1, 2000. This date coincides wit

effective date for new 

o

Depository Libraries. 

I

May 2000 for the June – July annual item selection update cycle. 

46 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

Atta Selection Rate Averages for

As of January 1998 [from Adm tes, v. 19, # 5 (3/15/98)] 

Average Selection % by Library Size 

chment 1: Item Selective Depository Libraries 

inistrative No

Library Type 

Libraries 

edium 

%

Large 

%

Total # 

Small 

# libs % 

M

# libs # libs 

Academic, 4-year + 651 111 17 324 29 216 57

Academic, 2-year 70 65 14 4 21 1 26

Academic, Law 155 24 9 125 14 6 13

Federal Agency 50 28 10 12 13 10 28

Federal Court 16 15 5 1 11 0 0

Public 273 70 15 134 20 69 43

Service Academy 5 1 11 3 21 1 22

Special 22 13 9 6 12 3 4

State Court 37 26 5 10 9 1 6

State Library 31 10 20 15 30 6 35

Size designations are based on the number of volumes in the library’s entire depository and nondeposit tion, a

50,000 

Medium = 150,000 - 600,000 

Large = 600,000 +

Attachment 2: January 2000 Item Selection Rate Averages for Selective Depository 

Lib n New S nitions

Average Selection % by Library Size 

ory collec s follows: 

Small = 10,000 - 1

raries Based o ize Defi

Library Type 

Libraries 

Small m 

%

Total # 

# libs % 

Mediu

# libs 

Large 

# libs %

Academic, 4-year + 638 137 19 261 31 240 57

Academic, 2-year 67 65 15 1 29 1 18

Academic, Law 154 24 10 121 14 9 15

Federal Agency 47 27 11 15 15 5 35

Federal Court 16 12 9 4 7 NA 

Public 264 72 14 118 22 74 41

47 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

Library Type Total # Average Selection % by Library Size 

Libraries 

# libs % # libs %

Small 

# libs % 

Medium Large 

Service Academy 5 1 12 4 23 NA 

Special 22 13 10 7 11 2 6

State Court 37 29 5 8 12 NA 

State Library 31 13 21 10 24 8 43

* There were 6246 items available for selection at the time of this tabulation. Regional depository selections are not 

cluded. 

ats and all collections under the 

urview epository’s

Large = > 1,000,000

Public Access Workstations in Federal Depository Libraries at 

Increase every year the MTR for public access workstations in Federal depository libraries in 

 meet the access requirements for electronic Government information products.

nge 

pan of a computer about two years for 

newer applications. As agency publication practices run parallel to general technological 

changes, depository libraries must continue to keep pace. 

in

Size designations are based on the number of cataloged and uncataloged items in the library

system. Depository and non-depository materials, all form

p of the d library director are included. 

Small = < 250,000 

Medium = 250,001 – 1,000,000 

Proposal 2: Increase the Minimum Technical Requirements for 

Regular Intervals 

 Designate the “1999 Recommended Specifications for Public Access Workstations in Federal 

Depository Libraries” as the new Minimum Technical Requirements (MTR). 



order to

Rationale 

The 1996 specifications for workstations no longer support the “functional approach” in 

evaluating a library’s capability to access electronic Government information products. Some 

electronic products distributed or disseminated to depository libraries require more sophisticated 

technology than is provided in the 1996 specifications in order to work. Technological cha

has increased at such a pace as to make the estimated life s

48 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

Libraries meeting the MTR will keep pace with technological change and Federal agency 

information delivery practices in fulfilling their Title 44 obligation to provide access to 

Government information products. 

Background 

In 1991, LPS began issuing recommendations for minimum technical guidelines for depository 

libraries. These evolved into “Recommended Specifications for Public Access Workstations in 

Federal Depository Libraries” (RS). The specifications are published annually in Administrative 

Notes and accessible via the FDLP Administration website. The RS were established to provide 

guidance to librarians when planning for new computer purchases. 

The depository community was advised in May 1996 that technical requirements for serving the 

public with electronic information would become mandatory October 1, 1996. That is, all 

depositories were “expected to offer public users access to workstations with a graphical user 

interface, CD-ROM capability, Internet connections, and the ability to access Government 

information via the World Wide Web” (Administrative Notes, v.17 #16, p. 4). 

At the same time it was announced that libraries would be evaluated during inspections on their 

capability to service electronic Government information using a “functional approach.” This 

allowed libraries flexibility with computer configurations and service options. 

Impact

Preliminary data from the 1999 Biennial Survey indicate that 95% of the depository libraries 

meet the 1996 MTR. Many depositories currently exceed the 1996 MTR. Survey responses do 

not reveal specifically what the 5% are lacking. That is, we do not know if they are compliant in 

all aspects except for the printer, hard drive space, etc. Based on inspection visits, an estimated 

additional 5% of depositories may not meet the new MTR. A “functional approach” will 

continue to be applied to Federal depository libraries during self-study evaluations and 

inspections of depository libraries. Not meeting the MTR, alone, will not result in probationary 

status for a library. 

Effective Date

The 1999 “Recommended Specifications for Public Access Workstations in Federal Depository 

Libraries” will become Minimum Technical Requirements (MTR) effective October 1, 2000 and 

used as the baseline for the “functional approach” during library evaluations. 

GPO will continue to produce annually the “Recommended Specifications for Public Access 

Workstations in Federal Depository Libraries” (RS) which are guidelines for new purchases for 

15 months. 

49 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

Year Recommended 

Specifications 

Published 

Specifications 

Become 

Requirements 

Expire 

1999 June 1999 10/01/00 9/30/01 

2000 June 2000 10/01/01 9/30/02 

2001 June 2001 10/01/02 9/30/03 

Attachment 

1. 1999 Recommended Specifications for Public Access Workstations in Federal 

Depository Libraries [see Administrative Notes, v. 20, # 10 (6/15/99)] 

Proposal 3: Revise the “Depository Library Public Service 

Guidelines for Government Information in Electronic Formats” to 

Establish a Service Requirement for Tangible Electronic Products 

 Revise number 3 of the Electronic Service Guidelines to read: 

All depository libraries should must make tangible electronic products and services (CD-ROMs, 

DVD-ROMs, floppy diskettes) which they select available to the general public in a timely 

manner. For example, if a product is not currently loaded and/or supported on a depository 

library's computer workstation, the depository library should attempt must to provide access to it

within a designated time frame as determined by each library. If the depository library is unable 

to provide adequate access to and technical support of tangible electronic products, circulation of 

those products should be made available in accordance with the library’s circulation policies of 

other non-governmental tangible electronic products or other depository resources. While

circulation of CDs and DVDs is encouraged, this alone does not relieve the depository of its 

duty to assist patrons in accessing the information. The depository must demonstrate a 

"good faith" effort in providing in-house assistance to patrons wishing to use CDs and 

DVDs.

Rationale 

Currently number 3 of the Electronic Service Guidelines allows libraries to circulate those CDs 

that the library cannot support technically. This practice precludes those who do not have the 

resources to access the CDs outside the library from acquiring needed information resulting in 

restricted access to Government information. This violates the spirit of 44 USC § 1911 and the 

Instructions to Depository Libraries and must be corrected. 

50 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

Background

The Depository Library Public Service Guidelines for Government Information in Electronic 

Formats (Electronic Service Guidelines) set forth performance goals for Federal depository 

libraries in providing access by the public to Government information in electronic formats. 

These guidelines are the result of nearly three years of discussion and work of the Depository 

Library Council and depository librarians. Discussions began in the fall of 1995 after the 

Congress directed GPO to investigate ways of making the Federal Depository Library Program 

almost entirely electronic. This raised concerns about providing public access to the increasing 

amount of Federal government information available in electronic formats. The draft guidelines 

were presented, discussed, modified, and adopted by Council at its spring 1998 meeting in 

Arlington, VA. 

The Public Printer and General Counsel approved the guidelines, which fit within the statutory 

framework of Title 44. Depository libraries have a statutory obligation under section 1911 to 

make paper and microformat publications "available for the free use of the general public," 

and these guidelines articulate the logical extension of that historic obligation into the 

electronic information era. 

The General Counsel stated that "any library selecting items in electronic formats must 

maintain a capability to allow for unimpeded use of those documents by its public patrons." 

The Electronic Service Guidelines were intended to provide flexibility in servicing the needs of 

the patron. It was not intended as a means to circumvent in-house access or avoid equipment 

upgrades. When a depository library selects an item it is assumed to be within the scope of 

their collection development policy, national finding aids will identify the depository as a 

holding library, and users will expect to be able to gain access to the information at the library. 

Impact

Depositories will keep pace with technological change and Federal agency information delivery 

practices in fulfilling their Title 44 obligation to provide access to Government information 

products. 

Libraries will be able to make a stronger case to obtain the funding required for computer 

purchases and technology upgrades. 

Effective Date

If this proposal is accepted the change in the Electronic Service Guidelines will become 

effective October 1, 2000. 

Attachment: 

1. Depository Library Public Service Guidelines For Government Information in 

Electronic Formats (1998) [See Administrative Notes, v. 19, # 11 (9/15/98)]

51 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

Depository Library Council to the Public Printer 

Spring 2000 Meeting 

Recommendations, Action Items, and Commendations 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

1) Revision of the Depository Library Public Service Guidelines 

Council recommends that GPO reconsider "Proposal 3: Revise the ‘Depository Library Public 

Service Guidelines for Government Information in Electronic Formats’ to Establish a Service 

Requirement for Tangible Electronic Products." (April 2000) 

Rationale: 

Council is concerned that the meaning of the phrase "good faith effort" in Proposal 3 is unclear. 

Council is cognizant of the responsibility of depository libraries to make a "good faith effort" to 

make electronic products accessible to the public and we realize that the public may at times 

require assistance rather than simply being given the option of borrowing these products. 

However, given the eclectic nature of many depository tangible electronic products and their 

software (or lack thereof), we ask GPO for a more nuanced approach to the problem, and in 

particular, a clearer exposition of what constitutes a "good faith effort." Further, Council will 

undertake action to clarify the competencies that depository libraries need to have to comply 

with enhanced service requirements. 

2) GPO Access Gateways 

Council recommends that GPO capitalize on the experiences and innovative contributions of the 

GPO Access Gateway libraries by engaging them in discussion to encourage their participation 

in the evolution from Gateways to potential new partnerships. 

Rationale: 

Council recognizes the valuable role Gateways have played in the growth of GPO Access and 

the expertise the Gateways have developed in providing tailored instructional, navigational, or 

interpretive content. Council is aware that some Gateways wish to continue in that capacity. 

Council is also aware that GPO is committed to continuing operation of the SWAIS interface and 

to maintaining links useful to Gateway sites. Given GPO's commitment, Council believes it is 

reasonable that Gateways as a separate project be ended. However, Council believes that 

discussion between GPO and the Gateways may lead to new partnerships based on the 

accomplishments and innovative spirit of Gateway libraries. 

52 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

3) Redefinition of Depository Library Size Categories 

Council endorses the "Proposal 1: Redefine Depository Library Size Categories" (April 2000). 

Council encourages GPO to update the library size categories at more frequent intervals and to 

begin to articulate definitions of measures for depository libraries in the online environment. 

Rationale: 

Council concurs with GPO that the present definitions which were articulated in 1987 do not 

adequately reflect the growth of depository library collections and, therefore, place an undue 

burden on libraries to select beyond their main mission and scope. More frequent updates of the 

size categories will avoid this problem in the future. However, Council notes that definition of 

library size by volume count will not be meaningful in a networked information environment and 

suggests that GPO begin to consider measures of equipment and public service commitments 

that might better define depository library “size” in the more electronic environment. 

4) Decennial Census Information 

Council recommends that GPO pursue special funding in FY2002 to make 2000 Decennial 

Census publications and data files available for depository library selection as tangible or 

Internet products, and to initiate a dialog with the Bureau of the Census regarding preferred 

options for depository library dissemination of such 2000 Census materials as cartographic line 

files. 

Rationale: 

Decennial census information, including the cartographic line files that are essential to many 

Census data applications, comprises a fundamental public information resource and a core 

collection in depository libraries. This data remains useful for many years, and depository 

libraries provide the permanent public access which communities and researchers need. Online 

formats alone do not fill the needs of all users, nor are they exact equivalents in every case. The 

long-term value of this unique body of information justifies distribution in multiple formats. 

Special funding was obtained and effectively used during the last census cycle to enable the 

public to have access to this information in multiple formats through depository libraries, and the 

data still receives heavy use. Council believes that special funds should again be requested to 

assure similar levels of multi-format access to the 2000 Decennial Census through depository 

libraries. The continuation of this flexibility in formats will significantly increase the ability of 

depository libraries to maximize service for their patrons, now and in the future. 

5) Increasing Minimum Technical Requirements for Public Access Workstations 

Council recommends that GPO implement "Proposal 2: Increase The Minimum Technical 

Requirements for Public Access Workstations in Federal Depository Libraries at Regular 

Intervals" (April 2000). 

53 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

Rationale: 

Council recognizes the ongoing need to assure that the technical capabilities of depository 

libraries are adequate to support access to electronic FDLP publications. Hence, Council 

supports the proposal that GPO establish a schedule for updating Minimal Technical 

Requirements for Public Access Workstations at regular intervals. Council is concerned about 

the impact of these standards upon the inspection process and encourages GPO to articulate their 

expectations to depository libraries. 

6) Electronic Transition Report 

Council, having accepted in principle the Electronic Transition Committee's Report on GPO's 

Transition to a More Electronic FDLP, recommends that as GPO staff develop online resources 

they keep in mind not only FDLP libraries, but also the broad range of constituents who will 

have direct access to the Collection, including non-depository libraries and the public. 

Rationale: 

Council has studied a number of issues related to GPO's electronic transition and reported on 

their deliberations in the Electronic Transition Report. While GPO has a mandate to serve GPO 

depository libraries, the Internet environment enables non-depository libraries and the general 

public to directly use GPO online resources. Council recommends that GPO keep in mind this 

broader range of constituents as it develops online tools and resources, marketing, training, and 

outreach for the FDLP. Ben's Guide is a successful example of an online resource that satisfies 

the needs of both the FDLP and the general public. It is Council's opinion that this will enable 

GPO to play a more vital role in the dissemination of government information in the electronic 

environment. 

7) GPO's Cataloging and Locator Services Report 

Council recommends that GPO proceed with the six "Proposals for Council Consideration" 

articulated in the report, "GPO's Cataloging and Locator Services Actions in Progress and 

Proposals for Change" (April 2000). While Council endorses each of the six proposals, we do 

further recommend that GPO consider strategies for continuing a simple index in the paper 

Monthly Catalog. 

Rationale: 

Council believes that this well thought out review of locator services proposes a reasonable 

strategy for strengthening cataloging and locator tools on GPO Access. These services were 

initiated approximately four years ago and have reached the point where assessment and 

retooling are required. Given the low use and high cost of the Monthly Catalog on CD-ROM 

and the ready availability of a much better product on GPO Access, the Catalog of Government 

Publications (CGP), resources used to produce the CD-ROM should be reallocated to other GPO 

Access efforts. Since the online CGP minimizes the need for the paper Monthly Catalog, 

54 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

desktop publication of the paper product will reduce costs and free resources for other projects, 

and will meet Title 44 requirements for the production of a list of products. 

8) Cataloging and Locator Tools 

Council recommends that GPO revise GPO Access Finding Aids and Cataloging and Locator 

tools pages to: 

 assure that Cataloging and Locator Tools pages conform in look and feel with other pages 

on the GPO Access site; and 

 include links (buttons) on Cataloging and Locator tools pages which provide easy 

navigation within and among these tools; and 

 establish a Browse Topics pages meta-tag requirement to conform with CORC standards 

that will facilitate search engine retrieval of Browse Topics pages. 

Rationale: 

The Cataloging and Locator Tools pages currently have a different look and feel than other GPO 

Access pages, as well as a different schema for navigational devices. Council believes that 

greater conformity within the overall GPO Access site would ease use of these pages, especially 

to the broader community of users beyond depository libraries. As an example, adding a 

uniform set of navigational buttons to the Cataloging and Locator tools pages similar to those on 

the branches of government pages, would improve navigation among the tools. Additionally, the 

establishment of a meta-tag requirement for Browse Topics would ensure that pages contributed 

by all volunteers participating in the Browse Topics partnership will be uniform for Web search 

engines and available for CORC. 

9) Microfiche Congressional Bills 

Council recommends that GPO continue distribution of the microfiche version of congressional 

bills until such time as the electronic version can be certified as authentic. 

Rationale: 

Council recognizes that due to fiscal constraints, GPO has to make difficult decisions regarding 

formats and that Congress is pressuring GPO to eliminate dual distribution of FDLP titles 

altogether. Nonetheless, Council is aware of concerns within the FDLP community about ending 

distribution of the microfiche version of congressional bills until the electronic version that is 

available through GPO Access can be authenticated as official. There are currently no 

government-wide information policies or procedures to address the important issue of 

authenticating electronic government information, including core legal titles that are increasingly 

becoming available in electronic formats. Council believes that GPO should take a pro-active 

role in this arena similar to the leadership they have demonstrated in bringing together key 

55 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

stakeholders to discuss solutions to ensure the permanent public access of electronic government 

information. 

ACTION ITEMS 

1) Core E-Competencies 

Council recognizes the need to revise the service standards for electronic resources along the 

lines suggested in "Proposal 3: Revise the ‘Depository Library Public Service Guidelines for 

Government Information in Electronic Formats’ to Establish a Service Requirement for Tangible 

Electronic Products." (April 2000). In order to help depository libraries comply with such 

standards, we have charged a working group to examine the service standards and propose to 

Council and GPO a list of core competencies for the FDLP libraries at the fall 2000 meeting. 

This list of core competencies will help target training needs and provide standards for 

evaluating depository services. 

 

2) Partnerships 

The Partnership Working Group will work with LPS's Electronic Collection Manager on 

providing greater visibility and understanding of the partnership program. The group will 

investigate adding a database of partnership opportunities to the GPO Administrative website for 

the use of LPS, libraries, consortia, and Federal agencies. 

3) Access America 

Council will monitor developments regarding Access America and similar initiatives. These 

initiatives may establish important portals for access to Web based Federal government 

information and voluntary standards for those information resources. 

COMMENDATIONS 

1) Council commends GPO's Cataloging Branch for having attained a nationally recognized 

level of quality and expertise in cataloging. OCLC has granted National Level Enhanced status 

to GPO's catalogers which authorizes them to modify all OCLC records. Further evidence of 

this expertise is provided by an invitation from the Library of Congress to GPO to join the 

Bibliographic Cooperative program of the national Program for Cooperative Cataloging (PCC). 

With its prior membership in other PCC organizations, GPO's recent membership in the 

Bibliographic Cooperative makes GPO a full member of all components of PCC: Bibliographic 

Cooperative, Name Authority Cooperative, Subject Authority Cooperative, and the Cooperative 

Online Serials Program. Council further commends GPO's Cataloging Branch for its support of 

OCLC's CORC (Cooperative Online Resource Catalog) Project. GPO's leadership in the 

cataloging of online resources has provided OCLC with more than 4,000 GPO-produced records 

that OCLC has selected for extraction to seed the CORC database. The Branch is to be further 

commended for its participation in the evaluation of CORC software and the continued 

development of this important resource. 

56 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

2) Council commends GPO Electronic Information Dissemination Service (EIDS) for its ground 

breaking report on search engine indexing of GPO Access web pages, and especially the 

outreach and follow up with commercial search engines, and for continuing efforts to improve 

web metrics and provide helpful reports on usage of GPO Access. These efforts help educate the 

FDLP community on search engine efficiency and are essential to the further development and 

enhanced accessibility of GPO Access. 

3) Council commends GPO for working with the Supreme Court of the United States in 

developing an official Supreme Court website accessible to the public through GPO Access. 

Special recognition is given to the GPO Production Department and Electronic Information 

Dissemination Service (EIDS) for their tireless efforts in responding to the unique needs of the 

Court. Council hopes that this joint initiative between the Court and GPO will serve as a model 

for other Federal courts. 

4) Council commends GPO Library Programs Service (LPS) and Electronic Information 

Dissemination Service (EIDS) for the development of Ben's Guide to U.S. Government for Kids. 

As the educational component of GPO Access, and locator service to age-appropriate online 

educational resources about government for students, parents, and teachers, Ben's Guide 

provides a vital reference and educational tool for students and the educational community and 

serves as an important step to increase public awareness of our government and the Federal 

Depository Library Program. 

5) Council commends GPO for its leadership in convening government-wide discussions on the 

need for the implementation of permanent public access to Federal government information. 

GPO's leadership role advances understanding of permanent public access and strengthens 

working relationships between GPO and other Federal agencies. 

57 
AN-v21-#07-5/1/00 

58 

Table of Contents 

Update on Superintendent of Documents Programs / Buckley, Council Meeting, 4/00 .............. 1 

Library Programs Service Update / Baldwin, Council Meeting, 4/00.......................................... 7 

GPO Access Update / Evans, Council Meeting, 4/00................................................................. 12 

Disposition of Depository Collection to the National Archives and Records 

 Administration / Barnum and Haun-Mohamed, Council Meeting, 4/00 ................................. 17 

Cataloging and Indexing Program Update / Downing, Council Meeting, 4/00.......................... 20 

Cataloging and Locator Tools Proposals / Hall, Council Meeting, 4/00.................................... 25 

Report on GPO’s Transition to a More Electronic FDLP / Electronic Transition Committee... 29 

Completing the Transition to a More Electronic FDLP, Council Discussion Draft 4/21/99...... 36 

GPO’s Cataloging and Locator Services: Actions in Progress and Proposals for Change......... 41 

Proposal 1: Redefine Depository Library Size Categories ......................................................... 46 

Proposal 2: Increase the Minimum Technical Requirements for Public Access 

 Workstations in Federal Depository Libraries at Regular Intervals ........................................ 48 

Proposal 3: Revise the “Depository Library Public Service Guidelines for Government 

 Information in Electronic Formats” to Establish a Service Requirement for Tangible 

 Electronic Products .................................................................................................................. 50 

Recommendations, Depository Library Council, 2000, Spring.................................................. 52 

Administrative Notes is published in Washington, DC by the Superintendent of Documents, Library 

Programs Service, Government Printing Office, for the staffs of U.S. Federal Depository Libraries. 

It is published on the 15th day of each month; some months have additional issues. Postmaster send 

address changes to: The Editor, Administrative Notes 

 U.S. Government Printing Office 

 Library Programs Service, SLLD 

 Washington, DC 20401 

Internet access via World Wide Web at URL: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/dpos/adnotes.html 

Editor: Marian W. MacGilvray (202) 512-1119 mmacgilvray@gpo.gov