Proceedings of the

8^^ Annual Federal

Depository Library

Conference

April 12 - 15, 1999

Library Programs Service

U.S. Government Printing Office

Wasfiington, DC 20401
U.S. Government Printing Office

Micliael F. DiMario, Public Printer

Superintendent of Documents

Francis ). Buclcley, ]r.

Library Programs Service

Gil Baldwin, Director

Library Division

Sheila M. McGarr, Chief
Proceedings of the 8^^ Annual

Federal Depository Library

Conference

April 12- 15, 1999

Holiday Inn-Bethesda

Bethesda, MD

Library Programs Service

U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, DC 20401

1999
Marian W. MacGilvray

Editor

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in tliis publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement

by the U.S. Government.
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Table of Contents

Agenda v Developing Regional Web Pages for Selectives: Suzanne Holcombe, Steve Beleu 1 FEFDL: Florida Electronic Federal Depository Library: Jan Swanbeck 5 Incorporating the NRC Legacy Collection into the FDLP: George Barnum, Elizabeth Yeates 8 Videoconferencing: Sandra Fritz 10

Introduction to DVD: Carol Cini 16

Partners Providing Public Access: Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access: A Partnership to Provide Access to Government Data: Kenwood Giffhorn 19

Partners Providing Public Access: The Library's Role in the PASDA Partnership: Chris Pfeiffer ....2^ Partners Providing Public Access: Focusing the Library's Contribution: Todd Bacastow 22

National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse: Archie Warnock 24 NTIS-GPO Depository Library Imaging Pilot Project: Walter L Finch 27

Assessment of Electronic Government Information Products: Final Report: Forest Woody Norton 29 DOE Virtual Library of Energy Science and Technology: Walter L. Warnick 33

Building the FDLP Electronic Collection: Laurie B. Hall, Judy Andrews 37 DOE Information Bridge: One Year Later: Don Altom 43

Digitizing Collections of Government Documents: Options, Processes, and Costs: Cathy Nelson Hartman 45 Advanced Search Techniques: Tracking Legislation through GPO Access' Congressional

Databases: Karie Lew 60 Ways to Share the Riches: Web-Based Resources for Selective Housing Arrangements: Rob Richards 63

Spreading the Riches Around: Administering Selective Housing Arrangements from the Law Library Perspective: An Overview: Sharon Blackburn 67 What It Means To Be a Selective Housing Site in This Day and Age: Martha Jo Sani 72 How to Use the Digital Library of the State of the Environment on the Web and on a WebConnected CD/DVD-ROM: Brand L. Niemann 75

Federal Emergency Management Agency: Marc Wolfson, Dave Wellman 88

Elaws: Using Expert Systems to Deliver Complex Regulatory Information: Roland C. Droitsch ... 96

PURLs: What Do I Need to Know? Working with PURLs in Your Local Catalog: Background on PURLs and Link Maintenance in the Local Catalog: Arlene Weible 107

PURLs: What Do I Need to Know? Working with PURLs in Your Local Catalog: Nan Myers 113 American FactFinder: Barbara Aldrich, Robert Clair 125

Reinvention Web Sites: Tools, Documents, and Sen/ices: Patricia B. Wood 127 0*NET: Keeping Pace with Today's Changing Workplace: Donna Dye 1 33 The National Park Service Library Program: David Nathanson 135

Disaster Planning for Libraries: Lessons from California State University, Northridge:

Mary M. Finley 142 The Aftermath of the Flood at the Boston Public Library: Lessons Learned: Ga;7 Fithian 148

Disasters: Plans, Clean-up, and Recovery—The Colorado State Experience: Fred C. Schmidt 53

Disasters: Plans, Clean-up, and Recovery at Stanford University Libraries: Joan Loftus 156

iii
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Improving the Quality of Documents Reference Service: Public Library of Cincinnati and

Hamilton County: John W. Graham 163

Improving Quality of Documents Reference Service: Lillie j. Dyson 165 Web Pages for Training and Reference: Kay Collins 1 68

Engaged Institutions: Using the Federal Depository Library as a Community Service to Address Regional Needs: Timothy Sutherland 1 75 How to Manipulate Federal Bulletin Board Files: Greta Boeringer 181 How to Manipulate Federal Bulletin Board Files: James Mauldin 186 How to Manipulate Federal Bulletin Board Files: David J. Nuzzo 198

Writing the Depository Self-Study: Ca/7 Snider, Stephen Henson 199

Department of Veterans Affairs Internet World Wide Web Server: Walter Houser 207

National Climatic Data Center: John Hughes 212

National Cancer Institute and Depository Libraries: A Productive Partnership: Nancy Brun 216 CDs in a Webbed World: Implications for Federal Depository Libraries: Cynthia Etkin 220

Future Colleagues: Documents Education in Library and Information Science Programs: Teaching Government Information on the Internet: Judith Schiek Robinson 224 Government Documents Assignments: Have We Really Been There, Done That?: Cassandra Hartnett 226

Future Colleagues: Documents Education in Library and Information Science Programs: Who Teaches What, When and Where: Bill Sudduth 228

Bureau of Labor Statistics Web Site: Deborah P. Klein 234

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics Web Site: Kathleen Quinn 237

Tools People with Disabilities Use to Interact with the Web: Robert Neff 241 Hands-On Technolog(eye)s, Touching the Internet: David Poehlman 244

The Able Channel: Jeffrey Pledger 245

The Web and Effective Usability: Mark Hakkinen, Ray Ingram 246

Ready Access to Information for People with Disabilities: Joseph Roeder 247

Things Change: The FDLP Setting and Early Partnership Efforts: Duncan M. Aldrich 248

Partnerships on the Web: FDLP Partnering to Provide Access to Electronic Resources: George Barnum 255

Constructing a Partnership: Nuts and Bolts Perspective: Donna Koepp 257

Contributors 262

iv
J999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Agenda

Depository Library Council

Federal Depository Conference

April 12-15, 1999

Holiday Inn-Bethesda

8 1 20 Wisconsin Avenue

Betliesda, MD

Sunday, April 1

1

All day meeting of regional librarians Morning

8:45 Welcome

• Sheila M. McGarr, Chief, Depository Services, LPS, GPO

• Francis J. Buckley, Jr., Superintendent of Documents

9:00 Developing Regional Web Pages for Selectives

• Steve Beleu, Director, U.S. Government Information, Oklahoma Department

of Libraries

• Suzanne Holcombe, Assistant Documents Librarian, Oklahoma State University Jan Swanbeck, Head, Documents Department, University of Florida 10:00 Break

10:30 Incorporating the NRG Legacy Collection Into the FDLP

• Elizabeth J. Yeates, Chief, Public Documents Room, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• George D. Bamum, Electronic Transition Specialist, LPS, GPO

11:15 Regional Manuals/Superseded Electronic Publications

• Daniel C. Barkley, Interim Director, Government Documents Department,

University of New Mexico

12:00 Lunch

v
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Afternoon

1:30 Videoccnference: For Training and Communication

• Sandra Fritz, Federal Documents Coordinator, Illinois State Library

2:45 Wrap Up

• Sheila M. McGarr, LPS, GPO

3:00 Adjourn

Orientation

4:00-5:00 Orientation to the Depository Library Council and Federal Depository Library Conference

This session is designed to acquaint first-time attendees with how Council works

and to preview Conference activities over the next 3 Vi days.

• Cynthia L. Etkin, Library Inspector, LPS, GPO, Facilitator

• Gail Snider, Library Inspector, LPS, GPO, Facilitator 6:00 Informal pre-dinner get-together to network by food preference

Depository Library Council sc Federal Depository Conference

Monday, April 12

Morning

8:00 Registration and Coffee with Council and GPO Staff 8:30 Welcome & Remarks

• Sheila M. McGarr, Chief, Depository Services, LPS, GPO

• Thomas K. Andersen, Council Chair

• Michael F. DiMario, Public Printer 9:00 GPO Update

• T.C. Evans, Assistant Director, Office of Electronic Information Dissemination

Services (EIDS), GPO

10:00 Break

10:30 GPO Update (continued)

• Gil Baldwin, Director, Library Programs Service, GPO

• Robin Haun-Mohamed, Chief, Depository Administration Branch, LPS, GPO

• Thomas A. Downing, Chief, Cataloging Branch, LPS, GPO

• George D. Bamum, Electronic Transition Specialist, LPS, GPO

vi
J999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

11:30 GPO Speakers: Council and Audience Q & A

12:00 Lunch

Afternoon

1 :30-4:00 Depository Library Promotional Materials, Order Forms, and Upcoming Marketing

Efforts

• Staff, Promotion & Advertising, GPO

2:00-3:15 Depository Library Council

• Committee Reports and Recommendations for Council Action

2:00-5:00 New Documents Librarians Informal session to answer questions from mundane to complex about depository

operational issues. For new documents librarians or those who feel "new" to any aspect of depository librarianship. Veteran documents librarians from a variety of backgrounds plus LPS staff will be available.

• Vicki A. Barber, Chief, Depository Distribution Division, LPS, GPO,

Facilitator

• Sheila M. McGarr, Chief, Depository Services, LPS, GPO, Facilitator 2:00-3 : 1 5 Introduction to DVD

• Carol F. Cini, Associate Director, Institute for Federal Printing and Electronic Publishing, GPO

2:00-3: 15 GPO Access (demonstration): All Databases

Part I: Introduction and Overview

• Selene T. Dalecky, Analyst, EIDS, GPO

• Karie T. Lew, Analyst, EIDS, GPO

2:00-3:00 LPS Tour

2:00-3:00 NOAA Central Library Tour

2:00-3:00 U.S. Senate Library Tour

2:00-4:00 STAT-USA/Internet Demonstration

3:15-3:45 Break

3:45-5:00 Partners in GIS: Establishing Partnerships to Provide Access to Government Data and Metadata to Citizens

• Kenwood E. Giffhom, Deputy Secretary, Management and Technical Services, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

• Maurie C. Kelly, Project Coordinator, Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access, Environmental Resources Research Institute • Todd Bacastow, GIS Coordinator, Pennsylvania State University

• Christopher Pfeiffer, PASDA Metadata Specialist, Pennsylvania State University

• Archie Wamock, Federal Geographic Data Committee Secretariat, U.S. Geological Survey

3 :45-5 :00 NTIS/GPO Depository Library Electronic Image Pilot Project

• Walter L. Finch, Associate Director for Business Development, National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce

vii
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

3 :45-5 :00 GPO Access (demonstration)

Part II: New Products and Q & A

• Selene T. Dalecky, Analyst, BIDS, GPO

• Karie T. Lew, Analyst, BIDS, GPO

3:45-5:00 Depository Library Council Working Session Tuesday, April 13

Morning

8:00

8:30

9:30

10:30

11:00

12:00 Afternoon

1:30-4:00

2:00-5:00

2:00-3:15

2:00-3:15

Coffee with Council & GPO Staff Depository Library Council: Plenary Session Assessment of Blectronic Government Information Products: Final Report

• Woody Horton, Consultant, National Commission on Libraries and

Information Science Depository Library Council: Plenary Session DOE Virtual Library of Bnergy, Science, and Technology

• Dr. Walter L. Wamick, Director, Office of Scientific & Technical Information, U.S. Department of Bnergy Break

Building the FDLP Blectronic Collection

• Judy Andrews, Blectronic Transition Specialist, LPS, GPO

• Laurie B. Hall, Program Analyst, LPS, GPO

Lunch

Depository Library Promotional Materials, Order Forms, and Upcoming Marketing

Efforts

• Staff, Promotion & Advertising, GPO

Depository Library Council Working Session Federal Agency Update Session, Part I DOB Information Bridge: One Year Later

• Don Altom, Product Manager, Office of Scientific & Technical Information, U.S. Department of Energy

1997 Economic Census and Decennial Census

• John C. Kavaliunas, Chief, Marketing Services Office, Bureau of the Census,

U.S. Department of Commerce STAT-USA Products

• Ken Rogers, Director, STAT-USA, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce

Digitizing Collections of Government Information: Options, Processes, Costs

• Cathy N. Hartman, Documents Librarian, University of North Texas

Electronic Resource Library of Plutonium Information: Vision and Reality (demonstration)

• Karen Ruddy, Director, Blectronic Resource Library Project, Amarillo College

viii
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

2:00-3 : 1 5 GPO Access (demonstration): Advanced Search Techniques

• Selene T. Dalecky, Analyst, EIDS, GPO

• Karen E. Sieger, Analyst, EIDS, GPO

Tracking Legislation through GPO Access' Congressional Databases

• Karie Lew, EIDS, GPO

2:00-3: 15 Spreading the Riches Around: Administering Selective Housing Arrangements from the Law Library Perspective

• Robert C. Richards, Jr., Technical Services and Documents Librarian, University of Colorado Law Library

• Sharon Blackburn, Government Documents Librarian, Texas Tech University School of Law Library

• Martha Jo Sani, Assistant Librarian, Business Library, University of Colorado

2:00-3:00 LPS Tour

2:00-3 :00 U.S. Senate Library Tour

3:15-3:45 Break

3 :45-5 :00 Federal Agency Update Session, Part II A Digital Library of the State of the Environment; How To Use on the Web and on a Web-connected CD-ROM (demonstration)

• Brand L. Niemann, Digital Librarian and Computer Specialist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Federal Emergency Management Agency (demonstration)

• Marc W. Wolfson, Public Affairs Specialist, Office of Emergency Information and Public Affairs, Federal Emergency Management Agency

Flaws: Employment Laws Assistance for Workers and Small Businesses

(demonstration)

• Roland G. Droitsch, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Labor

3 :45-5 :00 PURLS: What Do I Need to Know? Working With PURLS in Your Local Catalog

• Nan L. Myers, Government Documents Librarian, Wichita State University

• Arlene Weible, Government Documents Librarian, Willamette University 3:45-5:00 GPO Access (demonstration): Advanced Search Techniques (continued)

• Selene T. Dalecky, Analyst, EIDS, GPO

• Karen E. Sieger, Analyst, EIDS, GPO

3 :45-5 :00 American FactFinder (DADS) (demonstration)

• Barbara J. Aldrich, Assistant Chief, Marketing Services Office, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce

• Robert D. Clair, Senior Training Specialist, Marketing Services Office, Bureau

of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce

ix
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Wednesday, April 14

Morning

8:00 Coffee with Council & GPO Staff 8:30-12:00 Depository Library Council Working Session

Draft Recommendations and Action Items

8:30-10:00 Open Forum: Sales Program

• James T. Cameron, Acting Chief, Promotion & Advertising, GPO

• Alan E. Ptak, Chief, Sales Management Division, GPO

. • Denise L. Thompson, Chief, Order Division, GPO

8:30-10:00 Federal Agency Update Session, Part III National Partnership for Reinventing Government (demonstration)

• Patricia B. Wood, Web Manager, National Partnership for Reinventing Government 0*NET (demonstration)

• Donna Dye, 0*NET Project Manager, Employment and Training

Administration, U.S. Department of Labor

National Park Service (demonstration)

• David Nathanson, Chief of Library and Archives Services, National Park

Service Harpers Ferry Center

8:30-10:00 Disasters: Plans, Clean-up, and Recovery

• Mary M. Finley, U.S. Documents Librarian, California State University, Northridge

• Gail Fithian, Coordinator of Government Documents, Boston Public Library

' • Fred C. Schmidt, Government Documents Specialist, Colorado State University

• Joan Loftus, U.S. Government Documents Bibliographer, Stanford University

8:30- 1 0:00 Improving Quality of Documents Reference Service

• John W. Graham, Head, Public Documents and Patents, Public Library of

Cincinnati and Hamilton County

• Lillie J. Dyson, Public Libraries and State Networking Branch Chief, Maryland

State Department of Education Web Pages for Training and Reference

• Kay Collins, U.S. Government Information Librarian, University of California, Irvine 8:30-10:00 Engaged Institutions: Using the Federal Depository as a Community Service to Address

Regional and Community Needs

• Timothy L. Sutherland, Government Information Librarian, Indiana

University, Northwest

10:00 Break

10:00-11:00 LPS Tour

10:00- 11: 00 Library of Congress Serial and Government Publications Division Tour

X
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

10:00-1 1:00 National Library of Medicine Tour

10:00-1 1 :00 NOAA Central Library Tour

10:30-12:00 USDA Digital Publications Preservation Framework

• Pamela Q. Andre, Director, National Agricultural Library, U.S. Department of

Agriculture

• Donald Waters, Director, Digital Library Federation, Council on Library and

Information Resources

10:30-12:00 How to Manipulate Federal Bulletin Board Files

• Greta J. Boeringer, Documents Librarian, Pace University Law Library

• James M. Mauldin, Publications Management Specialist, LPS, GPO

• David J. Nuzzo, Acquisitions Librarian, State University of New York at Buffalo 10:30-12:00 Hints on Writing the GPO Self-Study

• Stephen Henson, Documents Librarian, Louisiana Tech University

• Gail Snider, Library Inspector, LPS, GPO

10:30-12:00 GPO Access Open Forum

• T.C. Evans, Assistant Director, BIDS, GPO, Facilitator 10:30-12:00 FDLP Administration Web Pages (demonstration)

• Joseph P. Paskoski, Analyst, LPS, GPO

12:00 Lunch

Afternoon

2:00-5:00 Depository Library Council Working Session

2:00-3 : 1 5 Atlas of Knowledge Project: Further Opportunities for Digital Community Information Building

• John A. Shuler, Head, Documents Department, University of Illinois, Chicago

• Eliot J. Christian, U.S. Geological Survey

2:00-3: 15 Federal Agency Update Session, Part IV

Department of Veterans Affairs (demonstration)

• Walter R. Houser, Webmaster, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs National Climatic Data Center (demonstration)

• John Hughes, Outreach Coordinator, National Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Cancer Institute • Nancy Brun, Chief, Information Resources Branch, National Cancer Institute 2:00-3:15 CD-ROMs in a Webbed World

• Cynthia L. Etkin, Library Inspector, LPS, GPO

2:00-3: 15 Future Colleagues: Documents Education in Library and Information Science Programs

• Timothy C. Hartnett, Associate Librarian, Pittsburgh State University

• Judith S. Robinson, Associate Professor, School of Information and Library

Studies, State University of New York at Buffalo

• Cassandra Hartnett, U.S. Documents Librarian, University of Washington

• William Sudduth, Reference Librarian, University of Richmond

xi
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

2:00-3: 15 GPO Access (demonstration): All Databases

Part I: Introduction and Overview

• Selene T. Dalecky, Analyst, EIDS, GPO

• Karie T. Lew, Analyst, EIDS, GPO

2:00-3:00 LPS Tour

2:00-3:00 National Library of Medicine Tour

2:00-3:00 U.S. Senate Library Tour

3:15-3:45 Break

3:45-5:00 Federal Agency Update Session, Part V

Bureau of Labor Statistics (demonstration)

• Deborah P. Klein, Associate Commissioner for Publications and Special

Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Justice Statistics (demonstration)

• Kathleen Quinn, Project Supervisor, Bureau of Justice Statistics Clearinghouse

National Center for Education Statistics (demonstration)

• Gerald Malitz, Webmaster, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education

3:45-5:00 The Ins and Outs (Literally) of Documents Processing

• Vicki A. Barber, Chief, Depository Distribution Division, LPS, GPO

• Robin Haun-Mohamed, Chief, Depository Administration Branch, LPS, GPO

3 :45-5 :00 Tools Persons with Disabilities (PWD) Use to Interact with the Web

• Robert Neff, Intranet Project Manager, U.S. Mint

• Joseph Roeder, Access Technology Specialist, National Industries for the Blind

• David Poehlman, Independent Consultant in Information Technology Access by

PWD

• Jeffrey Pledger, President, Able Channel

• Mark Hakkinen, President, Productivity Works, Inc. • Ray Ingram, Vice-President, Productivity Works, Inc. 3:45-5:00 GPO Access (demonstration)

Part II: New Products and Q & A

• Selene T. Dalecky, Analyst, EIDS, GPO

, ^ • Kane T. Lew, Analyst, EIDS, GPO

xii
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Thursday, April 15

Morning

8:00 Coffee with Council & GPO Staff 8:30 Partnerships on the Web: FDL? Partnering to Provide Access to Electronic Resources FDLP Partnerships: Origins and Underlying Issues

• Duncan M. Aldrich, Head, Business & Government Information Center, University of Nevada, Reno DOSFAN: Launching the Partnership System

• John A. Shuler, Head, Documents Department, University of Illinois, Chicago

Constructing a Partnership: Nuts and Bolts Perspective

• Donna P. Koepp, Head, Government Documents & Maps Library, University of Kansas GPO and FDLP Partnerships: Coordinator's Perspective

• George D. Bamum, Electronic Transition Specialist, LPS, GPO

10:00 Break

10:30 Depository Library Council: Plenary Session Report of Draft Recommendations and Action Items (including audience response and comments)

11:30 Closing Remarks

• Michael F. DiMario, Public Printer 12:00 Adjourn

1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Developing Regional Web Pages for Selectives

Suzanne Holcombe

Oklahoma State University

Stillwater, OK

Steve Beleu

Oklahoma Department of Libraries Oklahoma City, OK

Our regional depository Web sites should

include information for the selective depository

libraries that we are responsible for assisting.

In states like Oklahoma in which there are two

regional depository libraries, we suggest a "one-stop shopping" approach in which

selectives can access one Web site for services and resources available to them from both

regionals. Each regional continues to maintain

its own Web site. Another option is to put a

link on the regional's Web site pointing to pages listing services and resources for its selectives. We will look at and suggest for your use some

of the features that could be placed on such a Web site or Web page. These include features on Web sites that have been developed for serving selectives (I) and noteworthy links on

regional Web sites in general (ll-lll).

In January and again in March we attempted to survey the Web sites of every regional depository. In most cases we successfully reached the right page. But there were a few

cases in which we could never find a regional page. So our first obvious suggestion is this: your department page should be available on

the first level of your institution's Web site if at

all possible; if not, have it accessible on the second level. But if a selective has to navigate

down to a third level or beyond to search for your page, you may as well forget about it: nobody will find it.

I. The joint Oklahoma State University / Oklahoma Department of Libraries and the

University of Kentucky Libraries Regional Web

pages are sites that have been developed to serve their selectives. http://regdocs.okstate.edu/ www.uky.edu/Libraries/deprds.html

Following are current features of these Web

sites, and ones that we recommend for a

regional site serving its selectives. OK State University Library (OSU) / OK Department of Libraries (ODL)

1 . Links to the general pages of OSU and ODL and access to government information on the Internet

2. A map of the Federal depository system in Oklahoma, with directory information keyed to the map

3. Discard list guidelines for our state

4. A gateway to GPO Access

5. Information about the OKDOCS-L listserv

6. Federal information guides in PDF format

7. Links to the Federal Depository Library Program Administration

8. Links to Federal depository library information

9. The Oklahoma State Plan for the FDLP

10. Online articles

1 1 . Information about the Oklahoma Library Association's GODORT

12. A meeting calendar

1 3. A "Contact Your Congress" link so that depository librarians can easily lobby their

1
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Congressional representatives about

legislation that affects them Upcoming features will include a news section and a guide about Native American resources

in Oklahoma's depository libraries.

University of Kentucky Libraries

1. Government Information Gateway

2. Location map of Federal Depository Library Community Libraries in Kentucky

3. U.S. Government Resources

4. Kentucky State Plan

5. Exchange List Guidelines

6. Collection Development Policy

7. Federal Depository Library Program

Administration

8. "Let's Talk Documents" newsletter

II. Notable features of Regionals' Web sites. We recommend these types of features to include on a Regional Web site serving its selectives or on Web pages for selectives.

1 . State plans Louisiana State University www.lib.lsu.edu/govdocs/laplan2.html

OK State University Library / OK

Department of Libraries http://regdocs.okstate.edu/statpln.htm

University of Kentucky

www.uky.edu/Libraries/dep.html

2. Discard / exchange list regulations OK State University Library / OK

Department of Libraries http://regdocs.okstate.ed u/d i scard .htm

University of Kentucky

www.uky.edu/Libraries/depelg.html

University of Minnesota

www.lib.umn.edu/gov/disposal.html

3. Local listserv information OK State University Library / OK

Department of Libraries http://regdocs.okstate.edu/listserv.htm

University of Minnesota www.lib.umn.edu/gov/minndocs.html

4. Directory of depositories within state Louisiana State University www. I i b . I su .ed u/govdocs/d i rector, htm I New Mexico State Library www.stiib. state. nm.us/gpo/gponmlib.

html Newark Public Library www.npl .org/Pages/Col lections/ njdepositories.html

North Dakota State University www.lib.ndsu.nodak.edu/govdocs/

nddepdir.html

OK State University Library /OK

Department of Libraries www.odl.state.ok.us/usinfo/usdepsys.htm

University of Georgia

www.libs.uga.edu/govdocs/listlb98.html

University of Kentucky

www.uky.edu/Libraries/depframes.html

University of Minnesota www.lib.umn.edu/gov/fedmn.html

5. Newsletters

University of Kentucky—"LTD: Let's Talk Documents"

www.uky.edu/Libraries/depltd.html

6. Identification of Federal information in the news

University of Memphis—"Hot Docs in the News"

www.lib.memphis.edu/gpo/hotcool.htm

2
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

7. Link to the University of Memphis'

"Migrating Government Publications" www.lib.memphis.edu/gpo/mig.htm

Many regionals.

8. A map of depositories within their state OK State University Library / OK

Department of Libraries www.odLstate.ok.us/usinfo/usdepsys.htm

University of Kentucky

www.uky.edu/Libraries/depframes.html

9. Links to the Federal Depository Library Program Administration Many regionals.

10. Links to Federal depository library information Many regionals.

III. Other notable features of Regionals' Web

sites

1 . Links to various Federal information

sources, including a link to "Resources of Use to Government Documents Librarians" from the University of California at Berkeley at <http://library. berkeley.edu/GODORT/>

Many regionals

2. Links to the National High School Debate

Topic

University of Kansas

www.ukans.edu/cwis/units/kulib/docs/ debhome.html

3. Gateways to GPO Access and other Federal information sources Many regionals

4. Government information search engines

University of Colorado at Boulder

www-Libraries.colorado.edu/ps/

gov/gd/search .htm

University of Georgia

www.libs.uga.edu/govdocs/internet.htmI

5. Links to Web sites of other depositories Louisiana State University www. I i b . I su .ed u/govdocs/l ade pos i . h tm I

University of Idaho www.lib.uidaho.edu/govdoc/otherdep.html

#ID

6. Bibliographies and guides, including links to the "GODORT Handout Exchange" Auburn University www.lib.auburn.edu/madd/docs/docbib.

html

University of Colorado at Boulder

www-Libraries.colorado.edu/ps/gov/

gd/search.htm

University of Georgia

www.libs.uga.edu/govdocs/guides.html

University of Memphis

www.lib.memphis.edu/gpo/refgde.htm

7. Their own regional collection development

policy

University of Kentucky

www.uky.edu/Libraries/depcoldev.html

8. A map of the regional depository within

their city University of Colorado at Boulder

www-Libraries.colorado.edu/ps/gov/ map. htm

University of Minnesota wwwl .umn.edu/tc/around/directions- mpls.html

9. Descriptions and lists of CD-ROMs

Auburn University www.lib.auburn.edu/madd/docs/cdlist.

html

3
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

University of Georgia

www.libs.uga.edu/govdocs/microdat.html

10. Electronic information citators University of Colorado at Boulder

www-Libraries.colorado.edu/ps/gov/gd/

cite. htm

1 1 . Links to election information Web sites University of New Mexico

www.unm.edu/" govref/election. htm

12. Freedom of Information (FOIA) Reading

Room link University of New Mexico

www.unm.edu/' govref/doe/index' 1 .htm

13. Information on historical Federal publications about their state Newark Public Library ; www.npl.org/Pages/Collections/

retrodocs.html

14. Information on current Federal publications about their state New Mexico State Library (project is currently underdevelopment). www.stiib. state. nm.us/gpo/gpomain. html

15. Lists of Federal agencies whose depository

publications the regional receives— recommended for states with a shared

regional such as North Dakota

North Dakota State University www.lib.ndsu.nodak.edu/govdocs/

govndsu.html

University of North Dakota

www.lib.ndsu.nodak.edu/govdocs/

govund.html

Four Powerful Features of the University of Memphis Web Site: Home of "Migrating Government Publications" www.lib.memphis.edu/gpo/mig.htm

"Hot Documents in the News"

www.lib.memphis.edu/gpo/hotcool.htm

"Internet Resource Guides" (subject guides to Federal info) www.lib.memphis.edu/gpo/refgde.htm

"Instructional and Class Resources"

(information for classes at the University; an

electronic reserve room)

www.lib.memphis.edu/gpo/class.htm

4
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

FEFDL: Florida Electronic Federal Depository

Library

]an Swanbeck

University of Florida

Gainesville, FL

In April of 1 998 the Documents Department of the University of Florida submitted a grant proposal to the State Library of Florida (LSTA)

to fund the creation of the Florida Electronic Federal Depository Library. The stated need

for this Web page was: Equitable, no-fee access

to Federal Government information for all citizens of the State of Florida. An analysis of the location of the Federal depository libraries in Florida showed that the

citizens of the State of Florida do not have

equal access to a depository library. Of the 67

counties in the State, less than one third have a depository library within their boundaries. One half of all the depositories in the State are located in 5 counties. Citizens in counties without depository libraries in Florida, most of them rural areas with a low income population, must travel a great distance to reach the nearest Federal depository library, pay for a long

distance phone call, or depend on interlibrary loan from their local library. An examination of the widely varying percentages of available Federal publications

selected by depository libraries in Florida points out additional inequities in access to Federal information. Citizens of Putnam

County have access to only 8% of the Federal publications distributed by the Government

Printing Office. Citizens of Alachua County

and Leon County, on the other hand, have

close to 100% of the information readily

available. While the Federal Depository Library Program was created to ensure equal access to Federal

information, the reality for the citizens of the

State of Florida is quite different. Access varies according to proximity to a depository library and the completeness of the depository

library's holdings. An additional factor impacting equality is the migration of Federal

publications to the Internet. The lack of a

statutory obligation to make this information

available to depository libraries has created an

untenable situation. Library staff and users are dependent on unsatisfactory search engines, which return thousands of hits and databases such as GPO Access, which have only a

portion of available Federal information. FEFDL (Florida Electronic Federal Depository

Library) was the proposed solution. This free, one-stop Web interface will provide:

• Access to 100% of the Federal publications

distributed to depository libraries

• Single source of links to thousands of Federal Web sites

• Easy to use subject index

• Search capability

• Clickable map of Florida to find nearest

Federal depository library along with a

listing of county libraries with electronic contacts (e-mail and Web pages) and

information about school districts and

county government

5
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

• Interactive electronic services such as

interlibrary loan, reference, and duplication

requests

• Federal statistical data for the State of

Florida in CIS format The primary rationale used in the grant proposal came from the State Library's long- range plan ACCESS FOR ALL which states: "Ninety-five percent of public library outlets

will have direct digital public access with full graphical interface to the InternetAVorld Wide

Web by 1999." FEFDL would provide access

to Federal information in 95% of the libraries

in Florida. The site would have a link to the University of

Florida's online catalog, which has

bibliographic records for 10% of the documents distributed to depository libraries since 1976. A patron will be able to initiate a request for the material directly via e-mail or use the holdings information for other depository libraries in the State to find a closer

location. The site will also provide a link to GPO's sales program, enabling citizens to order material online. The proposal goes on to state that Federal information migrating to the Internet is not cataloged and libraries can no longer depend

on traditional access points. FEFDL is described as an attempt to establish bibliographic control of this electronic material

for the entire state. The effort is likened to the development of OCLC, a cooperative

cataloging project established to prevent

duplication of effort. This site will hopefully prevent every library in the state from

attempting to create links to the same Web

pages for Federal information. The proposal went on to describe some added

benefits such as publicity for the Federal Depository Library Program, the provision of geographic representations of frequently requested Florida county statistical data, and

no cost, rapid communication among the 40

depositories in Florida. In reality, the depository administration benefit was one of the driving forces of this grant. This is not a convincing argument, however, for a State

Library, which does not normally fund academic institutions. In fact, no one could remember exactly when the University of

Florida had last had a proposal funded by the

State.

Happily, the grant was funded and we are now

half way to the completion date. We are not, however, half way to completion. Not surprisingly, things have not gone as smoothly as described in the proposal. Getting

the funds transferred to the correct account was

a nightmare. At one point it had been placed

in another department's account but fortunately these kind people brought it to the Library's attention. Ordering the hardware has been

equally as difficult. The original specs called

for an NT Server but the Head of Systems in the end insisted on Linux. This was very ironic because the proposal had originally been

written for a UNIX server in order to accommodate the GPO Gateway software. The bulk of the funding was for staff. Currently two graduate students are working ten hours a week. One, a geography graduate student, is creating the county maps using ArcView. The

other, a computer science graduate student, is creating the county links. One aspect of the grant, the publicity phase,

has not been addressed at all. As outlined in the proposal, this will involve a mailing to all public libraries in the state, articles in appropriate newsletters, and a detailed announcement on the Florida public library

list-serv. This is, by far, the most critical component of the grant, if people don't know

about our page it may as well not exist. The

final task will be the mailing of a survey to all Federal depositories and public libraries in the

State to determine if they have linked to FEFDL

6
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

and if they have evaluative comments to share on its content. This will tell us in no uncertain terms if our efforts were worth it! Check out our progress at: http://depo.uflib.ufl.edu.

7
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Incorporating the NRC Legacy Collection into

the FDLP

George Barnum

U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, DC

Elizabeth Yeates

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Mission: To ensure that nonmiiitary uses of nuclear materials in the United States are

carried out with proper regard for the

protection of public health and safety. NRC

accomplishes its mission through:

• licensing the construction, operation, and decommissioning of commercial and

research nuclear reactors, nuclear fuel cycle facilities, and uranium enrichment

facilities;

• licensing the possession, use, processing, and exporting of nuclear materials, including certain aspects of transporting and disposing of nuclear materials and

wastes;

• licensing the siting, design, construction, operation, and closure of low-level radioactive waste disposal sites and a geologic repository for high-level radioactive waste;

• safeguarding nuclear materials and facilities from theft, damage, and sabotage;

• supporting U.S. national interests in the

safe use and nonproliferation of nuclear

materials; and

• conducting inspections and developing and

enforcing regulations governing these

activities. The NRC Public Document Room

Mission: To facilitate the public's access to NRC publicly available documents. Through its comprehensive document release

policies, the NRC has made available more

than two million documents for public viewing and copying in the Public Document Room

(PDR) since its transfer to NRC from the former Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) in 1975. The holdings include documents from the

regulatory activities of the AEC. PDR librarians assist members of the public in defining their information needs; and in identifying, evaluating, and accessing relevant NRC documents from various resources (PDR

collections, GPO, Web, distribution lists, etc.) The NRC Local Public Document Rooms

(LPDRs)

Mission: To give citizens living or working nea^* nuclear power reactors and certain other nuclear facilities access to the records used by

the NRC in licensing and regulating those local

facilities.

8
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Documents made publicly available in 1981 and thereafter are represented in the majority

of LPDRs as 48X microfiche (referenced as "1981 + 48X microfiche"). LPDRs are situated in academic, public, and

State libraries. There are currently 86 LPDRs

and 73 of these have the 1981 + 48X

microfiche collections. Reference support to the LPDRs is now provided by the PDR. Agency Documents Access And Management

System (ADAMS)

Definition of ADAMS

The policies, processes, and software tools to manage unclassified, official program and

administrative records of lasting business value

to the NRC in an electronic rather than paper

based environment. Importance of ADAMS

• Will be installed on the desktop of every employee

• Natural tool that will be used in everyday

work: like the telephone or e-mail

• Each employee and the NRC will achieve

productivity gains with its use

• It will improve communication within the NRC and with licensees and other stakeholders

• Will make public documents available to the public via the Internet

• Submittals to the NRC can be in electronic form via the Internet (in lieu of paper)

LPDR Host Library Responses to NRC Request

for Non-Binding Indication of Interest in Retaining 1981 + 48X Microfiche Collections

after Proposed Termination of NRC Funding

71/73 had responded by April 2.

54/71 (767o) replied affirmatively, 17/71 (247o) replied negatively. 22/24 (927o) selective depository libraries responding replied affirmatively; 2 (87o), negatively. (2 selective depository libraries have not yet responded.)

5/6 (837o) Regional depository libraries replied

affirmatively- 1 (177o), negatively. Of 34 states* currently with one or more of these collections (from a total of 38 states with LPDRs), 5 do not have a library indicating

interest in retaining a collection (Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, and

Vermont). The Maryland and Vermont nuclear

facilities are within 50 miles of, respectively, the NRC Public Document Room and a Massachusetts library indicating interest in retaining a collection.

*(AL, AR, AZ, CA, CT, FL, GA, lA, IL, KS, LA, MA, MD, ME, Ml, MN, MO, MS, NC, NE, NH,

NJ, NV, NY, OH, OR, PA, SC, TN, TX, VA, VT, WA, Wl)

GOAL:

Permanent Retention of at least One (1 ) 1 981 -h 48X Microfiche Collection in Each State Currently Holding One

Options:

Regional depository libraries, strategically placed, assume the 1 7 rejected collections?

Regional depository libraries develop Selective Housing Agreements with one or more libraries retaining the collections?

9
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Videoconferencing

Sandra Fritz

Illinois State Library

Springfield, IL

I have been asked to give a talk on

videoconferences, and while I am more than happy to do this, I can only tell you what we

do in Illinois. Please remember that what you do in your own states and agencies will vary. My perspective is from a State Library in the Midwest. Our abilities will not be the same as yours. I plan to tell you three things:

1 . How conferences are organized in Illinois. 2. Personal experiences

3. Do's and don'ts of videoconferences as we have experienced them in Illinois How Conferences Are Organized The Illinois State Library has been doing

videoconferences since 1992. Our

teleconferencing is not solely limited to government information. As a matter of fact, we have only done one dedicated solely to government information, mainly GPO Access, though documents have been included in other videos dealing with reference work. The videoconferences have covered a variety of subjects. Past conference titles have

included "Promoting Libraries: Telling Your

Story to the Media and Public," "The Road Less Traveled: The Americans with Disabilities Act,"

"First Step in Digitizing," "Back to Basics: Kids and Reading," and "Grants and Grantmanship:

How to Design a Successful Grant

Application." The Illinois State Library has sponsored over 35

videoconferences since 1992. The idea is to get the information out to the library community statewide. The best way to do that

seemed to be the use of teleconferencing. We

found this to be a very beneficial and cost

effective way of reaching many members of our library community.

All of the money is provided by the State

Library. Funds are budgeted to produce four to

six conferences a year, and, due to the success

statewide, there has been no problem getting funds for the conferences. There is one thing that is most important to

realize before the library can sponsor a conference or allow them to be shown at various locations throughout the state. There

can be no cost to the user. The entire cost is fronted by the State Library. The conferences are shown in locations throughout the state. We also have taped them

for posterity, and the videos can be borrowed

through interlibrary loan. The conferences happen because the State Library has the cooperation of the Illinois Information Services agency. This agency tapes the video footage and runs the show when it is live. Most of our conferences have taped and live footage. This can prove to be a challenge but it seems to work best. The person at the Illinois State Library who

organizes and coordinates the conferences, and

thus keeps all of the statistics and contact

information, is Jill Heffernan. Jill is the

administrative assistant in the Library Development section of the library. I have

included her e-mail and phone number on the handout so you can contact her with any

10
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

questions you may have that go beyond my

scope today.

Library Development is primarily responsible

for videoconferencing at the State Library. They are in charge of organizing the conferences, coming up with the ideas and

carrying them through. More importantly, the money comes out of their budget. Now to get the statistics out of the way. I have been given information on 27 of the videoconferences sponsored by the State

Library. Please be aware that this information

is not completely current, it is just used to give you some idea of the costs involved. The

average cost of sponsoring a conference has been around $2,256.00, with the highest price paid of $3,585.69 and the lowest being

$1,562.50. The average cost per viewer has been $6.30 (about the price of a movie in Springfield), the high being $13.98 and the low

being $2.37. The average number of attendees is 41 2. The

lowest number attending was 1 35 (that was

early on in the records) and the most so far has been 903. The average number of downlink

sites is 27, with the most being 32 sites. I will get to that just a little bit later.

This is basically how it works. Development

checks the calendar and chooses the dates. Right now their goal is to do six a year, three in the spring and three in the fall. They do not do

them in the summer because they feel they will lose the school librarians, and the goal is to reach as many librarians in the state as

possible. Next they contact the "satellite guys" over in the Illinois Information Services office. They

confirm the dates with them and then move on

to publicity. I am not very good at this next

part and if you have any real "technical" questions, I would contact Jill, but here goes. They choose their downlink sites. The sites must have a satellite that is KU Band capable

and they must do it free of charge to the State Library as well as the attendees. The only thing

I know about KU Band capable is that is the width of the broadcast signal. To find out more

please ask your own technical specialist.

Jill then sets about getting the sites for registration and typing up the form. Every

library in the state gets information about the conference. The list covers about 4,000

people, including some 20-30 people outside

of Illinois who have asked to be put on the mailing list. The information is also put out on

our Web site at <www.library.sos.state.il. us/> . I have included that on the handout as well. People are asked to mail, e-mail or fax their confirmation. The downlink sites have a code

that is given to them by Development. The

code number is also a way to know when a site

is calling in with a valid question. We know it is from a registered site and where that site is. Some people receive the conference through

cable access channels or can receive the videotape through interlibrary loan. The list of conference titles can also be found on our Web

page. The final process is an evaluation form, jill compiles the information including any

suggestions for future programs or topic areas. Our videoconferences have reached over

1 1,000 people, with an average audience of around 412 people. We have been contacted by many people outside of Illinois, including

people from Texas, Colorado, California,

Virginia, Michigan, Missouri and Florida. Lest you think we are limited to the people of the United States, we have heard from people in Ireland, Australia, Canada, South Africa and the

Virgin Islands. We have already done two conferences this year. Our first one was entitled "Metadata." Our second "Partnerships for the Future:

11
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Librarians and Vendors Working Together" was

in March with our next conference, the "4th Annual Trustee Satellite Videoconference:

Legal Issues dealing with Library Trustees" on

April 24. There are four more in the process of being planned this year.

Personal Experiences As you probably know, a great deal of work

goes into what some might call a little two

hour videoconference. It may look easy but

believe me it is not. I don't have any statistics to back up what I am about to say, but it takes an average of 1 0-1 2 hours of work for every

half-hour on tape. Depending on how you work it or what your conference entails, you may have a great deal of writing to do or if you

have more of a "live" format, you will need to have conference calls, and plenty of time for electronic mail. What I am going to do now is talk about

planning and implementing a videoconference.

I will share my own experiences as well as those of two other members of the Illinois State Library staff who have planned these conferences. They are Anne Craig, head of our new Digital Imaging Program at the State Library who recently completed a conference on Metadata, and Barbara Alexander, network

consultant at the State Library. Some of you may know Barb, as she was the Federal documents librarian at Illinois State University before joining us at the State Library. Barb has been heavily involved in the most recent conferences sponsored by the library.

Let's start with me since I know me best. In

1 995, I was called by my supervisor to help brainstorm some ideas for a videoconference on technology. I have a background in local theater and tend to be somewhat of a goofball

at work. Perhaps these are the qualifications necessary to begin a career with

teleconferencing, I don't know.

Anyway, three of us sat around and came up

with some ideas. What resulted was "The Technology Game" videoconference. We

came up with a game show idea and based it on Jeopardy! Our host was Dick Dos, and we

had three contestants. We bullied three other members of the staff to be the contestants, and

the game begins. We came up with questions and answers, some

correct, some not, some funny we hoped, and some probably not. When the question was

answered, we cut away to the two "geeks" who

took the question and answered it in greater

detail. It covered the basics; it was 1995, after

all. After the script was approved, we went to the studio to film it. We had it all: TelePrompTers, lights, cameras, microphones, the highest quality of sets and

props. The podiums were made out of plastic with little hotel clerk bells. We were warned

not to hit them too hard as they may fall over, and, let me just say, one did. One woman hit the bell with great force and saw it go falling through the plastic down to the ground. Needless to say a cut was necessary. The other blooper that needed a cut dealt with Dick Dos

and the answer of hard disk drive. The filming of little two to three minute

segments took all day long. The geeks had the look of being in a lab, this was done with some

special effects from the studio guys. One word

of advice: stay on the good side of these guys. They can make ya or break ya. You can come up with an idea, and they can come up with better ones. They have the wizardry and know-how to improve on what

you already have written and can be helpful in lending a prop or two.

I was not involved with another conference

until 1996 when we had a our re-inspection. Since we had personnel coming from GPO

(Sheila), it seemed the perfect opportunity to do a conference on government information

12
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

and to use her knowledge for a videoconference. So we combined the geeks from the "Technology Game" and, after some

brainstorming, with a superhero character we

called "GPO Man." He could help a floundering librarian answer a Federal question in a single bound. GPO

Access was his greatest tool, and at the time, GPO Access was new. We cooked up some

scenarios for GPO Man to come and rescue the information specialist. We had Dorothy Gale

from Kansas seeking information on Bob Dole. We had a Russian spy ask for CIA documents, and a CIA agent getting some help from the Economic Report of the President. When the librarian gave a cry for help, she

called for GPO Man who came zooming in. I will now show you a clip or two from the videoconference including the stunningly

attractive GPO Man. Needless to say, our GPO Man was not too thrilled with his costume but at least he doesn't wear tights!

After the somewhat amusing skit humor, we

had a question and answer session. When you

have a Q&A, it is necessary to come up with questions on your own in case nobody calls in. As you know, you can talk to a whole room

and not have anybody ask any questions. It's bad enough when this happens in a room full of people but when this happens in a videoconference, you have dead air, which nobody likes. I recommend that you have a few members of your staff that are not "on camera" to call in with questions you have

previously written up and hope that this sparks questions for those watching. Our GPO conference seemed to be quite popular and one response told us GPO Man

was dreamy. OK, it was John Shuler, but it was

funny nonetheless. The filming and script writing took up a great deal of time. Once

again, it takes a great deal of work to pull off a two-hour show. The first hour of the conference was prerecorded at the State Library

over two evenings. The second hour was a

live panel discussion with the documents

coordinator, Jim Edstrom, as moderator.

I will also give you a warning that, while you

should have a core group who writes your

script, leave a person or two to critique your work when it is done. As you probably know,

after a while it all seems funny to you and also seems to make sense, when that may not be

the case. The third and final conference I have been

involved with was called "Strengthening Your

Strategy: Advanced Techniques for Reference on the Web." We wised up a little on this one

and went beyond our own resources for assistance. This proved to be one of our most

successful videoconferences, due partly to the subject matter. 903 people tuned into this one. We received calls from around the country as well as Ireland and Australia for this one. The conference dealt with the different types of search engines on the Web and the strengths and weaknesses of each. Anne Craig coordinated with other members of ILLINET, our statewide library network, to come up with

scenarios about using different search engines. She posted messages to our statewide reference

list-sen/ to get a fresh perspective from people

outside the State Library. Since we are a

special library, it was useful to have input from academic and public libraries. Combining the scripts of different people

proved to be a challenge. While the whole

burden of writing the script did not fall to us, we had to be sure it was something we could

film in one or two evenings and that the scripts would address the questions we were asking. For the most part, it worked out well. We did come up with a problem or two in filming.

For most of the scenes someone who worked

at the State Library was the "librarian." Since we were familiar with the space and had done

a conference before, it would be a little easier

13
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

when it came to filming. One of the people we had write a scenario did so and scripted himself as the librarian which was fine, we

figured that we wouldn't have to worry about it because he would know it because he had

written it. WRONG!

When it came time to film, this person decided

that each time he did the scripted search, he would search it in a slightly different manner,

it seemed to us, that he did not realize that this was not a real reference interview, but a

scripted one with a beginning, middle and end

and a point to make. It was very difficult to edit his section into anything usable because

he did not repeat himself. Otherwise, it was a

relatively painless shoot; we even did a few

commercials for search engines like Excite and

Yahoo!

This was the last conference I was directly involved in. I have talked to others who have done them recently and now I would just like to share with you some of the do's and don'ts

of videoconferences as we have discovered in our seven years of doing them. DO

• Use humor

• Rehearse as much as you can

• Get your PowerPoint or whatever

presentation you are using to your

technical people a few days ahead of the conference

• Be on good terms with your technical people. They make or break you.

• If using a panel discussion, give each member a "moment" to shine.

• Get a good moderator

• The more specific the topic the better the conference

• Screen your phone calls

• Use a change of pace: Nobody wants to see 2 hours of talking heads

• Keep it to two hours. The attention span

will wander DON'T

• Revise or improve your script on a daily

basis

• Wait for the Internet to load. Use a canned demo for filming

• Leave things to chance: script as much as you can, but leave a little room for improv

• Leave time for "dead air"

• Wait till the last minute; it will show A few of the other lessons learned are, no

matter how good a public speaker your

presenter is, there is a difference between

public speaking and on camera speaking. Given the limitations we sometimes encounter,

i.e., we are not a Hollywood studio, big movements and wandering around the room

are not kosher on camera. Your movements

are limited. Remember you are reaching a

large group but the camera is the one person to whom you are talking.

If possible, try to get someone experienced.

Life is so much easier when you have someone who knows what they are doing. Good

organization skills are a must as well. Remember, there is work to do after the conference. Thank you notes, and in our case, we send tapes out to the participants. There

are follow-ups to do and evaluation forms to

assess. Remember the difference between tape and

live broadcasting. With videotape, you can

14
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

film it more than once and if worst comes to worst, you can edit. This is not possible with

live on camera work as any blooper television show can attest.

Believe your would-be speakers if they tell you

that they a) aren't any good on camera, b) are shy about being on camera, or c) are not good

public speakers. We have had folks in our tapes who have not

felt comfortable on camera and believe me it shows! Once you get through the normal, "oh, not me, I can't!" to the really serious, " NO

REALLY!", believe them. Your conference will be better for it. To the best of your ability, try to get compatible people for a panel discussion. When your panel members clash, your live

discussion will pay the price. Sometimes, of course, this cannot be avoided. In the

preliminary, try to feel out your panel members

as much as possible.

Satellite time is expensive, so use it! Something is going to go wrong, so BE PREPARED and don't let it upset the apple cart.

In conclusion, I would say, get a good group

together, have a solid idea and have fun with

it. It is a learning process. The Illinois State Library has sponsored many conferences and

lessons are learned on each one. Be open and

learn. It has been an excellent way to communicate throughout the state and reach thousands of people with technology that is readily available.

15
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Introduction to DVD

Carol Cini

U.S. Government Printing Office

Wasliington, DC

DVD started out standing for Digital Video

Disc, then Digital Versatile Disc, and now it's just plain old DVD. It is essentially a bigger and faster CD that is being promoted for entertainment purposes (movies) and some

computer applications. It will eventually

replace audio CDs, VHS and Beta tapes,

laserdiscs, CD-ROMs, and video game

cartridges as more hardware and software manufacturers support this new technology.

DVDs and CDs look alike. A CD is a single

solid injected molded piece of carbonate

plastic that has a layer of metal to reflect data

to a laser reader and coat of clear laminate for protection. DVD is the same size 4s a CD but consists of two solid injected molded pieces of plastic bonded together. Like CDs, DVDs have a metalized layer (requires special metalization

process) and are coated with clear laminate. Unlike CD's, DVD's can have two layers per

side and have 4 times as many "pits" and

"lands" as a CD.

There are various types of DVD, including

DVD-ROM, DVD-Video, DVD-Audio, DVD-R,

and DVD-RAM. The specifications for these DVD's are as follows: for prerecorded DVD's; Book A - DVD-ROM, Book B - DVD-Video,

and Book C- DVD-Audio. For recordable DVD's, there is Book D - DVD-R, Book E

- DVD-RAM. The official DVD specification books are available from Toshiba after signing a nondisclosure agreement and paying a $5,000 fee. The storage capacity of a DVD in relation to a CD is immense. For prerecorded DVD's, the

storage capacity is as follows: DVD-5 (1 side, 1 layer) 4.7 Gb, DVD-9 (1 layer, 2 sides) 8.5 Gb,

DVD-10 (2 sides, 1 layer) 9.4 Gb, and DVD-18

(2 sides, 2 layers) 1 7 Gb. For recordable DVD's, the capacity as of today is as follows: DVD-R, 3.8 Gb per side, and DVD-RAM, 2.6 Gb per side. Now, let's take a look at each type of DVD,

starting with DVD-Video. A DVD-Video can

hold up to 1 7 Gb of video. However, no one

to date has produced a DVD beyond a DVD-9,

which holds up to 270 minutes of high quality video using MPEG2 compression. DVD-Video

also supports up to 8 tracks of digital audio

including Dolby Surround Sound. I will demonstrate the multi-language capabilities at the end of the presentation by having Mel

Gibson speak perfect French. DVD-Video also supports up to 32 subtitles or karaoke tracks. This feature is a great benefit to those who want to be ADA-compliant. You

can also have nine different camera angles. If you are watching a DVD-Video of a football game from the 50-yard line, you could switch

the camera angle and watch from the end

zone. Same concept the networks use, except you have control. Unfortunately, I won't be

able to demo this feature as the only movies

currently available with multi-angle features are from the pornography industry. DVD-Videos

offer menus and simple interactive features as well as parental locks. If you have an R-rated movie, you can easily make it G-rated by

locking out all R and PG frames. Other

features such as fast forward or still frames plus more are available. DVD-Video supports widescreen and movies reconfigured for television viewing.

16
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

DVD-Videos came into the market in 1997

after the DVD manufacturers convinced the movie industry that copying movies would

require very expensive equipment and would

be extremely hard to accomplish (unlike VHS

and Beta movies!). Eventually, DVD-Video

will replace the VHS and Beta formats as more

movies become available and more players are

sold. Blockbusters is now stocking DVD

movies in some of its stores as they also foresee

the future. Movies are available for rent or can be bought for prices from $12.00 to $30.00. These prices will drop when the demand

increases. There is another product similar to a DVD

called DIVX. These can be bought at Circuit City for about $5.00, which entitles you to view the movie once. With the DIVX player you can dial a phone number and request another viewing of the movie for another

charge. I personally think that DIVX is the Beta

version of DVD and will probably not survive

as the prices of DVDs continue to drop. Of greater interest to those in the library community is the DVD-ROM which will affect the publishing industry. A DVD-ROM can

hold 4.7 to 1 7 Gb of data and has a transfer

rate of 1 .3 Mb per second. DVD-ROM

supports both the micro universal disc format and the CD ISO9660 format. You can view CD's in a DVD drive but not the reverse. Naturally, high quality video, audio, and

interactive features can be added to a publication making it very dynamic. Video on CD-ROM was very limited considering the limited space. At this point

there are not many DVD-ROM's available. One of the first DVD-ROM's was the United

States white pages containing all the phone

numbers in the U.S. These were originally sold on 5 CD-ROM's but now are available on one DVD. DVD-ROM publishing in the Government is in

its infant stage and very few have been

published. One agency that is going to benefit

greatly from the DVD technology is the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO),

represented today by Mr. Cox, who will talk about the PTO and DVD following this presentation. Some uses for DVD-ROM include training, large databases, and of course the games for kids and some adults like me. The Navy came

out with a DVD in 1 998 for medical training in the event of chemical warfare. It runs a trainee through a series of video scenarios, and the

trainee must look at each video for clues to help determine if a chemical attack has

occurred, the severity of the injuries, and the proper way to respond. The Air Force also came out with a DVD in 1 998 on the subject

of ethics.

Basically there are seven steps for making

multimedia DVD-ROM. One has to create or

collect the data, video, and audio. A menu

and navigational tree has to be developed. The

media elements, such as compressing the video, must be prepared. All the data must be

formatted for DVD and then a test disc is created. Copy protection can be added if required and then the discs are replicated and

packaged. The cost for authoring a DVD-ROM can run from $2,000 to over $50,000 depending on the

features to be included on the disc. The

replication costs, which are dropping, run about $2,000 for mastering the disc and $1 .80

to $4.50 per disc (depending on the number of

layers used). There were some initial problems with DVD- ROM. In the summer of 1997 there was a "plug fest" organized by the International Multimedia Association where 40 DVD titles in development or in distribution were tested on DVD-ROM playback systems. Two thirds of the DVD-ROM titles that used MPEG2 video

did not work, while 95% of DVD-ROM titles without video worked properly. Today's

17
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

generation of DVD-ROM playback systems should have no problems running DVD-ROM

with video. I have the first generation laptop with DVD and, unfortunately, I am unable to play any of the Government-produced DVDROMs.

The next type of DVD is the DVD-R or DVDRecordable. The recorders are very expensive

($1 7,000); however, a $5,000 unit will be out

shortly. The DVD-R discs cost approximately

$50 per disc and currently hold 3.95 Gb per

side (this will increase to 4.7 Gb by this summer). I suspect the cost of the media will also drop in time. DVD-RAM, which is a rewriteable disc (fn a

cartridge), costs $25 to $40. The drives are less than $800 and can hold up to 2.6 Gb per side. At this time, many people have opted for the DVD-RAM as the costs are lower than the DVD-R. There are other rewritable formats such as DVD-RW and DVD-RW+ but it appears that DVD-RAM will lead the pack. DVD-Audio, which will provide high fidelity, surround sound, and obviously longer playing

features, will be coming out soon. The

specification version 1 .0 was just recently

released. Why bother with CDs when DVD is now

available? In 1998 the projected sales of DVDVideo players was 1 .2 million and 6.5 million

for DVD-ROM players. According to the

industry, CDs and DVDs will coexist until the year 2001, at which point the DVD player will become a standard for desktop and laptop units and more DVDs will be sold than CDs.

If you want more information on DVD, I suggest the following sources: DVD Forum <www.dvdforum.org>. Optical Video Disc Association <www.ovda.org>, SIGCAT <www.sigcat.org>, and for industry and market information <www.dvd.net>

.

GPO's Institute for Federal Printing and

Electronic Publishing is also offering a one-day

class given by Ralph LaBarge, who is an expert

in this area.

At this point, let me demonstrate some of the DVD-Video features and answer any of your

questions.

18
J 999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Partners Providing Public Access

Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access: A Partnership

to Provide Access to Government Data

Kenwood Giffhom

PA Department of Environmental Protection

Harrisburg, PA

Introduction

• This presentation > The nature of geographic data > The PASDA partnership > Creating metadata > The Library's opportunity

Geographic Data

• Example: USGS Digital Orthophoto

Quarterquad (DOQ) > Approx 45 Mb each > 4 per 7.5 min quad > 3600 for PA > 162 Gb for the state > 300 CDs

A stack over 6 feet high

• Locally developed more detailed

Partnership

• PA Department of Environmental

Protection

• Penn State University > Environmental Resources Research

Institute > Department of Geography > Cataloging Department of PSU Library

• Numerous participating groups, such as > PA Topographic and Geologic Survey > County governments > Non-governmental organizations

PASDA

• Spatial Data Library Approach

• Data-related tasks Include > identification > storage > documentation > retrieval and distribution PASDA is a spatial data clearinghouse that provides organized access to spatial data from

government, business, academia, and non- governmental organizations in a repository for easy query, analysis, and display. It is an easy

to use system that catalogs and serves spatial data critical to the decision making processes. PASDA Results

• Over 7000 datasets documented > 3000 Digital Orthophoto Quads > 1800 Digital Raster Graphics > 900 Digital Elevation Models > 1500 Locally Developed Digital Datasets

• "Pull" approach for metadata collection

• 200 Gb of "native" format data

• Over 1 .6 million hits per year

• Over 1 terabyte of data served

19
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

• Close working relationships with Federal,

state, and local gov't agencies and public,

private, nonprofit groups

• High use and satisfaction from CIS

professionals Data Documentation

• Metadata is the often unappreciated crucial element

• Cataloging Department of PSU Library is a key partner

20
J 999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Partners Providing Public Access

The Library's Role in tlie PASDA Partnersliip

Chris Pfeiffer

Pennsylvania State University Libraries University Parl<, PA

Why Metadata?

• Standardized metadata is the backbone of the Spatial Data Library > Makes possible a catalog of available data > Describes content and relevance of data > Allows integration into larger scale services > Documents authenticity and reliability > Provides necessary usability information > Identifies distribution mechanisms

Participation Barriers

• No sense of need

• Resistance to data sharing

• Lack of cataloging skills

• Quantity of undocumented data Making Contact

• Create relationships with data producers

• Overall benefits of participation

• Organizational benefits of metadata

• Provide basic guidance about metadata

• Gather information about data

Process

• Metadata creation

• Review with data provider

• Changes and additions

• Validation and XML mark-up

• Incorporate into Web site and index Follow-up

• Continue relationships

• Tools for update

• Validation of updates

• Pursue additional sources

Results

• Doesn't reinvent the wheel

• Wide variety of participants

• Direct input of professional users

• Increased value on data documentation

• Support from broad governmental base

21
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Partners Providing Public Access

Focusing the Library^s Contribution

Todd Bacastow

Pennsylvania State University

University Park, PA

What Has Been Successful?

• Data library service ,„,,,. > „ > identification > storage , /; ;? > documentation

• Service to G IS professionals > search and retrieval of spatial metadata > storage and distribution in "native" format data

Lessons Learned

• Technical assistance is key

• Data integration important

• Update of data cannot be ad hoc

• 1 07o of the data is used 90% of the time

• Need to meet the needs of the non-expert

user

• Web-mapping becoming an essential component

Future PASDA Enhancements

• Integration of tabular and spatial data

• Agreements with data providers for update

• Standardized "base" themes

• Web-mapping application server

• Non-expert data viewing through a Web

browser PASDA is not

• a store of day-to-day operational data

• a one-stop CIS shop

Focusing the Library's Contribution

Possible Roles

• Do CIS > Provide data viewing capabilities > Provide desktop CIS capabilities > Provide fully functional CIS capability

• Metadata development

• Spatial data management

• Do a little of all the above

• Do nothing The Library's Challenge

• Coping with the volume of digital spatial data . „.

• Few capabilities

• Limited resources

• Minimal expertise

• Providing data access

22
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

• Increasing patron's expectations

What Does the Customer Need?

• Basic nourishment? or

• Haute cuisine? Go for the BigMac!

• Get out of the paper map business

• Build on the library's strengths (and I am

not suggesting full CIS services)

• Exploit Web-based CIS technologies

Why?

• "Desktop CIS" and a "Fully Functional GIS"

are essentially the same

• Never-ending expense of GIS hardware and

software

• Current cost of skilled GIS people > B.S. - Over $40,000 > M.S. - Over $50,000 > Ph.D. -Over $100,000

More Reasons!

• A basic purpose of a GIS is synthesizing

data to create new information

• Librarians don't write papers for patrons - why should you write a "spatial document?"

o Others are staffed and equipped to provide GIS services My Suggestion!

• Put your resources where you can maximize the impact > Data acquisition > Cataloging (Metadata development) > Customer service

23
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse

Archie Wamock

U.S. Federal Geographic Data Committee Secretariat Reston, VA

What is Clearinghouse?

• Distributed service ta locate geospatial data based on their characteristics expressed in metadata

• Clearinghouse allows one to pose a query

of all or a portion of the community in a

single session

• Like a spatial AltaVista Components of Clearinghouse

• There are three functional areas that

interact to create the Clearinghouse: > Metadata preparation and indexing > Metadata service > User Access via Gateway forms Clearinghouse Design

• The Clearinghouse in its distributed form

includes a registry of servers, several WWW-to-Z39.50 gateways, and many

Z39.50 servers

• A primary goal of Clearinghouse is the

ability to find spatial data throughout the

entire community, not one site at a time Clearinghouse Method

• User downloads query form

• User sends query to Web server

• Gateway passes query to clearinghouse

servers

• Gateway receives and collates response as

list of "hits"

• Client receives results summary as HTML

by default

• Client can request a specific metadata

record for viewing Metadata Solutions

• Numerous software solutions available

• Commercial and free-ware

• Standalone, DB-linked, GIS-linked

• Permit collection and structuring of FGDCcompatible metadata

• Present metadata as HTML, XML, or text

Server Solutions

• Z39.50 Protocol is used

a "GEO" Geospatial Metadata Profile is published for Z39.50 implementors to understand FGDC metadata structures

• Supports search across numeric, text, date, and spatial extent and full-text

• Freeware and commercial solutions

• User Interfaces

24
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

• HTML-based forms hosted at Gateways are the primary access method

• Java map-based interface from MEL allows more sophisticated search

• Inclusion of search capabilities in CIS

client software is possible Who's in Clearinghouse?

• 109 Nodes (servers) online as of 3/1/99 > 28 Federal, national scope > 35 State/University state-wide scope > 28 International scope or location > 18 Local or Regional scope

Federal Participation

• NOAA(IO)

• uses (6) • FEMA (sampler)

• NRCS climate and soils

• CIESIN/EPA

• CIESIN/NASA

• DOT NTAD

• National Park Service

• Army Corps of Engineers

• Tri-Services Center

• National Wetlands Inventory

• Census (sampler)

• Minerals Management Service

State Participation

• New York (2) • North Carolina

• Oklahoma

• Kansas

• Texas

• Montana (3) • Vermont

• Pennsylvania

• West Virginia

• Washington

• Wisconsin

• Wyoming (2)

• Florida

• Alabama

• New Mexico

• Arizona

• Georgia

• Illinois • Minnesota

• Alaska

• California

• Delaware

• Nebraska

• New Jersey

Regional/Local Participation

• McKinley Co, NM

• City of Santa Fe, NM

• North Texas GIS

• Research Planning

• Sabine R Authority, TX

• San Francisco Bay

• S Florida Ecosystem

• SW Natural Resources

• Olympic Peninsula, WA

• Greater Yellowstone

• Helena NF

• Ecological Reserves, KS

• MIT/Mass Boston DOQs

• Great Lakes EIS

• Eastern Sierra

International Participation

• NOAA/Japan COIN

• South Africa (2) • ESAAVHRR sampler

• GELOS, Italy • PAIGH, Mexico

• S57 Hydrography, Canada

• NRLMEL

• Africa DDS

• Inter-American Geospatial Data Network

• Hong Kong

• CIESIN/USDA Global Environmental Change

• Australia (10 + ) • Costa Rica

25
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

• Caribbean CEPNET, Jamaica Planned or Funded Nodes

• Mt. Desert Island, ME

• SWWashington COG

• NASA GCMD

• CODEPLAN, Brazil

• Iowa

• Missouri

• Kentucky

• South Dakota

• Oregon

• Louisiana

• Ohio

• Connecticut MAGIC

• Colorado

• NW Ecosystems

For more information:

Visit the FGDC Web site: http://www.fgdc.gov Contact the Clearinghouse Coordinator, Doug Nebert ddnebert@usgs.gov

26
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

NTIS-GPO Depository Library Imaging Pilot

Project

Walter L. Finch

National Technical information Service

Springfield, VA

NTIS Mission To collect and disseminate technical information produced by U.S. Government and

foreign sources in order to support the nation's economic growth and job creation. NTIS Statutory Funding

Title 1 5, U.S. Code 1 1 51-7 - Directs NTIS to recover its costs from the sale of its products and services NTIS Receives Approximately 100,000

Products Annually

• U. S. Government and foreign technical

reports

• Conference proceedings and journal

articles

• Non-Print/Multimedia products

• Standards and military specs

• Private sector publications NTIS Bibliographic Database

• 1 964 - Present

• 2 million + records

• Available through several online/CD-ROM

services

NTIS Web Site

• www.ntis.gov

• 500,000 records-Titles only

• 1990 -Present

• Several special collections

• Online ordering NTIS Bibliograpliic Database Coverage

• Physics 1 1 7o • Environment 10%

• Nuclear Science 107o

• Medicine and Biology 9%

• Energy 8%

• Chemistry 7%

• Material Science

• Natural Resources 5%

• Computers and Information Theory 4%

• Social Science 4%

Objective of Imaging Pilot Project Determine the feasibility of online dissemination of Full-Text Scientific Technical and Engineering Information (STEI) in image

format to selected depository libraries.

Proof of Concept Pre-Pilot, Fall 1997

• Linda Kennedy, Head, Federal Depository

Library, UC-Davis

• Search OrderNow database

• Online ordering of documents

27
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

• Electronic image delivery via FTP NTIS/GPO Interagency Agreement December

1997

• Laid groundwork for conducting pilot project with 22 depository libraries

• NTIS to provide a fully automated document search, order and image delivery system at no charge

• Pilot started January 1 999 for one year

Selection of Project Participants

• Volunteers chosen by GPO (FDLP)

• Selection reflects diverse clientele and

services

• Tests functionality in a multitude of settings Documents Available in Pilot Project

• Must be stored in image format

• October 1997- Present

• Approximately 44,000 titles

• U. S. Government reports: non copyright, not color dependent or with foldouts, fewer

than 300 pages How the Pilot Works

• Authorized users at participating libraries access NTIS Deplib Web site (deplib.ntis.gov)

• Access to fully searchable bibliographic database within library

• Document request and order transmittal to NTIS

• NTIS retrieves document image, converts from TIFF to PDF if necessary

• PDF image transmitted for download to selected location

Project Evaluation-3 Months

• 121 documents ordered

• 82 average number of pages

• TAT for conversion greatly reduced

• Need for IP recognition

• Further evaluation needed

28
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Assessment of Electronic Government

Information Products: Final Report

Forest Woody Horton

NCLIS

Washington, DC

Background

1 996 GPO/FDLP Electronic Transition Report Recommendations

1997 Phase I: NAS/CSTB Review

1 998 Phase II: Data Collection & Analysis 1999 Phase III: Long Term Evaluation Survey Objectives: Pliase II

• Identify Medium & Format Standards Most

Appropriate for Permanent Public Access

• Assess Cost-Effectiveness of Alternative Mediums and Formats

• Identify Public & Private Standards for Use

Throughout Information Life Cycle Product Seiection Guidelines Agencies Were Asked to Select Products that Meet One or More of the Following Criteria:

1 . Increasing Emphasis on Electronic Dissemination

2. Replacing Older Technologies with Newer

Ones

3. Adopting Standard Formats or Mediums

4. Making Plans to Adopt Preferred Formats or Mediums

5. Exemplifying Cost-Effective Alternative Formats or Mediums

6. Exemplifying Improved Permanent Public Access, Authentication and/or Security Encryption Protection Agency Participation

• Twenty-Four Different Federal Entities Including Supreme Court, Several Committees of Congress, One Regulatory Commission and Nineteen Executive Branch Agencies

• Seventy-Four Percent of Survey Forms (242

out of 328) Returned Completed

No Surprises or Magic Bullets

• Findings Will Not Surprise People Aware of Long-Standing Problems of Coping With:

1 . Multiple Mediums and Product Formats

2. Rapidly Changing Technologies

3. Absence of Widely Agreed-On

Standards

4. Very Few Cost Effective Alternatives

• No Magic Bullets to Make Problems Go

Away Overnight KEY FINDINGS

Policy and Planning Issues

1 . Serious Weaknesses in both Governmentwide and Individual Agency Electronic

29
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Publishing, Dissemination, Permanent

Public Access and Information Life Cycle

Management Policies And Planning

2. Responsibility for Agency Electronic Publishing Decentralized, Diffuse and

Unclear. Agencies Cannot Always Easily Identify Product Managers.

3. Some Agencies Monitoring Information Needs of Users to Enhance Current Access

to Electronic Products

4. Lack of Specific Planning for Future Product Development and Technological

Migration

5. Lack of Planning for Web Design

Approaches that Comply With Americans

with Disabilities Act Permanent Public Access

6. Permanent Public Access Concept Not

Well Understood. Confusion between that Concept and NARA's Permanent Records

Retention Concept

7. Metadata and Role of GILS Not Well

Understood. Only 27% Respondents

Reported Metadata Records

8. Host Disseminators like GPO Access are

Assisting Agencies to Provide Permanent

Public Access

Ensuring Authenticity

9. Lack of Understanding of How to Ensure

Authenticity Product Characteristics

10. Most Surveyed Products in Public Domain

1 1 . Most Prevalent Types of Mediums are the Web, Paper, CD-ROM, and Bulletin Board

Systems; Most Prevalent Types of Formats

are HTML, PDF, GIF, JPEG, TIFF and ASCII

12. Most Prevalent Types of Data in Surveyed

Products are Textual, Numerical, and

Bibliographic And Graphical Standards

13. Lack of Standardization for Using CD-ROM

to Produce Products (e.g. Installation Instructions)

14. Most Prevalent Medium and Format

Standards are Common Agency Practice, Not Agency-Mandated

1 5. Some Agencies have Guidelines or Best

Practices for Presenting/Organizing

Products on Web, But Full Compliance not

yet Achieved

16. Some Agencies Exploring Range of Innovative Formats and Web Design

Approaches Next Steps

1. WESTAT, Inc. Delivered Final Report March 30, 1999

2. NCLIS Published the Executive Summary

on its Web Site < www.nclis.gOv/news/news.html#gpo >

3. GPO Published the Complete Final Report on GPO Access <www.access.

gpo.gov/su_docs/nclisassessment/report. html>

4. GPO will Print Limited Copies. All Federal Depository Libraries will receive a copy.

5. Agency Coordinator Meeting scheduled for 9-1 2 noon. May 1 1

, 1 999 at Benton

Foundation

30
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

6. Advisory Committee Meeting scheduled for 9-12 noon, May 20, 1999 at Benton

Foundation

7. NCLIS Begins Phase III Follow-on Activity to Formulate Recommendations for Congress and President (Summer 1999)

Selected Questions The Optimal Media Mix for Government

Information Products Question #11: How do individuals and

organizations gain access to Government

information? Question #12: What are the factors that affect an individual's or organization's easy

access to Government information? Question #13: How does the transition to primarily electronic dissemination affect access to Government information?

Information Formats and Standards Question #17: What are the issues in ensuring

the authenticity and integrity of Government electronic information?

Technological Aspects of Permanent

Accessibility Question #31: How are agency WWW pages and other on-line information managed to ensure permanent accessibility? What are agency plans? Managing Access to Electronic Government

Information Question #36: Besides the development of format standards for information producers and the format conversion alternative, what

are other ideas (with respect to formats) to simplify access to electronic Government

information?

Costs of Electronic Information Products Question #43: What are the elements and

costs associated with user access to electronic Government information? The Larger Policy Context Question #46: Which agency(ies) should have

the responsibility to ensure that Government electronic information is reasonably locatable across agencies? What

alternatives are there to achieve this outcome?

Question #47: Which agency(ies) should have

the responsibility to ensure that the appropriate set of information is maintained

for permanent accessibility? What are the

roles of agencies that produce information

as compared to Government information

intermediaries? Question #48: How does the role of the

Federal depository library change in the

electronic environment?

Question #49: Based on the findings in this study, what are the potential changes in the

role of private sector publishers in the

electronic environment?

It Would Be Helpful If:

1 . You Prioritize Your Recommendations

2. You Segment Implementation

Recommendations into Three Timeframes:

Short (1999), Medium (2000-2001), and Long (After 2001) (action begins and

ideally is completed)

3. You Identify Key Decision/Action Agents

(e.g. Congress, OMB)

31
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Contractor Contact

Westat, Inc. A Rockville, MD, firm specializing in survey research is doing the data collection & analysis Contact Denise Glover

Phone: (301) 251-2269

Fax: (301)517-4134

E-mail: gloverdl@westat.com

NCLIS Contact

Contact Forest Woody Norton

Phone: (202) 606-9200

Fax: (202) 606-9203

E-mail: whorton@nclis.gov

WebSite www.nclis.gov

32
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

DOE Virtual Library of Energy Science and

Technology

Dr. Walter L. Warnick

U.S. Department of Energy Germantown, MD

All of us in the information business are living through a revolution - the digital revolution.

If we were to resist and make peaceful

revolution impossible, we would make violent revolution inevitable. Supporting the Science Mission

• Department of Energy operates a system of National Labs which do basic and applied R&D.

• Principal deliverable from R&D is scientific and technical information.

• OSTI collects, preserves, and disseminates

the output of R&D.

• Using Information Age technology, OSTI is reaching more people—at a lower cost per person served. Supporting the Science Mission OSTI maintains the world's most comprehensive collection of energy-related

scientific and technical information, including over . . .

• 1 .5 million reports

• 5 million electronically accessible bibliographic references

• World's largest historic collection of information on nuclear energy

Expanding the Energy Science Universe Using Technology to Support the Science

Mission

Information Age technology is revolutionizing

the way OSTI supports the science mission by

bringing science information to the desktop. OSTI:

• Leads scientific and technical information program, policies, and business practices costing $200 million at multiple sites

• Connects multiple sources of electronic information

• Coordinates Departmental access to electronic science journals

• Manages the world's most comprehensive

collection of classified and sensitive energy-related information

• Gains access to over 80,000 foreign research summaries per year Result—Information delivered to the desktop, reaching thousands more people at a lower

cost per person served

Internet Access to OSTI Products

Includes access to EnergyFiles, DOE

Information Bridge (both Web sites), DOE

Reports Bibliographic Database, R&D Project Summaries, Energy Science and Technology

33
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Software Center, OSTI Home Page, and Open Net How OSTI is Expanding in the Energy Science Universe OSTI has developed and assembled a suite of

Internet resources.

• Collectively, we call these resources

EnergyFiles, The Virtual Library of Energy

Science and Technofogy < www.doe.gov/EnergyFi les >

• EnergyFiles is organized by subject area and contains an alphabetized Resource

List.

• EnergyFiles contains over 400 energyrelated collections and databases,

electronic journals, preprints, conference

information, related resources, and workspace tools.

• EnergyFiles will be searchable by April 1999.

EnergyFiles The Virtual Library of Energy Science and

Technology

Subject Areas: Topics and Disciplines of Concern to DOE

• Biology and Medicine

• Chemistry

• Energy Storage, Conversion and Utilization

• Engineering

• Environmental Sciences, Safety and Health

• Fission and Nuclear Technologies

• Fossil Fuels

• Geosciences

• Materials Science

• Mathematics, Computing and Information Science

• Physics

• Plasma Physics and Fusion

• Power Transmission, Distribution and

Plants

• Renewable Energy

EnergyFiles The Virtual Library of Energy Science and

Technology - Contains Several Desktop

Resources DOE Information Bridge

www.doe.gov/bridge

• Provides instant free access to over 32,000

DOE R&D full-text reports and

bibliographic records, providing over 2.5

million pages of searchable text.

• Content has increased from 1 .3 million to 2.5 million full-text pages in its first year of operation and is projected to grow by

another 1 million each year.

• Legacy files contributed by Fermi Lab and

Los Alamos. DOE R&D Project Summaries

www.doe.gov/rnd/rdhome.html

• Internet Web site contains current information on over 14,000 Department of Energy R&D projects currently ongoing

within the DOE from 1995 forward. Open Net www.doe.gov/opennet

• Contains recently declassified full-text documents about early nuclear weapon

testing, human radiation experiments, and

health and environmental safety issues. DOE R&D Accomplishments Database

(Prototype) www.doe.gov/accomplishments

• Provides a central forum for information about the outcome of past DOE R&D that has had significant economic impact.

34
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

improved people's lives, or been widely

recognized as a remarkable advance in science. DOE Reports Bibliographic Database

www.doe.gov/dra/dra.html

• Contains citations for DOE-sponsored

scientific and technical reports covering the period Jan. 1, 1994, to the present. Developed for the Depository Library Program via an interagency agreement between GPO and DOE.

Energy Science and Technology Software Center (ESTSC)

www.osti.gov/html/osti/estsc/estsc.html

• Serves as a repository for and the source from which to purchase software funded by DOE. The center's inventory is contained

in a searchable database to help locate software of interest. Current Awareness Electronic Publications www.doe.gov/html/osti/products/publics.

html

• Provides electronic access to current

energy-related, subject specific collections of bibliographic citations with abstracts compiled from a variety of available resources. Links to full text of bibliographic records will soon be

available via the DOE Information Bridge

Web site. Under Development

PubScience - Electronic Science Journals

• Searchable bibliographic database of journals that cover DOE R&D with

hyperlinks to full text

• Provided on a prototype basis to DOE

Headquarters on-line, potentially saving $8

million annually in duplicative paper

subscriptions after full implementation

• Goal is to create an energy-related database comparable to PubMed to access literature citations with links to full-text journals at Web sites of participating publishers

• Use of collaborations and partnerships for obtaining the best price for multiple-site access New technology opens up the possibility that, together, we can conquer text.

But it is not enough for a thing to be possible

for it to be achieved. The Future User Expectations: Whatever the survey question, the answers are: -full-text

- searchable

- online Designing the Future: Collaboration

• Interagency agreements between GPO/DOE OSTI have provided free public access to DOE information for 20 years.

• GPO/OSTI brings solutions that incorporate

Information Age technology to provide

better access to DOE science. > DOE Information Bridge public Web

site through GPO access

• DOE's expanding science universe

includes new collaborative possibilities > Model of virtual reference service > Expansion of DOE's Legacy collection

of DOE Information Bridge > PubScience - DOE's electronic journal Web site Designing the Future: Mutual Interests/Goals

• Guarantee of efficient, effective public access to Federal Government information

35
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

• Inform the public about the policies and

programs of the Federal Government

• Support of initiatives and programs that increase availability, use and control of government documents

• Provide access to a comprehensive

collection of current and retrospective Federal Government information

• Assist in locating particular fields in government collections

• Provide bibliographic/full-text access to Federal collections

• Increase public awareness of the depository

library program and the availability of government information Making Our Case

• Our costs are real and easily quantified.

• The benefits we produce are equally real but are not easily quantified. > Cost benefit is tough to do.

• There is no such thing as a self-sustaining

library.

> Those who want a self-sustaining

library want something that has never been and never will be. > Not even the most ardent enthusiast for cutting government can cite an

exception. > Andrew Carnegie is famous for building

buildings; he did not operate libraries. How We Can Help Each Other

• Build on mutual interest and goals > support future collaborations > share ideas and provide user input and

needs > spread the word that DOE works for America > actively support OSTI's role in making

DOE information publicly available

• Use DOE electronic capabilities to help FDLP more effectively access and manage DOE information

• We can conquer text

• The prospect of conquering text is animating and ought to excite the exertions

of all of us

36
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Building tlie FDLP Electronic Collection

Laurie B. Hall ]udy Andrews

U.S. Government Printing Office

Wasliington, DC

Good morning, I'm Laurie Hall. Today Judy Andrews and I are going to talk about LPS' ongoing efforts to build the Federal Depository

Library Program (FDLP) Electronic Collection.

This process began with the publication of Managing the FDLP Electronic Collection: A

Policy and Planning Document (the Plan) in mid-October, 1998. In November, a group of LPS staff was tasked with investigating the

implications of building this collection within

the broader context of the goals and mission of the FDLP.

Recognizing the important work that was being

carried out by the group, LPS management

formed the Electronic Collection Team. The Team is a permanent working group and is tasked with building the electronic collection and recommending policies and developing

procedures to make the collection a reality. The team's efforts are guided by three important goals:

1 ) The need to provide for permanent

public access to Government

information,

2) The recognition of the reference needs

of our user community

3) The importance of providing quality cataloging for Government information

resources. The goals identified follow the policies outlined in the plan and are reasonable

extensions of the authority mandated in Title

44, Chapter 19, and Chapter 41, the GPO

Access Law. FDLP Electronic Collection The Plan divides the collection into four

categories:

1) Core legislative and regulatory GPO

Access products which will reside permanently on GPO servers

2) Other remotely accessible products

managed by either GPO or by other

institutions with which GPO has

established formal agreements

3) Remotely accessible electronic Government information products that GPO identifies, describes and links to but which remain under the control of the originating agencies

4) Tangible electronic Government

information products distributed to Federal depository libraries The team's efforts are currently focused on

category 2 and 3. Category 2 consists of the remotely accessible products managed by

either GPO or other institutions with which GPO has established formal agreements; and

category 3 includes the remotely accessible

electronic Government information products

that GPO identifies, describes and links to but which remain under the control of the

originating agencies.

37
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Current Focus for the FDLP Electronic Collection

• Outreach: Enlarging and Improving

Communications

• Processing: Developing Transition Procedures

• Cataloging and PURLs: Evaluating Procedures

• Archive: Investigating Storage Options The Team is moving beyond the analysis and

exploratory phase of building an electronic

collection. We are beginning to focus on

developing new procedures and modifying

existing processes to fully incorporate Government electronic resources into the FDLP. An overview of our early investigations was

presented before the GODORT Federal Documents Task Force meeting at the American Library Association Midwinter

Conference in Philadelphia. Our presentation today will update you on our efforts to accomplish these objectives and introduce some new endeavors. We will describe some of our outreach

activities, our current experiments with

archiving and our proposed changes to cataloging processes and procedures.

We are still in the early stages of this phase of our task, so be patient as we work through this project. This collection is unique and some of the standard techniques we have employed in providing information to the depository

community in the past do not work as well as they should. We have to be inventive. And in this dynamic environment it's difficult to agree on the best approaches to take.

Outreach: Enlarging and Improving

Communications (Judy Andrews)

Enhancing communications is a priority. Our

outreach efforts are focused on the:

1 ) FDLP depository community

2) Publishing agencies

3) Peer institutions, such as the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and the National Libraries

4) Partners

5) Internal GPO offices FDLP: Communicating with the FDLP depository

library community about our plans for the

electronic collection is the reason we're here

today. LPS and GPO actively solicit feedback

through such channels as the Depository

Library Council Committees, askLPS, and

conferences. Your active participation in Browse Topics, partnership arrangements and

other proposed electronic initiatives are always

appreciated. We welcome your suggestions and comments concerning our plans for the

electronic collection as outlined here.

Agencies:

Agencies are publishing Government

information in electronic format at an

astounding rate, as you are well aware. By

establishing contacts with the agency management personnel, we can explain the importance of providing permanent public access to agency electronic resources and make others aware of the FDLP.

Recently, members of LPS staff gave

presentations about the FDLP Electronic Collection and the efforts of the Electronic Collection Team to such diverse groups as:

38
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

1) Health and Human Services (HHS)

Internet Information Management

Council Work Group

2) Office of Chemical Environmental Preparedness and Prevention of the Environmental Protection Agency

3) The Institute of Federal Printing and

Electronic Publishing

Both GPO and Federal publishing agencies

share the common challenges of electronic

distribution and permanent access. These

presentations help to emphasize the similarities

in purpose and goals of Federal Web

publishers and the FDLP and allow for exchanges of ideas and information. Agencies are encouraged to notify GPO when new electronic products become available. One method developed is the 'Internet Information Product Notification Form." We

are Investigating other methods to simplify this process. Peer Institutions: LPS staff continue to be involved with the work

of the National Agricultural Library (NAL)

Digital Publications, Preservation Steering Committee. George Barnum coordinates the Subcommittee of User Services for this Committee. Recently, several members of the

Electronic Collection Team met with

representatives from the National Transportation Library to discuss their electronic initiatives. Valuable information was exchanged and follow-up meetings are planned to discuss issues related to online

transportation resources and permanent access.

Partners: The role of partnerships in providing ongoing

access to Government information is evolving. Continued dialog with present and potential partners is a focus of our work in this area. Currently, we are drafting a new model

agreement in which GPO plays a more active

role in identifying, "acquiring," providing

access to information products, and facilitating permanent storage either here at GPO, or with an institutional partner such as a library or

university. Our initial model for partnerships was a three-way agreement between an

agency, a cooperating institution, and GPO,

with GPO in the role of facilitator and safety

net. The new model will better position GPO

to offer a useful service to agency publishers and to gain the benefits of permanent access

for the FDLP and the public.

Internal: Communication with other GPO offices is essential in providing services and products

that support the Electronic Collection. Team

members are discussing challenges related to software for archiving, authentication and

server platforms for storing electronic resources

in the collection. Just recently, experimental

server space was designated to store test samples of archived resources.

Selecting Material for the Electronic Collection As our communications efforts continue, our team is also refining the guidelines for analyzing and selecting electronic resources. FDLP collection development is guided by the mission and goals as outlined in Title 44, Chapter 19, U.S. Code, Section 1902. "...Government publications... except those

required for official use only or for strictly administrative or operational purposes... shall be made available... for public information."

39
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Evaluation includes analyzing the resource to determine if it meets these basic tenets. Is it official, authentic Government information? Does it present a major activity of the agency,

or is it the product of a major activity of the agency? Once the selection has been made, the team

examines the item's presentation and content. Oftentimes, we may e-mail the Webmaster or

call the agency for additional information. We

try to determine how valuable and useful this product is to the FDLP community, and which

current locator service would best provide the bibliographic control for this resource.

microfiche distribution to electronic access

only.

Migration to Electronic Only Distribution These candidates for migration from microfiche

distribution to electronic access only are analyzed using the following criteria:

1 ) Are there significant differences between the tangible and online product?

2) How many libraries select this item number?

Non-selection: Most collection plans allow for the nonselection of materials that do not meet the scope of the institution. In the case of the FDLP, Title 44 provides guidance for allowing

the exclusion of official use only or administrative material. The LPS team has

identified some items that we will not include

in the FDLP Electronic Collection. These items

are: events/announcements, biographies, job announcements, some news releases, organizational charts, sales/promotional

literature, posters and items of low

informational content. We may expand this list as we continue to review new online

resources.

Processing: Developing Procedures for the

Transition

All resources selected for the FDLP Electronic Collection require processing. Staff make

decisions such as item number assignment,

classification, appropriate cataloging treatment, PURL designation and/or locator service and whether to archive selected resources on the GPO Archive test site. The Team's efforts are focused on modifying existing processes and

developing new procedures. We are working

with Depository Administration Branch staff to

identify candidates for migration from

4) How does the agency present this material online?

5) Does the agency retain previous

issues? For how long?

6) Can LPS provide permanent back-up

issues for long term access? Archiving Another processing issue is archiving. The

Electronic Collection Team expects the

collection to be housed utilizing a combination

of server space at GPO, at agency sites and at institutional partners.

Selected agency online resources that meet the

criteria for inclusion are now being stored in test server space in what will become the FDLP/EC Archive. We are testing several archive software products and exploring

additional archiving options. The initial organization of archived files will be

in an agency-based directory structure. Presently, we are considering having the PURL

direct users to the agency version until the agency link is permanently broken and cannot

be reestablished. Then users will be directed

to the archived version stored on GPO servers.

40
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

You will know that you are using an archived

version from the FDLP/EC when you receive a message or screen presentation, which

includes the date the resource was archived.

This might be an answer to part of the challenge of providing permanent public

access. Cataloging & PURLs

As LPS continues in our transition to a more

electronic depository, many of our current

policies and procedures that were established

for tangible products are being reexamined. Two proposals concerning Availability Records and the Periodicals Supplement are being

presented this week before the Council

Cataloging Committee. They discuss the need

to eliminate unique local practices and

investigate alternative products that would

better serve the depository community.

We are formalizing our PURL policy and documenting practices. As many of you are aware, PURL and URL maintenance is a resource-intensive activity for the Team. Whether to utilize a PURL or URL in cataloging

or Pathway Locator services records still generates a lot of discussion in LPS. The

choice of PURL or URL may ultimately solve

itself with technological advances, but we

continue to investigate alternatives. Locator Services Our major goal is to provide the services that are easy to use, easy to manage and give the

best possible access to the electronic resources

in the collection. We are currently focusing on Browse Electronic Titles (BET) and Browse

Topics. BET

After hearing user input from various groups, we are working on some major improvements

to the BET. Users want the ability to browse,

but also the ability to search all the entries on

the BET. One approach might be to create a separate database of electronic resources. However, maintaining a stand-alone database

is not an efficient use of resources. A

consolidated database which integrates all of the FDLP information resources regardless of format is the ultimate goal. Browse Topics

We are also investigating additional ways to present Browse Topics. We are talking with

depository librarians who currently provide a

topical approach to Government electronic

resources. Maintaining Topics is very labor

intensive for LPS staff. The Electronic Collection Team is reviewing the use of the Subject Bibliography thesaurus and evaluating

options. We are open to developing a partnership arrangement for Topics and welcome any suggestions from the community.

In Conclusion We continue to work on a broad spectrum of

issues related to building the FDLP Electronic

Collection. We still have a lot of work to do.

This is a very time consuming process. There

will be technological innovations and possibly, policy changes that cause us to alter our

course. The team members should be

congratulated for all of their hard work. LPS does not do this job alone. The FDLP

Electronic Collection benefits the documents community and we appreciate your

contributions. We want to thank you for allowing us the opportunity to speak with you this morning

about our progress on building the electronic

collection. Be sure to give us your input! To contact us:

• Laurie B. Hall lhall@gpo.gov

(202) 512-1801 ext. 31746

41
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

• Judy Andrews

jandrews@gpo.gov

(202) 512-1801 ext. 32102
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Federal Agency Update Session

DOE Information Bridge: One Year Later

Don Altom

U.S. Department of Energy

Washington, DC

Background

• GPO/DOE relationship to provide public access to DOE report literature -

microfiche

• GPO/DOE Interagency Agreement in December 1997 to provide Web access to

full text DOE report literature from January 1996 > Leverage existing DOE system > Access through GPO Access system

• Incorporated GPO requirements > Eliminate passwords > Provide PDF full text for download to user desktop

• "Roll out" in April 1 998 with Web access

to 23,422 bibliographic and full text DOE

reports Growth/Utilization

• Increased full text information collection by 50%; 35,006 bibliographic and full text records available on 12 April 1999

• Utilization > Document downloads - performance measure > 55,942 downloads through 10 April

1 999 by all user communities:

depository libraries, US and

international publics, DOE, other government agencies, etc.

Recent Enhancements

• Customer driven

• Option to download full text in native formats > PDF, Word, WordPerfect, SGML,

HTML, XML, Postscript, TIFFG4

• Links to full text posted at remote sites scattered throughout the DOE Complex > ASCII-based formats

Future Directions

• Customer driven

• Convert to Oracle/UNIX environment

• New functionality > Date range searching > Search downloaded PDF documents

• Legacy data > Assessment pending; determine Interest

in Web access to full text prior to January 1996 > Encourage participation Honors/Awards

• DOE Information Management Quality Award for Technical Excellence in October 1998

43
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

• Hammer Award presented by National

Partnership for Reinventing Government in February 1999 GPO/DOE partnership continuing success

story

For more information: Kathy Chambers DOE Information Bridge Product Manager

http://www.doe.gov/bridge

44
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Digitizing Collections of Government Documents:

Options, Processes, and Costs

Cathy Nelson Hartman

University of Nortli Texas Libraries Denton, TX

Introduction Good afternoon. My name is Cathy Hartman, and I am the electronic resources coordinator

for government information at the University of North Texas (UNT). My journey down the path to digitization began in 1 997 at the ALA

Midwinter Meeting in Washington, DC. Duncan Aldrich, then working as an expert consultant in GPO's electronic transition effort, mentioned in an update at GODORT's Federal Documents Task Force meeting that GPO

needed depository library partners to assume

responsibility for providing access to electronic documents. Depository libraries have

provided access to documents in tangible media for more than a hundred years, so providing access to documents in electronic media seemed to be just another method of

fulfilling our responsibilities as a depository

library. I volunteered to become a partner.

In October 1997, the University of North Texas

Libraries entered into an agreement with the U.S. Government Printing Office to provide

permanent public access to the electronic records of the Advisory Commission on

Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR). As the only site for access to the ACIR electronic

records, we frequently received requests for

historical publications of the agency from

researchers, government administrators,

students, and others who found the UNT

Libraries' electronic collection by searching the

Internet. We proposed to enhance the ACIR

electronic collection by making the most

important serial titles published by the agency

available as electronic documents accessible

via the Internet, so in the spring of 1 998, I wrote a grant proposal for a pilot project to begin the digitization process. In May of 1998, AMIGOS Bibliographic Council notified me

that they were funding the project and then the

real work began.

Today, I will be talking about questions you

should ask yourself before beginning a

digitization project. For each question, options

will be discussed and our decisions and

processes for the ACIR project will be

presented. Question 1: Wliat Collection Will Be

Digitized?

For most of you this question will not be

difficult. Being from Texas, the comedian, Jeff Foxworthy, of the "you might be a redneck IF" jokes, is a personal favorite of mine. (Most Texans can connect to "redneck" jokes.) Following his style and my experience with documents librarians, I can confidently say, "If you find you have an uncontrollable urge to

digitize everything in your collection and make

it all 'permanently publicly available,' you just might be a documents librarian." Your

problem will probably be focusing on only one

collection as the most likely candidate for digitization. Consider such issues as: Uniqueness or rareness of the collection - few Federal documents in our collections

are unique, but some may be rare.

45
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Significance of the collection - many will be an integral part of the history of our

country.

Benefits of electronic access to the information - even if it Is not unique or

rare, there may be real benefits for electronic access to a collection, including

searchability, Internet access, preservation,

etc.

Items considered for digTtization should also be examined for copyright. This will not be an

issue for most collections of government

documents. However, if it is an issue, be

certain that your copyright information is very

current. There are constant changes in the copyright laws, especially with respect to digitizing documents and making them

available on the Internet. Question 2: How Will Funding Be Obtained

for the Project?

This question is more difficult to answer than

the first. Digitizing any collection requires personnel time (frequently the most expensive

element), training, hardware, software, possibly funds for outsourcing parts or all of the project, and many various small expenses. Since funding was not available in my library for a

pilot project, I decided to request grant funding. It seemed a reasonable thing to do at the time. However, if you are writing your first grant proposal, here are a few tips that I learned the hard way. First, be prepared for the significant

effort involved in writing the grant proposal and then later writing the grant report. Second, be certain that you check with the grants office on your campus or in the city government

before sending out a grant proposal. This will save you many problems over the life of the

project. They may add hidden budget costs for various items, such as benefits for project staff. Such costs can affect the amount of money you

think you have to spend on the project. They

may also ask penetrating questions such as, "If your plan to complete the project is not

successful, what is your secondary plan to

fulfill the requirements of the grant?" Also, the record keeping must be carefully done so that expenditures are clearly documented.

Question 3: Depending on the Level of Funding Acquired, How Will We Balance

Level of Access to the Digitized Documents

with Cost of Digitization?

If you found major funding and costs are not an

issue, you may want to provide the very best access to thousands of pages of documents by

scanning, OCR-ing, marking them up in HTML,

and verifying every word of text for accuracy. We considered this option. However, the costs

stated in the project report of the AMIGOS

funded study at Oklahoma State University, A

Digital Challenge: Bringing Kappler's Indian

Affairs: Laws and Treaties to the World Wide

Web\ clearly showed that we could not afford the expensive, time-intensive efforts required to create HTML files from the scanned text, even

though we believed that with current technology, HTML files would offer the best Web access.

I stated in my grant proposal that our

digitization project would be accomplished by

outsourcing high-speed, quantity scanning of approximately 4,200 pages of text. Our goal was to develop a process that balanced level of access with the cost of digitizing and making

the data available on the Internet. The

objectives included:

A. Providing researchers and the public with electronic access to important

publications of the ACIR.

B. Developing a cost-effective process for presenting, on the Internet, extensive

collections of PDF files produced from

large-quantity, high speed scanning of documents.

46
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Selecting a Vendor

Part of our strategy for controlling costs of scanning included hiring a vendor with the appropriate high-speed scanning equipment to scan the documents. Several vendors were

contacted and asked to supply samples of their work. Two vendors agreed to do so and were

shipped an issue of an ACIR periodical and a volume of Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism for the test. One vendor supplied

us with TIFF files and offered a very low price of 22 cents per page for the black and white

scanning. It took several weeks to receive the

test scans and several more weeks to retrieve the loaned documents that they scanned. The

contact person lacked knowledge about the scanning process and could answer few of my

questions about the files. The other vendor, the Electronic Resource

Library Project Lab based at Amarillo College,

test scanned the documents and supplied us with TIFF files and with PDF image-plus-text

files. The test files and our documents were

returned quickly. Their bid was 22 cents per page for TIFF files or 26 cents per page for PDF

image-plus-text files. Color scans were offered

for document cover pages for an additional 4

cents per page. The director of the lab, Dr. Karen Ruddy, was knowledgeable and prompt

with answers to our questions about the files. The PDF image-plus-text files provided both good quality image files that could be viewed

in the free Acrobat Reader and searchable text

files. The PDF files were created using the Adobe Capture software, which added the

additional benefit of Optical Character Recognition (OCR) to create searchable text. The image file was displayed, but the text file existed and could be searched or copied and

pasted. Much of the scanned text was readable by the OCR software. Pages containing simple text with plain fonts were translated more successfully by the OCR

software than non-text material or unusual

fonts were. Since the PDF image-plus-text files would allow the additional access of searchable text, they deserved thorough

investigation. We viewed the test files, searched them, copied and pasted from the

text, and checked printability. The results exceeded our expectations, so we decided that the PDF image-plus-text files were our best option. When our experiments showed that the in- house personnel and computer time needed to move TIFF files to PDF image-plus-text files was significant, the decision was made that the

extra 4 cents per page charged by the vendor

to provide PDF image-plus-text files would be

well worth the small extra cost. The PDF

image-plus-text files seemed to be our most

cost-effective method of balancing issues of access and costs.

Also important influences in our decision to go

with the PDF image-plus-text files included:

• Security provided by PDF files.

• Growth in the number of PDF documents

offered by Congress and the executive agencies of the Government.

• Health of the Adobe company and the expanding features of the free Acrobat Reader software. The vendor selected was the Amarillo College

Electronic Resource Library Lab. The Lab had

previously received grants from the Federal Government to purchase high-speed scanning

equipment to digitize documents related to plutonium research. The Lab had also worked

with the Department of Energy's "Energy

InfoBridge" project, scanning many thousands

of pages. Dr. Walter Warnick, director of the Energy Resource Library, highly recommended

the Lab. Dr. Ruddy, the Lab director, was

interested in outside contracts to keep the Lab

personnel and equipment busy. The ACIR

scanning project would serve as a pilot project

47
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

for the Lab to determine if bringing in outside work would be economically feasible. Question 4: Are All Documents Needed for Digitizing Part of Our Collection, and If Not, How Will They Be Obtained?

This question is particularly relevant if the items are out of print or will be damaged in the scanning process. My grant proposal stated that approximately

4,200 pages of the most important serial publications of the Advisory Commission on

Intergovernmental Relations would be

digitized. The ACIR collection at the University of North Texas Libraries was

assessed to determine if all issues of our

selected serial titles were available in the

collection. We estimated that the 1 990 - 1 995

volumes of Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism, and volume 10 - volume 20 of Intergovernmental Perspective would

approximate the 4,200 pages.

Since high-speed quantity scanning makes use

of an automatic paper feeder, any item sent to the Lab would have its binding shaved. The

decision was made that retaining a paper copy

of each item scanned would be important, so

Offers Lists published by the Federal Depository Library Program were monitored

frequently to attempt to collect duplicate

copies of as many of the publications as

possible. When a duplicate could not be

located, the publication would be re-bound

after scanning. Duplicates of many of the items were collected when one depository library gave up its depository status and offered all of

its collection to other depositories. A few other

items were collected at random. One copy of all volumes of the Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism, except for the 1993 volumes, was in the UNT collection in paper format. The 1993 volumes were in microfiche with the microfiche obviously

created from a copy of the original publication.

Even though fiche scanners exist, the quality of the fiche copy must be high for the scanned file to be acceptable. When an inquiry sent to the Texas Library Association Government Documents Round

Table listserv showed that all depository

libraries had received the 1993 volumes in microfiche, other groups were contacted. The

issues were eventually located in the collection

of a professor of public administration on the UNT campus. Only a few issues of the

periodical. Intergovernmental Perspective, volumes 10-12, were missing and were

happily supplied by depository librarians at Texas Christian University and the Texas State Library and Archives Commission. As we

expanded our scanning back to volume one,

other issues were supplied by depository

libraries across the country when a request was

posted to GOVDOC-L.

Issues or volumes of the titles that were

borrowed from individuals or other libraries could not be sent to the Lab to have bindings shaved, so it was determined that these

publications would be scanned on an available

flat-bed scanner in the UNT Libraries. In July 1998, the first 2,164 pages were shipped to the

Lab. An additional 1,436 pages were shipped

in August for a total of 3,600 pages. In October, when the UNT Libraries offered additional funding for the project, we shipped

an additional 1 ,872 pages to the Lab. TEXPRESS, the courier system connecting many

colleges and universities in Texas, allowed us

to ship all documents at no charge to the

project. Question 5: How Will Skilled Personnel Be Found and Training Provided for All Project

Participants?

For those of us in academic libraries, students provide a wonderful resource for project personnel. For institutions with library and

information science programs, especially

skilled graduate students may be found. Our

48
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

grant proposal included funding to hire a project assistant, so faculty and students who

had expressed an interest in the project were

notified that we were accepting applications. We were interested in hiring a student who

could begin work on the first of August and

continue into the fall semester. Interviews were conducted and an extremely well

qualified graduate student from the School of Library and Information Sciences was hired.

Training for you as the project manager and for other personnel can be an expensive part of the

project. I enrolled in an intensive, three-day

class to learn to use the Adobe Acrobat

software required to alter and enhance the PDF

files. The $450 cost for the class is not an

unusual fee and is another cost to include in your grant request. I then instructed the

project assistant in the basics of using the

software. The project assistant and I developed a process

to create links within the documents,

bookmarks, and other enhancements. Since borrowed items would be scanned on-site, a process for scanning was also created, and the

project assistant wrote a procedures manual

outlining the process for others to use. As the scanned files were completed by the Lab and

sent to us, we enhanced the files by adding bookmarks for the contents of each title, links from the contents pages, and links from

indexes when an index was included in the volume. Every page was also checked for readability and printing quality. The

procedures manual was edited as needed

throughout this process. Question 6: Do We Have the Technical Skills, Or Access to Qualified Staff, To Solve the Technical Issues of a Digitization Project?

In any digitization project, technical decisions must be made. If you are not fluent in the language of servers, file types, and technical problem solving, be certain that

knowledgeable staff are available for consultation. As we prepared volumes for loading to the Web server, several technical issues required

solutions.

• Large file sizes created issues for downloading time.

• Searchable files required a search engine

that would index and search PDF files.

• Meta tags had to be defined and entered.

• An overall assessment of the ACIR site was

required to integrate the new files effectively.

• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

issues were investigated.

File Size The scanned documents ranged in pagination from approximately 30 pages to over 300

pages. File sizes ranged from 1 .8 mega bytes (Mb) to 20 Mb. Downloading such large files over the Web can take considerable time, especially if access is via a modem. When

saving the enhanced files, we were careful to use the Acrobat Exchange software's "optimize" function, which helped reduce the

size of the files. This, however, did not make

the files small enough to have an acceptable download time. We examined the option of making each page

or a few pages into separate files, then creating some type of navigation system to allow the

user to move on to the next file (next page of the document). We visited two sites that use

this method. Even though it did reduce download time, we felt it was cumbersome for the user, and it would increase our costs

significantly by requiring additional time to prepare our files for the Web.

49
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Searching for other options, we discovered in a mailing list archive called the "PDF Archive," a

possible solution called "byteserving."^ It involved setting up the files correctly and

having Web server software that supports the "Byte Range Retrieval Extension to HTTP"

protocol. This server software has the

capability to "serve" to the user only one page

at a time of a PDF file. This method requires the user to change only one setting in the Acrobat Reader Preferences to disallow "background downloading." The user can then move through the document

using the Acrobat Reader's functions or the

links and bookmarks we created. Since the UNT Libraries' Web server already had one of the software packages that supports

byteserving, we tested this option and decided

it would be the best option for us. On our Web interface page, we asked the user to link to another page to find out about "Faster Downloads."^ There we explained byteserving and how "preferences" in the Acrobat Reader

could be easily altered for faster downloading

of the files. Searching PDF Files From the beginning of the project, our goal to make the ACIR Web site searchable was an

important part of maximizing access to the

digitized collection. We quickly learned that many of the well-known search engines would

not index and search PDF files. We spent a considerable amount of time viewing and

reading about our options. The project

assistant created a table outlining our most

promising options. Infoseek's Ultraseek Server, Microsoft Index Server, and Verity Search were

our best options.

Infoseek was reasonably priced, had automatic

re-indexing, supported sophisticated search queries and responses, and was Y2K

compliant. Microsoft Index Server was free with our Windows NT 4.0 server software and

had automatic re-indexing. However, it did

not rank search results or detect duplication, and it often included HTML characters when

creating summaries. The Microsoft Index

Server did offer a PDF filter that could be

installed so that PDF files would be indexed. The Verity search engine provided a special

filter to search over 200 file formats and used Meta tags to control summaries, so responses

to a query were controlled by the metadata

entered for each PDF file. Our investigation also revealed that the Netscape Compass

Server used the Verity search engine software.

Since the University used the Netscape Compass Server without cost, it was our best

option. It required the addition of a PDF filter for indexing PDF documents. However,

Netscape recently made the announcement

that educational institutions would no longer have free access to their Netscape Compass

Server software. It is unclear at this time how

this will affect installation of the software. There will undoubtedly be problems to solve

as we activate it or our second choice, the Microsoft Index Server, and create the appropriate CGI scripts.

Search engines examined but rejected for various reasons included:

• SWISH-E, because it runs on a Unix

platform and we run Windows NT.

• Excite for Web Servers, because it does not

search PDF files.

• Harvest, because it also runs on a Unix

platform and the project appeared to be

bankrupt.

• Sage (NUD*IST 4), because it is a project- based search for personal computers.

• Excalibur RetrievalWare, although it has many wonderful features, because it is very expensive and really more than we needed.

50
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Metadata

Metadata are used to describe an information

resource. Whatever the file type used in a

digitization project, Meta tags are important for accurate retrieval of documents. The Acrobat Exchange software allows entry of four Meta

tags for each PDF file created. The Meta tags are very important because this

is the information used to build the index list when searching PDF files. Without Meta tags, the index list often contains the URL as the title of the document and the first few words of readable text in the document as the

description. Such a list may not be an accurate

description of the document, and if the OCR

software was unable to read the first few

words, the information may even be

unreadable. For this reason, the decision was made to include metadata for every PDF

document. Much of the data entry for the Meta tags is awaiting the activation of the search engine.

Until we see how the selected search engine

builds the indexes and displays the index lists, we cannot know what information to enter on

each line of the Meta tags.

All accompanying HTML pages were created with title, keyword, and description Meta tags. Our search of the literature found articles outlining research that showed HTML

documents with title, keyword, and description Meta tags were ranked higher on index lists built by some Web search engines. Also, most Web search engines use the title and

description Meta tags to build the index list. When the Meta tags are not present, the title displayed is often either the URL of the page or "No Title," and the first few words of the document become the description.''

Integrating Digitized Files Into a Web Site Whatever file type chosen for a digitization

project, Web access must be provided in an

organized and varied manner. As librarians, our skills as organizers of information certainly

assist with this part of the project. Support

pages that may be required include pages for browsing by topic or by title, bibliographies, help pages, or pages with historical or related information. Specialists or experts may be

consulted for input for this part of the project.

Realizing that the hyperlink properties of HTML documents could assist us with offering multiple access points to the full-text PDF files, we examined the overall design of the ACIR Web site. Already contained on the site were

the electronic files of the ACIR as they

appeared when the ACIR closed in 1996, and

the UNT Libraries agreed to provide permanent

public access to the files. This part of the Web

site could not be altered from the way the files appeared when the agency closed. To enhance the original files, we added a brief history of the ACIR and a bibliography of the

publications of the ACIR. Relevant dates and

citations for laws that created or affected the ACIR were collected for the history of the agency, and the bibliography of ACIR

publications was compiled and added.

Additional Web pages created to provide

access to the PDF documents and to provide

technical information about the site included:

• A "Browse Titles" page to allow access

to the PDF documents from an

alphabetical listing of titles < http://www.library.unt.edu/gpo/acir/

browsetitles.html >

• A page to explain byteserving and to describe the simple steps to allow for

faster downloads of the files <http://www.library.unt.edu/gpo/acir/ technicaldoc.htm >

Users without the Acrobat Reader software were linked to the Adobe Web site so that they could download the free software.

51
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

In addition to offering a searchable site as discussed above, we decided to make the bibliography an important additional access

point to the full-text documents. To improve

access, the organization of the bibliography needed to follow the way researchers and

experts in the field of intergovernmental

relations search for information. The project

assistant examined a bibliography published by

the ACIR in the periodical. Intergovernmental

Perspective,^ and then made suggestions for the reorganization of our Bibliography of the Publications of the ACIR page.

Intergovernmental relations expert and

Assistant Professor of Public Administration at the University of North Texas, Dr. Michael McGuire, reviewed the suggestions for reorganizing the bibliography. Working with

his comments we created a final plan for the

reorganization. Each title in the bibliography

will link to the full-text document as it is added

to the site and to the corresponding MARC

record in the UNT Libraries' online catalog to provide additional metadata about each title. In time MARC records in the Libraries' catalog

will link to the electronic full-text document. ADA Concerns

Access to the PDF files for persons with impared vision was a concern that required considerable research. The project assistant discovered that the text readers commonly

used by persons with visual impairments would not read PDF files. He also discovered

that Adobe offered a free program that would

translate PDF files into HTML files which text readers can translate.

T.V. Raman, a senior computer scientist at Adobe Systems, created the program, called Acrobat Access.^ Mr. Raman is blind and

created the program for his own use. The

computer program works best on documents composed of simple text, since graphics and

other visually rich features do not translate well. The free software was available for

downloading from the Adobe site. However, when we tried to download and install it, a number of problems arose. We discovered

that the program was designed to run in Windows 3.1 and had not been updated since 1996. There were some conflicts with running

it in Windows 95. Even though the problems were not insurmountable, a user would have to be

technologically skilled to install and operate

the program effectively. Adobe offered for sale

for about $100 another software package

called Genus HTML. It is compatible with Windows 95, Windows NT, and Macintosh

operating systems and translates PDF files to HTML. Like the Acrobat Access software. Genus HTML works best with PDF files containing simple text.^ When the free Acrobat Access software was

tested, the PDF image-plus-text files on our site were readable by the visually impaired text readers, but only the text that could be

captured by the OCR software was available to the user. This meant that words not read by

the software in the OCR process were not readable by the text reader programs. To fix this problem, every word of the text would

require verification and correction by a person, which would require many hours of work at high costs. The purpose of this project was to develop a method of digitizing a collection that would balance access and costs. At this point, we have not discovered a solution for this problem. As you can see from these examples, it is imperative that project staff possess excellent

technical skills. Question 7: Can a Digitization Project Be

Accomplished at a Reasonable, Predictable Cost? Hoping to answer this question, we kept

statistical data about each step in the process during the first four months of the project.

52
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Times were logged for downloading the files from the Lab's server and for each step in the enhancement of the files. Later, as we scanned

in-house several issues of the periodical title, times were noted for both the scanning and the OCR process. The first 3,600 pages scanned by the vendor

cost $938.44. This included 3,539 black and

white scans and 61 color scans. Nine volumes

of Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism accounted )or 2,164 pages, with thirty-seven

issues of the periodical, Intergovernmental

Perspectives, accounting for the remaining 1,436 pages. (See Figure 1 and Figure 2) Enhancements for each volume/issue included

creation of bookmarks, creation of links from

the "contents" pages, and, for Significant

Features of Fiscal Federalism, creation of links from the index. (See Figure 7) For a graphical

display of the data, see Figures 3, 4, and 8. As the in-house work progressed on the files, we noticed a significant increase in the speed

of completion of each title. The project

assistant became very proficient with the Acrobat Exchange software. The first two

volumes of Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism required an average of about 240

minutes each to complete compared with about 125 minutes each to complete the last two volumes, even though the files sizes were

similar. (Figure 9) Later in the project, the speed of completion became static, with each

periodical issue requiring about 28 minutes. The average time and costs per page were:

No. of Pages Scanned In-house Time Per Page Scanning Cost

Per Page

Total Cost

Per Page

1 ,432 pages of Inter- governmental Perspective scanned by vendor

.74 minutes per page @ $10

per hour = .12 per page

.26 per page .38 per page

356 pages of Inter-governmental Perspective scanned in-house

3.23 minutes per page @ $10

per hour = .54 per page

N/A .54 per page

2,188 pages of SFFF scanned

by vendor

.85 minutes per page @ $10

per hour = .14 per page

.26 per page .40 per page Average minutes per page 1.61 minutes per page Average cost

per page

.44 per page

The data for in-house time spent with

Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism files (SFFF) indicates that the average cost per page would be lower if the first two documents were

excluded. As proficiency of the project

assistant with the software increased, the amount of time required to complete a document decreased considerably. This is clearly illustrated by Fig. 9. After completion

of the SFFF files, the periodical files were enhanced with little variation in time per page.

(Figures 5 and 6) Figure 6 also illustrates the widely varying time required for in-house scanning of Intergovernmental Perspective. This time variation can be credited to several

factors including:

1 . Experience of the person scanning documents.

2. Speed of the scanner.

3. Speed of the computer and available memory in the computer.

4. Speed of moving the data over the network.

5. Condition of the document to be

scanned. With training and with the purchase of suitable hardware, most of the factors can be overcome. However, the condition of the document

53
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

cannot be predicted. Some documents have

detailed graphs; others have color print on a

differently colored background. Some have

very small font size; others may have

unreadable text. The condition of the document brings unpredictability for scanning

times. The 1 5-cents-per-page difference in the in- house scanning cost and the out-sourced cost is significant only when a large project is undertaken. For a 1 00,000-page project, outsourcing would result in a significant savings of $1 5,000. Also, when outsourcing

the scanning, the vendor would deal with the problems encountered with the condition of each document. However, for small projects, in-house scanning is a reasonable alternative. As the project manager, my hours are difficult to calculate because much of the management

of the project was integrated with the other

tasks common to our academic librarian's day.

I supervised the project assistant, facilitated the workflow, and coordinated with the Libraries' LAN/PC Management department. Additional hours were spent with problem solving and

attempting to "see the big picture," e.g., determining how all the pieces would fit together to create the Web site. Since projects

that increase knowledge and growth as a

professional are considered an important part Intergovernmental Perspectives

of a UNT librarian's activities, this project was

included as part of the workload. According to the project report from the AMIGOS funded study, A Digital Challenge:

Bringing Kappler's Indian Affairs: Laws and

Treaties to the World Wide Web,^ pages of text were scanned, then the text was verified and marked up in HTML requiring an average of 66

minutes per page of staff time plus an average

of 32.5 minutes per page of student assistant time. Comparison with our average total of

1 .61 minutes per page makes it clear that the use of vendor scanning and PDF image-plustext files can significantly reduce the cost of

digitizing a collection while still providing

good access. Of course, creation of PDF

image-plus-text files by high-speed vendor

scanning is a production digitization method

that is not appropriate for all types of documents, but when appropriate, the cost savings are notable. Current Status of the ACIR Project

Now available on the Web site are more than 7,000 pages of ACIR documents. Excluding

the initial training, our average cost per page was 44 cents. In the short term, we continue to add individual ACIR documents as requests for specific titles are received. Currently available

are:

1975 Vol. 1 Issue 1 1976 Vol. 2 Issue 1 Issue 2 Issue 3 Issue 4 1977 Vol. 3 Issue 1 Issue 2 Issue 3 Issue 4 1978 Vol. 4 Issue 1 Issue 2 Issue 3 Issue 4 1979 Vol. 5 Issue 1 Issue 2 Issue 3 Issue 4 1980 Vol. 6 Issue 1 Issue 2 Issue 3 Issue 4

1981 Vol. 7 Issue 1 Issue 2 Issue 3 Issue 4 1982 Vol. 8 Issue 1 Issue 2 Issue 3 Issue 4 (Included with Vol 1983 Vol. 9 Issue 1 Issue 2 Issue 3 Issue 4 1984 Vol. 10 Issue 1 Issue 2 Issue 3 Issue 4 1985 Vol. 11 Issue 1 Issue 2-3 Issue 4 1986 Vol. 12 Issue 1 & 2 Issue 3 1987 Vol. 13 Issue 1 Issue 2 Issue 3 & 4

54
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

1988: Vol. 14 Issue 1 Issue 2 Issue 3 Issue 4

1989: Vol. 15 Issue 1 Issue 2 Issue 3 Issue 4 (Includes bibliography of ACIR

Publications- 1961-1989)

1 990: Vol. 1 D Issue 1 Issue 2 Issue 3 Issue 4

1991: Vol. 17 Issue 1 Issue 2 Issue 3 Issue 4

1992: Vol. 18 Issue 1 Issue 2 Issue 3 Issue 4

1993: Vol. 19 Issue 1 Issue 2 Issue 3 1994: Vol. 20 Issue 1 Issue 2 Issue 3 (Includes bibliography of ACIR Publication 1960- 1994)

Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism the ACIR publications. We are communicating

with other scholars and researchers in the field for advice and assistance and for the purpose of publicizing the collection. If funding becomes

available, approximately 60,000 additional pages will be digitized and made available to the public.

Notes:

1979- 1980 1980- 1981 1981 - 1982 1982- 1983 1984 1985- 1986

1988 Vol. 1 1989 Vol. 1 Vol.2 1990 Vol. 1 Vol. 2 1991 Vol. 1 Vol. 2 1992 Vol. 1 Vol. 2 1993 Vol. 1 Vol.2 1994 Vol. 1 Vol.2 1995 Vol. 1 Vol. 2

See the report at: < www.library. okstate.edu/kappler/intro.htm >

Read about "byteserving" at: < www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/

byteserve.html >

The expertise we gained during the project is also being put to good use. Within the UNT

Libraries, the processes developed by our

project were shared with the Music Library's

staff. They digitized eighteen volumes of JeanBaptiste Lully's scores using the method we

developed for in-house scanning and

processing of files. Their project was funded by a TEXSHARE grant and completed quickly

using our process. Our technical assistance support page was also adapted and used for their project.

Future plans for the project

Using the results of this pilot project, UNT

Assistant Professor and specialist in intergovernmental relations. Dr. Michael McGuire, and I are writing a grant proposal to obtain funding to complete the digitization of

3. View the Technical Assistance page at: <www.library.unt.edu/gpo/acir/

technicaldoc.htm >

4. See the Web site: Search Engine Features Chart <www.searchenginewatch.com/

webmasters/features. html >

See article: Turner, Thomas P. and Lise Brackbill. "Rising to the Top: Evaluating the Use of the HTML Meta Tag to Improve Retrieval of World Wide Web Documents Through

Internet Search Engines," Library Resources and Technical Services, Vol. 42 (4), 1998,

p. 258-271.

5. See the Bibliography at: < www. library. unt.edu/gpo/acir/periodical/ipsfv20n4. pdf>

55
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

6. To read about the Acrobat Access software, goto: <www.adobe.com/

supportservice/custsupport/LIBRARY/ 3b7e.htm >

7. To read about Adobe's Genus HTML

software, goto: <www.pluginsource.

com/acrobat/genushtml.html>

Outsourced Scanning of intergovernmental Perspectives

Title Downloading Bookmark

and Page

Setup

Contents

Linked CoverTouch- Up

Saving Total File Size

(M)

Min/M Pages Min/Pg

IPSFv10n184 17 6 3 2 2 30 3.52 8.52 40 0.75 IPSFv10n284 18 7 3 1 2 31 2.81 11.03 36 0.86 IPSFv10n384 16 8 5 1 2 32 2.76 11.59 32 1.00 IPSFv11n185 14 4 6 2 2 28 4.40 6.36 48 0.58 IPSFv11n2n385 19 5 5 1 2 32 3.03 10.56 24 1.33 IPSFv11n485 21 6 7 2 2 38 3.55 10.70 40 0.95 IPSFv14n188 8 3 2 X 2 15 2.70 5.56 28 0.54 IPSFv14n288 5 4 3 3 2 17 2.12 8.02 24 0.71 IPSFv14n388 7 5 3 2 2 19 2.35 8.09 28 0.68 IPSFv14n488 6 4 3 2 2 17 2.44 6.97 28 0.61 IPSFv15n189 8 3 2 3 2 18 3.48 5.17 40 0.45 IPSFv15n289 13 4 2 2 2 23 3.04 7.57 36 0.64 IPSFv15n3 10 4 2 2 2 20 3.64 5.49 40 0.50 IPSFv15n4 12 5 5 1 4 27 3.80 7.11 40 0.68 IPSFv16n1 10 6 5 X 2 23 3.28 7.01 40 0.58 IPSFv16n2 10 4 5 X 2 21 4.07 5.16 48 0.44

Ir or V 1 Ul lO 15 g Q X 2 29 3.87 7.49 32 0.91

1 r on V 1 vjl l*T 20 g X 2 35 3.36 10.42 40 0.88

1 n oi V 1 f 1 1 1 g 5 5 X 2 21 4.34 4.84 52 0.40 IPSFv17n2 6 8 7 X 2 23 3.18 7.23 40 0.58 IPSFv17n3 8 8 7 X 2 25 3.95 6.33 48 0.52 IPSFv17n4 20 8 6 2 2 38 4.98 7.63 60 0.63 IPSFv18n1 20 6 4 10 2 42 4.06 10.34 48 0.88 IPSFv18n2 20 6 4 2 2 34 3.40 10.00 40 0.85 IPSFv18n3 20 6 7 6 2 41 2.80 14.64 32 1.28 IPSFv18n4 22 4 3 8 2 39 2.86 13.64 36 1.08 IPSFv19n1 15 8 4 6 2 35 3.57 9.80 40 0.88 IPSFv19n2 12 8 6 8 2 36 3.70 9.73 44 0.82 IPSFv19n3 17 8 5 X 2 32 3.30 9.70 36 0.89 IPSFv20n1 18 4 2 1 2 27 4.38 6.16 48 0.56 IPSFv20n2 23 4 3 6 2 38 3.05 12.46 40 0.95 IPSFv20n3 21 2 2 3 2 30 3.14 9.55 44 0.68 IPSFv12n1n2 15 4 3 1 2 25 3.03 8.25 36 0.69 IPSFv12n3 12 4 2 2 2 22 2.82 7.80 32 0.69 lPSFv13n1 12 3 2 2 2 21 3.07 6.84 40 0.53 IPSFv13n2 14 4 3 4 2 27 6.19 4.36 32 0.84 IPSFv13n3n4 18 4 2 2 2 28 3.20 8.75 40 0.70

Total 530 196 150 21 76 1039 127.24 1432 AVG 14.32 5.30 4.05 2.35 2.05 28.08 3.44 8.40 38.70 0.74 Figure 1

56
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

In-House Scanning of Intergovernmental Perspectives

Title Scanning OCR Bookmark

and Page

Setup

Contents

Linked Cover Touch

-Up

Saving Total File Size

(M)

Min/M Pages Min/Pg

IDCCr\/-| nn/IR/l 1 o 1 O

o

£. 11 A'f Q.U1 07 1R OZ A OR

IP«5P\/Qn1 irorvan i oo 95 45 g o•X oo

OO 1 Oo 1 o.ZU 11 11 .yQ7/ HO 9Q

IrOrVcJIi^OO 40 45 8 3 2 2 100 11 10 9 01 36 2 78 IPSFv9n383 25 25 8 2 1 2 63 6.63 9.50 32 1.97 IPSFv9n483 72 35 4 2 1 2 116 3.51 33.05 32 3.63 IPSFv8n182 55 62 4 2 1 2 126 4.64 27.16 44 2.86 IPSFv8n282 60 72 6 4 2 2 146 3.69 39.57 36 4.06 IPSFv8n382 72 86 4 3 1 2 168 3.01 55.81 32 5.25 IPSFv7n181 30 30 4 2 1 2 69 4.75 14.53 32 2.16 IPSFv7n281 40 50 4 3 4 3 64 3.24 19.75 32 2.00

Total 564 490 66 26 17 24 1147 58.78 356 Average 56.40 49.00 6.60 2.60 1.70 2.40 114.70 5.88 24.77 35.60 3.23 Figure 2

Time Allocation for Outsourced Scanning of Intergovernmental Perspectives

Bookmark and Page

Setup 20%

Figure 3

Minutes Per Page

Outsource Scanning vs. In-House Scanning /

0»ci a Outsource

Scanning

In-House Scanning

Individual Issues of Intergovernmental Perspective

Figure 4

57
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Minutes Per Page

Outsource Scanning vs. in-House Scanning

-^Outsource

Scanning

In-House Scanning

Individual Issues of Intereovernmental Perspective

I

Figure 5

Time Allocation for In-House Scanning of intergovernmental Perspectives

Figure 6

Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism Time Allocation Statistics

Title Download TimeBookmarl< and Page

Setup

Contents

Linked

Index Linked Saving Total File Size

(M) Min/M Pages Min/Pg

SFFF 1991 V. 1 15 90 45 135 5 290 10.04 28.88 188 1.54 SFFF 1990 V. 1 19 112 25 30 5 191 7.64 25.00 164 1.16 SFFF 1990 V.2 25 35 65 45 5 175 13.38 13.08 284 0.62 SFFF 1992 V. 1 14 100 30 45 5 194 9.46 20.51 196 0.99 SFFF 1992 V. 2 30 105 55 190 5 385 16.87 22.82 372 1.03 SFFF 1991 V. 2 23 120 30 115 5 293 16.25 18.03 344 0.85 SFFF 1994 V. 1 12 25 10 26 5 78 8.23 9.48 180 0.43 SFFF 1994 V.2 25 30 43 78 5 181 12.25 14.78 284 0.64 SFFF 1995 V. 1 16 20 8 19 5 68 8.03 8.47 176 0.39 Total 179 637 311 683 45 1855 102.15 2188 AVG 19.89 70.78 34.56 75.89 5.00 206.11 11.35 18.16 243.11 0.85

Figure 7

58
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Time Allocation

for Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism

Setup 34%

Figure 8

Figure 9

59
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Advanced Search Techniques: Tracking

Legislation through GPO Access' Congressional

Databases

Karie Lew

U.S. Government Printing Office Wasliington, DC

This demonstration showed participants how to track legislation through Congressional

databases on GPO Access, highlighting the connections among the Congressional Record, Congressional Bills, Public Laws, U.S. Code, and History of Bills databases. This handout

includes general information about the five databases that were covered, as well as searches that track one specific piece of

legislation from its introduction as a bill in the Congressional Record to its codification in the

U.S. Code.

Selected legislation:

S. 1254 (104th Congress) To disapprove of amendments to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines relating to lowering of crack sentences and sentences for money

laundering and transactions in property derived from unlawful activity.

Public Law 104-38 (104th Congress) To disapprove of amendments to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines relating to lowering of crack sentences and sentences for money

laundering and transactions in property derived from unlawful activity. 28 use Sec. 994 (1994, Supplement 1) TITLE 28-JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE

PART lll-COURT OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

CHAPTER 58-UNITED STATES SENTENCING

COMMISSION

Sec. 994. Duties of the Commission

Database Highlights:

Congressional Record

• Official record of the proceedings and

debates of the United States Congress

• Published daily when Congress is in session

• GPO Access contains volumes from 140

(1 994) to the present; 1 994 is available only on the simple-search page at <http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/ aaces002.html >.

• Database for the current session is usually updated daily by 1 1 a.m., except when a

late adjournment delays production of the

issue

• New feature: Browse the Daily Digest for the most recent issue

• General search tips: > Congresspeople listed by last name and

Mr., Mrs., or Ms. > Search for bills as "h.r. #" (or "h r #") and "s. #" (or "s #")

60
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Congressional Bills

• All published versions of each bill

• GPO Access contains bills from the 103rd Congress (1993-94) to the present.

• Current database is updated daily by 6 a.m. when bills are published and approved for release.

• List of version abbreviations and some

definitions available from Helpful Hints

• Text additions and deletions > PDF files: Added text in italics; Deleted text stricken through > ASCII text files: Added text in quotation marks; Deleted text marked

by < DELETED > and </DELETED>

tags

• Search by bill number same as in Congressional Record

Public Laws

• Text of public laws enacted from the 104th Congress to the present

• Updated when the publication of a slip law

is authorized by the Office of the Federal

Register, National Archives and Records

Administration Once a law is signed by the President, it is assigned a public-law number and issued in print as a "slip law." At the end of each session of Congress, the slip laws are compiled into bound volumes called the Statutes at Large, and they are known as "session laws." The

Statutes at Large present a chronological arrangement of the laws in the exact order that they have been enacted. There is not a Statutes

at Large database on GPO Access; however,

the text of laws published in Public Laws and

Statutes at Large is the same. Users may

perform a search by Statutes at Large citation in both the Public Laws and U.S. Code databases.

• New feature: Browse catalog of public laws with hyperlinks

• Marginal notes from PDF files are marked

by < < NOTE: > > in ASCII text files

• General search tips: > Search by bill number same as before > Search by public law: "public law #-#"

(e.g., "public law 105-198") > Search by Statutes at Large citation: "#

stat#" (e.g., "112 Stat 3280") > Search by U.S. Code citation: "# use #"

(e.g., "31 use 51 12")

• If unable to find text of public law, search

for enrolled version of bill in Congressional

Bills

U.S. Code

• Codification of the general and permanent

laws of the United States

• Prepared and published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, every six years

• GPO Access contains the text from the most recent print revision of the U.S. Code

in 1 994, which codifies the laws that were

in effect as of January 4, 1995, plus supplemental databases, which reflect changes to the U.S. Code on an annual

basis. Supplement 1 contains the laws that were in effect as of January 1 6, 1 996.

61
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Supplement 2 contains the laws that were in effect as of January 6, 1997. Supplement 3 contains the laws that were in effect as of January 26, 1998. Supplements 1 and 2 are complete and contain

all 50 titles. At this time, supplement 3 contains only titles 1 through 25; titles will be added incrementally as they become available.

• General search tips: > Search by bill number same as before > Search by Statutes at Large citation same as before > Search by public law: "pub. I. #" or "pub I #" (e.g., "pub. I. 103-40") > Search by U.S. Code citation: "#usc#"

(e.g., "7USC511") > Use truncation to find multiple subsections of U.S. Code (e.g., "7USC511*")

• When a section is affected by a law passed

after a supplement's revision date, the header for that section includes a note that

identifies the public law affecting it. In order to find the updated information, you

must search the Public Laws databases for the referenced public law number.

History of Bills

• Lists legislative actions on bills that are reported in the Congressional Record

• Part of the print version of the Congressional Record Index, which is published biweekly by the Joint Committee

on Printing when Congress is in session

• Maintained as a separate database on GPO

Access

• GPO Access contains volumes from 1 29

(1983) to the present.

• Cumulative from the beginning of each

Congressional session

• Current database is updated daily, usually the day after publication of the Congressional Record

• Typical entry includes a bill number, title, summary, names of sponsors and cosponsors, and a chronological list of actions on the bill, each of which references a Congressional Record page number and

the date when the action was reported

• General search tips: > Search by bill number same as before > Search by public law number same as

in Public Laws databases: "public law

#"

• The Congressional Record Index (CRI) online is structured the same way as the

History of Bills. Hyperlinks are available to the indexed Congressional Record documents in the 1998 CRI.

62
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Ways to Share the Riches: Web-Based Resources

for Selective Housing Arrangements

Rob Richards

University of Colorado Law Library Boulder, CO

Selective housing arrangements can be an

effective way for law libraries and other smaller

selective depositories to improve access to depository information, and simultaneously to increase the percentage of depository materials

that they select.^ By distributing depository

materials for storage in other libraries, the

selective depository can broaden the potential audience for Federal documents. In addition,

selective housing arrangements can relieve shelving congestion in depository print and

microfiche collections. While the advantages of selective housing agreements are clear to many depositories and

their patrons, such distributed storage poses

considerable administrative challenges.

Responsibilities of depository and housing unit personnel must be clearly outlined; documents

must be distributed correctly, quickly, and in accordance with GPO's regulations; and

housing units must have access to the tools for properly selecting and deselecting the documents to be housed in their facilities. Collection development challenges are among

the most formidable for administrators of

selective housing arrangements. Until recently, many factors contributed to the complexity of such distributed collection development efforts:

• the geographical distance between the

institutions involved;

• the lack of shared catalogs between the depository and the housing units;

• the need to make collective decisions once

per year about adding item numbers;

• the difficulty in providing housing units with current and accurate lists of their selections;

• and the availability of many depository

selection resources only in printed format. The University of Colorado Law Library-a 12.4% selective depository library-has encountered all of these obstacles to successful

selective housing administration. The Law

Library maintains a selective housing arrangement with four other libraries on the Boulder campus of the University of Colorado:

the Government Publications Library, the Business Library, the Engineering Library, and

the Earth Sciences Library. The Government Documents Library is a

regional depository library, and each of these

four housing libraries shares an online catalog which includes GPO depository bibliographic

records from 1976 to present, provided by

Marcive. This online catalog permits searching

by item number as well as SuDocs number,

and supports limiting by library location. The depository personnel at the Law Library

consist of the documents librarian and a serials assistant who processes and catalogs depository materials. The Law Library maintains an online catalog that is separate from the one shared by the housing units. The

63
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Law Library's catalog facilitates searching by SuDocs number, but not by item number.

In the past, administration of this housing

arrangement required extensive work on the

part of the Law Library's limited staff. Because

the depository and the housing units did not

share a catalog, because the Law Library's online catalog did not offer access by item number, and because it was difficult to maintain and distribute current lists of items

stored in each housing library, housing unit personnel frequently needed to contact the Law Library staff to verify that they were

supposed to receive a particular title.

Particularly in the two months preceding the depository item selection deadline, the Law

Library's depository librarian and serials assistant expended great labor on managing the annual collection development process. The Law Library's duties in this process included:

• distributing multiple copies of printed lists of items stored in the housing units;

• circulating printed copies of the List of

Classes;

• copying and distributing information about new depository titles and item numbers

from sources such as Administrative Notes and its Technical Supplement;

• answering numerous questions about

depository procedures;

• coordinating two or more meetings of personnel from all housing units;

• facilitating communication between

housing units - especially about the

availability of items no longer desired by one housing unit but of possible interest to others; and

• collating five sets of printed request forms

in order to proceed with adding and

deleting the desired item numbers from the depository library's selection profile. Each year the Law Library incurred very high

labor costs, as well as interruptions to workflow on non-depository processing, in order to carry out item selection. Much of the burden of housing arrangement

administration stemmed from the restriction of depository collection development information

to the print medium, and from the limitations of telephone communication about highly

detailed depository matters. As GPO began to provide Internet access to depository

administration tools, and as the libraries involved in the housing arrangement gained

access to powerful microcomputer applications and electronic mail, digital resources promised

to offer solutions to many of the problems of housing unit administration.

In 1997, Tim Byrne, Head of the University of Colorado Government Publications Library and

regional depository librarian for the Law

Library, urged the Law Library's documents

personnel to offer the four housing units electronic access to item selection information. The Law Library's documents staff then set out

to convert their depository item number

database from Microsoft Works to Microsoft

Access. Access was part of the Microsoft Office suite of applications loaded on most of the Law

Library's personal computers, and it allowed

users to convert databases easily to HTML.

Access was also written in the SQL database

language, which meant that Access databases could easily be transferred to the MS SQL

platform for availability via the Internet. Access allowed the Law Library to choose between two formats for offering item selection information to housing units: a searchable

database, or lists presented in HTML

documents. For ease of printing by the housing units, the Law Library chose the latter

64
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

option. The Law Library's documents serials assistant sorted the Access item number

database by location, cut and pasted Access

display screens into Microsoft Word, and then saved the documents as HTML. The Law

Library's documents librarian then created a Web page with links to item number lists for each of the housing units, along with a link to Item Lister at GPO.

The Law Library's documents staff soon

realized that housing units could benefit from

Internet access to all of the depository

collection development tools available on GPO's servers. The Law Library's documents

librarian then created another Web page with

links to tools including MOCAT and the List of

Classes, as well as current awareness services such as Administrative Notes Technical Supplement, New and Noteworthy Resources from GPO, and New Products and Services Announcements from GPO. Links also gave

access to the online catalogs of the housing

units and the Law Library.

Instead of juggling several printed sources sent

to them by the Law Library's documents staff, housing unit personnel now could manage

their own depository materials, and their own

collection development process, using

electronic resources organized at one location on the World Wide Web. Housing unit personnel particularly appreciated the increased autonomy that Web resources

afforded them, and the freedom to schedule

depository work in their own time frames.

Further, the Law Library's documents librarian encouraged all parties involved in the housing arrangement to communicate via e-mail. E- mail communication minimized the amount of paper transactions, sped the communications

process, allowed accurate and easy transfer of complex data between applications, provided a long-term record of all interactions, and greatly simplified the final work of entering additions and deletions of item numbers. In addition, e- mail facilitated both one-to-one and group

conversations about specific selection and

administrative issues.

In the summer of 1998, the Law Library and its housing units for the first time conducted item

selection using these Web resources. Results were remarkable. The Law Library's documents staff experienced greatly reduced

time spent on administering item selection. This also resulted in fewer interruptions of other technical services workflows at the Law

Library. Housing unit personnel asked fewer questions

of Law Library staff during preparation, since housing unit personnel could access most

depository collection development information

directly through the Internet. The number of group meetings held in person was reduced to one, since all preliminary communication took

place via e-mail. The Law Library's documents staff also felt confident that housing unit personnel were

employing the most current and accurate

resources available, instead of printed materials

that might be out of date or incomplete.

Housing unit personnel reported increased

satisfaction with the item selection process. This improved morale regarding participation

in depository administration bodes well for the long-term continuation - and even expansion -

of the selective housing arrangement.

Overall, the provision of Internet-based item

selection and collection development

resources appears to have reduced costs for all parties, and increased the satisfaction of depository and housing unit personnel with the

administration of the housing arrangement. The Law Library's documents staff looks forward to learning whether this model of providing networked resources for selective housing administration produces similar results for other selective depositories.

65
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

^ See, for example, Selective Housing of Documents, in Federal Depository Library Manual, 15-1 7 (1993); and Cheryl Nyberg,

Selective Housing of Federal Government Documents in Non-Depository Libraries, 71

III. Libr.479 (1989).

The author wishes to thank Barbara Bintliff, Director, University of Colorado Law Library, Georgia Briscoe, Associate Director, University

of Colorado Law Library, Tim Byrne, Head, Government Publications Library, University of Colorado at Boulder, and Sharon Blackburn,

Associate Law Librarian, Texas Tech University School of Law Library, for their support of this presentation. The author also wishes to acknowledge the superb work of Dallas Marshall, Serials Assistant, University of Colorado Law Library, in creating and

improving many of the digital resources described in this presentation.

66
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Spreading the Riches Around

Administering Selective Housing Arrangements

From the Law Library Perspective: An Overview

Sharon Blackburn

Texas Tech University School of Law Library Lubbocic, TX

My presentation this afternoon will overview

selective housing arrangements, list the advantages of the arrangement to the law

library depository as well as the non-depository

library, detail the considerations both libraries should take into account, and briefly cover my

own experience in sharing a selective housing arrangement with the Geosciences Reading Room at Texas Tech University. What is a Selective Housing Arrangement?

Quite simply, a depository library may select depository material to house in a non-depository library. The material may be

current or retrospective. When the administrator of the depository library does not

also administer the non-depository site, then

the two libraries must sign a formal selective housing agreement or memorandum of agreement (see p. 1 7 of the Federal Depository

Library Manual). The non-depository library must meet the same retention standards and

the same public access standards as the depository library. In essence, the nondepository library must adhere to all Federal Depository Library Program policies.

But, Is a Selective Housing Arrangement Still Desirable in the Age of the Internet?

Certainly, many Federal Government

publications are now available over the

Internet. Still, not everything currently in the depository system is available, and few

agencies have added all of the retrospective

collections that depository libraries hold. Not

every patron wants to use materials via the

Internet, and not every format works well in electronic form. Finally, receiving Federal documents for a very low cost appeals to most

potential selective housing sites. So, yes, a

selective housing arrangement has viability even in the age of the Internet. Why Would a Non-Depository Library Want

to Participate in a Selective Housing

Arrangement?

As mentioned above, the non-depository

library will receive Federal documents at a very low cost. The library will also be able to mold

and strengthen its collection to meet the Government information needs of its specific

clientele. With added information and

resources, the library can better serve its clientele. And, the library will be making an

alliance with an expert in government and

law-the law librarian. Why Would a Depository Law Library Want

to Participate in a Selective Housing

Arrangement? The Law Library has the opportunity to form a valuable partnership outside the law library community. Such a relationship may very well be a first step in the direction of cooperation and support for the future. More importantly,

the law library shows its dedication to fulfilling the Government information needs of the Congressional District or local area. This is the

67
J 999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

primary goal of all depositories, and selective depositories not close to a regional or an

almost 100 percent selective depository should

feel a particular impetus to fulfill their local area's Government information needs. A law library does not generally collect in the

subjects of consumer affairs, business, medical,

or scientific information, but a depository law

library has the opportunity to make those documents subjects available to its community

by establishing a selective housing

arrangement with a local public library, special

library, or academic library. Moreover, a law library can alleviate its own

space constraints by housing documents in another site. For instance, if a law library has

collected environmental impact statements but

finds its shelves overflowing, perhaps a local library serving patrons interested in the environment might be willing to house such documents. A separate housing arrangement also benefits the law library's principal clientele because

then attorneys, judges, law professors, and law

students will have access to materials that may

very well have relevance to their cases or

studies with generally more expertise in nonlegal areas than a law library may be able to

offer. For example, a law school may offer a

joint j.D./M.B.A. degree. While a law library may not traditionally select business-related

materials, and may have no space to store such

materials, perhaps there is a business library on campus that would be delighted to house

Federal documents related to business. Why Would an Administrator Support a

Selective Housing Arrangement?

I think any administrator is impressed,

especially in tough economic times, when a

library can demonstrate cooperative planning and sharing resources. And, the administrator

of a law library, as well as the dean of a law

school, chief administrator of a court, or county

commissioner, should be pleased with the public relations value of the law librar^/'s cooperative venture with another entity in the community. At times, legal institutions may be

seen as elite institutions. The law library may

help to dispel or quell that perception.

Steps to Achieving a Selective Housing

Arrangement The first step should be that the depository law

library make certain that Government

information needs are indeed lacking in the Congressional District or local area served by

the library. Even if, say, a regional depository

or near-full selective depository exists within

the same area, the potential housing site may

offer subject expertise unavailable in the larger

libraries, or the location of the housing site is more appealing to many users. At any rate, the depository library should be certain that gaps

exist in the provision of Government

information and not merely duplicate materials already in the district.

Both the depository and non-depository should

also understand that the selective housing arrangement will require a substantial commitment of staffing and resources. I will discuss this more in depth a little later, but just because the FDLP does not charge for documents does not mean that putting documents on the shelf will have no cost.

Both libraries should also realize that the arrangement requires a long-term, official relationship. Not only must the non-depository

keep the Federal documents for at least five years, but also the arrangement requires the

participation of two other institutions: the

regional library and the Federal Depository

Library Program. Law Library Staffing and Resources When participating in a selective housing

arrangement, the law library must:

68
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

• Review its own collection development

plan

• Amend item selections

• Process extra documents

• Physically transfer the documents to the non-depository

• Keep in contact with the non-depository

regarding claims, changes to call numbers

and item numbers, and FDLP news (of course, with the advent of the FDLP Web

page, such communication is much easier and more comprehensive)

• Monitor the adherence of the nondepository to the policies of the FDLP

The Non-Depository Library Staffing and

Resources When participating In a selective housing

arrangement, the non-depository library must:

• Review its public access and weeding

policies and make them compliant with FDLP standards

• Process extra publications

• Promote the documents collection to

library staff and patrons

• Promote the professional development of the librarian or librarians responsible for the documents collection

• Identify item numbers that most closely match the information needs of the library's users

• Compile biennial reports, self-study, and

statistics

The Selective Housing Agreement

When the two libraries have determined to establish a selective housing arrangement for Federal documents, they must execute a formal agreement, also known as a memorandum of agreement. A sample form may be found in the Federal Depository Library Manual on page

1 7. The essential elements of the agreement

are that the libraries:

• Adhere to the policies of the FDLP

• Justify the transfer of the Federal documents

• Detail the duration of the agreement

• Set out the conditions for terminating the agreement

• Discuss how the housing site will maintain

the collection

• Guarantee free access and ILL

• Provide for the disposition of the documents in case the libraries dissolve the agreement The Texas Tech University Law Library and

the Geosciences Reading Room

For decades, the Geosciences map room or Reading Room housed USGS and DMA maps

selected by the Texas Tech University Library, a regional depository. In the late 1970s, the

University Library elected to house all depository maps together in the library's map

room. Understandably, the Geosciences

Reading Room desperately wanted to continue

receiving the maps, and the law library, a newly designated depository, assumed the housing arrangement with the Geosciences

Reading Room.

The Texas Tech Law Library currently selects around 1 3 percent of FDLP offerings. Of the almost 900 item numbers the Law Library

69
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

selects, only 67 are dedicated to the Reading Room. Most items ship directly to the Reading

Room from USGS. The Reading Room clerk and her student assistant identify, process, record, and file maps according to FDLP

guidelines. A few items selected, around 10-15 pieces per week, come first to the Law Library. In this case, the Law Library identifies the material with a depository stamp, writes the call number

and shipping list numbe? on the piece, photocopies the shipping list for the convenience of the Reading Room, and places the material on a shelf in the documents workroom.

Every other week, the Reading Room clerk drops by the Law Library to examine the

materials on the shelf. She usually takes 90 to 95 percent of the materials. The rest either go

into the Law Library's collection or into storage. Back at the Geosciences building, the Reading Room clerk enters a record identifying each

piece into a stand-alone database. Usually the

clerk waits until a full cataloging record appears on the University Libraries public online catalog before creating the database

record in order to ensure correct title and

author. The clerk may add subject headings as well.

In future, we hope that the Law Library can

include the Reading Room as a location on the University Libraries online catalog and simply

attach the Reading Room's holdings onto full MARC records and phase out the stand-alone

database. However, because the Reading

Room is not an official library, certain policy considerations must be resolved with the administrators of the online catalog.

Usually once a month, I visit the Reading Room to discuss problems and to monitor compliance with FDLP guidelines. At least once a week, though, I am on the phone or email with the Reading Room clerk answering

questions, giving advice, and passing on news

about the depository program. The most frustrating aspect of our arrangement

with Geosciences is the frequent turnover in the clerk's position. In the last ten years I have worked with seven different clerks. Typically, the clerks are doctoral graduate students in Geosciences, although one clerk had an M.L.S. (though stayed for only six months). Such a revolving door puts a strain on me to make

certain that the clerk understands the importance of the depository program and

standards.

Unfortunately, I have little influence to encourage the Department of Geosciences to upgrade the clerk position in order to attract a

stable governor for the depository collection, other than the ultimate and very heavy club of ending the arrangement. Neither I nor my

administration wishes to wield such a drastic solution. The Selective Housing Arrangement Benefits the Law Library's Clientele

Despite the headaches of constantly having to

train new staff, I am pleased with the Law

Library's arrangement with the Reading Room,

and my law professors and students certainly benefit from the arrangement. The Reading Room helps support the curriculum and

research for

• Land Use Planning

• Environmental Law

• Agricultural Law

• Oil and Gas Law

• Trial Advocacy

Attorneys also benefit from the arrangement. An attorney can use the GIS expertise at Geosciences to craft a map covering

intersection accidents, crime incidents, or just about any other map they need to demonstrate evidence in court or to help a client.

70
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Finally, the selective housing agreement

benefits the Law Library because our Law

School Dean takes great pride in cooperative

efforts. He is quite happy to assure University

officials that the Law School gives back to the University and surrounding community. And,

quite frankly, a happy Dean means a happy

law librarian.

Sources

Bates, Mary. "Readers Exchange: Selective Housing of US Documents." Administrative

Notes, vol. 7, no. 1 1 (July 1986):4-5. "Have You a Selective Housing Agreement?"

Administrative Notes, vol. 2, no. 8 (June 1981):4. "Maps and Documents in Selective Housing

Sites Subject to Full Range of Depository

Standards. "Administrative Notes, vol. 1 1, no. 6

(Mar. 15, 1990):10. Nyberg, Cheryl Rae. "Selective Housing of Federal Government Documents in NonDepository Libraries." Illinois Libraries, vol. 71 (1989):479-85.

"Selective Housing of Documents," in Federal Depository Library Manual, Rev. 1993, pp. 15-

17.

"Selective Housing of U.S. Government

Electronic Online Services," Administrative

Notes, vol. 15, no. 16 (Dec. 15, 1994):18-19.

71
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

What It Means To Be a Selective Housing Site in

Tliis Day and Age

Martha ]o Sani

University of Colorado, Boulder

Boulder, CO

The William M. White Bjjsiness Library has maintained a separate Government

publications collection throughout the history of the library. The library was established in 1970 when the College of Business moved into a new building on the University of Colorado, Boulder campus. The library contains over 80,000 monographs, over 160,000 items in microform, and subscribes to over 700 serials. Access to many more full text serials are available through databases the library purchases or accesses through Chinook, the University libraries' Web-based online catalog. As a branch library, the library continues to receive operating and acquisition funds from

the main library, but the serious state under- funding of the library system over the years has prompted the business library administration to turn to the College of Business for equipment

and gift money to provide for the research and

curricular library needs of the college. The funds were used to fund serials and monographs as well as new technology. These

funds were used and continue to be used for up-to-date technology, including a LAN system and to access ever increasing Web-based

resources. A deposit account funded with gift funds was set up in the 1 970's to maintain a

separately housed Government publication

collection. It was used until recently.

In 1994 the selective housing site with the University of Colorado Law Library was

created to provide resources in categories

related to business. Some of the item

selections covered titles the library was

receiving, but most of the selections were CD- ROMs that could be installed on the business

library LAN system. Government publications not available through

the depository arrangement were ordered as needed. These and most of the long running

serial subscriptions publications are now

ordered using the main library deposit account.

This arrangement has not worked very well, but we hope the process will improve or the business library will need to explore other

options. The business library must have up-to- date information that is readily available and we are pleased the online access has improved

this situation immensely, but there are times when we need to have the printed sources

available. The Business Library menu illustrates the wide

variety of electronic databases the library subscribes to or accesses through the main

library gateways. A click on menu items

directly connects the patron to selected databases without going through several layers of screens. This has proved to be a real time

saver and less confusing for the patrons and the

library staff can concentrate on teaching how to use the resources and not spend time showing

patrons how to get into the databases. STAT-USA and the CIS Statistical Universe

listed in the menu have been welcome

additions. The business library partially funded STAT-USA and has maintained a collection of the Statistical Reference Index microfiche indexed in Statistical Universe since 1980. The

library also subscribes to the NTDB CD-ROM,

72
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

which continues to be a useful tool for international marketing students. The core of the collection is Federal economic

indicators that have been collected for approximately thirty years for use by business

students for case studies. The selection rate through the law library of about 2% of available depository materials adds about the same number of documents that are withdrawn

each year, keeping the collection at about

1 368 volumes. This number is derived from

counting 8 volumes per square foot. The

library adds about 1 % through purchases and

gifts each year. The collection will continue to be small as older items are sent to the regional depository library and online permanent access continues to improve. The business library has always had a close

relationship with the regional library in the main library. The regional library is heavily used by business and faculty for research and

curricular needs and the business library is dependent upon the regional to supply

resources that are not readily available in the business library. All Government documents

in all formats from any Government entity that are received by the business library are sent to the regional library for cataloging. The regional library is responsible for adding

business library item records to bibliographic records in the Chinook online database that

reflect branch holdings. Due to the age of the business library Government publications

collection, part of the business library holdings

are not accessible in Chinook, but a retrospective project that involves weeding and

cataloging the collection should be finished by end of the summer of 1 999. The business library maintains an electronic

shelf list of documents and other Federal, state, and international resources. The regional depository library has also developed a Web

page that provides an overview of depository

holdings and services and guides to the

depository collection. The Web page and the guides to the regional depository collection are

particularly helpful. The business library is also developing a Web page that places Web

sites in specialized business categories. This Web page will include many of the online Web sites available from the Government. The Business Library has a historical relationship with the Law Library that goes beyond the depository selection process due to shared curricular needs and research. Some of the Business Library collection development

decisions are based upon the availability of resources in the Law Library. Being a selective housing site for the law library was a logical choice. The Law Library is separate from the

University Libraries system, but access to the Law Library catalog and Government

publications and other resources is available through a link on the Chinook system. The shared housing arrangement with the Law

Library has provided the business library with

basic as well as additional Federal Government

resources needed by the library. However, our

participation in the depository program will continue to be evaluated as access to Government publications changes from printed

to online access. Permanent access to the Government

information needed by the library will be the

key. This information must be readily available

to students, faculty, staff, and public patrons. The library will continue to provide trained specialized librarians to help our patrons find and interpret information available from the

Federal Government using printed, microform,

CD-ROMs, and online materials available in the business library and refer patrons to the depository library as needed. The library also purchases printed and online information from commercial entities that provide added value

to Government information. Up-to-date technology that is required to access

73
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Government information will continue to be

available. As a rule the library does not provide software

applications in the library, except as needed for specialized databases requirements. This may

change in the future when the new business

library is constructed and increased access is provided for laptop computers. As the major business library in the state, we

are committed to providing information

available from the Federal Government to our

students and faculty and the public, and we

will continue to fulfill that role in the new

millennium. Our participation in the Federal Depository Library Program has helped us to

fulfill that role.

74
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

How to Use the Digital Library of tine State of tlie

Environment on tine Web and on a WebConnected CD/DVD-ROM

Dr. Brand L. Niemann

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Wasiiington, DC

Abstract

Since last year's presentation entitled LandView III and the CEIS Digital Library of the

State of the Environment < www.access.gpo.

gov/su_docs/dpos/98pro41 .html > , the Digital Library of the State of the Environment has

greatly expanded its content and upgraded the

Folio CD-ROM and Web Server technology to version 4.2. A new Digital Library of the State of the Environment Reading Room is now available <www.sdi.gov/diglib.htm>. The purpose of

this demonstration is to provide an introduction

to the new content and technology for depository librarians and others attending the conference. Only the first part of the "how to use" information is reprinted here and the

complete file is available on the Web site <www.sdi.gov/bnfdlc99.htm>. The

demonstration will show how the same State of the Environment content is available on both

the Web and the CD-ROM using essentially the same interface. The Web-connected CD-ROM

is available for those who need it and is updated periodically to maintain an archive of the Web site content. Table of Contents

1. Overview

2. Query Syntax and Multiple Infobase Query

3. Web-Connected CD/DVD-ROMs

4. Introduction

5. Understanding the User Interface

1. Overview

75
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Figure 1. Digital Library of the State of the Environment on the Web in Browse View

0 Browsi

File £du

Forward O ElSkop Refresh Address |[*] p://! 98.1 83.1 46.250/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientlD=65243198;infobase=diglib5.nfoS<softpage=B rowse I- fame Pg42^

J Links About Working Offlirte ^Microsoft ^ProdudLpdates ^Services ^Today's Litik.? Web Tutorial

Digital Library of the State of the Environment and Environmental Quality,

Digital Library of the State of the Environment and Enviro nrr^ Digital Library of the State of the

Environment and Environmental

Quality, Status and Trends

All j|l§ Search jQQBiowse/i) Document / ^ Contents /IE HitList /

r" Rank this query? Records; 85532 Hits; 0 M SftN^^ MMjtbQuBfv;,! Infobase.List;

Folio delivers the same content with essentially the same interface on both the Web and CD- ROM. All the elements of the interface are defined below.

Figure 1 shows one of six different views of infobases in the digital library, namely, Browse

with the Contents in the left side frame and the Reference and the Document frames in the middle. The frames may be resized with the mouse, and the interface may be customized

(e.g., simplified with fewer choices for beginning users on both the Web and CDROM). The Contents frame contains a hyperlinked table of contents that may be expanded ( ) or collapsed ( ^ ), and together with the Reference frame tells you where you

are in the overall structure of the infobase. The

All view is best for searching and when you want to see all the information at once. The

Search view is best for finding the most

1^ mternet sone

relevant information because it provides the

Hit List view at the bottom. The Hit List view

allows you to view as many references in the

hit list as possible and link to them. The Document view is for reading the information,

especially after you have narrowed the search, while the Contents view is best for navigating and scanning the table of contents.

Folio also provides for query templates on both

the CD-ROM and the Web distributions to

facilitate searching by fields as well as by words and phrases, when the infobase contains

fielded information like dates, numeric data,

etc. Furthermore, the Folio search results take

the user directly to hits in documents or table

of contents headings as well as to hit list with relevance ranking.

All of the interface elements are defined below:

76
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Simple Combined View: What you see after doing a word search and selecting the All Tab

Folio siteDirector4 - User's Guide

Folfb siteDlfector 4 Ifeers Guide

Searching fnfoba ses

Searching Infobases

If you can't find it, you can't use it. Thankfully, FoHo siteDirectoris able to tap into the Folio ^search^ engine to help you locate the infonnation you need.

1 I

Document Tab: When you want to read the document

Search Browse j [ft Document/* Contents /:= HiHist / Simple Document View

Folio siteDirector 4 - User's Guide

Folio gitgDjr>ptor 4 Us?rs Ggld^

Folio siteDirector 4 allows infonnation publishers to deliver >^

mission- critical information over Internets or Intranets. The

information is stored in FoUo Corporation's infobase format w d I .n

Contents Tab: When you want to browse and use the dynamic Table of Contents ^y^B jglS'Segch jl^ Browse j |1| Document j Contents /:= HiHist /

77
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Simple Table of Contents View

i Us 3rs Guide + Understandinq the User Interface

-fr Browsina Infoba ses

Searchina 1 nfob ases ^ Simple Queries K Advanced Queries

0^ LJsin a Qi. erv Forms + Navi latina Hits + Ihe. Que

Folio Query Syntax

V Disclav Options

Icon-Plus: Click to expand to see subheadings

Icon-Minus: Click to collapse to hide the subheadings

Icon-Empty: When there are no subheadings

Query Single: Click to enter a query and its specifications Ml

Search Edit Window: Enter a word or phrase and hit Enter #ySearchj

78
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Simple Query Form: Use for field searches (e.g. dates^ etc.) when provided with infobase

Query Multiple; Select multiple infobases to search

Simple Intermediate Query Results: Help you decide which infobases to look at for search hits Folio Views 4 Getting Started

Returned a total of 39 Hits

All View I Document View

Folio siteDirector 4 - User's Guide

Returned a total of 4 Hits

AH View 1 Document View

Hit List Tab: Use to browse the list of search hits 1P>8 iii Search ji3 Browse j H Doca^ment \ Contents j |~ HitList /

79
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Sjmple Hit List View: What you see after doing a word search and selecting the Hit List Tab

Left and Right Hit Marks: How the search hits are marked Search Hit44 Next Hit: Use to jump forward from one hit to the next a

Previous Hit: Use to jump backward from one hit to the previous

ill

Next Page-sans cursor: Navigation button to go forward to next page

Next Page-with cursor: Same as previous when cursor is present

Previous Page-sans cursor: Navigation button to go back to previous page

Previous Page-with cursor: Same as previous when cursor is present

Help: Provides customized help when provided with the infobase and/or Web site

2. Query Syntax and Multiple Infobase Query bin/om_isapi.dll?&softpage = Multi_Query_Req

uest42 > How to search an infobase <http://198.183.146.250/cgi- 3. Web-Connected CD/DVD-ROMs

bi n/om_isapi .d 1 1 ?&softpage = Howto42 >

The Web and CD-ROM are evolving as Multiple Infobase or Document Query complementary, rather than competing

Interface <http://198.183.146.250/cgi- technologies for multimedia electronic

80
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

publishing of value added content. Webconnected CD/DVD-ROMs can serve to overcome grid lock on the info highway and

deliver Web resources to those whose time is too valuable for the "World Wide Wait." Even more so, Web-connected DVD/CD-ROMs can

provide a value added interface to Internet information that is "quirky, transient, and

chaotically shelved" and deliver multimedia and interactivity that is beyond the foreseeable

future for the Internet infrastructure. A Web-connected CD-ROM can be used in two ways. First, it can be accessed and examined from a standalone computer with CD-ROM drive. Second, for those with computers having Internet browser capabilities, active Web links allow users to interact with Web sites from the CD-ROM. Web-connected CD/DVD-ROMs like Microsoft's Encarta provide a comprehensive multimedia

encyclopedia on the CD/DVD-ROM with connections to many Web resources and

periodic updates that are downloadable to the

user's PC and work seamlessly with the CD/DVD-ROM.

The SIGCAT (Special Interest Group on CD/DVD Applications & Technology) is the world's largest user group (1 1 ,000 members)

devoted to the investigation of CD/DVD

technology and its many applications in government, business, and education. The SIGCAT has featured the convergence between

the Web and CD/DVD-ROMs during its annual

conferences the past three years (c.f. The

Convergence Hits Home: A Survey of Late Breaking Web-Connected Titles-SIGCAT '98 Conference, May 20, 1998 <www.sigcat.org/

meetings/sigcat98/catalog/session/tchh.html >

.

4. Introduction The information is stored in Folio Corporation's

infobase format and converted to HTML onthe-fly. The infobase format allows you,

accessing this site through your Web browser,

to search for and view information in ways that

go beyond traditional HTML indexing and

display paradigms.

This help file should provide you with the

basics of using Folio siteDirector 4, including: Understanding the User Interface - Folio

siteDirector makes use of several default buttons and views that may be new to you. Browsing Infobases - Folio siteDirector serves HTML pages in your browser. However,

because there is an infobase on the back end of

that HTML, there is some functionality available for browsing information that may be new to you. Searching Infobases - The powerful Folio search engine enables you to find what you

need, when you need it.

5. Understanding the User Interface

Folio siteDirector allows site administrators to completely customize how infobases are displayed over the Web. As such, the appearance of the site you are currently using may be completely different from any other site running Folio siteDirector. However, typically there are several components that are constant. This section describes those components. Document View

Contents View

Hit List View

Query Views

Intermediate Query Results Combined Views

Standard Buttons Document View

The document view displays the main body of the infobase. Within the document view, you

can read the text of the infobase, view images, and follow links to other areas in the infobase. Usually, the document view provides links (either text or graphic buttons) to take you to

81
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

the next or previous page of information in the

infobase. The document view also highlights the hits from queries on the infobase. Usually, these hits are marked by red arrows. For example, this is an example hit^M.

Below is a simple document view. Note the graphics at the top of the page; these are for moving forward and back through the infobase.

Folio siteDirector4 - User's Guide

Folio siteDirector 4 Users Guide

Folio siteDirectof 4 allows information publishers to deliver mission- critical information over Internets or Intranets. The

information IS stored in F olio Corporation's infobase format w

I ^

. \ Ji3

Contents View

The Contents view displays the table of contents for an infobase. The table of contents may be expanded or collapsed by clicking the ^ and ^ images next to each heading in the view. Click ^ \o expand a branch of the

table of contents; click a =2 to collapse a branch.

Folio siteDirector 4 Users Guide

*• Understandina the User Interface • 1 * Browsing Infobases - Searching Infobases ^ Simple Queries « Advanced Queries » Using Query Forms

Navigating Hits + The Folio Querv Syntax + Query Disclav Ootions

The hit list view will have at least one column;

often, it will have two or more columns. Text

in the first column is always linked to the corresponding information in the body of the

infobase. When you follow the link, the information is displayed in a document view.

Each heading in the contents view is linked to the corresponding information in the body of the infobase. When you follow the link, the information is displayed in a document view. Below is a simple contents view. Note the and ^ images next to the headings that can be expanded or collapsed. Also note the 0

images next to headings which are fully expanded.

Hit List View

The Hit List view displays a summary of query

hits for the infobase. This view is only

populated if you have performed a search on

the infobase.

82
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

The hit list view most often displays the relative rank of the hit in the first column and the heading path in the second column. The

relative rank only applies to ranked queries (as

is done through a simple query and through some custom query forms). The heading path

lists the parent headings of the information

(such as Chapter 2 \ Section 3 \ Item 47). These are the same headings as are displayed

in the contents view.

The hit list may also display a snippet from the body of the infobase, showing a few words

around each actual query hit, beneath the heading list. You could use this information to better identify the context of the hit before

linking to the full information. Below is a simple hit list view. Note the information in the columns. Also note that only the first column is linked.

Query Views The query views provide a form for you to query one or more infobases. Typically, the form provides a list box to choose the infobases you wish to query and one or more fields to enter the terms you wish to search for. It may

also provide a set of options to control how the information is displayed. There are basically two types of queries: the simple query and the advanced query. The

simple query does not require you to know

anything about the Folio query syntax and

provides ranked results. The advanced query

requires that you understand the Folio query

syntax and does not provide ranked results by

default. Most single-field query forms use the simple query method; multiple-field query

forms usually use the advanced query method. However, most multiple-field query forms

attempt to hide the Folio query syntax from you (they make sure the syntax is correct for you), so you do not need to learn it unless you want to. See Simple Queries and Advanced Queries for more information. Below is a query view that uses the simple query method. Note the list of infobases to choose from and the single field for entering

the terms you wish to search for.

83
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Select the infobase to query: |FolioHelp 2I

Query for:

Query | Clear

Intermediate Query Results

After performing a search, you may be taken to an intermediate query results page. Rather

than taking you to the first hit in the document

view, this page shows you the number of hits for each infobase that you searched. Some also display a query map to help you see which

terms had the greatest effect on the search. The query map allows you to see immediately

if a structure or term is part of the infobase, as well as which combinations of structures and

terms provide hits. From the intermediate query results page, you

can link to the document view to see the first hit in the selected infobase. Below is a simple query results page.

Folio Views 4 Getting Started

Returned a total of 39 Hits

folio help 39

All View I Document View

Folio siteDirector 4 - User's Guide

Returned a total of 4 Hits folio -1 9-1 „ help AH View I Document View

84
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Combined Views

Using frames, these basic views may be combined on a single page. For example, a common view shows the contents view on the

left of the page and the document view on the

right. Following links in the contents view

updates the document view. Another common

view shows the document view on the top of the page and the hit list view on the bottom of the page. Again, as you follow links from the

hit list, the document is updated.

No matter what combination of views the site designer creates, simply remember that the primary functionality comes from the Document, Contents, or Hit List views (query views are usually on their own page). Below is a simple combined view, showing the

contents, document, and hit list views. Note

that a query hit is highlighted in the document

view.

Folio siteDirector4 - User's Guide

Folio sitePirector 4 Users Guide

Searching Infobases

Searching Infobases

If you can't find ii, you can't use it. ThanJkfully, Folio siteDirector is able to tap into the Folio ^search^ engine to help you locate the information you need.

Standard Buttons

Folio siteDirector includes several standard buttons to aid in navigating through infobases. These include buttons for moving to the next and previous page, moving to the next and

previous hit, querying the infobase, or changing to another view of the infobase.

Navigation Buttons View Buttons Query Buttons

Navigation Buttons

Navigation buttons help you move through the

infobase. These buttons include: The standard buttons are divided into the following categories: Next & Previous Page

Next & Previous Hit

85
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Next & Previous Page

Folio siteDirector transfers only a discrete portion of the infobase to the browser for display; this saves time and bandwidth. These

buttons display the previous or next portion of the infobase when clicked. Notice that the buttons change when the cursor is placed over them. Next & Previous Hit yiii

Document

;||>AB jgil Search ^Q^ Browse j jj DV(i?iro^nj^iS .-rj^ffl

Clicking the Document tab displays the document view of an infobase, allowing you to

Query hits are highlighted with arrow icons query W\\M). By clicking the Previous and Next

Hit buttons, the browser displays the appropriate hit. View Tabs View tabs are displayed in the bottom pane of the browser window and allow you to choose

the display you wish to see. These tabs

include: Document

Contents

Hit List

view the main body of information for the

infobase. Contents

g|''- Document; j j^- Contenls/i= HitList /

Clicking the Contents tab displays the contents view of an infobase. The contents view

contains a fully functional infobase Table of Contents window, complete with expandable

and collapsible branches. You may follow

links from the headings in the contents view to the document view.

Hit List

All Search jf^ Browse

j [=| Docurnan^ j Contents j HitList /

Clicking the Hit List tab displays the hit list view of an infobase. If no query has been

performed, the hit list is empty; if a query has been performed, then the hit list displays heading information for each hit. You may

follow links from headings in the hit list view

to the document view.

Query Buttons Query buttons display different query forms for you to use. Query Single or Multiple Infobases

The other tabs - All, Search, and Browse combine the other views in useful ways.

86
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

The query single infobase button displays a form that queries a single infobase. The query

multiple infobase button displays a form that allows you to search several infobases at once. These buttons may use the simple query

format, which automatically ranks queries by

relevance, or the advanced query format (which allows you to take advantage of the powerful Folio query syntax), or a custom

query form which provides you with several

fields to fill in before submitting the query.

Additionally, you can simply tvpe your query

in the query edit box and click the Search

button. The query edit box is located in the bottom pane of your browser when viewing an

infobase.

87
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Marc Wolfson

Dave Wellman

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Washington, DC

Federal Emergency Management Agency

• What is FEMA

Who we are and what we do

• Why use www.fema.gov

Successes Organization FEMA - Who we are...

• An independent Federal agency

• Director of FEMA, James Lee Witt, holds a cabinet level position.

• Annual Operating Budget - $420 Million

• 1998 Federal Disaster Costs - $3.5 Billlion

• Employees 2500 Full-time 6000 temporary disaster assistance employees

• FEMA handles an average of 60 disasters per year

FEMA - What we do...

• Recommend ways to reduce losses of life and property in the event of a disaster. Training, Out Reach, and Partnering National Flood Insurance Program

Project Impact

• Assist in the response and recovery effort after a disaster. Why use www.fema.gov

• To obtain accurate, official and timely

information in matters relevant to FEMA's

responsibilities

• To review day by day accounts of major

disasters

88
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

How we've grown... www.fema.gov

Organization Features

• Side navigation

• Banner navigation

5oa

400

300 2oa 1

a •mmy

Hles(100(Q

Topical Dr

Hts (10000)

1996 1996 1997 199B

• Master Index (A - Z)

• Color Code Scheme (darker to white)

• Search Engine (multiple)

• E-mail Lists www.fema.gov

Highlights... Oklahoma City bombing tragedy

Tropical Storm Archives

Disaster Map

Kids Section - FEMA for Kids US Fire Administration

Special Programs

Year 2000

Project Impact

Oklahoma City Bombing Archive

In memory of all who perished, with hopes and prayers

for those who were injured, and with admiration for all who came to their aid at the Murrah Federal Office Building, Oklahoma City, on April 19, 1995.

• Oklahoma City Bombing (April 19th,1995) • Oklahoma City Bombing News Releases

• Oklahoma City Bombing Disaster Photo Archives Oklahoma City Updates

April 21st. 1995

April 23rd. 1995

April 26th. 1995

April 27th. 1995

April 29th. 1995

April 30tfa. 1995 May 1st. 1995

May 3rd, 1995 May 4th. 1995 May 5th. 1995 May 12th. 1995 May 15th. 1995 May 17th. 1995 May 24th. 1995

Reflections on Oklahoma City Disaster One Year Later. Remarks by James Lee Witt, FEMA Director

c irch I feedback- | library ] PRESEDENTIAL RADIO ADBRESS

SATTJRDAY, APRIL 22, 1995 PRESIDENT CLINTON: We are especially concerned about how the

children of America are reacting to the temble events in Oklahoma City. Our family has been struggling to make sense ofthis tragedy. And I know that families all over Amenca have as well We know that what happened in Oklahoma is very frightening And we want children to know that it's okay to be frightened by something as bad as this. Your

parents imderstand it. Your teachers understand it. And we're all there for you. And we're working hard to make sure that this makes sense to you and that you can overcome your fears and go on with your lives. The First Lady has been very worried about all the children of our

country in the aftermath of this tragedy. And she wants to talk with you

too today. MRS. CLINTON: I know that many children around the country have been very frightened by what they have seen and heard, particularly on

television in the last few days. And I'm sure that you, like many of the

children I've already talked to, are really concerned because they don't know how something so temble could have happened here in our

country.

Updated: Adnl 9, 1998

FBd«r«l EmoratriKV Manjaamont Aggncv I

89
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

cfi I feedback | library J Archive Hurn-icame B®riiiiTil<e Advisories and Tracking Maps

Advisones for Aug. 20. 1998 - Aug, 27. 1998

Advisory for Aug. 23. 1998 A.M.

Advisory for Aug. 22, 1998 P.M.

Advisory for Aug. 22\ 1998 A.M.

Advisory for Aug. 21. 1998 P.M.

Advisory for Aug. 21, 1998 A.M.

Advisory for Aug. 20. 1998 P.M.

Advisory for Aug. 20. 1998 AM.

Maps

• Watch/Warmng Map

• Strike Probability Map

Tracking Maps Courtesy of University of Hawaii

Tracking Map for August 24

Tracking Map for August 23

Tracking Mao for August 22

90
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

For This Disaster: Declared Counties News Releases Photographs

About FEMA

Disaster Assistance Regional Offices

Staff Directory

[ home I litis help \ search | feedback | library ]

Tennessee Emergency

Management Agency

Real Audio Streaming File of

Federal Coordinating Officer Paul Fay^^tgQ

Federairrennessee

State Tornado Aid More Than $16 Million

Nashville, TN March 15, 1999 -- Tornado disaster victims in Tennessee have

received a total of $16,1

million in aid as of today. More

FEMA/State Disaster Recovery Centers Set to Close

Nashville, February 23, 1999 — Residents who sustained

losses or damage as a result of

tiie recent tornadoes have just

1 -fif ^

Disaster Recovery

Centers to Open Monday

in Jackson and Clarksville

Nashville, January 29, 1999 -- State and federal disaster management officials vi^ill open

Disaster Recovery Centers in Jackson and Clarksville Monday

in order to answer questions and

expedite information about

assistance available to residents who suffered losses in recent tornado strikes. Details Federal Grants, Loans in

91
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

P«detal Emptgenni) UtMgement Agency

Online Safety Rul< Floods, wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and winter storms are natural

disasters that happen in the United States. The

Federal Emergency Management Agency - FEMA — helps people who have been in a

disaster. We also teach people what to do

during a disaster and what to do BEFORE a you can help your family prepare for a

disaster. WitJi this site, you can also learn about what causes disasters, play games

and read stories from children who have been

through a disaster. You can also become a Disaster Action Kid!

Disasters are a serious subject, but you can have fim learning about them! Click on the tornado and explore the

site.

• Join Our Mailmg List!

' How Schools Can Become More Disaster Resistant

• World Disaster Reduction Day

• Parents Guide to the Internet

• Upcoming FEMA Courses for Administrators and Educators

• After a Disaster

• Disaster Resources

• Curriculum and Activities

• Earthquake Preparedness: What Every CMdcare Provider Should Kjnow

• Fire Safety Factsheets

• How to Talk to Children about tlie Threat of Biological Warfare or

Terrorist Attack

• Viewing Our Site: Hetoflil Hints

• How to Submit Student Work to This Site mt ifr

^ f -f^- ^"^i ICv<l«» StiiMti Abevt rm* e-«ttH Main leant

92
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

lit USfA USFA provides national leadership in fire training, data

collection, technology and

public education and awareness,

supporting the efforts of local communities to save lives and

reduce injuries and property loss due to fire.

I USFA Spotlight On. USFA Begins New Smoke Detector Study

WASHINGTON -- USFA is starting a year-long study to examine

the impact of smoke detectors on residential fires. Ten stales

with high residential fire rates have been invited to participate in the study. New Games and Quizzes Added to Kids Page

The USFA Kids Page now includes a new Home Fire Safety Page, crossword puzzles, an online colonng book, and the USFA

Jr. Fire Ivlarshal quiz and certificate.

search sEtehdp feedback e-mall updates home LRC ONLINE CARD CATALOG

As its name implies, ttie Online Card Catalog (OCC) is the index that provides

bibliographic access onJ^to the collection of the National Emergency Training Center's (NETC) Learning Resource Center (LRC). While the LRC is the on- campus library for the staff and students of the National Fire Academy (NFA) and

the Emergency Management Institute (EMI), the OCC will function for Internet users as a database on fire sen/ice and emergency management topics. Its fundamental sen/ice to Internet users is one of identification. The OCC identifies published resources on topics of professional interest to fire sen/ice and emergency management personnel.

Since the LRC's primary mission is to support the instructional activities of the NFA and the EMI, the OCC reflects that goal. The LRC concentrates on natural and technological hazards but primarily on their social and behavioral sciences

aspects. As examples, the LRC has some information on seismology but more on earthquake preparedness; some information on fire protection engineering but more on public fire education. Generally, students at the NFA and EMI are not

scientists but practicing emergency managers and first responders The LRC's

collection has been built for these user populations and the OCC W\\\ be most

useful to them. What the Online Card Catalog isn't: The OCC is NOT a full-text database. It contains citations tojournal articles, books and reports, not the text of any of these items. At most, some items have

abstracts.

93
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Y2K Best Practices Now Online

Washington, April 12, 1999 — Find out what your

state and local govetiiment

is doing to plan and

prepare for the Y2K

computer transitioa More New York State Moves

into Next Fiscal Year

With No Reported Y2K

Glitche

Washington April 5, 1999

-- On April 1, New York was the first state to move

into a fiscal year that spans January 1, 2000. More FEMA Mission Critical Systems are all Y2K

Compliant

Washington, April 2, 1999

-- Clay Hollister, FEMA's

ChiefInformation Officer, reports all agency mission

critical computers are now Y2K compliant. Audio

FEMA and the Year

2000 Initiative FEMA supports efiForts led by the President's Council on Year 2000 (Y2K) Conversion. FEMA is also working to ensure that its computer- based systems are Y2K

compliant. Reports on FEMA's internal compliance are provided

to the President's Council on Year 2000

Conversion through the Office ofManagement

and Budget. Details Y2k's Unique

Challenges for Emergency

About Project Impact

In the past 10 years, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has spent $20

billion to help people

repair and rebuild their communities afler natural

disasters. Details Project Impact to

clear Licking County

logjams

Newark, Ohio April 8, 1999 --The Licking County Commissioners

have contracted with two

local companies to remove dangerous

logjams in the south fork ofthe Licking River and

in Rocky Fork Creek, a major tributary of the north fork ofthe Licking River. Detail!:

Project Impact Update

Washington, March 1 1, 1999 "Washington, March 11, 1999 -The

first Fannie Mae

project loan recipients have installed a

hurricane resistant roof

to protect their home

from possible

hurricane damage. More FEMA: Allegany County, MD and FEMA WATER Day

- Watershed

Project Impact

Partners Communities

Related News

Regional News

Photographs and Video

Updates Resources

Spring BreaK How To... About FEtM

Mitigation

94
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Important FEMA Telephone Numbers

• FEMA general publications: (800) 480-2520

• Y2K Bulletin - A Consumer Guide

(888) 261-6214

• Project Impact - Building Disaster-Resistant Communities

(800) 227-4731

• Taking Shelter From the Storm - Building a Wind Resistant Safe Room

(888) 565-3896

• Information Hotlines: Y2K Information

(888) 872-4925 Map Service Center (for flood insurance

rate maps & related floodplain map

material) (800) 358-9616

National Flood Insurance Program

(800) 427-4661

95
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Elaws: Using Expert Systems to Deliver Complex

Regulatory Information

Dr. Roland G. Droitsch

U.S. Department of Labor

Washington, DC

Background The Department of Labor (DOL) is one of the

largest regulatory agencies in the Federal Government, administering over 180 laws and

statutes. The span of regulatory activity is extremely broad, involving a wide spectrum of workplace and workforce activities. At one end of the spectrum are the DOL's child labor

regulations, dealing with such issues as the age and conditions under which an employer may

hire young workers. At the other end are regulations governing health and welfare

benefits to retired employees.

Minimum wage, overtime, workplace safety and health, pension security, the coverage of

pre-existing health conditions, and family and

medical leave are some of the other areas where DOL has been delegated responsibility

for regulating the workplace. The

implementing regulations that administer such

laws literally fill thousands of pages in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). To enforce these regulations, DOL employs

several thousand inspectors, compliance

officers and attorneys who respond to complaints, undertake inspections of worksites and, when appropriate, cite and litigate cases where violations have occurred. However, when measured against the number of workplaces in the U.S., it is impossible to reach

all but a relatively minor number of these workplaces. Added to this is the increasing complexity of regulatory requirements such

that for a large company, it would require a team of inspectors to adequately monitor or

inspect their multiple facilities. For this reason,

it has always been a primary tenet of the Department regulatory strategy to rely substantially on voluntary compliance by

employers. The Problem of Providing Compliance

Assistance Information

In order to expect employers to voluntarily comply with DOL regulations, employers must

be provided with information on what is required of them by these regulations. More

importantly, it is critical that they understand what is required of them. By law, the only information requirement until recently was that all new regulations must be

published in the Federal Register. However,

except the very largest of corporations, few companies subscribe to or follow the Federal

Register. To further add to the complexity of the problem, even if one were to read the Federal

Register, most regulations are difficult to understand, as they are primarily written by

lawyers for lawyers. Indeed legally, regulations

are a direct extension of a statute defining in greater detail the requirements of the law, and hence they have historically been replete with

legalistic terms and formats. Although a number of efforts have been made over the

years to simplify regulatory writing, the language is rarely "plain English," tending more to meet the needs of legal sufficiency than of factual comprehension.

96
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

To address the need to provide employers with

information that they can refer to in plain

English, DOL regulatory agencies, over the

years, have prepared a variety of compliance

assistance materials. These have generally taken the form of pamphlets or fact sheets. More recently, under the requirements of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act (SBREFA) agencies are required to prepare comprehensive "Compliance Guides"

that are intended to provide complete

understanding of major regulations in simple to understand language. However, there are two

major problems that make the preparation of

useful compliance assistance materials extremely difficult.

First, there is a wide diversity in the demographics of firms. Of the approximately

six and one half million firms with employees,

a startling percentage fall into the "small business" category. Indeed, 99.7 percent of such business establishments have fewer than 250 employees. An even higher percentage would be found if the Small Business

Administration's official cutoff for "small business" of 500 or less were used. A closer look at these small businesses show

that there are very significant differences within

this group itself. A "mom and pop" firm of say

3 to 5 individuals, for example, is very different from an establishment of 10 employees, or one

of 30 to 50 employees or even 1 00 to 200

employees. Designing compliance assistance materials that meet the needs of each of these

different size firms poses a major problem to providing effective and useful information.^ The second major problem in preparing

compliance assistance materials-and even more problematic than the first-is that the information typically is too general to be of

use. When firms need information, it is usually

to address a specific situation or problem they

are facing. Armed with only general information in the material prepared by DOL,

they are not able to deal with the specific problem they are facing and must seek further

clarification or help. To attempt to include such detailed information would only result in preparing huge documents that in themselves would not be useful. The problem of tailoring appropriate

compliance assistance information is exacerbated by the establishment size demographics noted above. Even if the compliance assistance materials were able to provide relatively specific information, addressing this to various sized firms would

require a "matrix" of answers to a single question, since the size of the establishment is often a critical factor in how one needs to address the problem.

Elaws: A Solution to Providing Comprehensive

Compliance Assistance Information The emergence of the Internet along with developments in Artificial Intelligence technology provided the Department of Labor

with a unique opportunity to provide

employers and employees with information on

the duties and rights as proscribed by DOL

regulations.

In 1995, the Department launched its Web site, which enabled it for the first time to mount a

vast amount of information on its regulations. The information mounted included all the

regulations as codified in the CFR, along with

other useful information such as the preambles

to these regulations and the available compliance assistance information. Some

agencies also have posted information on legal cases and interpretive letters that seek to clarify further specific aspects of a regulation where

questions of interpretation have arisen or where the regulations have not adequately

addressed the requirements. While it was very useful to mount all this information for the first time in one place, the

task of ferreting out the specific information

97
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

that was needed by a particular company or

individual remained a daunting task. For many, especially the smaller employers, the

effort to understand how a specific regulation applied to their situation remained as difficult as ever.

In response to this, DOL began to explore the

feasibility of using "expert systems" as a method to guide an employer or employee

through the maze of regulatory requirements.

Starting with an experrmental system that dealt with the Federal requirement of Veterans' Preference in the hiring of new employees,

DOL launched a program to develop several

interactive systems under the banner of Flaws: Employment Laws Assistance for Workers and

Small Businesses. Overview of Expert Systems An expert system is a computer program that captures valuable knowledge and allows it to be disseminated to others. These systems emulate the interaction a user might have with

a human expert to solve a problem. Expert systems are probably the most established form

of artificial intelligence technology. Expert systems embed complex information into a computer model. The computer model can

then be queried on a fact-specific situation and

will give the user an answer to his or her

specific question. Based on an individual's response to questions, the expert system

provides the user with customized

information.^ Each Flaws expert system or "advisor" provides

information about a specific law or regulation. The advisors imitate the interaction that an employer or employee might have with a DOL

regulatory expert. They ask questions, provide

goal information and direct the users to the appropriate resolution based on their responses. The goal of Flaws is to provide the public with better, timely, and most

importantly, specific information while

simultaneously reducing the burden on DOL

personnel of supplying compliance

information.

Expert systems technology, which was

introduced in the mid-1 980's, is an important and successful application of artificial intelligence.^ Until recently, expert systems were deployed on personal computers and to a

lesser extent on mainframe computers. In 1996, vendors (e.g. Exsys, 1996) started offering additional software to make expert systems run on servers accessible for client computers via the Web. This opened a range

of possibilities for enhancing interfaces and

mixing expert system, Web and database

technologies. An expert system performs reasoning using

previously established rules for a well defined and narrow domain. An expert system combines a knowledge base of rules and

domain-specific facts with information from

clients and users about specific instances of problems in the knowledge domains of the expert system. The goal of an expert system is to provide the user or client with an interactive process similar to the experience of interacting with a human expert in the field. When using an expert system, one is often

struck by their simplicity. After being asked a few questions, the computer provides an answer that, in many cases, seems obvious.

Providing such correct information in an easily accessible manner is the purpose of expert

systems, but it should not suggest that the

construction or operation of such systems is in and of itself "simple."

Let us take, for example, the question of whether a firm is covered by the Fair Labor

Standards Act (FLSA) that requires it to pay at

least the minimum wage and overtime if an employee exceeds working 40 hours in a week. The answer for the vast majority of firms

is yes, they are covered. Appendix I is a

presentation of the "module" that outlines the decision tree logic of coverage under FLSA.

98
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

When represented in all its detail, embedding

the knowledge of a sophisticated expert in this

field, one is generally surprised at the amount

of information that is "packaged" in these

systems. An important advantage of expert systems is the ease with which knowledge bases can be

modified. This is a result of the architecture, which separates the knowledge base from the inference engine. As a result, changing the knowledge base does not require programming

but can be done via word processing or an

editor.

This feature makes knowledge engineering

accessible to a wider variety of analysts, end

users and experts. Ideally, the reasoning can be explained to help the user understand the questions being asked and the conclusions. Thus, the system can function more like human

experts who explain the reasoning process behind their recommendations.

Rule Based Systems

Expert systems are especially good for closed- system applications for which inputs are literal and precise, leading to logical outputs. If this condition holds, then the inputs can be mapped to the outputs using "if-then" rules. By

their very nature, government laws and

regulations are excellent examples of rule- based closed systems. They typically proscribe

specific sets of behavior given specific conditions (e.g., do not exceed a speed limit, stop at a red light).

In order to be truly useful, the expert systems must be consistent with real world practices. Another advantage of developing rule-based expert systems for Government laws and

regulations is the availability of experts to explain how rules are actually interpreted (by the courts, by Federal agencies, by the public).

Prototypes are especially useful in gaining the

interest and attention of experts as the

knowledge acquisition process is more

productive and amicable. A variety of commercial development systems have become available over the last several years. These tools and associated techniques allow

exploratory studies rapid prototyping for use in knowledge engineering.

Verification and Validation A fundamental limitation of the expert system approach arises from the fact that experts do

not always think in terms of rules. In these

cases, it may be difficult to mimic the actual reasoning process of human experts, resulting

in outputs that may be inconsistent with the responses that would be given by the human

expert. The computerized system is an attempt to produce performance that resembles human

reasoning in some limited domain. The

mechanism, however, may or may not resemble the actual biological or cognitive

process. Thus, extensions of any expert system technique may not carry over into behavior

that is similar to that of a human. Cognitive

science, Al, and expert system research is still needed to produce a fundamental approach

that models actual human reasoning.

In the meantime, a comprehensive technique based on a good understanding of human

reasoning must be utilized. A practical approach is to use a systematic method to

clarify the problem, elicit knowledge and

procedures from the expert, organize the knowledge, and develop the expert system.

After verification and validation of the computer-based expert the ongoing use of the system is monitored for future changes.

Examples of Current Elaws Advisors As noted above, the Department has undertaken a systematic program of expert systems advisors for its regulations. The

systems that have been developed can be

99
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

found on DOL's Web site at <www.dol.gov>

or can be directly accessed at the Elaws site, < www.dol .gov/elaws >

.

Each Advisor is individually tailored to specific audiences, such as employees, employers, and

policy officials. In addition, DOL's Advisor

includes links to more detailed information that may be helpful to the user, such as sections of the regulations related to the topic being

discussed. Links to Government publications and other organ izations'are also provided. To

provide the reader with a better understanding

of the content of these advisors, a summary of three such systems is given below. The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

Advisor < www.dol.gov/elaws/fmla.htm >

The Wage and Hour Division of the Employment Standards Administration developed the Advisor to answer a variety of commonly asked questions about the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) including

employee eligibility, valid reasons for leave, employee/employer notification

responsibilities, and employee rights/ benefits. The Family and Medical Leave Act provides

certain employees with up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave per year. It also requires that group health benefits be

maintained during the leave. The FMLA is designed to help employees balance their work

and family responsibilities by taking reasonable unpaid leave for certain family and medical

reasons. It also seeks to accommodate the

legitimate interests of employers, and promotes

equal employment opportunity for men and women. USERRA Advisor < www.dol.gov/elaws/userraO.htm >

Veterans Employment and Training Service developed the Advisor to answer questions

regarding employee eligibility, employee job

entitlements, employer obligations, benefits.

and remedies under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) of 1994. USERRA was signed into law on October 1 3, 1 994. USERRA clarifies and strengthens the Veterans' Reemployment

Rights (VRR) Statute. The Act itself can be

found in the United States Code at Chapter 43,

Part III, Title 38. USERRA is intended to minimize the disadvantages to an individual that occur when

that person needs to be absent from his or her

civilian employment to serve in this country's uniformed services. USERRA makes major

improvements in protecting service member

rights and benefits by clarifying the law and

improving enforcement mechanisms. It also provides employees with Department of Labor

assistance in processing claims.

Specifically, USERRA expands the cumulative

length of time that an individual may be absent from work for uniformed services duty and

retain reemployment rights. The law is intended to encourage non-career uniformed

service so that America can enjoy the

protection of those services, staffed by qualified people, while maintaining a balance with the needs of private and public employers who

also depend on these same individuals. USERRA is administered by the United States Department of Labor, through the Veterans Employment and Training Service (VETS). VETS provides assistance to those persons experiencing service-connected problems with

their civilian employment, and provides

information about the Act to employers. VETS

also assists veterans who have questions

regarding Veterans' Preference.

For more information, please visit the Veterans' Preference Advisor. The USERRA Advisor answers questions about the rights and

responsibilities for both the employee and

employer. The system helps veterans to initiate claims if they feel their rights have been

violated.

100
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

MSHA Form7000-2 Advisor < www.dol.gov/elaws/msha.htm >

This system allows electronic filing of the MSHA Form 7000-2, Quarterly Mine

Employment and Coal Production Report. Each operator of a mine in which an individual worked during any day of a calendar quarter must complete and submit MSHA Form 7000-2

within 1 5 days after the end of each quarter,

(i.e., April, July, October and January). In addition, each contractor performing work at a mine site for any one day of a quarter must file MSHA Form 7000-2.

This Advisor permits the forms to be completed and submitted to MSHA directly via the

internet. After all data is entered, the system

asks the person to review the data to assure its accuracy. After they are satisfied with the data they can transmit it to MSHA. When MSHA

has received the data, the person receives an e- mail confirmation.

Future Directions The Department of Labor has approximately 20

systems operating and another 10 under

development. DOL will continue to "fill-out" more and more of its regulations over the coming years. As more and more systems are created, we hope to develop meta-systems that build on the individual advisors.

Ultimately, it should be possible to develop a system that begins by asking the employer a number of questions about the firm's size, its SIC codes, the state in which it is located, whether it has Government contracts, etc., and

the system will tell the employer which

regulations appear to apply the his or her

establishment. The system would then list the

individual advisors that apply to the firm and

the preferred order in which they should be

executed. Upon executing the systems, the employer would then be provided with a complete and succinct listing of the specific

requirements for which he or she is responsible. As bandwidth expands and it is possible to deliver real-time video efficiently via the Web,

it will also be possible to integrate visual aids

into the advisors. For example, in some of the more technical regulations dealing with safety and health, it will be feasible to show the viewer visually how a respirator "fit test" is to be executed, or how a trenching operation should be accomplished. Similarly, required

training as required by many regulations could

easily be accomplished by packaging a series of downloadable training advisors that would accompany that particular regulation.

Maintaining the advisors and various assistance modules on the Web would allow for appropriate updates as needed and eliminate

the problems associated with systems that use CD-ROM or floppy disks, where the user would need to know if the information is up-todate. In short, the vision that such a fulsome

architecture offers is a complete "knowledge

management" approach to providing regulatory information to our clients-both employers and

employees.

Notes

1 . See Droitsch, R.G. The Dilemma of Regulating Small Business: The Need for a New Policy Framework, 33 Villanova Law

Review, 6 (1988)

2. This section draws substantially on Mario

DiStasio, Roland Droitsch and Larry Medsker, "Web-Based Expert Systems for Flaws," draft paper submitted for publication, 1 999.

3. See L.R. Medsker and J. Liebowitz, Design and Development of Expert Systems and

Neural Networks, MacMillan, New York, 1994.

101
J999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

FLSA Coverage and Employment Status

Main Elaws Meni,^ FLSA Overview

, LINK to FLSA

Option to Link to: *Police/Fire F.S. *Public Agency F.S. '''^

5.1 LINK to Employment RelationshipWhat the FLSA Requires: *MW-$5.15/hr. *0T

*RK

*CL

*Prompt Payment

*Limits Wage Deductions

LINK to 96 Amendments Fact Sheet LINK to OT Fact Sheet LINK to RK Fact Sheet LINK to "Child Labor" on FLSA

Main Menu

Option to Link to *HW Fact Sheet

*785

7.1 Enforcement

7.4 Exemptions

7.5

What the FLSA Does NOT Require:

'Vacation, holiday, severance, sick pay

*Meal/rest periods. Holidays off. Vacations 'Premium pay for weekend/holiday *Pay raises/Fringe Benefits *Check stubs 'Payment of promised visages *Limit on HW >= 16 yrs old Related State Laws

FLSA Advisor

LINK to State DOL

Office List

LINK to Cloughtery

Decision Tree *FLSA Gov. &

Ement Rel. Scope

*Hours Worked

'Enforcement 'Exemptions 'FAQs

GoTo

Employee

Advisor Tree

10

FLSA Gov. & Ement Rel. Module Summary

Explore Coverage

"Exempt" Introduced EE Advisor 'Am I an EE?

'Coverage

ER Advisor 'Worker Status 'Coverage RK & Notices

102
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

inco

Q. O

T3£ c

Giv ?^ £ ^

Probe

c

OJE

>- _o

Q.E

UJ-ac

03

a;002

a3>oU

o ^

OJ o

Q. (A < 15 i2 o

o o P. = 0.00 ^ <2 o 3 o o in

Q. I W 13

73

Covere

father W/OT c

<u o

E z TO o8 •£

bIy mp

Proba Explain

Covera require Joint E 7

5 0) I
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

FLSA Coverage and Employment Status

LINK to Coverage

Basically same as #10 YES

Covered Work for Named Enterprise? 27A 24 NO

'Unsure

To Individual Coverage

This is Screen ER-1

Public Agency s

NO/

Unsun 27AYES

School 29

Need More Info On:

*Public Agency

•Hospital *School *$500,000

New Business More Info on $500,000?

24.1

Same as screen #21

"Non-Profit?"

NO/

Unsun28C 27A NO

YES

Hospitals

YES,

New Business VS New

Enterprise ADV $500,000

33

Covered YES New

NOT Covered

Unsure Business

Enter most recent

quarterly adv. info.

Include full quarters ONLY. Contact D.O. on how to treat partial first quarter. 35

Call D.O. to Grandfather 34

5

To Individual Coverage

This is Screen EE-1

Calculation Over

$500,000? Yes ^

If 1 Qtr. Entered X4

lf2Qtrs. Entered X2

If 3 Qtrs. Entered /3X4

Probably Covered

Explain Rolling Qtrs. Options: *Worker Status

*Further Info *FLSA Main

*lndividual Coverage

No

Probably NOT Covered

Explain:

Rolling Qtrs.

Joint Employment

Refer to Indiv. Coverage

Probably NOT Covered

Joint Employ Discussion 26

In Business On

3/31/90? 25

Firm in Construction, Reconstruction OR

Laundry?

Define Using factsheet language

Firm in Retail Enterprise w/ $362,500 for 1989?

(Fact sheet on Retail Language)

Firm Nonretail Enterprise w/ $250,000 for 1989?

Covered for OT, RK, CL & $3.35 MW

Options: •Worker Status *FLSA Main

*Further Info

*lndiv. Coverage for Higher MW

NO

To Individual Coverage

This is Screen ER-1

104
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

tic" R-9

mes ;e/e m

Define

'

5

c

oa

O 1- C\i CO TT IT)

Q.E

LU-ac

03

0)00

O (U

O S

z >

Q. o

a;

E

hed

in.

stablis

related )Ewor

ilye >-<

(u q:

easi So

irage. ,

most

and/or

>

s

and/c

n

12a

cove

/eek

basis

al

Overvie'

gedin

1Ci

icing

good

truction JStic

Explai, Workv S c c o o

« LU Q. p Q
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Btoc

E

Q.E
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

PURLs: What Do I Need to Know? Working with

PURLs in Your Local Catalog

Background on PURLs and Link Maintenance in

the Local Catalog

Arlene Weible

Willamette University Salem, OR

Nan Myers and I are pleased to be with you

today to talk about Persistent Uniform

Resource Locators, also known as PURLs. As

part of our work on the GODORT Cataloging

Committee, Nan and I have been talking about PURLs for what seems like forever, but it's actually been just over a year. As a result of the work of the Cataloging Committee and the

efforts of Tad Downing, Chief of GPO's

Cataloging Branch, the depository community

has been provided with quite a bit of information from GPO about their implementation of PURL technology.

What Nan and I would like to do today, however, is bring the discussion of PURLs into the library, and try to address some of the

issues that need to be considered when

working with PURLs in the local library catalog. We cannot promise to solve the

particular problems that each library and

library catalog system may face; however, we

do hope to provide you with some information about the questions you need to ask, and

resources that you can turn to when making

decisions for your own library.

In order to get this discussion started, we do

need to provide a little bit of background on PURLs and GPO's use of them. I'll begin with

a definition, and then describe how GPO is using PURLs in their management of the FDLP

Electronic Collection and cataloging activities.

I will then discuss what PURLs will and will

not do, which will lead me to some of the

issues related to link maintenance in library catalogs. Nan will then take over and report some of the results of a survey she conducted on library procedures, and provide a checklist

for local decision making.

Let's start with a definition. Described simply,

a PURL is an actual URL. However, instead of pointing directly to the location of an Internet resource, a PURL points to an intermediate

resolution service. This service associates the PURL with the actual URL and returns that URL

to the user. The information required to make

this redirection possible is maintained in a record located in a resolution or PURL server. OCLC developed this technology in 1996, and was the first to implement its use with its Intercat project. I don't have enough time to get into a more detailed explanation of the technology behind PURLs, but if you are

interested, you can find more information about the development and technical details of the service on OCLC's PURL Service Web

page, available at <http://purl.oclc.org>. While PURL technology had been around for awhile, it wasn't until early 1998 that depository librarians found themselves face to face with the technology. This is when GPO

first implemented the PURL Resolution Service

to assist in the maintenance of URL information

in the bibliographic records and Web pages

they create. When resources are identified for

107
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

inclusion on the Browse Electronic Titles Web

page, or are identified for cataloging treatment, GPO staff create a PURL for the resource on

the GPO PURL server. GPO utilizes an automated naming process, which assigns unique, consecutively assigned accession numbers to each PURL created. Once the PURL record is created, the PURL is used as the link to the resource on the Browse

Electronic Titles page, and is sent to the GPO

Cataloging staff for inclusion in the resource's bibliographic record. GPO catalogers add PURLs to the records currently created, and

will add a PURL to existing records as they come up in the regular review process. Right now, GPO has no plans to systematically add PURLs to all records that contain URLs,

although they have made an effort to add PURLs to all records for the resources listed on

the Browse Electronic Titles page. Another way to gain a better understanding of PURLs is to examine what they will and will not do. Let's start with what they will do. PURLs may be used as a tool to maintain a constant link to an Internet resource, regardless

of changes to the location of that resource. Once a PURL record is created, the PURL

associated with the resource will remain

constant. As the location of the resource changes, the PURL record may be updated to

reflect the change, so the end user does not have to make note of the new location. Also, the PURL record retains the history of changes

to the location, serving as a "travel diary" of

sorts for a particular resource.

This is an example of a PURL record and the information it contains: < www.wiliamette.

edu/'aweible/dlc/purlrec.htm>. You can see

the PURL, the current URL, and the dates of maintenance. We can also see the different URLs this resource has had since it was first entered last July. As you can see, this resource has done a bit of traveling. One of GPO's

primary goals in implementing the PURL

Resolution Sen/ice was to prevent the time

consuming task of updating URL information in catalog records. The obvious advantage to using PURLs in catalog records is that records do not have to be edited each time a location changes, only the PURL record on the GPO

PURL server needs to be changed. PURLs clearly offer advantages, but there is an

important issue that PURLs do not address. PURL records may only work to maintain a constant link to a resource if they remain up to date. Identifying Internet resources that have changed location remains a challenge. GPO

has made a commitment to maintain the PURLs

they create with current URL information. This

is accomplished by the use of OCLC software

that provides the ability to check for valid links. GPO runs this software on a weekly basis to

identify broken links. Because this is an automated process, however, it has its limitations. For example, while software may

be able to report that a URL exists, it cannot

determine if the content of the resource remains the same. Maintenance of PURLs, while automated to some degree, still requires human intervention. GPO has reported that they currently use at least 2 PTE to maintain accurate records in the PURL server. They are assisted by reports of

incorrect URLs/PURLs via the askLPS service.

In fact, it is vitally important that the automated

process of link validation be supplemented

with human oversight to assure that the PURL

Resolution Service remains effective.

At this point, I should also mention the role of catalog record vendors in the process of keeping links up to date. While it is true that vendors are making efforts to keep the links valid in the records they distribute to libraries,

it is my understanding that they are not using a systematic process, such as automated link validation software, to accomplish this task. While they accept reports from users who

identify broken links, they primarily rely on the maintenance activities of GPO to keep the records up to date. I think it is important that

108
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

libraries using vendors for the delivery of GPO

catalog records verify exactly what the vendor

is doing to keep links valid, and determine if their efforts are sufficient for the needs of your

local library.

Link maintenance is an important topic I'd like to take some time to discuss. While it is clear

that GPO has taken seriously its commitment

to keep PURLs accurate, I feel very strongly

that libraries must also undertake link validation activities. Since GPO is not

systematically going back to every catalog record it created to add a PURL, it is going to be awhile before all GPO records have PURLs.

And, because it is such a large task, GPO also needs help with maintaining accuracy in PURL

records. In my opinion, libraries must also do

what they can to check not only the existing URLs, but also PURLs. This will help to ensure

that the links provided in library catalog records remain viable access points to Internet- based information resources.

If the links aren't valid, users won't consider

the catalog to be a good access tool, and all this effort to provide links from the catalog will be wasted. So, to help encourage you, I'd like to show you what my library does to maintain

accurate links in our catalog. I will also discuss some of the issues that must be considered when working with PURLs in this process.

Let me start with just a few words about our

library. We have a depository item selection

rate of about 25%. The process I am about to describe is done on a monthly basis, with the help of the library's systems assistant. The first step is to extract the records that contain URLVPURL information in the 856

field. We have to do this because our system. Innovative Interfaces, does not currently have

an automated link checking component. It is my understanding that they currently have a program in beta test, but until this is available, we have developed an interim procedure that works for us.

Using our system's list making features, we are able to create a file of records that can be

exported from the catalog. The next step is to convert this file to HTML format. We are indebted to Tom Tyler from the University of Denver, who has created what he calls MARCX-GEN software to help convert this file of MARC records to HTML. This has saved a tremendous amount of time, since the previous method we used involved a lot of manual

editing. This software was designed to work

with files generated from Innovative systems, but Tom has indicated that the software should work with files from any system, as long as the records are in MARC format. You can find more information about the MARC-X-GEN software in Tom's paper on

maintenance issues in the Web-accessible OPACs <www.du.edu/"ttyler/cil99/

proceedings.htm > . The file that is generated

looks something like this < www.willamette.edu/'aweible/dlc/purl.

htm> . The software converts the URL or PURL into an active HTML link, making the

title of the resource the text. It also records the OCLC number, and additional note

information contained in the 856 field. Once this file is created, we use a software program called LinkBot to check the file to

verify the validity of the URLs and PURLs

we've exported from the catalog. As far as choosing this software over the other link validation programs available, I have to say that

I relied on the expertise of my library's systems

staff. They were already using this software to maintain the links in the library's Web pages, and it seems to work well for the task at hand.

I have provided on the handout some Web

sites that have more information about link validation software. While I don't want to discourage anyone from exploring the various options available, I do suggest that you

investigate what the Webmasters at your own

institutions are using. It is likely that they are using some kind of program, and its nice to have some systems support when trying to

109
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

negotiate software with this level of

sophistication.

This is what a typical LinkBot report looks like: < www.willamette.ed u/"aweible/dlc/

testpgrpt.htm > . This report is based on a

different file I created to help illustrate how the software validates PURLs. In relation to PURLs, the important aspect of link validation software that needs to be determined is how it handles redirected links.

In the case of LinkBot, PURLs are listed under

the heading "Warnings." In this section of the

report, we see that the software is alerting us to the fact that the PURL is actually going to the URL. After checking with the company, we

were able to determine that the software does

then go on to check the validity of the links it is directed to from a PURL. If there is a problem

with the URL connected to the PURL, it will appear in the appropriate section of the LinkBot report, usually under Broken URLs. What constitutes a broken link in this report

varies, from "source not found" to "server down" to "timed out."

I use the information found in the LinkBot

report to follow up on problem links. This

requires the sometimes time-consuming

process of searching for the new URL for resources that have been moved. I usually approach this task by surfing the agency's Web

page, playing with variations in the URL

address, and if necessary, sending an e-mail to the agency's Webmaster. Once I locate the

correct location, or determine that the resource no longer exists, I then correct the information

in the library's catalog record. I also make a

special attempt to alert GPO, via askLPS, when

I find PURLs that need to be updated. While this process works relatively well in helping to identify broken links, it should be obvious that link validation software can only go so far in determining whether links in the

library's catalog remain accurate. At their best, they can tell you whether there is still a valid

file associated with a particular address. They

still cannot tell you if the content of the file is the actual resource described in the bibliographic record. A good illustration of this problem can be seen

in one of GPO's old practices related to PURLs.

According to my sources at GPO, this is no

longer the current practice, but originally, when a link was identified as broken, and no

alternate location for the resource could be

found, GPO updated the PURL record so the

user will be redirected to a Web page that looked like this: <www.willamette.edu/

'aweible/dlc/deadlink.html > . This "deadlinks" page is a valid link. Since LinkBot

can't read the content of this page, it will not recognize the URL as "broken." This was a problem because in my own library, I do not want to direct a user to a page like this. I would prefer to remove a broken link completely from a catalog record, or remove

the whole record, if appropriate. But, because

LinkBot could not identify this as a problem, I was not alerted to the status of the link, and

could not perform my own maintenance to resolve the problem. This is why I had chosen,

in most cases, to use the URL, rather than PURL, in our library's catalog records.

It is my understanding that GPO no longer

places a link to the deadlinks page in PURL

records, but instead places notes on both the Browse Electronic Titles page and the catalog record when a dead link is identified. From

the perspective of my own link maintenance

activities, I think this is a positive change. I have a bit more confidence that the LinkBot

software will identify the broken links within a PURL, and as a result, I will be more likely to leave a PURL in our catalog records, instead of replacing it with the original URL, as had been my previous practice.

I do hope that GPO is able to go back and

revise the PURL records that still point to the deadlinks page, so that the records conform

with current practices. As we heard in the

110
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

conference program earlier today, the

Electronic Collection Team appears to be working on refining policies and procedures

related to the management of the Electronic Collection, and I hope this includes a review of PURL creation and management activities.

This leads me to one final observation about

link maintenance activities. Remember when I said earlier that one of the reasons GPO

implemented PURL technology was to save the labor costs associated with editing catalog records? Well, I think GPO staff would agree

that any labor savings they may have gained is quickly being lost in the truly labor intensive

activity of keeping links up to date. Without a completely automated system to accomplish

this work, and it doesn't look like there is a magic software solution just around the corner,

it is clear that considerable effort needs to be expended to ensure the validity of links to resources in the FDLP Electronic Collection. Who is actually responsible for this work

remains an issue, but I would like to advocate

that the depository community has a vested

interest in sharing the burden of this work with GPO. It is absolutely necessary that librarians report broken links to GPO as they are discovered, for there is no automated process

that will ensure that the links will always be

identified.

At the same time, I believe that GPO needs to consider opening up the process of link maintenance, so that libraries with established processes for link verification can contribute more directly to the work that needs to be

done. One suggestion would be to add a link to askLPS directly on GPO's PURL Server

pages, to help facilitate the reporting of broken

links. Improvements to the search capabilities of the PURL server, as well as the addition of more

data fields like OCLC number or title, would

help librarians to use the server more

effectively in link maintenance activities. It

would also be helpful to have a direct e-mail

link to the staff members who work with PURL

maintenance, again to help facilitate communication.

Another possibility would be to have GPO

authorize particular libraries with the ability to access and edit records in their PURL server, so

that records can be directly updated without

having to go through the sometimes cumbersome process of reporting information through askLPS. At the very least, GPO needs

to share information about current policies and

procedures, establish as much consistency as

possible, and work to bring old records into compliance with new policies. Libraries must

also share what they know about link maintenance, and communicate their needs to GPO.

So, in conclusion, I'd like to summarize the

points I have tried to make in my comments

about link maintenance activities. There is no

question that link maintenance is a labor

intensive activity, and it is essential that before

these activities are undertaken at the local level each library discuss the importance of accurate

links, and evaluate this in terms of the labor

costs involved in pursuing such a goal. An important fact to consider in this discussion

is that GPO's implementation of PURL

technology does not guarantee depository

libraries that all the links provided in GPO

catalog records will remain accurate, and even

vendors, at this time, do not provide an

absolute solution to the problem. Based on the information Nan, Tom Tyler, and I have

collected, it is clear that link maintenance

procedures depend on so many local variations

in systems and Web support services that it is nearly impossible to recommend anything but

the most general suggestions for link validation

activities. I hope that the description of my

own institution's procedures are helpful in that regard.

Ill
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Finally, I want to remind you that all this hard work can pay off. By undertaking link maintenance activities on the local level, and

especially if you communicate the results of

this work to GPO, you also provide a benefit to the rest of the depository community. Building

a partnership with the depository community is probably the only way that GPO can

realistically accomplish its goal to keep links to Web resources accurate. As partners, both sides heed to work together

to make sure that the policies adopted by GPO

work with both GPO and library procedures. More work and communication needs to be

done, but given that we are all learning how to make do until technology catches up, I think we can be pretty proud of GPO and the depository community's leadership in trying to

find solutions to the issues associated with link maintenance in library catalogs.

I also want to put in a final plug for Tom Tyler's

fine article, "URLs, PURLs & TRULs: Link Maintenance in the Web-accessible Catalog" < www.du.ed u/'ttyler/cil99/proceedings. htm > . It addresses some issues I've just touched on in more detail, and has more

evaluative information about particular library catalog systems and link checking software.

112
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

PURLs: What Do I Need to Know?

Working with PURLs in Your Local Catalog

Nan Myers

Wichita State University

Wicliita, KS

Now that Arlene has provided some

background on PURL technology, GPO's use

of PURLs, and issues related to link-checking, I am going to move on to the second topic we

want to address: "Working with PURLs in Your

Local Catalog." Actually, in many ways, this portion could be titled: "Working with URLs

and PURLs in Your Local Catalog," since so many issues involving one of them are intertwined with the other, when it comes to daily application in a library's workload. Because my portion of our presentation is very much about the nuts and bolts issues of daily

survival, I've prepared a handout titled "Suggested Checklist for Local Decision- Making: Working with URLs/PURLs in Your

Local Catalog." The other page of our handout

features useful online sites for: Background on PURLs, Link-Checking Software, Guidelines for Using MARC Field 856, and Local Cataloging Procedures available on the Web. The online procedures were reported to us as a result of a survey. Survey Conducted in March 1999:

"Issues in Cataloging PURLs"

At the beginning of March, I posted a Survey to the GOVDOC-L discussion list titled: "Issues in Cataloging PURLS." I wanted to obtain feedback from depository librarians and staff regarding their own "real life" experiences

dealing with issues of working with PURLs.

Prior to my cut-off time of April 2 for figuring

statistics, I did receive 54 responses, with

several coming in last week as well.

As I tabulated the data from these surveys, I was struck by the variety in the responses. There are only a handful of institutions which

have really dedicated significant resources to preventive maintenance through the use of PURLs. Two libraries which have addressed their commitment to PURLs are California State University at Fullerton and the University of Delaware. They both replace URLs in catalog

records with GPO PURLs to support persistent access. By the way, they also both have working procedures online, which you may

want to review. The List of Resources is online

at: < www.willamette.edu/'aweible/dic/

index.htm >

.

PURLs... Yea or Nay?

In the survey responses, about 60% of responders stated they do accept the use of the PURL convention as a resolution to the link- checking problem. There is probably a considerable range of interpretation as to what

this means exactly, but from responses to other

questions, it seems clear to me that many

libraries are eager for a viable solution to the URL stability problem which does not cost them much in terms of investment of resources.

• Yea = 60%

Hoping for "magic" solutions Understand the potential of the technology

113
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Essential to eliminate extra workload

• Nay = 40%

Lack of understanding of PURL concept

Issue of deadlinks Concern that GPO may not sustain

effort

Fears of additional workload On the other hand, 40% of survey responders

stated either: "No, they do not accept the PURL solution," or that they are undecided. Once again, there are various reasons why

librarians hesitate to buy into the PURL,

ranging from a lack of understanding of the PURL concept, to the deadlink issue, to concerns that reporting efforts on broken URLs

will prove insufficient, to fears that their

libraries will not be able to sustain the workload on problem records. The fear of additional workload is very real. Many of us have had to establish cumbersome

"work-arounds" to make up for deficiencies in our systems. But, it is still fair to say that a

significant percentage of libraries are simply

waiting to begin when the technology and the

rules are clearer. In fact, if I have to characterize what all of us are doing regarding PURL technology, I would express it thus: 20%

of us are just waiting and 80% of us are doing

a little bit of everything... and also waiting!

I'm going to talk just briefly about a statistical breakdown of who responded, and then go on

to discuss items in the Checklist. Along the way, I will offer response data gathered from

the survey. I do want to make it clear that this

is an informal survey. It only provides an overview of the topic, even though it posed some very specific questions.

In a couple of instances it seems that those

taking the survey interpreted the questions

differently, and occasionally there were

answers given by people who seemed not to

really understand the question. Overall, however, the survey feedback was extremely

useful to me in preparing the Checklist; and, even though 54 depositories are a fraction of the total, I think the responses provide a very good bellwether system for looking at the

issues we are all facing.

A. Number of responses by Library Type

39 Academic General Library 6 Public Library

3 Academic Law Library 2 Community College

1 State Library

1 Special Library

1 Federal Agency

While 72% of the responders were from Academic General Libraries, there was useful feedback provided by most of the library types designated by the GPO.

B. Number of Responses by Depository

Type: Seven regional depositories and 47 selectives responded. The regionals were: New Mexico State Library Newark Public Library University of Hawaii - Manoa

University of Iowa

University of Kentucky

University of New Mexico

University of North Dakota

C. Number of Responses by Depository

Size:29 Large 17 Medium

8 Small

114
J 999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Once again, there is representation from all sizes of libraries, with the larger depositories providing over half of the responses.

D. Number of Responses by Depository

Selection Percentage: 0 - 20% = 13

21 - 40% = 10

41 - 60% = 13

61 - 80% = 09

81 - 100% = 09 The breakout of figures shows a reasonable

five-way split among responders.

Or, do you plan to have a hotlinked system in the near future? Yes = 7 of the 15 currently without

hotlinks Timing is everything! The usefulness of the 856 field data takes on entirely different meaning when a simple "click" transports your

patrons to the title online. If the technology is there, you are not only obligated to use it, you

are probably excited at the prospect of making

it all happen for your users... and you are also probably feeling the obligation to make it happen "right."

E. Library Systems Vendors: Most of the major vendors are represented, with Innovative (III) being the majority system used by responders, and NOTIS running

second. (**Ameritech is a vendor representing

potentially three systems. The three responses under that vendor may belong to DYNIX,

HORIZON, or NOTIS.) 15- Innovative (III) 10- NOTIS

06- SIRS! 05- DYNIX

04- DRA

03 - Ameritech** 03- PALS

02 - GEAC

01 - Horizon

01 - CARL

In the survey, 72% of those responding say

"Yes," they do have Web browser access in their library catalog. Of the remaining libraries who do not yet have this feature (28%), about

half of those stated that they have upcoming

plans to implement it. A related issue: Is Your Library Currently

Cataloging Internet Resources? Yes 43 (80%) No 1 1 (20%)

When did you begin ? 1994 01 1995 03 1996 08 1997 14 1998 11 1999 02

Not sure 4

This leads to our first point in the Checklist:

Step 1. Initial Considerations:

A. Technology: Does Your Library Cataloging System Have Hotlinks (Or

Web Browser Interface?) Yes 39 depositories (72%)

No 1 5 depositories (28%)

As you see, 80% of those responding said they

are currently cataloging Internet resources. While only 4 stated they had begun prior to 1996, the desire to manage Internet resources

within the library catalog gathered steam in 1996 and the majority of responses indicated they had begun in 1997. Several have just begun this year. If you do not yet have

hotlinks, you should probably engage in some

pre-planning and perhaps develop preliminary

strategies for your institution.

115
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Since many more resources must be

considered than just having the proper

technical equipment for working with Internet records, you should early on ask yourself question number 2 from the Checklist:

B. Is There Administrative Support for Cataloging Internet Resources at Your

Library? Yes 45 (82%)

' No 09(18%)

Over 80% of the survey responders stated that "yes" they do have administrative support for the cataloging of these resources. Frankly, it would be hard to envision proceeding with such a task without at least the philosophical support of your institution. Financial support

in terms of commitment of time and staff resources are important as well. Of the 9 survey libraries who stated they do

not currently have administrative support, half had requested support and had it denied. One

librarian stated "\ never requested support because I knew it wouldn't be given. I'm expected to do it all." Altogether, however,

reasons given by administrators for non-support

are really quite reasonable:

• We don't have the staff. • It's too expensive.

• We don't have Web access.

• We have no utility to deal with all the changing or dead URLs.

• Technical Services is not trained or prepared - we want to wait for a reorganization.

• We anticipate a change in our system and want to wait. There are three important points to keep in mind regarding administrative support:

1 . Cataloging Internet resources is a library-wide issue and requires the support of the administration to survive

the ongoing changes in technology and commitment of library resources.

2. Once you have administrative support, leave little to chance. Use resources wisely by setting goals before you

begin the work.

3. If you do not currently have

administrative support, do not play dead. Learn as much as you can about

the issues of URLs and PURLs, and re- evaluate your options periodically. When the time comes to receive

administrative support, be ready to go.

So, to review, your initial considerations should be:

1 . Technology: Is your OPAC hotlinked?

2. Administrative support: Do you have it?

3. Resources: What can you commit in terms of staff, time and maintenance?

Step 2. Planning:

A. Scope

Who will be involved? What Level of Commitment Will We

Have? What Goals Should We Set?

B. Tag All the Players Govdocs? Cataloging? Ref? CD?

Systems?

Students? Paraprofessionals?

Librarians?

C. Standards

Single vs. Multiple Record Cataloging? PURL Protocol or Not?

D. Organization of the Workload Who Will Manage the Work?

Who Will Do the Work?

116
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

E. Pilot Project - A Useful Option

F. Write a Mission Statement G. Prepare for Change; Be Flexible

A. & B. Scope and Tagging the Players: The steps I suggest for planning are probably

familiar to you who are old hands at managing

library projects. When you discuss the scope

of the project and who the players will be, I suggest that you think big. PURLs are a larger issue than just for cataloging - there are many

collection management considerations. The

workload may extend to staff in Systems Departments and the selection issues will impact on both Collection Development and

Reference. So, try to tag all the "players" at the

outset.

C. Standards: Regarding standards, perhaps you are a large

library and will build on existing policies for your standards regarding cataloging of Internet resources. However, even what seems like a simple question can lead to extensive

discussion, or even become controversial. For example, the survey posed this question: Are you using single or multiple record

cataloging for Internet resources? Here are the responses:

• 29 libraries say they are using single record cataloging - although some characterize

this as "whatever GPO does" and a few of these added "so far!"

• 1 2 responders left this blank.

• Only 2 indicated they have chosen the multiple record standard.

• 1 1 institutions are using both single and

multiple records when necessary, and my

prediction is that this will become even more prevalent. Some of the rationales are as follows:

• "Use single record for serials, separate records for monographs."

• "We maintain separate records for paper and microfiche. ..adding the URL to both paper and microfiche records." When you begin adding URLs to more than one record for a title, you are doubling or

tripling your workload. Libraries which did not chose single-record cataloging for the duplicate

physical formats of paper and microfiche have some thinking to do. While we adhere to single-record cataloging at Wichita State, it is not unusual for us to have more than one

record for a title. For example: the CIA World

Factbook. We select this in both paper and CD-ROM, and the CD-ROM has its own

record. So, when there is also a record for a

title in CD-ROM format, there could be a second or third record with an 856 to manage.

At my institution, if there is more than one

cataloging record for a title, I provide an

additional record for the online title. The

index makes it clear to the patron that there is online access. And, my staff does not have to manage the URIVPURL in more than one

record. We do add the 530 note to the records

for the physical formats stating: "Also available

online." Because we do not use tape-loaded records, we do not have to worry about the implications

of overlaying records where the 856 field has been amended by GPO. Since an overlay tags an OCLC number, there are workload

implications for libraries with more than one

record per title in their databases.

117
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

D. Organization of the workload: The outcome to the workload planning at your

library will, of course, be determined largely by your available resources in staffing, other

project commitments, and your current culture.

In my opinion, the push to manage Internet resources in a library catalog system has the

potential to blend departments in ways not

typical in traditional library workflows. For example, when asked in the survey: "Who is responsible for cataloging Internet resources?" only 10% of responders said that it is handled

in Government Documents. Forty percent

stated that Cataloging is responsible. And,

significantly, nearly 50% of answers show that

this is a combined departmental effort. I think

this movement across departmental lines is healthy, in that there can be a flexibility introduced which can lead to higher

productivity. Moving to the staffing resources in terms of FTE

(or time) allotted to cataloging Internet resources, there is also quite a variance in commitment, according to survey responses. On the "haves" side, one library has 2 FTE

handling this task, 1 .5 in Cataloging and .5 in Documents. Five responses showed 1 FTE

assigned to this project. On the flip side, there were also five libraries who answered "none."

Far more typical is an assignment of 8 to 1

0

hours weekly to this task.

E. Consider Beginning with a Pilot Project: As I mention in the checklist, if you or your

administration are uncertain about the level of resource commitment to this effort, start small. You can then evaluate the time and talent required, as well as discover problems and

rewrite procedures. In Arlene's half of this presentation, she described the commitment to

link checking at her institution. In contrast to Arlene's institution, my university is in a "wait and see" mode. I'll explain why in a minute. However, a year and a half ago, we were all ready to tackle the issue of Internet resources.

and the Principal Cataloger and I received permission to conduct a pilot project to determine the following:

• To identify problems associated with

cataloging Internet resources.

• To develop and test a plan for selecting

Internet resources

• To have Cataloging provide access to the

selected resources

• To determine costs for selection and

cataloging

• To select a method of testing the links electronically

• To explore maintenance issues The project was divided into phases over a six- month period of time, with an initial reporting phase halfway through and a final project

analysis. It was an elaborate but rewarding

process. We were able to establish policies and procedures for all our work with Internet resources, both in government documents and

for other resources. We also chose a link- checking package (for us, it was InfoLink Link Checker 1 .9), which required some

customization and ran this once. Our plan had been to run the package weekly, but this did not happen.

I stated earlier that we are now in a "wait and

see" mode. Perhaps our situation is not

unusual. Here is what has happened in the

past year.

1 . The Computing Center withdrew support

for running the link checking package

weekly, due to other commitments.

2. The Library Administration did not pressure

the Computing Center to cooperate.

118
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

3. The Library Dean retired and other

priorities took precedence.

4. The add-on module providing Web

interface to our library's online system (WebPac), went down. As a NOTIS site, we had purchased WebPac in order to provide hotlinks.

5. The Vice President of Academic Affairs arranged funding for a new library system, which resulted in RFPs and directed

attention away from the ailing WebPac

module.

6. The Interim Library Administration did not

pressure the Computing Center to find the problems with WebPac and now, seven months later, WebPac hotlinks still do not

function, or at least not every day.

7. The focus now is on waiting for the new

system, which will have a Web Interface and we won't have to worry about WebPac.

8. In addition, we now want to wait and see how the library database migrates to the new system before we work in any

intentional way on Internet resources. Since we do not currently have tapeloaded

government document records, we can

survive this. And, the pilot project we

conducted over a year ago will still provide

us with useful insights for working with the new system.

F. Mission Statement:

effective manner, enhanced access to

library and information resources for the Commonwealth of Virginia's academic libraries serving the higher education community."

I gleaned this piece of information from

looking over the online procedures shared with me in the survey, and, again, I commend them

to you from our handout. G. Prepare for change and be flexible:

This statement could be the mantra of the

electronic transition! Most of us who have been involved with managing organizational change are well aware of the need for preparation and flexibility, but it bears

repeating in any planning outline.

Step 3. Cataloging Considerations:

A. What Will Be the Source of the Records?

Tapeloads, Bibliographic Utility, Combination? What expectations do you have of your

vendor? How will updates be received?

Is there a concern for overlay of local information? What Are the Cataloging Issues for Us?

Will we accept records as received or enhance them? To complete your planning, it would be useful

to write a mission statement to articulate your

vision. Such a statement should be simple and

straightfoPA'ard. On the screen, you can see what the member libraries of VIVA, the Virtual Library of Virginia, wrote as their mission: "VIVA'S mission is to provide, in an

equitable, cooperative and cost

Will we add fields or notes? Are we concerned about any

inconsistencies in GPO records?

Will we change or amend URL addresses if necessary?

119
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

As I said earlier, 80% of the libraries responding to the survey indicated they are currently cataloging Internet resources. This probably means everything from vendor

tapeloads of government document records to careful scrutiny from professional catalogers. However, there seem to me to be two primary

considerations with regard to cataloging: "What will be the source of the records?" and "What are the cataloging issues for us?" The survey asked "Whaf is the source of your

records for government documents? Vendor tapeloads = 50%

Bibliographic Utility = 30%

Both = 20%

More than half of the libraries responding use vendor tapeloads, with the overwhelming

majority using Marcive. The only other vendor mentioned was the OCLC tape service and the

ratio was 35:2 - Marcive. The remainder of the

libraries are using the bibliographic utility OCLC. However, more than half of the

libraries using vendor tapeloads also use OCLC, so there is cross-over activity.

It is very important if you are using a vendor to determine what expectations you have of them

and to be clear about the issues which can or cannot be controlled by a vendor. I received voluminous feedback to the question: "Do you

have issues with the 856 fields in tapeloaded

records?" Many, many of these related as much to the insufficiencies of library systems as they did to vendor concerns. These issues are

usually intertwined. I will share a few of these responses with you later when I talk about

systems considerations.

Further cataloging-related concerns which

produced many comments were "GPO

policies" and "GPO cataloging." Some of the comments batched are:

• Maintenance Issues "Dead I inks"

"Invalid links" "No mechanism yet to check for changed URLs."

• Point of entry Issues "PURL addresses used by GPO tend to be too broad and retrieve agency Web

page rather than a specific item." "Editions"

• Consistency of Records

Cataloging of Field 856 is inconsistent. Typing input errors in the 856 cause

retrieval problems.

Field 856 Data Elements: Another question I asked in the survey related to the 856 field was: "How have you managed your 856 fields when a PURL was placed in the same field with a URL? Thirty-five libraries responded: 24 are retaining both 10 are manually changing the data

1 has a created a program to amend the

data When manually changing the data: Some libraries are moving the PURL to the

first subfield u. Some are deleting the URLs and retaining only the PURLs, Some search Intercat for a PURL if one is not in the record. Some are deleting all the PURLs, and Some say they keep only one link and, as

for which one: "it depends." There has been considerable debate recently as

to the placement of the URL, when replaced by

the PURL. Since MARBI has now limited the number of | u's to one in each 856 field and

Tad Downing announced yesterday that GPO

cataloging policy will adopt this as a standard.

120
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

the problem of display should be minimized in the future; however, most of us have hundreds

of records in our databases which have

multiple delimiter u's. For any amendment of

these, we will either have to wait for record updates or manage manually. Thirty-five

libraries responded to the question of where

the URL should be placed in a three-way tie between: subfield x (non-public note), subfield z (public note), and other. Several prefer an

additional 856 and several requested the 538

field. GPO Cataloging has just announced that they are preparing to use the 530/538 fields for URLs replaced by PURLs.

Step 4. Collection Development

Considerations:

A. Will we evaluate the point of entry for a URL/PURL?

B. How much evaluation will be required and who will do this work?

C. Will we accept URLs/PURLs as they appear in records, or actively seek out

sites of value to our patrons?

Evaluation: There are two issues I want to discuss which

fall into the category of "evaluation:"

1 . Site evaluation: Checking the URL for point

of entry and validity; and

2. Resource evaluation: What additional

Internet resources should we add to our

electronic collection? Even if you are used to obtaining records from

a vendor and pretty much accept them without amendment, questions of evaluation are bound

to come up sooner or later.

For example, will you evaluate the point of entry for a URL or PURL? In the survey, over 50% of responders say they are evaluating their

856 fields for point of entry and content. Sixty percent say they check sites for accuracy at the time they initially work on their records.

Is it a problem to you that clicking on an 856

field might take a patron to an agency home

page rather than going directly to a specific

title? Or, perhaps you prefer the more general

entry point for the patron. If the agency home

page has a useful list of titles to choose from,

the patron could actually benefit from seeing what else is published by them. Too, if the

specific electronic address to the title is ever amended, or disappears, you will already be

directing the patron to the broader list of choices, so there is a better chance of their not being confused by disappearing resources. Another example: Perhaps you learn that a URL which used to lead to the 1996 annual

report of an agency is now the 1 997 report. However, the URL has not changed. The

electronic address still has the 1996 included

in it. There is no choice between 1996 or 1997-the 1996 annual report is no longer

there. AND the 1996 report does not appear

to be posted at the agency Web site anywhere.

This happened to me last fall. Clearly, to this agency, Web space is Web space, no matter what the designation on the URL, or they would have created a URL for their 1997 report with the 1997 in it. I e-mailed the agency to inquire about the 1 996 report. Where was it? They responded that they had taken it down

from the Web, but that it was still available for purchase in paper format. However, they said, 1996 is the last year for which the report will be published in a physical format. I then

inquired as to whether they would leave 1 997

up when they released the 1998 edition, especially as 1 997 would no longer be

archived anywhere if they took it off the Web.

They responded that they did not know yet. Now, these comments are not intended so much to complain about the inconsistencies of agency protocols as they are meant to point to

121
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

the amount of time and thought one has to give

to just one decision set when dealing with a hot-linked database record. The magic of electronic access has brought us additional workload. At least books don't fly around the room to other shelves and microfiche don't

leap from drawer to drawer, although there are times when I think they mate in the night and

reproduce themselves!

Staffing: As a fourth example, your library may set a course of adding electronic resources outside your normal profile for physical items. Perhaps you are downsizing or perhaps you are taking advantage of the virtual library world to provide your patrons with added value. You

will need to ask yourselves: Who will do this work? Going back to survey responses on the question of "Who is responsible for evaluating

sites?", answers were varied and sometimes

point to a group effort. The most typical answers are the "Government Documents

Librarian" or the "Cataloger" or the two

together. But, others are also assigned to this task:

Serials Librarian Subject Selectors (or, CD Liaison Librarians) Media Librarian Reference and Cataloging Team

Selectors and Cataloger together Group Support Staff (Cataloger, Maintenance Department, Selectors) Students, and

"All of us"

It is useful to note that twice as many libraries are addressing evaluation of resources for inclusion in the catalog with a team or cooperative effort as those just assigning one

person to this task. Clearly, there are inter- departmental ramifications to this decision- making.

Step 5. Library Catalog System

Considerations

• Display of Field 856

Study Your System's Display

Work With Programmers to Amend

• Or, Devise Working Strategies for Problems

("work-arounds")

• Potential for System Migration

• Upgrades from System Vendors

It is extremely important to study how your

system displays the 856 field, because some of the potential problems associated with the 856

are system vendor-related. Some of these

issues may be resolved by working closely with your programmer or systems staff. At Wichita

State, where we currently have the NOTIS

system, we have worked with our programmer

to pull the 856 into the short view of the patron

record, because we know that typically a patron does not even look at the long view.

In other cases, you may have problems which

will only be fixed by a new release for your

system. An example of this is the Innovative

system, which currently will only display to the public the first | u in an 856 field. The majority

of Innovative libraries which responded to my

survey indicated that they are manually moving

the PURL to position it first, when the PURL

has been added after the URL was placed in a

record.

In addition, there are several systems, including

CARL, which do display multiple URLs from a

single 856, but often run them together into a

single and totally unusable link. SIRSI has been known to repeat identical 856 fields when records are loaded. PALS cannot be set for overlay of individual fields.

In the NOTIS patron display, we can designate

the Location as "Internet" and instead of a Call Number, we can input "Electronic Resource."

122
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

However, we cannot amend the Status, which

is "Check Shelf." Of course, this is not what we want to have our users do for an Internet resource, or they could report that the item must be missing from the shelf; but the programming is not amendable for this category. The good news, of course, is that eventually some of our frustrations will be lessened either because our libraries will migrate systems to one better designed for Web interface, or because systems vendors will develop tools to help us manage display and link-checking

issues.

Step 6. Maintenance issues:

• How important is absolutely accurate URL

information in your catalog?

• If accuracy is a priority, how will records be kept up to date?

• Will you systematically check URL/PURL

links for validity?

• How will you check links? Systemgenerated or link checking software? Manually?

• How often?

• Who will do the work?

• What will you do with the data you collect?

• Will you have staff and time to be

consistent?

Arlene has covered the technical aspects of link checking, so I will say just a few words about

the management aspect of maintenance issues.

It is important that each institution decide at the outset just how important it is to have

absolutely accurate URL information in their catalog. The Checklist handout suggests a range of considerations if your library

establishes accuracy as a priority. Primarily those are: how will the records be kept up to date? Which link checking software will you

choose, or do you have a system-generated

software for this purpose? How often will you

run the link checker? What staff will be

involved? What will you do with the data you

collect? Will you have sufficient staff and time

to complete this work periodically? According to my survey, slightly more libraries are NOT systematically checking URLs than

are. There were 24 responders saying "Yes, they do." and 26 saying "no." There was also one that stated "Yes. ..somewhat," which

probably reflects what is true of many libraries: they are doing their best to manage the problem, but on more of an ad hoc basis. Only three link checking packages were

mentioned in the survey: LinkBot (the most

popular), MomSpider, and "homegrown." More libraries reported checking URLs

manually than those who are using link checking software. Of those conducting the checking on a regular basis, the favored timing

is monthly, followed by quarterly. Some

reported checking only when problems are

reported.

Step 7. Policies and Reporting:

• Develop written policies and procedures.

• Report regularly to your staff and

administration on your progress.

• Take advantage of your system's reporting

capabilities, especially for tracking the 856

fields available in the catalog's records.

• Report broken links you discover to GPO.

Finally, the last step in your process: reporting. Do keep both your administration and your

staff advised of problems and progress. As

most of you know from experience, written procedures are crucial in dealing with complex

123
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

technologies. And, finally, I will re-emphasize

Arlene's comments regarding reporting of broken links toGPO.

In Conclusion - What Do We Want from the GPO?

Finally, my survey comments would not be complete without mentioning the information gathered as to what depository librarians want

from the GPO. There is much positive feedback about PURLs. Librarians stated that they are "counting on them" and that they are

"essential" if we are not to duplicate work

constantly and waste our resources of staff and

time. There is an appreciation that GPO

determined to take responsibility for record problems by embracing the PURL technology.

Librarians also shared their expectations of GPO at this point:

• Make it easier for us to report broken links and other problems.

• Move rapidly to convert the old URLs to PURLs.

• Provide regular online reports listing PURLs

assigned.

• Allow depository librarians to assist in maintenance of links on the PURL sen^/er. Thank you very much for your presence here today listening to the issues involved with embracing a new technology: PURLs. At this time, Arlene and I would like to open up the

session for questions and answers.

124
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

American FactFinder

Barbara Aldrich

Robert Clair

Bureau of the Census

Washington, DC

American FactFinder Technical Information

• Developed for Use with Netscape or

Internet Explorer Version 3.0 or higher

• Java Script Enabled

• Must Accept Cookies

• Access Problems? FactFinder@census.gov Data and Features Now Available

• Related Data Product Information Additional Information about Products Accessed through American FactFinder

• Maps

Reference Maps

Lower Level Geography Currently Available for Dress Rehearsal Areas Thematic Maps

Predefined Maps on Selected Topics

Overview

• The Software Previously Known as "DADS"

• Release 1 Became Publicly Available in mid-March 1999

• Additional Data and Features will be Added

Data and Features Now Available

• Community Profiles Data from the 1 990 Census

• Population and Housing Facts Quick Tables 1990 Census Data

Detailed Tables 1990 Census Data American Community Survey Data - Selected Areas Data and Features Available Soon

• Industry Quick Reports 1997 Economic Census Data

Released on a Flow Basis Beginning in April 1999

• Geography Quick Reports Economic Data by Geographic Area

Released on a Flow Basis Beginning in April 1999

• 1990 Public Use Microdata Sample

Scheduled in June

• More Detailed Geography for Mapping

Available on Flow Basis Through the Summer

• Building a Query

Available for the Economic Census

125
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Features Available Later

• Custom Tabulation Capability

Full Microdata File Post 1 999

• Downloading Capability for Large Files Part of the Census2000 Version of FactFinder

• Our home page - www.census.gov

126
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Reinvention Web Sites: Tools, Documents, and

Services

Patricia B. Wood

National Partnership for Reinventing Government

Wasiiington, DC

Hello. It's a pleasure to be here. I come not only to share information with you, but also to find out what you and your depository library customers would like to see from government

Web sites. In fact, I would like for us to explore ways we can continue this discussion

after this session ends.

I value your mission of providing free public access to Federal documents and your effort to use the rapidly evolving Web technologies that are expanding the definition of "publish" and

"publication."

Free people need free access to what

government says and does. The Web is helping government provide not only

information and services, but it is also helping

us reinvent government.

"Information technology," Vice President Gore

said, "was and is the great enabler for reinvention. It allows us to rethink, in fundamental ways, how people work and how we serve our customers." Today's Topics

This morning I will talk briefly about:

• Government-wide reinvention,

• How we are using the Web and

Information Technology (IT) to get the job

done, and

• Enlisting you—depository librarians—as our

partners in changing government forever.

Reinvention and Trust in Government

I think we all know that 30 or 35 years ago, people in this country mostly trusted government to do the right thing most of the

time. Polls in the early 60s showed more than 70 percent of the people believed that way. Much of that trust eroded as the years passed. Our government got so full of rules, so full of procedures, that it was hard for one person, or one small group of people to make any

difference at all. Red tape didn't just strangle the American people, it hindered those of us on the inside just as much.

By the early 90s, only about 20 percent of the American people believed that they could trust their government to do the right thing, according to a Pew Foundation study completed late in 1997. It revealed a slight upward trend in recent years in the number of Americans who trust their government. Thirty- nine percent of the public basically trusts the Federal Government to do the right thing, an

18-point gain since an all-time low of 21 percent in 1994. The figures have dipped just

slightly since those figures were released in early 1 998, but the general trend is very encouraging. We believe reinvention had

something to do with this trend.

In March of 1993, President Clinton asked the Vice President to lead what was then called the National Performance Review, or NPR. We

changed our name last year to the National

Partnership for Reinventing Government, but

kept the acronym NPR. Sometimes we call

127
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

ourselves the OTHER NPR when people

confuse us with National Public Radio.

Vice President Gore believed Federal employees were good people trapped in a bad

system. He went to them first. He asked

Federal workers how things could be better and they told him. Then he asked them to fix things—to reinvent. And that's what many

Federal workers, with their partners in state and

local government and the private sector, have been doing for the last-G years. Our vision today is America @ OurBest and

our mission is to create a government that works better, costs less, and delivers results the American people care about. Accomplishments

Reinventing Government is the longest-running and most successful government reform effort

in U.S. history. Here are the major

accomplishments:

• Savings total $137 billion. "

'

• Federal agencies have published more than 4,000 customer service standards for more

than 570 organizations and programs. When We started, most Federal agencies

didn't think government had "customers." Now it isn't unusual to hear bureaucrats planning to "excite" or "thrill" their customers.

• Agencies have eliminated more than

1 6,000 pages of regulations.

• Federal employees are now writing rules and other public documents in plain language.

• Regulatory agencies like the Occupational

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),

the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) now partner with business around

mutual goals.

• Reinvention has resulted in the smallest

civilian workforce since JFK's administration, with a reduction of 351,000

positions. Reductions occurred in 13 of 14

departments. (Justice increased crime

fighting.)

• More than 1 ,200 Hammer Awards have been presented to teams of Federal workers and their partners in industry and state and

local governments. This is the Vice

President's award to teams for using

reinvention principles to create a government that works better.

• About 340 reinvention labs are reengineering government processes and

using technology to unleash innovations

that excite customers and employees alike with more flexible internal systems and

improved services to the public.

• The Congress has passed and President Clinton has signed more than 80 laws so

far enacting NPR recommendations. Of course, the American public doesn't much

distinguish where one level of government

drops off and another kicks in. Since December, we have been working with state and local governments in Kansas City, DallasFort Worth, and Seattle to create hassle free communities. Now hassle-free communities

are starting in the state of Minnesota

(Partnership Minnesota is starting Hassle-Free Minnesota), in the Borough of Manhattan with

the New York Federal Executive Board, and in Chattanooga, TN.

In this tax season, in rural communities of Kansas and Missouri, where few if any Federal Government offices exist, the Internal Revenue

Service is using a bus to deliver hassle-free services to taxpayers. The bus has made its rounds every other week since mid January.

128
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

IRS also created a partnership with both states so that state income tax services are included. Our shared success in reinventing government

at every level matters very, very much. We

must press on to the ultimate goal for reinvention - to restore the trust of the American people in their government at every

level. A major culture change is undePA'ay in government, even though we still have a long way to go. Our aim is nothing less than to do

things today that will change government

forever. Reinvention Sites

Let's look now at some of our reinvention Web

sites.

If we substitute "Web site" for "government" in NPR's mission, we've got a basic premise for government Web sites:

Create a Web site that works better, costs less, and delivers results the American people care about. Today, government agencies, like businesses,

realize that a Web site is a strategic resource. It can save an agency money by reducing calls and postage, replacing hardcopy printing, and

in conducting the agency's business.

This is certainly true for NPR. For example, NPR's site is for reinventors and their partners, but we reach students, researchers, and the general public. We post all official reinvention documents, long or short, and much

reinvention news, including agency activities. NPR is a task force, not a government agency. We are frugal. Our 40 or 50 staff members

represent Federal agencies, usually on loan for 3 months, 6 months, a year. We have not published a hardcopy annual report since

1 997. We update our Web site frequently so

that it's almost a "daily report" of what's happening.

We overhauled our site last summer, asking a focus group of Federal workers what they wanted and needed. They wanted news on the home page. They wanted as many topics on

the home page as possible and wanted to see

as many topics as possible without having to

scroll. They told us to reduce the size of our

logo and other graphics. They said they didn't want to hunt for information. We went from a menu of 10 topics on our previous home page

to 41 in the new design. NPR-sponsored Web sites have been a major

reinvention tool since 1993 and some have been spun off. As examples:

• FinanceNet <www.financenet.gov/> is the Internet's home for public financial management worldwide. It has many

features. For example, you can go to this

site to find out what government - Federal,

state, local or international - has for sale or

auction. It's a lot-all manner of public

assets and surplus from real property and

loans to planes, boats, cars, jewelry. FinanceNet is operated by the National Science Foundation.

• Acquisition Reform Net <www.arnet.gov/> supplied information

across agency lines and provided an

electronic forum so a network of procurement professionals could discuss

issues. This electronic tool played a big

role in procurement reform.

• Reinvention Lab/Waiver Clearinghouse

Federal employees in Reinvention Labs sometimes need waivers to deviate from

internal agency policies and procedures so they can improve internal operations. This online database, hosted by the Alliance for Redesigning Government, lets reinventors share information and tools.

129
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

• Plain Language is another Gore

government-wide initiative that is being

implemented with the help of a one-stop

site <www.plainlanguage.gov>. It includes the President's Executive Order,

samples, tools, tips, and other aids for Federal workers who are writing and re- writing government regulations and other documents so people can understand them. Access America: Delivering Services

Electronically ^

Many Federal Web sites are virtual storefronts of government services. It's where customers

interact with government. As more and more

American households go online, more and more government sites don't just sit there-they do something. They deliver services.

Delivering services electronically and using IT to improve government productivity is the

vision of the Vice President's 1997 report, "Access America: Reengineering Through

Information Technology."

This vision includes working across agency

lines to identify customers and collect information, forms, and services suitable for customer groups on one-stop sites. Many

agencies together can achieve what no one

agency can achieve alone.

• The Business Advisor <www.business.gov> was NPR's first interagency Web site targeted toward a

specific customer group. NPR developed it in 1995 with partners from government and

the private sector. The site will soon be sponsored by the Small Business

Administration. We are redesigning the

site to make major improvements and

updates.

• NPR worked with 1 7 agencies, including

Housing and Urban Development, to open

the US State and Local Gateway

<www.statelocal.gov> in January 1998.

This site provides Federal information that

state and local government employees over

the country need to do their jobs.

• Over the last several months, NPR worked

with Social Security and many agencies to create a one-stop site for seniors < www.

seniors.gov >, announced in February.

• In January, NPR, the Department of Education and other agencies announced a demo in partnership with several colleges

for a one-stop site for students < www.

students.gov > to open soon. That same month, NPR worked with the United States Information Agency to convene

the Vice President's Global Conference on

Reinventing Government. Its attendant Web

site <www.21stcentury.gov> shares

reinvention documents and tools from that conference and from governments around the world. The Access America initiative also includes a Center of Excellence in Information Technology site <http://centerofexcellence. gov> that is being developed.

Electronic Stories about Electronic Government

Last summer when we were redesigning the NPR site, I was also working with a wonderful

interagency team sponsored by the Government Information Technology Services Board—GITSB— <http://gits.gov> to develop

a new site focused on IT, Access America

Online Magazine. Co-sponsors are NPR, the CIO Council <www.cio.gov/>, and the

Federal Communicators Network < www.fcn.gov >

.

The magazine is the brainchild of Greg Woods

and Jim Flyzik. Greg is Chair of the GITS

Board and a former Deputy Director of NPR. He is now the director of the first performancebased organization in government, the Office

130
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

of Financial Assistance at the Department of Education. Jim is Vice Chair of the GITS Board and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Information Systems and Chief Information Officer at Treasury. GITS Board members champion the 18 recommendations in Vice President's Access America report. Until last summer, champions

wrote periodic online reports on the status of each recommendation, such as using IT to improve the government's access to services and to establish the Intergovernmental Wireless

Public Safety Network. The reports were fairly standard government reports, that—how shall I say it?—made less than compelling reading. That is, if anybody even knew about the

reports. Greg and Jim thought the American people needed to know about these electronic

sePk'ices-not from reports, but from easy-toread, illustrated stories on the Web.

I am thrilled to be editor of Access America

Online Magazine. Our interagency team opened it as a prototype last October and the Vice President announced it by press release on March 9. We've organized the magazine

site around the 18 topics in the Access America

report. We publish a new issue every Monday

and we have more than 100 stories about

electronic government at the Federal, state, and

local level. These stories tell Americans how

they can go online to:

• Find a lost pension.

• Identify workplace hazards.

• Compare nursing homes nationwide.

• Apply for student aid.

• Start and build a woman-owned business.

• Find out about and apply for government

jobs.

• Change an address with the U.S. Postal Service.

• Manage industrial size waste disposal.

• Apply for Peace Corps.

• Download and print hundreds of formsincluding tax forms, something many

Americans will probably have to do

tonight. We also have stories about the environment,

geography, space technology, international

trade, public safety, criminal justice, passports, business services, medicine, health care, and

more.

For example, one story describes the National

Library of Medicine's partnership with 39

public library organizations with more than 200 locations in nine states (Alabama, Georgia,

Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, South

Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia) and

the District of Columbia. These libraries are taking part in a pilot project to let people learn how to get health information on the Internet. The project features an easy-to-understand Web site called MEDLINEplus.

Let's Partner

I invite you to support reinventing government

and to help the public know about reinvention and the services that agencies are making

available online.

1 can give you examples right now. Last week,

the hassle-free community team in Dallas-Fort Worth talked with Housing and Urban Development (HUD) about expanding their new kiosks to libraries in that area. HUD's

new electronic kiosks - located in Federal

buildings, shopping malls, libraries, transportation centers, city halls, grocery stores and other public places around the countryallow citizens access to basic HUD

information, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

131
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

much the way they would use an ATM at the bank.

Dallas-Fort Worth is also ready to ask their

local libraries to let their customers know

about an adoption Web site. I understand they

also have adoption kiosks they would like to have in libraries. The hassle-free coordinator

told me they would love to get the support of the Depository Library Association—or all library organizations. I can put you in touch

with these reinventors. "

We also need reinvention partners who can

host satellite downlink sites or can access a

cybercast. Last January, Vice President Al Gore

moderated a televised satellite summit with

national business, labor, education, government and local community leaders on

"21st Century Skills for 21st Century Jobs." We

had some libraries participating and we would

like to get more involved in future broadcasts and community meetings on this and other

topics.

For example, the 8th Annual Family Reunion

Satellite Conference moderated by Vice

President and Mrs. Gore will be June 21 and

22. This annual event features discussions around the country on issues affecting families and communities. Conference planners invite

sponsors for downlink sites. For more

information, visit <www.familyreunion.org>.

Also, the Department of Labor invites libraries to play a role in its "Career Kit" and "virtual one stops" with career counseling, job referral and placement through the Web. I can get you

a contact, or you can start with the DOL site at < www.dol.gov>

.

Likewise, I need story ideas or stories about

using information technology to reinvent government at any level. And, if you have Web sites, I urge you to link to Access America

Online Magazine.

I invite your comments, suggestions, questions, and involvement today and in the future. Thank you for having me here today. Send your reinvention and information technology stories to Pat Wood at < pat.wood@npr.gov > or call (202) 694-0063.

National Partnership for Reinventing Government

www.npr.gov

Access America Online Magazine

www.accessamerica.gov

132
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

0*NET: Keeping Pace with Today's Changing

Workplace

Donna Dye

U.S. Department of Labor

Washington, DC

What Is O* NET? 0*NET, the Occupational Information Network, is an easy-to-use database that runs on a Windows-based personal computer. It contains comprehensive information on job

requirements and worker competencies.

0*NET replaces the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and offers a more dynamic

framework for exploring the world of work. With 0*NET, employers of all sizes and across

all fields have a powerful means for accessing

critical information that impacts their bottom-line every day. 0*NET Data 0*NET currently contains information developed by job analysts using the 0*NET

skill-based structure. Future data will come

directly from workers and employers

themselves, describing the work they do, the

skills they need, and the knowledge they use on the job.

Expert researchers will collect and classify this empirical information to guarantee that 0*NET

data is accurate, current, consistent, and

comprehensive.

Who Uses O* NET?

• Human Resources personnel

• Students exploring career options

• Business forecasters

• People changing jobs

• Organizational consultants

• Training facilitators

• Efficiency experts

• Managers

• Industry analysts

• Rehabilitation counselors

• Workforce researchers

• Career counselors

• Displaced workers

• Program directors

• Software developers

• People seeking new jobs, better jobs or first jobs What Others Have Said

• 0*NET will give schools and training organizations the information they need to prepare workers to succeed in our industry. Deborah Masten, J.C. Penney

Company

• 0*NET is the best thing that has come

around in the last 50 years, and will probably be the easiest thing to keep

up-to-date, and add new skills. Kenneth Edwards, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 0*NET is a Collaborative Effort 0*NET is a collaborative effort, joining the public and private sector interests. Input at all levels and from all sectors is needed and

actively encouraged.

133
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

For More Information Contact: 0*NET Project U.S. Department of Labor

ETA/Office of Policy and Research 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room N5636

Washington, DC 20210

Telephone: 202/219-7161

Fax: (202) 219-9186

E-mail: O* NET@doleta.gov

http://www.doleta.gov/programs/onet/

134
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

The National Park Service Library Program

David Nathanson

National Park Service Harpers Ferry, WV

The aim of this session is to provide you with some basic information about the library program of the NPS. I'm going to talk about what it is, what some of our problems are, and what we are doing about it. I'm also going to

talk about some of the collections and

bibliography programs that we maintain. The Components

• The NPS Library Program office

• NPS Library Advisory Council (LAC) and

the LAC Steering Commettee

• NPS Library System The NPS library program is made up of a program coordinator, an advisory council and

the NPS library system itself. The program

coordinator works for our Information and Telecommunications Center in Washington - the computer folks. Amalin Ferguson is the coordinator and she is duty-stationed in San

Francisco. The last slide in this presentation provides her name, phone number, and her e- mail address. The Library Program's plans and activities are described in an article written by Amalin

Ferguson in CRM magazine (vol.21 :6, Summer

1998) which is available on the WWW at: < http://tps.cr.nps.gOv/crm/archive/2 1 -6/2 1 -6- 11.pdf>. NPS Library Advisory Council and Steering

Committee

• NPS Library Advisory Council (LAC) - includes non-librarians

• Steering Committee (LAC-SC) - NPS library managers

• Members combine resources to maximize

professional service to field staff and the public and to ensure access to N PS-related information The NPS Library Advisory Council is made up

of librarians and library users, as well as information managers from other NPS program

areas, including archives management, records management, etc. The planning and policy development for libraries is carried on by a subset of the LAC which we refer to as the

Steering Committee, which is made up of the few professional librarians in the NPS, chaired by the coordinator. Members of the Steering Committee combine

resources to maximize professional service to

field staff and the public and to ensure access

to NPS-related information. We do that by

listening to the non-librarians of the Advisory

Council and other users, to librarians outside

the NPS and to each other, and by

collaborating with other information specialists to link datasets and develop coordinated

information management policies. We

develop cooperative programs that are designed to stretch the existing library expertise

in NPS so that the many non-librarian caretakers of NPS libraries can benefit. The NPS Library System

• Park libraries

• NPS Technical Information Center

135
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

• Center and Support Office libraries

• HFC, DSC, WACC, CCSO, etc.

• Servicewide Bibliography Programs

(CRBIB, NRBIB) The NPS Library System is made up of the park

libraries, central and support offices like my

library - Harpers Ferry Center (HFC), Denver

Service Center (DSC), the Western

Archeological and Conservation Center in Tucson (WACC) and our network of support

offices, some of which are staffed with

professional librarians and try to support the park libraries in their region, like the Columbia

Cascade Support Office in Seattle (CCSO) and

the Southwest Support Office in Santa Fe. The

system also includes the Technical Information Center at DSC and the various servicewide

bibliography programs. I'll discuss all of these

in a moment. The NPS Libraries

• Almost 400 NPS libraries

• Average size of a park library collection is about 3000 volumes

• Wide range of nonbook formats

• Many unpublished and unique items

• Comprehensive, narrowly focused

collections

• A significant resource for NPS staff, researchers, educators, and public As this slide shows, there are almost 400

libraries in the NPS. Keep in mind that there

are almost 380 areas in the National Park System and every area has some sort of library for the use of its staff or outside researchers. Some of these libraries are fairly large, like the 40-50,000 volumes at Morristown NHP in New Jersey, or the several thousand volume

libraries in some of the older parks like Yellowstone, Grand Canyon and Yosemite. The size goes down to a few hundred volumes

in many of the parks. Two things are usually

true: first, the park libraries, especially in the

the older parks, very often constitute the best

collections that exist on the subject of the park. For example, if a researcher wants to write about the history of Yellowstone, he/she really needs to visit that park's library and archives. Second, some of the park libraries - again

especially in the older parks, very often have

unpublished and sometimes unique items in their collections. The park libraries are a

significant resource for NPS staff, researchers, educators, and the public.

Planning Issues

• Most NPS libraries are managed by

nonlibrarians on a collateral duty basis

• Individual library budgets are minimal

• Majority of materials not cataloged to

facilitate access and sharing The biggest problem we have is the shortage of professional librarians, or even full-time library caretakers. Most of our libraries are managed

by nonlibrarians on a collateral duty basis. There are also few parks that have an adequate

budget for the library. We have a system of

private, cooperating associations that operate

the bookstores in park areas. They are very

supportive of the library function in the parks, providing money for books, and sometimes - as

in the case of Yellowstone - library staff.

It has only been in the last few years that a concerted effort has been made to catalog park

libraries in any standard library system. Park

libraries are classified, if at all, in LC, Dewey or some home-grown system.

136
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Impacts on Information Seekers

• Loss of materials due to inadequate

accountability controls

• Retrieval is confined to local site and is generally inefficient

• Sharing of information across

organizations, applications and formats is severely hindered So what does all this mean, for us, and for researchers who need to use our resources? We lose materials because we don't have

adequate accountability controls.

Retrieval of information from the collections is confined to the local site and is generally

inefficient in areas without full-time library managers. Because of lack of bibliographic standards, sharing of information across organizations, applications and formats is severely hindered. What we are doing about it

• Policies and standards

• Outside partners and funding - LSTA

• Software - ProCite / BookWhere

• Site licenses for Web-based reference

services (e.g., FirstSearch)

• NPS Union Library Catalog - Voyager/

WebVoyage

• ParkNet Library Link

• Preservation and access for NPS-produced documents

We are establishing standards - like the use of the LC classification system (although we

continue to support Dewey at parks that use it), a standard bibliographic software for use in our

libraries, the use of MARC records in our

centralized systems, etc. We are looking at Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) funding. It is being

used in Colorado to catalog some park libraries

in that state. We are funding the servicewide use of ProCite

software for libraries to manage their collections. We are also funding BookWhere,

a Z39.50 client, that parks can use to acquire

MARC format copy-cataloging from all the

library catalogs available on the WWW so that we can feed our union catalog-l'll talk about

that in a moment. We have developed a program that will print out spine labels from ProCite records for use in the parks. We are also concerned with bibliographic

control of NPS-produced publications and

reports through our Technical Information Center and our bibliography programs. I will

talk about those in a moment, also. Components of the NPS Union Library Catalog

• Catalog records from all NPS libraries, NPS

Manuscript Collections, NPS publications

• NPS Technical Information Center (TIC) records

• NPS Servicewide Bibliography records

In many ways, the centerpiece of our efforts is the NPS Union Library Catalog which we are

in the process of assembling. The catalog will ultimately include records from every one of the almost 400 NPS libraries.

137
J 999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Of course this will take time to accomplish for reasons I have already given. But we have

started by putting several of the large library collections into our Voyager database. We

have almost 150,000 records in it now.

Voyager, a product of Endeavor Information Systems, as some of you may know, was

recently selected by the Library of Congress to manage all their vast collections. Just to give you a comparison of the scope of our

respective projects, the Tmplementation team

for LC includes 300 names - we have three people on ours - including me. Voyager has a Web search capability which

they call WebVoyage. Our implementation of

it is up and running (on the NPS intranet), but not yet publicized to the rest of the NPS. It works very well and we are happy with it so

far. It offers "easy" and "expert" search levels,

it supports "hot" links from records to digital resources described and, we are told, it supports simultaneous searching of multiple

library catalogs on the Internet from our Voyager front end. Products of the NPS Union Library Catalog

• Research / retrieval

• "ThemeCats" (e.g.. Civil War)

• Location subsets (e.g., YOSE)

• Format subsets (oral history, trade

literature, etc.)

• Interlibrary Loan The products and some of the benefits we hope

to derive from the union catalog include more

than just better access to the NPS library collections. There are themes that are of great

interest to groups of park areas, e.g.. Civil War,

African-American history, biodiversity, etc. Our union catalog will allow park researchers

to find out what other resources exist on a

particular subject in NPS areas. We will also be able to search within a single park only, e.g., HFC Library. We will also be able to search by specific formats which are of interest to us (if they have been catalogued that way).

Finally, we hope to integrate Servicewide

interlibrary loan into the Voyager system. ParkNet Library Link: the NPS Library

Program Web site

• Library management guidelines, policies, procedures and other user aids for NPS staff

• Access to WebVoyage and other library catalogs

• Government Information Locator Service

(GILS) - NPS, DOI and others

• General reference services, literature search

services (non-NPS databases)

• Document delivery services, and ILL

• Thematic "pathfinders" Our Web site is under development. It will be

available, at least at first, only to the NPS

domain. It will serve as an up-to-date source of

library information and guidance, as well as a

portal to our union catalog, FirstSearch and

other online services. It will also house a

directory of NPS libraries and contacts.

In fact, our aim is that our Web site will become a gateway to all N PS-generated and

NPS-related research. We will do this via links to other sites, as well as a GILS-type database. The target date for unveiling the Web page and NPS access to WebVoyage is this weekNational Library Week.

138
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Special Collections and Bibliography

Programs

• Park collections

• National Park Service Historical Collections

• Cultural Resources Bibliography

• Natural Resources Bibliography

• NPS Technical Information Center

Let's talk a bit about some of the collections and bibliography programs in the NPS.

I have already mentioned the significance of some of the larger park library collections. I'll just mention two more: Morristown National Historical Park in New

Jersey has one of the finest collections of 1 8th century Colonial and Revolutionary war

materials in existence. (I love to describe their collections because they are so interesting. The main collection was the gift of a rare book

collector. In addition to Revolutionary War era books, pamphlets and manuscripts, they have

such things as a 1494 copy of the Nuremburg

Chronicle, some of George Washington's Mount Vernon account books and personal

library, and a notebook containing documents

signed by every king and queen of England

since Henry II.) San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park has a large library and historic documents

collection which covers U.S. maritime history of both coasts. NPS Historical Collections

• Located at Harpers Ferry Center

• NPS History Collection

• NPS Historic Graphics Collection > Thomas DuRant, Photoarchivist, NPS

Historic Graphics Collection > Phone: (304) 535-6707

> E-mail: tom_durant@nps.gov You have a handout from HFC Library which

describes these collections.

I do want to point out that our huge

photographic resource is the best collection anywhere on the National Park system before 1980.

Cultural Resources Bibliography

• Over 1 2,000 reports

• Archeology, architecture, history, ethnography, cultural landscapes, etc.

• Reports at HFC, WASO, parks, regions

• NTIS and Chadwyck-Healey

• ProCite database The CRBIB is an inventory of over 1 2,000

reports on park cultural resources. It was

developed in the early 1970s and initially included reports that were in the Washington

office headquarters (WASO) repository. It was

later expanded to include reports at the parks and regional offices. The original WASO

repository is now located at HFC and includes about 7,000 of the reports. Parks, regions and

the Park Historic Architecture Division, WASO

account for the remaining 5,000. Some of the reports are available through NTIS.

In 1985 a commercial firm, Chadwyck-Healey,

in agreement with NPS, placed the reports available at that time on microfiche and copies were made available to each park and region at no cost. The company still markets the

microfiche. The database, which is maintained in ProCite by the Park Historic Architecture Division, is available for search on the NPS intranet on

Reference Web Poster, a Web front-end for ProCite software.

139
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Natural Resources Bibliography

• NRBIB

• Natural resources information on NPS areas

• Searchable on the Web

• No repository - materials are at the parks

• More information: ^ www.nature.nps.gov/nrbib/ You have a one-page handout on the NRBIB.

Resource management staff in NPS identified bibliographies as a high priority. The need exists because this information is scattered, difficult to find, easily lost, and often not available anywhere else except at the parks where a lot of it was generated.

Unlike the CRBIB, there is no repository. The

reports and other materials are all located at the parks or regional offices. There is a Web site available to the public which provides more information and also allows you to search the bibliography. NPS Technical Information Center

• The Technical Information Center (TIC) is the central repository for planning, design, and construction documents for the National Park Service

• More information: www.nps.gov/dsc/tic You also have a handout on the TIC which

gives you the salient facts about its history. That handout is also reproduced at: < www.nps.gov/dsc/tic/tichist.html >

.

TIC Collections

• 700,000 drawings and maps

• 85,000 technical reports

• 2,000 aerial photographs

• 300,000 photographs & slides

• videos The important thing to remember about the TIC

is the breadth and depth of the collection.

I mentioned the CRBIB and the ChadwyckHealey microfiche. Keep in mind that all of the drawings and reports in TIC have been

microfilmed. The drawings and maps are

stored on 35mm chips on aperture cards which

are the old IBM cards with windows that hold

pieces of microfilm. The reports are on

microfiche. The numbers are impressive. The reports include cultural reports, like those in the CRBIB, some natural reports, like those in the NRBIB, management reports, like master plans, general management plans, etc., and infra- structure reports, like bridge inspections, etc. The overwhelming majority of the reports are NPS-produced. The TIC also provides copies

of these products for a very reasonable cost.

I should also mention that the HFC Library, which holds the CRBIB repository, also has

microfiche copies of the 80,000 TIC reports, and also has its own circulating collection of about 6,000 NPS reports. A lot of overlap among all these collections of reports is inevitable, but there are still many

reports unique to one collection or another. The Amoeba Project

Internet access to TIC Database

Listings of drawings, reports, etc. Image enhanced for browsing

Download files for easy printing Online ordering

Electronic submittal of new files

140
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

The Amoeba project is the TIC's method of bringing its collections to the NPS and the public over the Web. As of right now, it is only available to the NPS domain, but plans include placing it as a link on the NPS public

Web site.

''Dead" Libraries of the NPS

• Recreated and restored libraries

• Some examples > Frederick Douglass NHS

> Carl Sandburg NHS

> Eisenhower NHS

> Edison NHS

Before I leave you, I want to tell you about an

interesting category of library which is widespread in the National Park System: what I refer to, tongue in cheek, as the "dead" library. As you know, a library is like a living organism

- it grows and gives off waste. When it stops doing these things, it dies, it gets frozen in time. There are several significant examples of "dead" libraries in the National Park System. They are found in historically restored

structures - like Carl Sandburg's home in North

Carolina, President Eisenhower's home in Gettysburg, Frederick Douglass' home in Washington, Thomas Edison's labs in New

Jersey. These are libraries that these people

actually used, but that are now museum pieces.

I would be remiss if I didn't put in a plug for these sites and encourage you all to visit these

parks and the over 375 other areas in the National Park System.

Contacts Here are some names that you can contact for more information.

• Program Coordinator - Amalin Ferguson Phone: (415) 556-0238

E-mail: amalin_ferguson@nps.gov

• NPS Historical Collections, etc. - David Nathanson

Phone: (304) 535-6262

E-mail: david_nathanson@nps.gov

• TIC - Jannette Wesley

Phone: (303) 969-2130

E-mail: jannette_wesley@nps.gov

• NRBIB - Marilyn Ostergren Phone: (206) 220-4153

E-mai I : mari lyn_ostergren@nps.gov

Also:

• Thomas DuRant, Photoarchivist, NPS

Historic Graphics Collection Phone: (304) 535-6707

E-mail: tom_durant@nps.gov

141
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Disaster Planning for Libraries: Lessons from

California State University, Nortliridge

Mary M. Finley

California State University, Nortliridge Northridge, CA

In Northridge we learned that a university with

facilities for over 25,000 students can be changed in less than thirty seconds into a

university with no usable buildings, no

electrical power, no water, and no telephone

service. California State University, Northridge

(CSUN) is about a mile from the epicenter of the Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994

and the damage total for the campus stands at over 400 million dollars. The earthquake

happened at 4:31 a.m. on a holiday during semester break, so only a few people were in university buildings during the quake.

Fortunately, no one was seriously injured on

campus. All of the buildings on campus were damaged, some beyond repair. When the extent of the damage caused at the

university was clear, a decision was made to establish alternative classrooms and offices using hundreds of temporary structures located on lawns, athletic fields, and parking lots. Classes began four weeks after the quake, just two weeks later than originally planned. The Delmar T. Oviatt Library was closed for almost eight months due to structural damage.

Images that illustrate earthquake damage to the Oviatt Library are available on the internet at < http://library.csun.edu/mfinley/quake.html >

.

Two wings of the library building were

eventually torn down and are still being

rebuilt. How did we provide library services without our library building or access to our collection? During the spring 1 994 semester, our students used other libraries. Instructional packets

about cooperating libraries were prepared and

distributed to students. A shuttle bus service was provided between our campus and UCLA,

the nearest large university. Our reference

librarians worked at other libraries to help

lighten the workload created there by the

influx of additional users. A toll-free telephone number was set up for database access; Lexis- Nexis, CARL Uncover, and FirstSearch were

available to all CSUN students and faculty who

had computers. Operating out of a trailer, our library became a

test site for document delivery. They built two dome structures and renovated an old fairgrounds exhibition building as temporary

library space. These opened four months after the quake. Some of our employees and

collections have endured being in temporary

facilities for over five years. What happened to government documents

while this larger drama unfolded? For several months documents shipments were processed

at staff members' homes. We were not allowed into our offices in the library to

retrieve what we needed until two months after the quake.

Fortunately, a department chair was able to salvage one vital notebook for us when she was in the building as part of a damage

evaluation team. The Government Printing Office sent us a copy of our selection profile and other paperwork. We bought some

essential supplies and coped as best we could. We had to do things like walking to a specific place each morning and waiting for up to an

142
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

hour for the UPS truck to appear so that we

could receive our packages. Then we'd go to a

different location to get our mail and yet another place to get packages from other

shippers. This, of course, was after we figured out where the packages were being delivered and that we needed to be there when they

arrived if we wanted to keep them out of

storage. Our Government Documents unit got computers and temporary office space in May

1 994, four months after the earthquake. At the end of August, the documents unit moved back

into the Oviatt Library. We spent another very

difficult year as we coped with a variety of problems and backlogs. Recovery from the

scale of disaster we experienced requires years

of work, but planning in advance of a disaster can improve recovery. Examples of disaster planning done before the quake The most expensive planning done by our

library before the quake involved building construction and shelving. The Oviatt Library has three parts: the large original core building

built in the 1 970's, and two wings that add

another 90,000 square feet and a storage

facility. The wings were built in the early

1 990's, one wing on the east side and the other on the west. The Oviatt wings were

deliberately constructed in a different manner

than the core to be more earthquake resistant

(steel frame versus reinforced concrete).

Unfortunately, this did not turn out as planned.

Instead, the Northridge Earthquake gave the engineers an education about steel frame

buildings. The older core had damage which

engineers expected because of the code

standards in effect at the time it was

constructed. This included structural damage

to concrete, damage to drywall, and damage to nonstructural elements like ceiling tiles. A

table collapsed in the Reference Room. Some

asbestos contamination occurred. Plus, of

course, almost all of the books fell off the shelves and offices were a mess. There was damage to the roof and windows where the wings and core building met, but that had been

expected. The engineers thought at first that the wings, as planned, had escaped serious damage. Several weeks later they discovered that the 4-story high girders in the wings were no longer

fastened to their respective foundations; most

of the four-inch thick steel base plates had

cracked where the girders fastened into the foundation. After three years of figuring out how to fix the wings, at the point when

contractors were preparing to bid on the

repairs, the slope of the floors was checked

again. The engineers discovered that the slope

of the floors was increasing and the unstable wings might collapse. So, add another year to our recovery for demolition of the wings and a couple more years for design and construction

of new wings. We hope to move into them by

the end of 1999. While this experience can be summed up as "the engineers were wrong,"

nonetheless the attempt to have an earthquake

resistant library building was an appropriate

action for the library to have undertaken in advance. Another thing done ahead of time was to reinforce and brace library shelving to meet the

latest shelving standards. This was expensive and inconvenient, but we did it anyway. Why

did we worry about making the wings more

quake resistant and bracing shelving? The

answer is the San Fernando Earthquake of 1971, whose epicenter was about twenty-five miles from our campus. Our shelving in an

earlier library building had been damaged by

that quake. This time the shelving survived the quake intact. This saved money and time in our recovery. Approximately 600,000 volumes

had fallen off the shelves, but we had shelves

to place books on when they were picked up

off the floor.

143
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

We also had what we call our "earthquake book", a record of what call numbers should be shelved where, section by section, in our main collection. This represented another

lesson learned from the earlier San Fernando

Earthquake and greatly simplified the task of

getting books back on the shelves with minimal shifts required as they were shelved. We knew about the potential of water damage

and acted to limit its effect. We had rain damage from roof leaks after the quake. Damp

books were packed and sent for freeze drying. One of our library's most unique features is the Automated Storage and Retrieval System

(ASRS). Located in the basement of the east wing, the ASRS is designed to store low-use volumes and provide access to them through

robotic warehousing technology linked to the

library's online catalog. The storage facility survived the quake undamaged, so when the

east wing was demolished, it was taken down

to the ASRS level and is being rebuilt over the ASRS. During this process we have had water damage in the ASRS because the fail-safe temporary roofing system failed. We are currently checking 500,000 volumes in the ASRS for water damage and mold. Ironically, more books have been destroyed by the water damage during reconstruction than by the earthquake. After the quake some 1 5,000- 20,000 books had to be rebound, but only a small number were damaged beyond repair. What should be learned from our library's experience?

Disaster planning and hazard mitigation can reduce damage and help a library recover more

quickly. However, there is always more to

learn. During the Northridge Earthquake, microform cabinets moved, fell over, and opened despite self-locking drawers. Out of 148 microform cabinets, fewer than ten escaped without damage. Approximately half of the cabinets (70) had to be replaced due to damage which rendered them unusable. We

had some piggyback microfilm cabinets to use

floor space more efficiently. Almost all of these piggyback cabinets became airborne during the earthquake, despite having been

purchased to fit the cabinets that they were mounted on and having been bolted to both

the wall and the base cabinets. In addition, the

self-locking mechanism failed on many

microfiche cabinets designed to allow only one

drawer to open at a time, thereby permitting all the drawers to come open. Cabinets with drawer latches also came open, but each latch had to fail separately. Think about the space between rows of cabinets when you plan microform areas. Before the quake, the aisles in our Microform Room were more than wide enough for wheelchair access when cabinet drawers on

both sides were open. However, after the cabinets moved during the quake and the drawers opened, there was little room left between the rows of cabinets for people. Anyone caught between the rows of cabinets

or in the way of the airborne piggyback

cabinets at the time of the quake could have been killed or very seriously injured. It is clear

that libraries need to find ways to make

microform areas safer during earthquakes. There are three additional suggestions relevant

to disaster planning that I want to discuss. Lists of examples and actions for each of these

points are included.

First, remember that stuff is just stuff—and I say

that with a full understanding that libraries collect and protect stuff and act like stuff is important. But stuff is still just stuff. Plan first for the safety of people. Practice evacuation

techniques until they are habits. Learn to practice hazard mitigation as a way of life.

Actions:

• Have your building evaluated by a

structural engineer, get recommendations

of what should be strengthened or changed

144
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

to bring the building up to or beyond

current code requirements, then find the money, and make those changes.

• If your library has lead paint or asbestos containing materials, abate them. If they

are present in your library at the time of a

disaster and are exposed, they will be a health risk to all and you could lose your

collection due to contamination.

• Read the books that tell you how to make

your workplace safer through hazard

mitigation and follow the suggestions

given. Shelving should be properly bolted and reinforced. Bolt high furniture and

cabinets in place with L-brackets. Keep

aisles and space under tables clear. Secure

lighting fixtures and suspended ceilings.

• Change procedures to incorporate safety,

i.e. the purchase order for a new cabinet

for your office should also generate a work

order to bolt the cabinet to the wall when it is delivered.

• Each employee should be prepared for an emergency. Have emergency supplies

readily available: flashlights, hard hats, work gloves, safety gloves, dust masks, packaged water, first aid kits.

• Practice evacuating your building. Afterwards, talk about what you can

improve. Such details may include having

portable automatic lights in all offices (the kind that plug in and turn on automatically

when the power goes off, at which time

they can be removed and function as a

flashlight). Wearing a hard hat that says "Emergency Team" conveys visual authority to convince the unwilling or frightened to follow your instructions. Carry a pencil and paper so that you can

write down information for emergency

personnel such as the location of people

injured or trapped by debris.

Develop a disaster plan to deal with

catastrophic damage as well as smaller-scale emergencies. We had done some planning in advance, but we did not have a comprehensive

disaster plan. We had not planned for the

possibility of losing the library building and the

entire collection. We should have. Our experience certainly makes it clear that you should keep copies of key documentation up to date and store at least one copy off site. Until the Northridge Earthquake, even the

scientists did not know that we were sitting right on top of a thrust fault that could cause a 6.7 magnitude earthquake, but unexpected and unwelcome are hallmarks of the events we call disasters. Examples of key documentation

include:

• Library's disaster plan

• Salvage priorities

• An "earthquake book" that records the

library's stack arrangement (what files where) for all collections, including microform

• Accurate floor plans

• Lists of key equipment and vendor

addresses

• A list of professional movers and freeze- drying firms

• Phone numbers of other libraries, professional associations, and the Government Printing Office contacts for depository libraries

• Lists of employees and contact information

for them

• Library statistics to provide data for insurers or agencies such as FEMA

145
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

• Vital computer data files and

documentation on what computer

configuration and programs are necessary

to run the files

• Account numbers, passwords, and similar

practical details

Plan for service continuity and recovery just as the commercial world plans for business

continuity after a disaster. A number of points

that should be considered are listed below.

• How can effective library work teams be

set up to make decisions and communicate

information?

• How will the library quickly obtain the

services of structural engineers or other

experts to assess the physical safety of the building so library workers can reenter the building if the building is safe to occupy? Does the library need advance contingency

contracts with various experts?

• Where will the money to do whatever is necessary come from and how long will it take to get the funds?

• Does the library have insurance that covers

the disaster? Will the library rely on the Federal Emergency Management

Administration for part of the funds needed?

• What kind of documentation of the

disaster's effects and the cost of repairs/replacement will be necessary

before the mess can be cleaned up? How

will the library provide this documentation?

(At California State University, Northridge,

damage to buildings was videotaped at least twice, with engineering and

construction experts present to accurately describe the damage; once before heavy

debris was cleaned up and again afterwards

to document damage that had been

concealed by debris.)

• Where will library employees work if the building is damaged?

• What equipment and supplies will be

necessary for the library to function and where can they be obtained?

• If the library building is unusable, where

will incoming subscriptions and items ordered before the disaster be processed and housed? How much space is needed

for this?

• Where could the collection be moved if the

library building has structural damage?

• What parts of the collection are most vital to save or have accessible to users?

• What information must employees have to do their jobs? How and where is such

information backed up outside of the

library to ensure its availability after a

disaster?

• How will computer functions be restored, including both Internet access as well as

library catalog needs?

• If you have to institute a salvage operation

for water-damaged books in a building without electricity or running water, how

will you provide boxes and other salvage

materials for the books and emergency

lighting, drinking water, food, toilet

facilities, and gloves for the workers?

• If the cooperation of other libraries will be

required while the damaged library recovers, either to provide staffing or to allow access to their collections, are mutual

aid agreements in place before a disaster occurs?

• Is there sufficient staff to do the actions necessary for the recovery as well as to continue the library's regular functions?

146
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Where will additional workers be obtained and who will pay for them?

• If the use of volunteers is planned, have

appropriate legal waivers and written

training materials been developed to use with community volunteers?

• How can you help maintain staff morale in the midst of turmoil and disgusting conditions?

Please understand that a disaster can happen to your library and that the time it chooses to happen could be in the next minute. An

earthquake, hurricane, tornado, flood, fire, or explosion will not ask for your permission in advance. But you can choose to be well prepared. Think about what would make your

library a safer place to be during a disaster. Think about what you can do to make it easier

for your library to recover from a disaster. Many of the things you need to do in disaster planning are small steps, easily done by library employees if they are willing to change

procedures to enhance safety and to promote

service continuity. I hope that you will take

steps, however small they may be, to improve

disaster preparedness at your library. Comments and questions can be e-mailed to the author at mary.finley@csun.edu

Additional Reading

Academic Aftershocks. Northridge, CA:

California State University, Northridge, 1995.

Videocassette.

Bender, Sylvia. "Earthquake Damage to

Libraries." In The Northridge Earthquake of 17 January 1994. Special Publication 116, edited by Mary C. Woods and W. Ray Swiple, 219-

220. Sacramento, CA: California Department

of Conservation, Division of Mines and

Geology, 1995. CLA Earthquake Relief Grant Ad Hoc

Committee. Earthquake Preparedness Manual

for California Libraries. Sacramento, CA:

California Library Association, 1990.

Fierro, Eduardo A. Reducing the Risks of Nonstructural Earthquake Damage: A Practical Guide. 3'''ed. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Administration, 1994.

Fortson, Judith. Disaster Planning and

Recovery: A How to Do It Manual for Librarians and Archivists. New York: Neal- Schuman Publishers, 1992.

Hirschfeld, Susan Ellen and Lundholm, Gail. "Response and Recovery: The Lessons Learned

at California State University, Northridge." In Proceedings of the Third U.S.-japan Conference on Corporate Earthquake

Programs: November 5-7, 1996, College of

Engineering, San Jose State University, San

Jose, California, edited by Guna S. Selvaduray,

65-74. [College of Engineering, San Jose, CA,

and Tokyo, Japan: San Jose State Univ. and

Inst, of Socio-lnformation and Communications

Studies, Univ. of TokyoJ, 1997.

Rihal, Satwant S. and Gates, William E. "Performance and Behavior of Library Shelving and Storage Rack Systems during the 1994

Northridge Earthquake," Proceedings of Seminar on Seismic Design, Retrofit, and

Performance of Nonstructural Components,

January 22-23, 1998 San Francisco, California, ATC-29-1, 121-135. Redwood City, CA:

Applied Technology Council, 1998.

Shelton, John A. Manual of Recommended

Practice: Seismic Safety Standards for Library Shelving. Sacramento, CA: California State

Library; Office of the State Architect, 1990.

147
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

The Aftermath of the Flood at the Boston Public

Library: Lessons Learned

Gail Fithian

Boston Public Library Boston, MA

In this presentation I would like to describe what happened in the aftermath of the flood at the Boston Public Library, and tell a little bit about what library personnel learned from this event about disaster planning, preparedness, and recovery. Background The Boston Public Library is the regional, and

because we became a depository in 1885, we

have a large collection. Fortunately, only most

of the recent, that is, post-1960, documents were housed in the basement where the flood occurred. A few older materials were in the basement and were salvaged. The Boston Public Library drafted a disaster plan in 1 991 . I was one of four staff members

assigned to write it, so I am familiar with its organization and contents. The disaster plan which the committee drafted

is comparable in scope and coverage to those

of many other libraries. On paper, it is a good

plan, which addresses many of the consequences of a disaster situation. However, now that we have actually been through a

disaster, we can see that the plan fails to address some important considerations which

cost us precious time in dealing with the

flood's consequences. I will address some of these considerations later. The biggest problem with the library's disaster plan, though, was not its contents, but the fact that it was never formally adopted by library administrators. Most of its recommendations,

including the appointment and training of a

Disaster Action Team, were never implemented. The Disaster Action Team was to be made up

of administrators and staff members

representing all divisions of the library. It would implement many of the "start up" components of the plan, such as ordering emergency supplies and assembling the

supplies into portable kits, and gathering

salvage priorities lists from each department.

This team would meet from two to four times a year and would keep all department heads

appraised of its activities and initiatives. This team would revise the disaster plan as needed

and would distribute revisions to every department head. Team members would be

trained in disaster preparedness and recovery procedures in order to serve as resource people

in the event of a disaster. Without having such

a team in place, coping with the flood was made that much more difficult. The flood occurred on August 16, 1998,

shortly after midnight, which was very early on

a Sunday morning. A 42-inch water main

broke and three feet of water flowed rapidly

into the building. It filled up the basement area where most of the recent SuDocs collection and many of the patents were housed. The

force of the water buckled three rows of shelves where the water entered the building. Only two maintenance people were in the

building. We feel very fortunate that almost no

staff and none of the public were in the building at the time, because it is very possible

that lives could have been lost.

148
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Amount of Material Affected We estimate we lost about 350,000 paper GPO

documents; most of these were not sent to be

freeze-dried because treatment was determined

not to restore them to a usable condition. (Many of them were a pile of mush by the time

staff were able to enter the building). In other

cases recovering them would have significantly slowed down the clean up process. The fact that many of these documents were deemed to be fairly easily replaceable also influenced this decision. There were several hundred of the more valuable items which were sent out to be

freeze dried and many will be restored to the

collection. About a thousand documents are

still waiting to be rebound or recased, or in some cases, photocopied. About 3 million pieces of fiche were affected. This represents almost half of our collection of GPO, DOE, and commercial sets such as those published by CIS. The GPO diazo fiche fared much better than expected; some of it is in usable condition and will be reintegrated into the collection until replacements can be

obtained. The commercially produced sets, such as the CIS documents, did not fare well. They congealed into a huge mass and can now

only be used as doorstops. Of the 205 drawers of maps sent out to be

freeze-dried, most came back in very good

condition and only had to be cleaned.

Issues Affecting Response to the Flood

• The library is not insured. The city of Boston is self-insured with a $10 million deductible. We had no standard insurance

policy providing for business interruptionmeaning that requests for replacement of computers and other equipment sometimes

had to go through the city of Boston's standard procedure for equipment orders. We had to work without staff equipment

and some public computer workstations for much longer than we should have had to.

• Following Murphy's Law, the library's director was in Europe when the flood occurred and was unable to return promptly to Boston. The library's Chief

Financial Officer had been on the job for only two weeks. No one person was

assigned responsibility to coordinate

recovery efforts; instead, a team was

organized which operated somewhat

democratically. However, this team

approach led to confusion and

miscommunication and hindered the immediate cleanup efforts. While the library has a book conservator, who knows a lot about preservation of print materials, we have no preservation officer to coordinate things. Preservation experts were called in immediately, but they were

not always directing the cleanup efforts. Also following Murphy's Law, I was on a camping vacation and could not be

reached for a week, and another person who helped write the disaster plan was also away and was not contacted.

Instructions given to workers sometimes were contradicted by another person a few

hours later. In one case, hired cleanup

workers were told to move dry material out

with the wet; this order was later taken

back. In the confusion, microfiche was

also sent out to be freeze-dried with the

print materials, but it should have been air- dried.

• Since the library is a city department. City

Hall was also involved in making decisions about the cleanup and recovery process. With more groups involved in the decision making, each with its own priorities, it took

longer to negotiate the terms of the

contracts for moving and freeze-drying

materials. The city was obviously more

concerned about costs than were library

officials. City officials also tended to see

the library as a building, not as a service provider and a repository of materials.

149
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

• There also was a lack of communication to other institutions and companies about

urgent library needs right after the flood. What the affected departments really needed immediately were in-kind contributions such as PCs and printers. With so many print materials gone, we

really could have used a replacement for our LAN, and more workstations with

Internet access. While other library departments were quick to loan or donate some of this equipment, the library did not

actively seek donations from computer

manufacturers and others in a position to help us. The library did not capitalize on

public attention focused on the flood.

I'll mention a few of the good outcomes of the

flood. Of course there are not too many, but it helps me and the rest of the staff keep a perspective on the experience.

• No lives were lost and no one was injured.

• Even though some time was lost in boxing

the materials and sending them to be

freeze-dried, about thirty percent returned from the freezer in generally good

condition and could be returned to the shelves with minimal additional treatment. Freeze-drying and cleaning were the two

most common treatment methods for the flood damaged material. The paper documents and maps all responded well to freeze-drying. Many of the card files and

parts of the shelf list were air-dried, with good results.

• The Government Documents Department

had a salvage priority system already in effect before the flood. No valuable or rare materials such as the Serial Set were put

into the basement. Those materials were

housed on other floors or in special collections. For those materials in the basement, the Documents staff were very knowledgeable about which collections

needed to be saved first and acted quickly

to move those materials out.

• The staff at the BPL quickly mobilized to help those departments most affected by

the flood. There was a large team of people who understood what had to be done to save collections such as our large collection of CD-ROMs. In one instance,

staff formed an assembly line and quickly washed and dried our entire CD-ROM

collection. Through their efforts we were

able to save a lot of valuable electronic

material.

• The depository community was very

helpful and immediately responded with donations of material that we lost and with

reference assistance and help in filling ILL requests that we could not handle. The

emotional support we received was very

heartening and kept us going. I have

gotten to know people in the depository

community a little better.

• The disaster has in some ways given the

library the added incentive it needs to begin digitizing some of its collections. Digitization needed to be pursued as a means of preservation even before the

flood occurred. We are currently in the planning stages of digitizing a collection of flood-damaged state and local documents. Many of these documents were damaged

enough that returning them to the shelves

is problematic. These documents will hopefully be more accessible in scanned

format than they were in print. I am

hopeful that once we get our feet wet in the scanning business, it will be an overall benefit to the Government Documents

Department and to the library as an

institution.

• The fact that I was on vacation and could

not be reached immediately had its good

and bad points. I felt some guilt about the

fact that my colleagues had just seen much

150
J999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

of the collection destroyed. They then spent a week doing exhausting work before

I could be reached. In the long run, I wish

I could have been there to help the people

I work with. But I was glad I returned with

the energy needed to pick up where they

left off and direct the recovery effort. What We Have Learned and What We Will Do Differently We need to take every measure necessary to ensure that decisions can be made quickly and

in the best interests of the library. Measures to ensure this outcome include:

• Rewriting our new plan to establish a chain

of command and to assign responsibility for each aspect of the later recovery process to a specific staff member. Assigning a team

to make decisions before a disaster happens is effective, but it will not work in the immediate aftermath of a disaster.

• Putting into place a system for expeditious

cleanup and salvage of materials. We

learned that our original disaster plan would not have provided for the most

expeditious cleanup and recovery of damaged materials. We are currently looking into putting some of the disaster cleanup contractors on retainer, and to the extent possible, drawing up the basics of contracts before another catastrophe

occurs.

• We have learned in the most difficult and

painful way why library materials must not be stored in the basement! Even though many of the materials are not irreplaceable, putting them in a basement is not

acceptable. Several years ago when the building was renovated, a proposal was made to move documents into the basement. This proposal was opposed by

the person who was then the head of the documents department, for the very reason

that they would be vulnerable to water

damage. Unfortunately his advice was not taken and the library succumbed to the

pressure to find extra space for its growing

collections. The renovated basement gave

us lots of space with room to grow and met

most of the department's needs beautifully. However, no amount of renovation could change the fact that as a basement,

especially a basement in the Back Bay of Boston, it is very vulnerable to floods.

• Every staff member has now been "sold" on

the importance of adhering to a disaster plan. Having said this, we still need somehow to ensure that department heads and other key people are participating in an ongoing process to make the library less vulnerable to disasters. We also need a

preservation officer; but we have not hired one yet. The original disaster plan gave a lot of

responsibility to a few people, top

administrators and persons serving on the

Disaster Action Team. The responsibility

for planning and preparedness needs to be

spread around. This means making sure

that salvage priorities are updated when

needed, that the entire staff receives regular

training in disaster prevention and

preparedness, and that the general consciousness about disaster preparedness

is maintained, especially during the next few years when our institutional memory of the flood begins to fade. Every staff member needs to believe that his participation is crucial to preventing and/or coping with another disaster.

• As a public library we are a city entity. The

flood has made library staff more aware of

this fact. For years we operated to a large degree independently of the city, with our own Board of Trustees, but in the aftermath

of the flood, we lost some of our autonomy, possibly permanently. We now

realize will have to work more closely with

the city to make sure the elements of our

151
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

revised disaster plan will really work in the event of another disaster. We see this as our biggest challenge, because it involves changing the attitudes of people outside our own institution, who do not stand to

lose as much, but upon whom we must

rely for support. While most depositories are part of an academic library system and are not government agencies, it still makes sense to look at the whole picture and to know that other players will be involved in the recovery process at your library in the event a disaster happens. You need to know what their agendas and concerns might be in case they conflict with the mission and interests of your institution.

I would like to thank many people who helped

us during the cleanup and the ongoing

recovery, including the BPL staff, especially the

staff of the Science Reference and Documents

Departments, Betsey Anderson, who is the

senior documents reference librarian at BPL, Harvard College Library, Gordon College, the

University of Massachusetts at Amherst and many other depositories in Massachusetts,

Laura Saurs at Newark Public Library, Montclair State College Library, and Masako

Ohnuki at the Occidental College Library, who

sent us 550 cartons of GPO material. Sheila McGarr took time out of her vacation after the

flood happened, to come to Boston and cheer

us up. We could not have done without their help and the help of many others.

152
J 999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Disasters: Plans, Clean-up, and Recovery—

The Colorado State Experience

Fred C. Schmidt

Colorado State University Libraries Fort Collins, Colorado

On the evening of July 28, 1997, Colorado

State University's (CSU) Morgan Library sustained an unprecedented amount of damage

from a 500-year flood that resulted from rains west of the campus that measured between 10 and 14 inches. The flood inundated the basement of Morgan Library, covering some

462,500 volumes with 1 1 .5 feet of water.

Materials damaged included bound scientific journals in compact shelving, books, curriculum materials, current awareness

materials and various offices, including Gifts and Exchange and Bindery Preparation. In this case, government publications were spared damage (except for some 200 volumes

awaiting shipment to the bindery), as the

collection had just been shifted to the third and

fourth floors. The flood damaged some 30 buildings on campus, including the University's bookstore, which had its entire inventory for the fall semester destroyed. The Library sustained what is considered to be greatest amount of damage on record to an academic library caused by a natural disaster. To put this into perspective: Morgan Library had just completed a $20 million renovation and addition. As of this date, the total cost of the damage to the Library and its contents is expected to total some $75 million. The total cost of damage to the University (including the

Library) is expected to total approximately

$100 million, which is covered by the State of Colorado through self-insurance.

Disaster Recovery

Recovery efforts began the next morning as the

Libraries' disaster team (headed by Camila

Alire, Dean, Carmel Bush, Assistant Dean for Technical Services, and Diane Lunde,

Preservation Librarian) assembled to address immediate needs, including stabilizing the

building environment and pumping water out

of the basement. By the second day, the

University (which had a disaster plan in place,

as did the Library) hired Boss & Associates as the disaster recovery consultant that would

oversee the campus recovery effort (this firm

led the recovery efforts of the World Trade

Center bomb damage). Vendors were hired to

stabilize the building and to pack-out the

materials from the basement. The primary concern was the ultimate

salvageability of the collection. Standard procedure in salvaging wet books is to freeze

the materials within 48 to 72 hours to prevent

to the greatest extent possible mold damage.

Because the pack-out of damaged materials was such a gigantic task, which lasted fourteen days (336 hours), mold damage was evident on some volumes and on the building walls before

the materials were all transferred to refrigerated trucks for shipment to the contractor (Disaster Recovery Services (DRS), Fort Worth, Texas)

for freeze-drying and cleaning. Bill Boss, Ann

Siebert of the Library of Congress and Ms. Lunde visited this vendor to determine the

protocol for processing the materials. Each volume would be thawed and washed to remove dirt and to reshape the volume if

153
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

necessary. All materials would be refrozen and

freeze-dried before shipping back to the

Library.

In October 1997 the Libraries received a 100 + volume sample from DRS that went through

this process. The disaster team, the consultants and insurance representatives viewed this sample and concluded that 80% of the

materials would be salvageable and 20%

would be a total loss. Later estimates have concluded that the ratio of materials salvageable to total loss will be approximately

75%. to 25%. It should be noted that the

Libraries hopes to replace, in one form or another, all of the items that were lost. As soon as word of the disaster became known,

the Libraries received offers of gift materials to replace damaged items. Starting in November

1997, a processing plant established by Boss and Associates to begin processing materials returned became operational, initially using a

staff of some 250 non-library employees. At

that point, the plant began processing gifts resulting from an active gift solicitation process. A total of some 91 3,000 pieces were received from individuals, corporations, publishers and

libraries (ARL libraries, Colorado Alliance for Research Libraries, and other individual

libraries). To date, some 96,000 gift volumes

have been processed and shelved. Beginning

in the fall of 1998, the processing plant began

receiving damaged materials back from DRS. To date, some 70,000 volumes have been

received by the plant from DRS for repair and

rebinding. The first volumes of this group were

returned to the shelves this month.

Lessons Learned The following recommendations prepared by

Ms. Lunde could have application for

institutions faced with disasters, small or large:

1 . It is essential that each library has an up-to- date disaster plan and that the library rehearses the plan regularly. The CSU staff has handled various minor

disasters over the past few years, but had

never held a large-scale disaster drill. The

Library did have an up-to-date Disaster Plan Quick Reference Guide and a disaster manual.

2. The disaster plan must be adapted to meet

the scope of the disaster. Be flexible, as a disaster plan is a working document and should be enhanced and

reworked as required. CSU's disaster plan, while adequate for most disasters, was not

practical for the enormity of this particular event.

3. Along with the disaster plan, establish a

disaster team of staff from ALL AREAS of the libraries. The successful restoration of library services, including reference, circulation, and interlibrary loan, are all-important

activities in a major disaster.

All disaster team members must be knowledgeable about their disaster recovery duties and should have a copy of the latest version of the disaster plan at home as well as home phone numbers for

all their staff.

4. Know who all the non-library players are ahead of time. CSU has a campus-wide disaster plan that went into action the night of the flood, with

the CSU administration leading the disaster recovery effort.

Disaster preparedness is the key phrase. Knowing the many details before a disaster

will make disaster recovery easier if and

154
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

when it happens. For example, determine

the role of the library board of

directors/trustees and how the library fits into the governmental structure. Find out who owns the building in which the library

is located and who holds the insurance

policy. Every bit of knowledge helps tremendously so that the disaster team can go forward quickly without stopping to search for essential details when time is at a premium.

5. Know who and where the disaster recovery

resources are. Each library should have a basic "stash" of

disaster supplies located on-site. Consider

cooperative arrangements for the bulkier and more expensive supplies. Know the names of disaster vendors just in case the

disaster is beyond the scope of library staff members.

Conclusion The Libraries' recovery from this enormous

disaster is well on its way, due to a tremendous

effort on the part of all Library and University

staff, the existence of University and Libraries Disaster Plans, and the incredible response from the State of Colorado, libraries throughout

the country, corporations, publishers and

individuals.

For more information on this event, contact the University Web page, < http://www.colostate. edu/floodrecovery/> or the Libraries Web

page, < http://manta.library.colostate.edu/ water.html > . An extensive report of the flood can be found in the fall 1998 issue of Colorado

Libraries. In addition, the University Library has written an account of the disaster with an

extensive number of recommendations on how

to cope with large- scale disasters. It will be

published by Neal-Schuman in 1999.

155
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Disasters: Plans, Clean-up, and Recovery at

Stanford University Libraries

Joan Loftus

Stanford University Libraries Stanford, CA

Two natural disasters within the last 1 1 years at Stanford University damaged the campus

facilities and furniture/equipment, disrupted

services, stressed and relocated staff, and in the case of the '98 flood, damaged library materials.

Generally I have a memory of the extensive volunteer help we had during these disasters.

Staff were called on to work beyond their daily

responsibilities and many did so in poor work

environments. Faculty and students responded

with patience even though papers were coming

due. Local library staff were of great positive assistance, and staff and student volunteers made it possible to resume business in a shorter than expected time. We had over 400

student volunteers during the days following

the earthquake. Loma Prieta Earthquake, October, 1989

The Stanford University Campus appears to have a long history of natural disasters, the best known being the 1906 8.3 San Francisco earthquake, which happened on April 18"" at 5:13 a.m., and also struck and seriously damaged the Stanford campus. The 1906

quake lasted 47 seconds with violent shaking.

It was more powerful than the October 1 7, 1989 7.0 quake and released 10 times more

ground motion. The ground motion in the '89 quake was double that which was anticipated, but it caused far less destruction than was

wrought in 1906 when 2 persons were killed by falling chimneys, and the press reported the campus to be in total ruin.

There were no deaths and only minor injuries

in the '89 quake, despite there being a larger campus population and considering the hour of the quake. It hit at the end of the work day. While rumbling continued we left our places from under desks and door jambs and moved

out of the building through fallen glass. The

government documents staff met at the appointed place and counted heads. We were

all there. Generally, there was a variety of behavior in the library, both in leaving safely and in returning for possessions before safety had been assured, even though the library did provide a publication on what to do in the event of a major earthquake. The University had also distributed handouts, including

Emergency Preparedness for Students, Faculty,

Staff, and Visitors, with a section on

earthquakes, prepared by the Environmental

Health & Safety Office; the loose leaf Stanford

University Emergency Plans, prepared by the

Stanford University Emergency Preparedness

Planning Steering Committee, with sections for department additions, and an additional

publication. Are You Ready for an Earthquake?

In March, 1989, we also received a nine page memo listing assembly points for each library, earthquake behavior information, and a list of emergency supplies. Of the 50 buildings on the campus in 1906, one half could not be entered, and the campus came to an almost complete stand still until August of the same year. In 1989, 1,100

students were displaced mostly in residences, and 140 classes were canceled.

156
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Of the approximately 240 major buildings on

the present campus, 24 were closed

indefinitely and 34 had restricted access for periods. One half of the classrooms were

available by two days after the quake. It was

difficult to count the number of staff, as many

continued to work in other buildings or at home.

Leiand Stanford, an engineer, was aware of earthquake dangers and insisted that buildings

receive extra wide foundations as well as

careful construction methods. The campus

opened in 1891, and Leiand Stanford died in

1 893. Following his death, his wife, Jane, continued the building, but with less care regarding the engineering. Fourteen months

after Jane Stanford's death, all of the buildings she had had constructed were destroyed by the 1906 quake. Stanford's original buildings remained. The main library was destroyed but housed no books at the time. It sat on the present site of the Graduate School of Business, which was significantly damaged in 1989. Most of the shelving toppled, and three floors of the Graduate School of Business School were closed for a long period of time due to damage by leaking water pipes and asbestos problems. Although the San Andreas fault runs

across the Stanford Linear Accelerator, it and

the SLAC Library were undamaged. The Food

Research Institute Library was permanently

closed. The Stanford Law School Library basement stacks fell to the ground in a domino

fashion. These basement stacks were the only

stacks not braced at the time. The Hoover

Institution was undamaged except for wall

cracks. In 1 933, following the Long Beach,

California, quake, the State of California adopted a building code relating to seismic

safety for all access buildings built before

1 934. Stanford had upgraded many of its buildings based on a priorities list and had

established the Risk Assessment Program for evaluating the campus buildings.

By the late '50s, most upgrades were

completed, and as predicted, those buildings

supi/ived. Those not upgraded were seriously damaged. The upgrading for the present Green West or main library, built in 1919, included a

stack bracing completed a few months before

the '89 quake. Most of the campus libraries reopened for business within three days of the 1 989

earthquake. On Thursday the 19'^ when they were declared safe, they were staffed with

volunteers who with staff picked up more than 750,000 books which had been tossed from

the shelves. The main library (Green) reopened on Friday

the 20'^ following reshelving of some 350,000

books. Shelf reading was to follow months

later and required volunteer hours plus $38,000 of hourly labor for 6,000 sections. A

sample showed about 5% of the shelved books

out of place. All libraries depended on

volunteers, mostly staff members who added to

their own jobs, and many students. As of October 20'^ there were 400 student

volunteers. Students were positive, willing, and eager to help and continually asked what

needed to be done. The library at present includes old and new

sections connected. The new addition built in the seventies is earthquake safe, but the older

building is not, except for the stacks. Paradoxically, thousands of books were thrown

off the shelves in the new addition, but not in the original building. In some cases this may

have been because of the earthquake's

direction. The main library housed the Jonsson Library of Government Documents and the Technical

Services units on the first floor and the Special Collections Department on the upper floors. The Technical Sen/ices units were moved to

trailers with materials in several places for a

period. The Special Collections area was

permanently closed because of serious

157
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

damage. The services and staff were moved to another part of the library, using faculty office space. We depended on personal communications and did not use e-mail to any

extent. The Jonsson Library of Government

Documents was closed and did not open until after the Thanksgiving recess, but it was

destined to return to its old quarters eventually and then to a basement area of another

building. During this period there was no direct access

to the collections, but an interim

reference/referral desk was set up near the entrance in the new library. Referrals were made to other campus libraries, depository and

public libraries in the area, and to the

California State Library collections. We

provided signs and handouts with information and notified the libraries of our closing. These

libraries were extremely helpful to our community and in some cases loaned to our

students and faculty on site. For most of this time our collections were not available for paging because of building dangers. One of the interesting situations was the lack of awareness in the general public community

regarding the earthquake and flood damage to the libraries. There was a lack of patience in not being able to get information, although this community was also included in the paging

process. We did have delays in processing materials for some time, and space was very difficult. The

Jonsson Library reopened following the Thanksgiving recess in its old area with walls covered with knotty pine plywood, minus any

offices or an elevator. Stack entrances

consisted of small cuts in the wood. Student

shelvers had to carry the books to be reshelved up and town narrow stairs to the three stack

levels.

The stack upgrading in this building included a bracing lattice of heavy steel beams painted

red, which ties together all the shelves on each

floor. This lattice extends to the ground and is designed to keep shelves from toppling. If this work had not been done, 700,000 books would have been in a pile at the bottom of the basement, because the structure would not have held. Possibly water pipes would have

ruptured. Only two to three percent of books

fell off these shelves. The stack levels were

shared by government documents and the

special collections. The structural framework and reinforced concrete of the library appeared in good

condition, but the brick and hollow tiles were

shattered and dangerous in both staff room and

reading room. The offices were damaged and

permanently closed as was the elevator for the

three stack levels. Some of the microfiche

cabinets fell forward and drawers opened,

bending the drawer mechanism and dumping

the fiche on the floor. Eventually the cabinets were replaced with earthquake-proof drawers, and the fiche was refiled by Law School

student volunteers. The University has been self insured since 1985, when the commercial insurer canceled

the earthquake insurance. As of August, 1989,

the University had $3.4 million in earthquake

reserve and $3.6 million in property reserve for

fires and floods. Stanford University was

eligible for $5 million from the State of

California through a one quarter per cent sales

tax imposed on citizens until December 1990. The Federal Emergency Management

Administration (FEMA) paid for 75 percent of the assessed damage to the occupied campus

buildings, with the State of California making

up the difference. FEMA paid for bringing

buildings up to the building code, with the exception of two vacant buildings and the Memorial Church. There was a $160 million

in damages quote to bring up to code.

158
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Proper building construction is essential, stack/bookcase/cabinet bracing (anything over 4 feet) is essential, staff emergency

preparedness, including emergency reporting

lines and regular staff drills, are essential, and

collective team work following the quake is very helpful to lessen injury to people and damage to facilities.

El Nino Flood, February 1998

At the time of the El Nino flood, the Jonsson

Library of Government Documents was housed

in the basement of the Meyer Library as a result of the Loma Prieta earthquake. The Special Collections Department was also still housed in

its temporary quarters following extensive damage in its permanent quarters. It has taken

1 1 years to establish funding to rebuild the main library, and in October of this year it will open with services, materials, and staff in place

in the Green Research Library, which includes both the 1919 building and the 1976 building. Both buildings will have been retrofitted.

In the early hours of February 2-3 following the heavy El Nino winds and rain, the Stanford campus experienced serious floods in three of the library buildings-main, Meyer basement,

education, and music due to drains being unable to accept and move the water. The

water was forced through walls into the basement areas of these buildings. In the case

of the government documents Meyer basement

area, water came in from two directions. The floods are not new experiences for the Stanford libraries. There have been several water-related conditions which have caused

materials damage. The most dramatic flood came in 1978, when an 8 inch water main

broke in the middle of the night, causing

$300,000 in damage to 50,000 books in 24

minutes before it was turned off. Volunteers

pulled the books from water and mud and had

the books put into the Lockheed vacuum

chamber at Moffett Field where space suits were tested. This process worked, but many of

the water swollen books needed rebinding and

reflattening on their return. Following this flood, it took an equivalent of eight full-time people and a total of nine months to complete

repair following the freezing. In the '70s the Law Library had 7,000 books damaged by a water system, and in 1981 a water pipe burst to damage 5,000 doctoral dissertations in the main library basement. The El Nino flood dumped 3.7 inches of rain on the campus within 24 hours and damaged

75,000 books in the libraries. Sometime

between midnight and 1 :00 a.m. water burst through a wall separating the new library from

the old one now under construction. It appears

that the heavy rains caused the drains to overflow all over the campus. This water also entered basements in the music and education

buildings. The Music Library lost over 10,000 wet LP records. These libraries were closed for about a week and opened in various stages. These flood experiences may be some of the reasons that the Stanford Libraries have encouraged and supported such well trained, experienced, and dedicated staff in the areas of conservation and preservation. Their training, experience, planning, and organization skills were demonstrated in outstanding fashion during and following the El Nino flood. The

Preservation Department maintains and

actively updates on an established time schedule the Collections Emergency Response

Plan. From the time flooding was discovered, this plan went into action, by first calling those on

the Emergency Phone List in the manual and

then using the tree system to notify others. The

two disasters differed somewhat in that earthquakes mean initially looking out for personal safety as well as the safety of colleagues needing help, getting safely out of the building and doing a head count, providing

building security and inspection for possible re- entrance, resettling people and services in other areas if necessary, and planning for the

159
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

restoration of the facilities. Floods involving

library materials require fast action to get the

materials into some protection to avoid added damage like mold, drying out, or sticking together, etc., followed by planning for the

future handling of the materials. A generator providing power to the main

library was damaged and remained out for a week. Until replaced by temporary gas and

mobile generators, the library had no light or computers. This flood damaged the buildings, basement level furniture (not the computers),

carpets, and the moveable stacks as well as the

collections themselves. We have existed to this time with minimum

borrowed furniture, and the moveable shelving

will not be repaired. The microfilm housed on

these shelves was moved to another area of the

library. The carpet in the main library basement was soaked and removed. Faculty and graduate student study offices were

flooded, including their research if left on the

floor. These areas had to be repaired. Commercial cleaners were hired to remove

thick piles of mud and water from the floors, and new carpet was eventually laid in both basement areas.

All of the bottom shelves in the basements were removed, sent out for cleaning, and

returned. During the cleaning the stacks were

covered and taped with heavy plastic to keep

the materials cleaned. The government documents were all removed and cleaned, and

during this time the area was closed. A

reference operation was set up in the upper

levels with other activities like video, reserves, and student meeting areas. We brought

reference materials to the desk, paged several times a day, and never seemed to have the

right reference documents. The reference

service was very, very difficult, the staff worked

hard and were extremely helpful and patient, and the students were patient. During this time

dehumidifiers were kept on all hours so that the materials would not mold, etc.

Sometime between midnight and 2 a.m. people began responding to the call for helpinitially about 70 people, staff and students. Some had no idea of the depth of the water and waded in minus shoes. Early arrivals found about 8 inches of water around the bottom shelves in the basements. The early students called in replacements as they left for

classes, and in the first 15 hours 4,000 boxes of books and papers were packed and sent to cold

storage for freezing. Books need to be frozen

within the first 36 hours of water damage to prevent additional damage like mold. On arrival, teams were quickly in place to take

the books off the basement shelves and move

them by hand to the upper floor/lobby. At the top of the stairs empty book trucks waited to be

filled. Once filled, the trucks were moved to a box area where empty boxes waited. Books were put into the boxes-only one layer-and

stacked for pickup by another team which put them on the waiting trucks. The teamwork was

superb due in a large part to the conservation

staff who worked and managed at the same

time, keeping eyes on the moving process. A

separate team made up the flat boxes and

taped them so they could be filled faster. The boxes were numbered for identification for the various library stacks and the private papers from the study offices. In the government documents stacks the documents were moved

from the bottom shelves to upper level shelves

or taken by hand to upper stack levels. There was no elevator use. Damage on the bottom

shelves as well as bottom drawers of microfiche cabinets varied because of the uneven basement floor. The early volumes of the Congressional Serial Set shelved on the bottom shelves were damaged and were moved to the upper stack level, placed on end, and fans turned on them. The volumes dried

for several days and were then sent for special binding. Some remained water marked. There were 725 volumes bound for a total cost of $31,000. On return, these early volumes were

sent to Special Collections since the library also

160
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

has the volumes in microfiche. They were

beautifully bound and here is a sample. The bottom reference shelves got wet, but most

of the materials were salvaged, and also some

volumes were replaced with gifts from other depository libraries. We replaced 700 reels of microfilm and 140 inches of microfiche for a

total cost of $1 58,000. A lesson learned was

that there needs to be attention paid to microforms as well as to books in these

disasters. It is true that they can be replaced, but at a high cost because of vendor

replacement policies. These policies will often require replacing more microforms than

required by the library. Government Documents lost several years of several titles of microfiche filed in bottom

drawers. These were replaced or the records deleted depending on titles. For the most part the classification P and Z were damaged, as well as classifications in the sorting areas ready

to be shelved. Microfilm reels awaiting

shelving were also damaged.

Stanford lost a full collection of Army

Department regulations because they were

filed in cabinets. The bottom drawer materials were soaked, and the upper drawer materials quickly began to mold so were not retained. The microfiche in the government documents

area was placed in cold water tubs. The GPO

fiche survived well but was weeded or replaced, as there was a fear of a contamination of other fiche. All of the wet

silver halide had to be replaced, and all of the wet microfilm reels were replaced.

Stanford contracted with the company

Document Reprocessors to freeze and then dry damaged books, rather do the work in-house. The books were sent to a cold storage facility nearby and frozen. This process kept the frozen books on open shelves in a vacuum

chamber, which was then pumped to a low vacuum. When complete, the books were dry and stayed in the exact size and shape as when

they were frozen. If the books were swollen or warped before they were frozen, they came out

in the same shape. This company has developed and patented a version of the Thermaline Process which combines the freeze drying and pressing stages. The vacuum

chambers are operated at a higher pressure than that used by other freeze dry operators and are heated to 32 degrees Fahrenheit.

In this drying process the books are put between aluminum plates, held tightly in place, and compressed while they dry. This is a feature unique to the patented Thermoline

Process. The books emerge completely dry but no pressing is needed. They then re-humidify

naturally within a week. The cost is about six dollars to dry and clean each book.

Since most of the materials except for government documents had been barcoded,

the library created temporary "flood" records

for the materials sent to the freezer. Since we

did not know what went to the freezer, the staff identified the last barcode on the shelf above

the bottom shelf and the barcode volume on

the top shelf. The books in sort rooms awaiting

reshelving could not be identified. During this time interlibrary loans were used

for missing items. The books were returned in groups of 8,000, the number dried at a time. From April until June, the library received 8,000 checked out books per week. The shelf- ready were discharged and shelved. Those

books needing additional work were placed in a work area and reviewed by Preservation staff. The final statistics are: of the 75,000 books sent

for recovery, 2,432, or 3 percent, required commercial rebinding; 1 188, or 2 percent, required in house repair, and 400 volumes, or

1 percent, were beyond repair and were

withdrawn or in some cases replaced. The

library established a replacement account number for all materials. Some of the replacements are still in process, particularly

for foreign publications. Well-organized

161
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

preparation, caring staff, quick action, and many inside and outside volunteers allowed us

to save as many items as we did.

162
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Improving the Quality of Documents Reference

Service: Public Library of Cincinnati and

Hamilton County

]ohn W. Graham

Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County

Cincinnati, OH

Introduction - Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County

• Main Library & 42 Branches

• Separate Public Documents Department

• 12.8 Million Circulation, 1998

• Serve 850,000+ Users

• Increased Visibility & Accountability

Reference & Information Service Standards

• Developed with staff in 1997

• Introduced to all supervisors & staff in 1998

• 57-page booklet

• Cover both general philosophy and very

specific scenarios

Standards Overview

• Serve as training tool for new staff

• Serve as evaluation guidelines for new

performance management program, for example all patrons helped within an initial 5-minute period

• An aid for the Library "...to achieve an

equitable and consistently high level of reference and information service."

• General Guidelines

• 10 Standards of Public Service

• Define Levels of Assistance, including

Ready Reference to Instruction

• Time Limits and Number Constraints

Factors Which Affect Provision of Reference

Service

• Time Constraints

• Collection Constraints

• Legal Constraints

• Professional Constraints

• Ethical Constraints

Once-and-for-AII

• Trivia Questions

• Bar Bets

• Patrons on phone vs. in person

163
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

• Homework Questions

• Instruction vs. the Answer

• Names

Documents-Related

• Copyright Searches

• Interlibrary Loan - Nk)w Decentralized

• Legallnformation - "Library Staff cannot

interpret law or offer legal opinions or advice"

• Patent Information - PTDL Depository

• Tax Information and Forms

• Trademark Searches , ,V The Bottom Line

• Becoming uniform in system

• Additional emphasis through the evaluation process

• Very useful for training non-professional

public service staff

• Careful attention to Documents-related

issues

164
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Improving Quality of Documents Reference

Service

Lillie ]. Dyson

Maryland State Department of Education

Baltimore, MD

My purpose this morning is share with you what we've learned about improving reference performance.

For a long time as a profession we've been

guilty of giving half-right reference. Peter Hernon and Charles McClure in their April 15, 1986 Library Journal article titled, "Unobtrusive Reference Testing: the 55 Percent

Rule," proposed that reference staff in academic and public libraries, regardless of department, are only able to correctly answer

the factual and bibliographic questions they

receive about 55 percent of the time. Further,

in this article, they stated "for approximately 20

years now, the library community has been aware of the 55 percent accuracy rate, yet few

tangible ongoing strategies have been

developed to address this finding." A year earlier, in a Reference Quarterly article, Terry Crowley asked "what changes in library training, policy and practice can help us improve public service?" Maryland has attempted to address this problem and thanks

to the support and commitment of public

library directors and staff in Maryland public

libraries we now have a formula for improving

reference. Over a ten-year period, the Division of Library Development & Services (DLDS) at the Maryland State Department of Education conducted four separate massive (more than

1 1,000 questions) unobtrusive surveys. Each

of these surveys was designed to assess the

quality of reference service from the customer's

point of view. The premise of the study has

been that people expect, and deserve to

receive, complete and accurate answers to

their questions. From the results of the first survey in 1 983 to the completion of the fourth survey in 1 994, we were able to identify the need, discover what was wrong with the

process, and took steps which have

dramatically improved the quality of service people receive from Maryland public libraries. How did Maryland get started in looking at reference service from the customer's point of view? In 1981, several library administrators came to DLDS and asked for help in measuring

reference performance in their library. Using

the unobtrusive method developed by Dr. Terry Crowley and Dr. Thomas Childers, we

piloted the survey in five library systems. The

results of this pilot study created overwhelming

interest among other public library directors.

In 1983, DLDS conducted the first statewide reference/performance using the unobtrusive

observation methodology. The same 40

questions (20 walk-ins—20 telephone) were

asked in 60 branches of 22 public library systems, with a total of 2,400 questions. (Maryland has 24 public library systems.

Participation in the study was voluntary and two library systems chose not to participate.) We sought to answer two questions:

1) To what degree is a user likely to receive a correct answer to a "moderately difficult" question?

165
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

2) What levels of resources and kinds of

activities are most likely to lead to desired

levels of performance?

We learned three major things:

• The likelihood of a person getting a correct answer to a moderately difficult reference question (55% rule)

• Those factors traditionally thought to contribute to correct'answers (e.g., size of reference collection, size of staff, degree of busyness, length of time for conducting a

transaction, etc.) are not associated with

reference performance.

• Factors that contribute to improved

reference performance are basic communication behaviors that are within

the control of the individual librarian.

In addition to measuring to what degree correct answers were provided, we also investigated what librarians did as they attempted to answer

questions-that is, what behaviors they

exhibited. We then analyzed the data to discover which of these behaviors were

associated with providing correct answers.

After identifying the behaviors, we designed an

intensive three-day workshop and titled it, "Better Communication Equals Better Reference." More than two hundred library

staff members in fourteen public library systems were trained.

In order to determine the effects of the training a second statewide survey was conducted in the same sixty branches. The results of the second survey showed that librarians whom we

trained answered more than 77 percent of the questions correctly and those librarians who

were not trained by DLDS answered only 60

percent of the questions correctly. We now

had a pre-test, post-test design with a treatment group and a comparison group. Analysis of the

variables showed that the difference in performance was due to the training. Also, in

the library that performed the best, there was

strong anecdotal evidence of supervisory support for the use of the behaviors. Several of these libraries promoted the development of behavioral job descriptions, which included

the Model Reference Behaviors. We have conducted two other surveys since 1986. An objective in the Maryland Plan for

Libraries, 1986-1991, specifically addressed a

library's user's need to have a complete and

correct answer to his or her reference question and laid the foundation for a third state-wide

survey. In addition to investigating reference performance and the use of the Model

Reference Behaviors, an additional sun/ey

objective investigated the impact of training, peer coaching and activities which support the continued use of the behaviors. The 1994

survey corroborated findings from the three previous studies. The use of the Model

Reference Behaviors is very strongly correlated with good performance. The Training Our experience in working with staff who are responsible for answering reference questions

has shown that the primary reasons for providing incorrect answers are lack of skill in applying certain behaviors and the inability to apply these behaviors consistently on the job. The training design consists of three days with pre-workshop and interim assignments. The

three days are progressive, that is, each day

builds upon the day before and brings

participants to the point where they are ready

to return to their workplace with an improved

set of skills. The workshop is highly participative and has

three major components: self-awareness, simulation (practice) and transfer. These components produce far greater impact when

used together and designed as a whole than

training that does not include all three.

166
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

The practice sessions are meant to be as close

to real job situations as is possible in a workshop environment. Actual patron questions are used in the practice session and

participants are asked to play out the role of

librarian, patron, or observer.

I am certain that most of you would not find it surprising to know that a lot of training does

not transfer back to the job. We took this fact into consideration and decided to include four

strategies for the transfer of training when we

designed this workshop

• the model behaviors checklist

• action plans

• management coaching, and

• peer coaching The peer coaching strategy is the cornerstone

of the training. Peer coaching is a mutual

relationship in which two or more people

agree to help each other apply new skills. In learning new skills we often go through an awkward period where the skill does not yet

feel natural and may not bring the desired

results. A peer or co-worker as coach can

provide encouragement, reinforcement, and

support to assist the person in overcoming the discomfort of using the new skill. Peer coaching is not easy, but when applied

diligently, it contributes greatly to the

successful transfer of skills learned. Performance Improves

Overtime reference/information performance

has improved in Maryland public libraries. This is very evident when we compare the range of scores from the first survey to the

fourth. The lowest system score in 1994 was

higher that the highest system score in 1 983. The public library systems of Maryland worked

successfully over a decade to break the so- called 55% rule of reference accuracy. Our

users may not have noticed the difference but

the data indicates that there are real results and

sePv'ice is much improved and is more

consistent statewide. The work done in Maryland has served as a model to libraries throughout the nation, many of whom have

adopted these strategies for training and

customer service. The outcome of the reference/information performance improvement project is an

excellent example of the partnership and

shared vision between public libraries and a

state library agency. Using available resources,

librarians were able to work together to improve a very basic and essential service for their customers.

167
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Web Pages for Training and Reference

Kay Collins

University of California, Irvine

Irvine, CA

Background:

Location: Orange County is located in Southern California, south of Los Angeles,

north of San Diego and west of Riverside. Though often considered a county of wealthy

conservatives, the County government went

bankrupt a few years ago due to some bad

investments. Many public services, such as schools and libraries, felt the ensuing cutbacks.

Libraries: There are 2 large depositories in the county, California State University, Fullerton and University of California, Irvine (UCI). There are 5 much smaller depositories in libraries throughout the county. Two

Congressional districts are without a depository

at this time. The whole southern part of the county has no depository library, and many

users tend to come to UCI rather than their public libraries. They think of UCI as their large public library, which we are not. In the

last few years, libraries in the county have been working to get community users into their local

libraries first, with UCI being a second or third option. Development of business collections

in 3 public libraries has helped, but some

public school teachers still make inappropriate

assignments and encourage students to come

to the university library for research and/or primary source material. A cooperative system of referrals and some

increase in public library budgets has helped

improve the situation. However, Government

information still needed to be addressed as a

part of this countywide cooperation. The

advent of the Web, with all the increasing number of free government resources there, provided an opportunity for a type of

collaboration not available when the only choice was tangible documents. Training and

assistance for public library staff was one

missing ingredient.

Similar needs for Web pages: UCI Libraries has had a home page for several years. During

the past year, however, the whole staff worked

to create a major change in both content and

format for that Web site. Work was not complete when the new format was unveiled, and one of those areas under construction has been a guide on how to find government

information on the Web. The initial intent was

for this section to be most useful to UCI

students, faculty and reference staff. Our

reference staff has been requesting more help

with government Web resources, especially with the initiation of a shared reference desk.

I have also been involved with the School of

Social Ecology in the development of the Russian-American Cyberlibrary. One of the

areas we have wanted to improve was a guide

to finding free Web sites that contained quality resources. Thus, UCI reference staff, the public

librarians, Russian librarians and users of our Web site could all use a Web page to help them learn methods to locate resources. For

those who want it, a way to practice finding these resources is also made available.

• Plan: Eventually, it became obvious that I could combine several projects and use the various products in a variety of ways. Some editing would be needed for each

use, but the idea of consistently using the UCI Government Information home page

as the initial source to begin government

information searches was appealing. I

168
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

decided to create a workshop and mount it on my own home page to use as a draft. Experience and comments from users could

help provide insight into how to format and

improve the final product that will be added to the UCI Libraries home page. Procedures

Organizing. Library administrators from UCI

and Orange County Library System and one

large city library, Newport Beach, met and

agreed to the idea of workshops. Judy Horn, UCI Government Information Department

Head, and I were assigned the task of getting the team together and developing the workshops. We formed a team together with

librarians from public libraries. Teri Garza is in charge of training for the Orange County

Regional Library System. Jody Brewster, from

the Garden Grove Regional Library, joined the group as the representative of the largest public

library depository in the county. Susan Warren, from the Newport Beach Public

Library, represented the largest city library contingent. We had several meetings

discussing what should be presented, and how. The team worked very well together and I personally learned a great deal about these

libraries, their users and the services they perform. What I most wanted to know was

what kinds of questions they were asked to answer at their reference desks. This would be

useful in designing any workshop for their reference staff.

Introducing the project to public library staff. Judy Horn had prepared a PowerPoint

presentation, which she had recently used, for a variety of purposes to inform people of the types of government information available via the Web. We used this to go to meetings of

library staff organized by the public library members of the Team. The audience was

invariably amazed at how much was available

that they could use. What seemed to attract many of them was how many of the standard

reference tools were available via the Web.

Statistical Abstract of the United States and

Uniform Crime Reports were just two samples.

Combined with California Statistical Abstract and the Orange County Budget staff from small branches with little budget could see their access to quality information expanding. There was much enthusiasm for the project expressed from those sessions.

Planning the workshops. This proved the most

difficult part of the project. We spent too many

meetings discussing topics like how do these people who do not work daily with government information even recognize a reference question that could be answered by what is available on the Web. We did not want to create workshops that would, in the end, not be useful. What information would

be useful to them? Do they have enough

training in how to navigate the Web? What

type of equipment and how much of it do they have available? In the final analysis, this is how we proceeded and why:

• All the library systems were providing

training in how to use the Web, and there were a couple of workshops that included some government information. Thus, it would not be our job to provide any

training in how to search the Web. We just needed to be aware that the skill levels were broadly distributed.

• For real learning to take place, attendees needed to be able to each have a terminal

to use during the training sessions. We

wanted active participation. This meant

that for the Orange County Regional

Library System librarians, they would need

to come to UCI to utilize our teaching

facilities. Because of the lack of parking and available classrooms when classes are

in session, this meant scheduling classes during UCI's intersession.

• As for the curriculum, after many

discussions the group finally said, "You do

it. Then we can discuss details." The real

169
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

problem with this was 1 had a full schedule

that put it off a little longer. However, the

extra time allowed the librarians to become

more Web literate and to think about

questions they fielded over the desk that might be governmental in nature. At the same time, more and better equipment was

installed in some of the libraries for use with their public and affording them some

equipment to use for practice.

• Once the design was in place, we arranged

the first 2 workshops. Each was given in a 4-hour block. Individuals were required to sign up to make sure each attendee was

able to use a computer terminal. Each class was filled with 25 students.

Creating the Web pages About the same time we were developing the workshops, two other projects converged on my desk. It was very obvious that all three

projects had similar needs that might be met by

utilizing much the same Web pages.

2 parts of the Government Information home

page <www.lib.uci.edu/rrsc/gimain.html >

were not completed: Locating Government

Information on a Topic and Useful Databases and Searches. Our existing Web pages

addressed parts of those topics, but needed to be expanded and pulled together in one place

for the user. For use in the workshops, these were all placed together, rather than being

separated out. They will soon be added to the UCI Libraries Web pages. UCI Reference staff was requesting more help

locating information when an experienced GID

staff member was not working at the Reference

desk. The creation of a methods page seemed

to hold potential for this group as well. Librarians have expressed how much the

existing sites help, but they want more.

Additional training for them will come at a later date as well.

For the last few years I have been working with

Russian librarians. University of Moscow

students and other users to provide links to

useful free sites of information. We are at a

point when major revisions need to be made.

Librarians need resources that would help them

learn methods of locating information. We

want to add more sites with educational

information for librarians to the Russian- American Cyberlibrary <http://sun3.lib.uci. edu/racyberlib/>

.

Locating Government Information on a Topic was one of those areas designated "under

development." What we needed was a more

comprehensive guide for finding government

information to supplement the already developed pages, where users first went to the

level of governmental jurisdiction and then

clicked on specific topics. Once to this point, the user then had to select another way to find the information from the choices offered. It was the first cut at helping faculty, students and

Reference staff locate most used government

information and had met with some success. More was needed, however.

In looking for simplicity and in trying to create Web pages that would be helpful, I worked

with an idea I had thought about earlier. There

are similarities between a reference question

received at a public desk and types of questions people using the Web might have. These questions can vary from a request for a

specific title, to information on a broad or

specific topic, to just knowing that a specific agency has done some work on a problem and

the newspaper just mentioned it. So, you start with the information you have and use the method most suitable to that type of information. It may not make much difference who you are, the method used would be the same. The methods I used centered around the

phrase. Select a method to match the information you have. The methods offered

for selection are:

170
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

• FAQ's: Divided into broad subject areas, then specific questions asked and

answered. Takes a user right to a specific

site where the answer should be found.

Less frustrating than making other choices.

But, this method only covers selected

topics.

• By selected major topics and level of government: If the major topic (e.g., environment or statistics) is a match with

subjects on the Web page, then the user must select level of government. This links to existing Web pages created by subject at the different governmental jurisdiction

levels. The searchers may still have to do some searching of the listed sites to which

they are linked in order to find the answer.

• By broad subjects on major search sites: The first choice offered is INFOMINE

where level of government is not always as important as the subject is. After INFOMINE, then the choices are for various major search sites by level of government. User may have to make

choices and search on more than one site before finding the needed information.

• By search engines: Another way to search by subject. We suggest selected search engines that lend themselves to governmental searching. Also links to all major search engines, directories, and

meta-search sites are provided.

• By level of government: Linked to a combination of sites already collected on

the UCI Libraries Government Information home page and others such as at the University of Michigan. Many home pages

are formed around this concept.

• Finding full text Web publications: Many

people are looking for a specific title in Web format. Locating a place to look can be a challenge.

• Databases to identify publications and

information sources: Many of these are simply the Web version of bibliographic indexes that identify publications on

particular topics. Some link to full-text sources, many do not. Probably of more

use at the university and research level than

the small public library.

So, in summary, I developed Web pages that could be loaded onto the Government

Information home page and the Russian- American Cyberlibrary and could also be used

to help with the training of the public

librarians. With the training, I introduced the concept of beginning searches for government

information from the UCI Libraries home page,

trying to make it familiar and useful to them

through the workshops and beyond.

Additional pages were developed specifically

for the workshops and for later practice if someone wanted to practice or teach someone

else. The tools for self-training and helping

others would be available for workshop

participants and others such as other public

librarians or users of the Russian-American

Cyberlibrary. The first drafts were not placed on the UCI

Libraries home page. Instead I placed them on my Web pages to use with workshops and

discover those areas which would need

improvement. This proved to be a useful

strategy because I did find areas that need

changing or improving.

Creating the Workshops

Though it may sound obvious in retrospect, the

biggest hurdle we had to overcome was the

fact that we were not going to make these people experts in government information. That takes time. What we could do was

provide them with some of the methods and Web sites which government information

librarians use most. Then the largest decision was developing an educational process that we

171
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

hoped would maximize the learning experience for attendees. The basic principles

I applied were those we have found to work

fairly well at UCI:

• Each participant has access to a computer

terminal so that they can do searches and

put into practice what they are learning.

• There is both a Web page and printed handouts < http://sun3.lib.uci.edu/ "kcollins/workshopToc.html > for each

participant. Those include: > Workshop Outline > Locating Government Information > FAQ's about Government

Information > Evaluating Web Pages and Search Engines > Form for evaluation

• Topics used for the class are tried out by

the instructor prior to the class to make

sure they work and that the instructor is prepared for questions which might arise. The instructor can also prepare other

helpful remarks about searching specific Web sites. For instance, I explained about

patent searching and patent applications.

• Proceeding in stages, the instructor goes

through each method of locating information. Attendees are encouraged to use their terminals and follow along.

• Then, for each stage of the class, students

are given a topic to search. For these

classes, I suggested they each pick one of the topics supplied in the FAQ section and

use that same topic throughout the workshop. In this way they could compare

each method and site against the same

question. Attendees then use each method

to try to find the answer or some useful source of information.

• We discuss what they did or did not find, problems they encountered, etc., as they go

along. Because they did not all use the same site or same question, many key

points were made on how to search Web

pages and what may or may not be at the

site they searched.

• Make sure there is at least one break and, if possible, have people stand up and stretch periodically.

• Get them used to starting from a home

page, such as UCI's, to use as their "anchor" or home base. This had more of a

positive impact than I had anticipated. They felt more comfortable with a familiar

starting place.

• Provide them with information about some

of the sites or subjects that they would

never know without some help, e.g., for many subjects, there may be more than one site with the same answer.

• Provide them with information on how to evaluate Web pages and search engines

<http://sun3.lib.uci.edu/'kcollins/ evaluating.html > . Apply that throughout

the workshop through discussion and

providing a worksheet < http://sun3.lib.uci. edu/'kcollins/formevaluate.html > for participants' use with each search to help them note and evaluate what they find. This gently forces or assists participants to evaluate the method and the site.

First, I created the Web pages Locating Government Information <http://sun3.lib.uci. edu/'kcollins/locating.html > and FAQ's < http://sun3. lib. uci.edu/'kcollins/faqs. html >

.

They formed much of the basis and outline for the workshop that used the methods in place on the Web page. Then I developed the

principles and design for the workshops.

172
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

The Workshop Outline <http://sun3.lib.uci. edu/"kcollins/methods.html > was discussed at the beginning of the class so that they all understood what we would be doing, why we

would be doing it and how we would be doing

it. At the end of the workshop, I again stressed

that they could use the same information and

continue to practice with different topics. For

topics, they could either use the ones in the FAQ's which would reinforce comparison of

different methods and may help users repeat

visits to some sites, or, they could always use questions that came to them at the reference

desk. It also gave them a tool to use when

demonstrating to others how to find government information on the Web.

Follow up to Workshops

A follow-up workshop is planned at one of the

regularly scheduled training sessions held by

Orange County Regional Library staff. At that session, a computer and projector will be used

to answer questions which attendees may have encountered since the training session. They

can also provide information to their colleagues on what their experiences have

been. At the time this paper is being written, we have not yet finalized the time for that meeting. I anticipate learning a good deal about the session, its methods, results, etc.

Attendees were encouraged to send comments

on the workshop and the Web pages directly to me. The handouts and the Web pages

contained my address, phone number, FAX, and e-mail.

For assistance with difficult questions, I also

invited them to contact me or the UCI

reference desk staff. I encouraged them to first try their own depository librarian who attended one session. This is opening up a continuing

working relationship with these public service people. The best comment I received was

from a woman who said she has always been

afraid of, intimidated by, and avoided government publications and information. She

commented that after the workshop, she felt as though she had achieved a breakthrough. Government information was now a little more

understandable and she knew where to go if she needed further help.

Lessons learned, relearned or reaffirmed

• Plan and prepare ahead of time so you can

relax and enjoy the workshop

• When using a large computer lab, have someone available to "rove" around and

assist with computer glitches, help those who may have fallen behind, or, answer

questions.

• Go slowly enough that people can keep

up. Make sure they are up with you and

help those with a problem.

• Give attendees time to search on their own.

This is when discoveries often occur.

• If you are going to be coming back to the same site again and again during the workshop and it is not the browser "Home"

button, have everyone bookmark that site.

It makes the workshop go much more

smoothly. It can be removed at the end of the session if necessary.

• One person per computer was very

important. These groups wanted to search and learn. I soon found that as soon as they finished searching the assigned method or primary topic, they tried something else.

• Be willing to learn from your pupils. They

can be amazing.

• Encourage students to help each other.

• INFOMINE <http://infomine.ucr.edu/cgi- bin/w3-msql/search/govpubsearch.html> was a hit because the level of government was not always important to their choice

173
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

and they usually found what they wanted

faster through INFOMINE than with some

of the other ways they searched. It also located sites they had not found through

other means. The new improved version is even better than before.

• Selected search engines are sometimes

better than expected. For instance, when

using FAQ's we got right to the site for information on California propositions. Searching some of the other ways found

official sites and partial answers. Northern

Light went right to the best site first.

URL'S

This paper:

http://sun3.lib.uci.edu/" kcollins/dlcpaper.html Table of Contents for the workshop with links to all parts used:

http://sun3.lib.uci.edu/' kcollins/workshoptoc.

html UCI Government Information home page:

http://www.lib.uci.edu/rrsc/gimain.html

174
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Engaged Institutions: Using the Federal

Depository Library as a Community Service to

Address Regional Needs

Timothy Sutherland

Indiana University Nortliwest Gary, IN

Introduction: Moving Towards More Engaged

Libraries and Institutions

In February, 1999, the Kellogg Commission on

the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities issued a timely report, Returning to Our Roots: The Engaged Institution, which argues "we can

organize our institutions to serve both local and national needs in a more coherent and

effective way. We can and must do better." Federal depository libraries in academic and

other type of libraries have always existed to serve more than just on-campus, ivory tower,

or "scholarly" information needs, and therefore these specialized library government

information services can help lead the way to broader institutional engagement, towards

contributing more directly to an improved

quality of life for a defined geographic region. Background: Governmental Related Information and Data Needs in the Northwest

Indiana Region

In 1996, the government information librarian

at the Indiana University Northwest (lUN)

Library obtained university-wide "Strategic Directions Initiative" funding to create the Northwest Indiana Center for Data and

Analysis, in conjunction with the existing Federal depository library collection and

service. A needs survey documented the perception that professionals and organizations

in Northwest Indiana desired more specialized and value added information services in order

to make more effective use of the increasing

electronic access to governmental and related

statistical data. Existing data sources were

perceived not to be in a usable enough or

current enough form. And existing data

profiles organized around the State of Indiana

as a whole or the Chicagoland area were not

specific enough to describe the unique

characteristics of geographic entities in Northwest Indiana (e.g., neighborhoods,

communities, the region itself). Developing a Context for Change

Below are trends or events that have been

identified and applied to allow a specialized

library (the lUN Federal Government

depository collection and new Library Data

Center service) or a wider institution (the lU Northwest campus) to become more

responsive to the needs of the wider

geographic area from which the campus draws

its students and faculty (the Northwest Indiana

region).

• Professional Service vs. Community

Outreach/Public Service/Regional

Engagement

Service to the library profession at the state, national, and/or international level is very

important but must not become valued more

highly than or at the expense of effective and

important community and regional based

service and research. Service that applies a

librarian's or classroom faculty member's

teaching and research expertise to a

1;75
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

community problem, or issue, develops an

important and potentially fulfilling inter- relationship between the three faculty roles of teaching/performance, research/professional development, and service.

• Indiana University Regional Campus

Excellence Initiative

In 1998, the five lU regional campus

chancellors obtained funding for an initiative to investigate "best practices" of similar regional/urban area campuses throughout the United States. Six cross campus

faculty/administrator committees have examined excellence in six subject areas, including community and public service. Regional service and community outreach are

integral to a commuter university campus

because students and faculty usually live, work, and are parts of families and neighborhoods

near the campus, unlike residential campuses where students and sometimes even faculty may develop their own separate campus based communities.

• Community Service Inventories and

Institutional Economic Impact One way to analyze and better coordinate community service related activities is to survey and inventory all the current activities engaged in by faculty, staff, administrators, and

even students - activities that target/benefit the broader community. By inputting the data received into a database, the information can

then be sorted and retrieved in useful outputs

(by type of service, name of activity, person's name, university department involved, community sen^/ed, etc.). There are also accepted multiplier variables than can be

applied to various types of service activities which can become part of an assessment of the

dollar value (economic impact) an institution has on/brings to a community or region.

• "Engaged Institutions" and Related

Literature

In addition to the Engaged Institutions report

cited above, there are many additional reports, books, articles and Web sites on relevant topics such as service learning, problem based

learning, interactive teaching, civil society and

civic renewal, community based research, etc. (see attached bibliography).

• Seven Guiding Principles for Engagement The Kellogg Commission report outlines seven

principles or guiding characteristics that define an engaged institution: responsiveness, respect

for partners, academic neutrality, accessibility, integration, coordination, and resource

partnerships. The last of these is especially

critical since it is essential to obtain new

funding sources for creative initiatives, and

these sources can often only come by

identifying partner organizations with access to these resources.

• Act Locally, Think Globally While refocusing efforts locally and regionally

it is equally important not to become isolated or removed from the interconnected and more

globally defined issues that have community

impact. One way the Library Data Center has been able to focus attention to international impact on the community has been through a

contract with the local regional World Trade

Council to develop a survey and database of

local companies involved with trade and other

international activities.

• Student Enrollment, Retention, and Use of

Library and Information Services Any attempt to grow your user base for library and information related services will be

negatively impacted by decline in your

traditional service support areas. For a

university then that is (income) dependent on

attracting and retaining students, there must be

176
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

a positive return on efforts to become more

visible in broader communities. Service

learning is an example of involving students

directly in a "learning laboratory," effectively applying theory to practical problems and

helping students become interested in relevant learning and remaining lifelong learners. Many service learning classes relate well to

library use and instruction since competency

and problem based learning involves utilizing accurate information and data sources.

• Quality of Life/Livability Quotients

In its broadest sense, a university or public

library exists to maintain and improve quality of life. With lack of trust in most governmental

sectors, an often narrow focus on profit by

business, the existence of many fractured

families and communities, divisive religious bodies, etc., pressure is placed on educationrelated institutions to provide information, knowledge, and leadership to engage for community renewal and regional cooperation.

Libraries and university research expertise can

help measure quality of life and determine if it is improving.

• Sustainable Regional Planning Communities must stop duplicating services and address problems through broader

collaboration and cooperation. Long term

(sustainable) planning needs to replace short term expediencies and pressures. Needs for both economic development and

environmental quality must be addressed

together. Universities have the expertise to contribute to such planning and librarians as generalists are able to see the big picture solutions and to help bring together the facts to promote informed decision making.

"Future Library" Services, Activities, and Outcomes

With change so much a constant it is wise to approach innovation in libraries as a way to

bring what the future library will need to be as close to the present as is possible. Below are some ideas for implementing such a strategy.

• Customer "Obsession" With whatever information services are offered, there must be a component promoting

individualized service that provides at least a beginning measure of these services for free. A

service must produce a library customer who is satisfied and who has successfully obtained the information and data requested. The lUN

Depository Library and Data Center services provide government information for free as long as the need can be supplied in 1-2 hours

time and as long as the data required is not part of a "value-added" product.

• Distributed Information Literacy Instruction

Since it is desirable to empower library service

users to search for information and data on

their own, training workshops for groups and

organizations is another important service that should be provided and that is in current demand. Charging a fee for in-depth

instruction is an appropriate way of gaining income for providing the free customer service

listed above. Instruction can also be

distributed through technology means to areas throughout the region (workshops and sessions do not always need to be offered only at the

central campus).

• Access to Content and Collections

Information and data services are not

successful unless current, reliable, and

trustworthy information/data is either owned

by or accessible through the library providing

the service. Therefore libraries must continue

to invest in collections, subscriptions, and

online access while at the same time helping

devise effective gateway and subject access to

this vast amount of information content. In addition libraries must help evaluate

177
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

information resources wliile not

censoring/limiting varying points of view.

• Value Added Information Products Examples of value added information and data products are the following: customized and formated online literature searches,

assistance with actual grant writing, community and industry data profiles,

marketing analyses based on reliable data estimates and projections, workshops on various topics (such as how

to use tool software),

administering surveys and analyzing

results,

building databases,

visualizing data with spreadsheet

charts/graphics/presentation software, etc.

Since these requests require advanced skills and services perhaps not offered by the local private sector, it is appropriate to charge or seek funding to provide these services which

are not otherwise easily available. It is of course very necessary to separate fee services from those requests for Governmental

information which must and should be always be provided free to all regardless of ability to pay.

• Partnerships for Information and Referral When requests for information and services cannot be met by the library, it is very

beneficial to have developed partnerships with community and regional organizations, because you are then able to knowledgeably

refer the patron to the organization(s) that can

assist. Here is a list of some of the regional committees that the lUN Government

Information and Data Center librarian serves on

both to be of public service but also to provide

contacts for current/future funding and

partnership: lUN Community Outreach Partnership Regional Development Committee

lUN Community Resources Team

Northwest Indiana (NWI) Chapter of the American Society for Public Administration NWI Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Forum NWI Quality of Life Council Indicators Advisory Committee NWI Regional Planning Commission

Environmental Information Task Force NWI Winning Communities Economic

Development Committee, and NWI World Trade Council Database Committee.

Creative Information Services Management

Effective administration of any service or organization today relies on application of upto-date management practices. Below are some considerations to take into account when

attempting to increase services and outreach beyond the traditional boundaries:

• Freedom to Fail

Librarians and information specialists must be

willing to be risk takers. New ideas should be

tried. When experiments fail, and many do, simply move on, assessing each success and

failure along the way. Failure must be

expected in order to allow for real successes to emerge. Librarians with faculty status and

178
7999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

tenure protections can feel a little more

comfortable that risk-taking will likely not jeopardize their career.

• Constraints and Challenges

Academic libraries are often part of a public

higher education system that has each year

received a smaller percentage of state funding.

Libraries are support units and do not

traditionally bring in income like faculty teaching courses do (library budgets are therefore easier to cut). Urban campuses are

often not as easy to access and may have to

fight images of not being safe, a perception of

lesser quality programs, etc. At the same time,

universities are still seen by outsiders as

institutions with resources to bring to a community or region, not expecting to see the need to ask for outside funding in order to provide new services.

• Opportunities and Advantages

Universities and libraries have trust in society and are seen as a place where academic

neutrality helps ensure objectivity. New

services can often be priced reasonably using

existing space, taking advantage of campus/library open hours that include evenings and weekends, and the already strong customer service reputation that most libraries have already fostered.

• New Sources of Income and Funding

Outside funding can be obtained through

workshop training registration fees, "charging

by the hour," proposals and contracts, foundation and grant funding, corporate giving programs, state and Federal project funding

including overhead dollars that come to the campus, and matching dollar funds. Reallocation of time, avoiding duplication of

sen/ices, utilizing volunteers, etc., are also creative ways to allow existing resources to

stretch farther to support new endeavors.

• Avoiding Over-commitment and Stress

Librarians are usually already on 1 2-month

contracts, which means that taking on

additional responsibilities with new sen/ices can be quite stressful. Libraries are one of the

institutions that have typically not been able to discontinue or scale back traditional services

that have marginal benefit. Therefore one of the watchwords must be to "focus, focus, focus" on what is the most important. In addition libraries must plan and move quickly towards services that will be most needed in 5

years - this type of environment is stressful because so much in the future is unknown.

• Assessment and Evaluation Outcomes from existing and new outreach

services should by assessed in as many ways as

is possible - through evaluation forms, amount

of funding received, willingness to pay, repeat

users of service, the contribution to student and

faculty learning, etc.

Conclusion: Towards the Future Library The above presentation is an attempt to identify issues that will allow a specialized government

information and data library and the broader academic library organization to remodel itself for tomorrow's needs. In this paper and

presentation I have tried both to talk about

outreach sen/ices for libraries as a whole and

also to provide examples of how the government information and data sen^/ices at Indiana University Northwest have tried to incorporate these ideas to become more

effective. Anyone who would like to contact

the author to discuss further any of these ideas

is welcome to contact: Tim Sutherland

(219) 980-6946

Fax: (219) 980-6558

sutherland@indiana.edu

179
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Engaged Institutions Bibliography

Eberly, Don E. America's Promise: Civil Society and the Renewal of American Culture, Rowman and Littlefield, 1998

Building Community: Social Science in Action..., Philip Nyden, ed.. Pine Forge Press, 1997

Janorski, Thomas. Citizenship and Civil Society: A Framework of Rights and

Obligations..., Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998

Civil Society, Democracy, and Civic Renewal,

Robert K. Fullinwider, ed.. Rowan and

Littlefield, 1999

Keane, John. Civil Society: Old Images, New

Visions, Stanford Univ. Press, 1998

Colleges and Universities: Partners in Urban

Revitalization, U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, 1998, SuDocs# HH 1.2:C 68/3 "Community Service Requirements in Schools", in Issues and Controversies on File, December 25, 1998 Community Works: The Renewal of Civil Society in America, ed. by E.J. Dionne, Jr., Brookings Institution Press, 1998

Walshok, Mary Lindenstein. Knowledge

Without Boundaries: What America's Research

Universities Can Do for the Economy, the Workplace, and the Community, Jossey-Bass, 1995

Learn and Serve America, Corporation for National Service, <www.nationalservice.org>

Lifelong Learning Trends: A Profile of Continuing Higher Education, National

University Continuing Education Assn., 1994

Metropolitan Universities (quarterly periodical) Michigan Journal of Community Service

Learning, OCSL Press, 1994-

Mobilizing for Transformation: How Campuses

Are Preparing for the Knowledge Age, Donald M. Morris and James L. Morrison, eds., JosseyBass, 1997 New Regional University: Summary Report of the Workshop on Change and the Public Comprehensive University, August 3-10, 1996, Aspen Institute Program on Education in a Changing Society, 1997

Promoting Community Renewal through Civic

Literacy and Service Learning, Michael H.

Parsons, ed., Jossey-Bass, 1996

Lappe, Frances Moore. Quickening of America: Rebuilding Our Nation, Remaking Our Lives, Jossey-Bass, 1994

Returning to Our Roots: The Engaged

Institution, Kellogg Commission on the Future

of State and Land-Grant Universities

Lisman, C. David. Toward a Civil Society: Civic Literacy and Service Learning, Bergin and

Garvey, 1998

University of Illinois at Chicago Great Cities Program, <www.uic.edu/cuppa/gci>

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign East

St. Louis Action Research Project, <www.imlab.uiuc.edu/eslarp>

University of Michigan Center for Community

Service and Learning, 1024 Hill Street, Ann

Arbor, Ml, 48109-3310, Phone (734) 647-

7402, Internet < www.umich.edu/'mserve>

Using Active Learning in College Classes: A

Range of Options for Faculty, Tracey E. Sutherland, and Charles C. Bonwell, eds., Jossey-Bass, 1 996

180
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

How to Manipulate Federal Bulletin Board Files

Greta Boeringer

Pace University Law Library

Wliite Plains, NY

When I was an inspector, I visited a number of smaller depositories that I thought would

benefit from automating check-in procedures. Many of them did not have the budget to get

shelf-listing services from Autographies or Bernan. I felt sure that one could make a shelf

listing system using a database program and the electronic data that GPO was offering, and I would suggest that to them. But I wasn't sure exactly how. When I came to Pace University, I got the opportunity to try out my own idea. I had a serious problem to solve. The microfiche had

never been checked in. I knew that if I asked

my assistant to begin checking microfiche in to the paper shelf list she was maintaining, it would double or more than double her work. I didn't want to do that. I knew I had to come

up with a solution where she could do more

work in roughly the same amount of time. I had to increase her efficiency. My solution was to implement my idea of an automated shelf list using data from GPO freely available on the World Wide Web and

Microsoft Access software that was part of the Microsoft Office already on our computers. You can use whatever database software your

library already has access to.

Microsoft Access - [loc : Table]

: E3 Bis £cl)l Yiew Jisert Ffirrttat Becorcis lods fflinclow hND

1 «udocs<! m 1 tfSa and forme auionum bar j suporsesrfoB 1 weeding | sgentrv y iifln Agncullural Sla 1 OOOl-A 47/2 58/A

116

Agricultural Sta

4 Agriculture Dep^

3 0002

1X102 Agncullure Dec

Rural Telephons 0003

0004 A 75/2

7S Agriculture

Structural andHanF 5

5 1

000-1 0CC675 Agriculture Ir^for A/inual Report 0006-

C

0005- G

0006- H

A 93 43 Al 1/3 A1 138Outlook for U S

"Semiannual Re U S Oeparimer

910

11 0006-

H

0006-J

aoo5-j

93

1/4-2

1/5

Budget Estimat

"Report on USD

"Office of Inspec

12

13 _ : _

0005-J A 1^

2/12

2/11

15 i i 0006-

K

0005-

L

"Accomplishme 16

i 1 _

0006-

M

A 135 "Annual Report 18 0006-

N

A 1/4-3 19 0005-

P

137/2, USDA Photo Fe 20 C006-R 135 Ag in the Class 21 0006-S .2/13 Fiscal YearPr 22 0009

0010

9

2 Farmers' BuHeli General Publica "Agncullure Out

23

00 10-

A

25

1 n of 1051S

First, I downloaded the List of Classes into a

table. I added several fields to the List of Classes table, including an agency field and a supersession field. I had to key the data into

these two fields, but perhaps there is an

electronic way to do it I haven't thought of. The fields here are information that applies to each SuDocs stem.

181
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Secondly, I downloaded the Yes No list of items selected for my depository into another

table with only two fields. I linked these two

tables using the item number field.

Then I created a query that would select records from the List of Classes that match my

"Y" selections in the item list table. This

creates a sub-table just for my selections called LOC Query. ^Microsoft Access • [sheinist : Table]

le Edit Insert Fsrmat Records loois Mndow

uit|S<itloc8(B[ cutlar jtCcaial^ format data received I sorlat holdingjdocumgnt dati *

Rocord.

62 C 21 742 C 21 1517 C 21 2 559 C 21 2 1951 C 21 2 193B C 21 2

71 C21 28/2 741 C 21 28/2 1S5B C 21 28/2

15 C 21 3/2 542 C 21,5/4. 1D08 C 21 5 66 C 21 5 1559 C 3 134/5

18 C3 2S6/3 343 C 55 1/2 1B18 C 55 209

19 C 55 327 543 C 55 54

1845 C 55 54 238 C 55 54r~

T58/SUPF

UT 4

IN 3/4

IN 8/3

F 15

T 73/997

996/3

997/3

F 52/CD G5I/CD

H33/CD

About the PTO Paper Changes 10 Pat Papei A Guide to Film Papei

Information cent MF

The inventive thi MF

The Conference MF

The Conference MF

PTO strategic ir Paper

Project A3 Ma Paper

Tnlateral Statist Papei MF

Information Dire MF

Eanh System N

Global Precipita ;E5010 m|»*|

Alabama

of 1947

4/10/98 : 5/8/98 i 8/13/98 i 3/24/98 3/24/98

5/4/98 i 9/24/98 < 3/24/98 i 1/20/99 r 1/13/99 r 3/24fl8 5/4«8 i 10/28/98 r 3^4/98

3/24/98 (

3/24,98 10/7«8 r 3/24/98

3/24/98 c 10/21/98 r 3/24/98 ( 3/24/98 : 12/2«8 r 3/24/98 ;

3

996/3

December 1996 September 199)

)uly, 1996

Julj 1998

October, 1996

jgec 1991. 1992, 19?

quarterly, V 9 I September 19" ked 1995 to Dec. 1995 0 c. April 1985 to D, January. 1998

Next, I created a shelflist table that was linked

to the List of Classes table by the SuDocs stem. This shelflist table has the SuDocs stem, a Cutter field, and then fields for the LC number,

the title of the piece, format, date received,

notes, serial records, and the date of the

document. The way it works is that each SuDocs stem has one record in the List of Classes table and as many shelflist records as I need to record each

piece.

182
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

^Microsoft Access -[loc Query zSerect Query] BIq]

d fam jsupersessjon ^ j 'IP

I . J.I .>«!>l J.

\ Microsoft Access

I'09 EcSt ^ew insert Fgrmat Becofds Tools ii^ndow fcjeip _

AgrcuituieDepartmeni

|AgrcJlur5 Dectsons [stmannualj (PJ

! of 1773

J

183
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

A

The toughest part for me was setting up a form

that displayed these two tables. I will set forth how I did it, since it is not easy and is not

usually explained in the manuals.

I created a form for each of the tables-the List of Classes table and the shelflist table. Then I embedded the form for the shelflist table into

the form for the List of Classes table using the sub-form button from the toolbox. Another way to do it is to establish a "permanent

relationship" between the two tables using the

tools, and save it. The Wizard in Microsoft Access will list both tables so just select the

field in both tables for your form.

s&dcWns

184
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

I quickly realized that the form I had created in Microsoft Access would confuse my assistant. So I asked our technician to write me a Visual Basic interface that would allow her to check

in material without having to look at a confusing amount of data. He has created a version 2 for us now, incorporating

improvements we learned about through using

the database. As the assistant becomes more

familiar with the system, she does work with

the raw database for certain items and is increasingly comfortable in doing so. And I knew she would grow into it, I just didn't want

to confuse her on the front end. 1 include some examples of the interface searching by SuDocs stem. We also found that we had to locate items we had entered from time to time, so he set up a search function for that. So the elements of my system are the List of Classes table, which includes agency and

supersession data, as well as any other information that applies to the entire SuDocs

stem. A query is run using the Item Lister table and a subset of the List of Classes table displays

that contains only those items I select, a much

smaller table. Thirdly, a shelflist table is linked

to the List of Classes data by SuDocs stem and

contains all the data that applies only to that piece. My system is not the best for serials. Nevertheless, I have set up a serials field and do use it for some of them. Many are still checked in manually. Like I always say, do

what works: If the manual system works better (and we think it does) keep it. I think

ultimately that I would like to have all my

serials checked in to our Innopac system. They

already have figured out the whole serials problem and I feel that I would be reinventing

the wheel to redo that work. On the other hand, 1 do not have all my serials checked in to the Innopac and I may never have that. One little problem I had early on was with the

dates. I had Microsoft Access put in today's date for the check in date. What I didn't

realize is that that date would update itself each time the record was visited. One other

trick is that sometimes my assistant has trouble with items where the SuDocs stem ends other

than at the colon. The best thing to do is to keep a paper List of Classes handy and check what the SuDocs stem is for an item that doesn't come up. We will always need paper no matter how automated we get. So how is it working? My assistant is delighted with the system and has been able to keep up

with checking in all items in roughly the same amount of time it took her to maintain the card

shelflist for paper items only. (Admittedly, I have trimmed our selections). The time I save

her is: rolling the card into the typewriter and

filing the cards once they are done. But in addition she does not have to re-key the agency name, the title from the List of Classes, the item number, etc. All that information is automatically part of the record. All she has to add is the information pertinent to the

particular piece she is checking in, such as

date, title of the piece, the Cutter, etc.

I think this can be a low cost alternative for automating documents. I am hoping it will be

useful to smaller public libraries that want to automate but can't afford or justify Marcive or Autographies. I hope this idea will stimulate each of you to think about ways that current

free GPO resources can be used to lighten your

load and that of your staff.

185
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

How to Manipulate Federal Bulletin Board Files

James Mauldin

U.S. Government Printing Office Wasliington, DC

Topics About the System ^ Features

Statistics Examples

Background & History Users of the FBB

Helpful Hints & Plans FBBS User Support About the FBBS

• Accessible via: Telnet, FTP, WWW, or Modem

• Provides immediate, self-service access to Federal electronic information.

Participating Federal agencies add files remotely ensuring that their latest official information is available.

• Offers single files in a variety of formats

• A component of GPO Access, it existed

prior to the 1993 law (P.L. 103-40). Senate

report 103-27 incorporated it into GPO

Access. Background & History

. 1989 - Started under Project HERMES:

Supreme Court opinions placed online

• 1 992 - Reworked to deliver files for fee via the Federal Bulletin Board. Files were

priced based on file size. All users needed

a password and account approval.

• December 1 995 - All GPO Access products were made free to the public. November

1995, Internet access offered.

. May 1 996 - FBBS made available via the Web

Features

• Some agencies use it to meet Americans

with Disability Act (ADA) requirements.

(Example, MSPB Summaries)

• Provides modem access to all levels - supports speeds of 300 - 33,600 BPS

. Internet - FTP, Telnet, WWW

• Supports GPO Access with source files, sample questions and helpful hints

• Quick way to make information available

via the Web; can also be a secure way

Alternative way to meet employee needs, e.g., forwarding e-mail; file sharing

Who uses the FBBS?

Organizations and/or individuals who:

• Do not need (or do not have) real-time connectivity to the Internet (or a modem).

• Need a quick, inexpensive way to deliver

(or retrieve) a single, downloadable file

. Want e-mail capability

186
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

• Download files and exchange/or post messages. FBBS Customers

• General Public

• Federal Depository Libraries > Shipping Lists, List of Classes, Profiles Database

• GPO Internal Customers > Library Program Service (LPS)

• Client Agencies: > Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)

Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Top 20 Libraries, FY 1999

Library

Shiplist98 Shipl99

Shipl97 Mfiche98

Class

10. Paper99

12. Mfiche99

1 8. Separate98

Total 7,318

5,411 3,834

3,734 2,634

1,886 1,157

72

FBBS Usage Statistics Downloads by Fiscal Year

3rd 4th Qtr

C3tr

^FY99

FY98 FY97

FY96

1^' Qtr 2°" Qtr 3^"^ Qtr 4"^ Qtr FY99 35,660 30,361 0 0 FY98 28,052 43,033 48,680 44,560 FY97 23,397 40,467 52,200 42,651 FY96 10,325 12,954 18,045 19,196

Helpful Hints

• Contact the systems operator about problems with the system - connecting,

downloading, etc.

• Contact the agency representative or library operator with problems or questions about

file content

Access to the FBBS

• Dial-up: (202)512-1387

Settings: 8, N, 1 • Telnet: fedbbs.access.gpo.gov

• FTP: fedbbs.access.gpo.gov

• WWW: http://fedbbs.access.gpo.gov Main GPO Access Web Sites:

Refer to available online guides about adding helpers, readers, etc. to Web

browsers

GPO: <www.access.gpo.gov>

Su Docs: < www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs >

New software version offers an online keyword search capability

187
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Telnet or Dial-up Screen

Telnet Address: fedbbs.access.gpo.gov Modem Number: (202) 512-1 387 DHIZIiaEnimBQBBBil^HBBBB^^

Cite EdS ecmactwn- Sea* Scrfet ffl«T<Sow Helo .9MM{_M_.iMB^JlLMWgfJMM^-^^ „ I

THE FEDERAL BULLETIN BOARD from the U.S. Government Printing Office

A - GPO ACCESS Online Databases; Information

B - Commerce Business Daily [Information Only]

C - Congress and Legislative Agencies

D - Federal Register and CFR (Selected)

E - White House and Federal Agencies

F - United States Supreme Court Opinions & Orders

e - Miscellaneous File Areas

H General Information on the Government Printing Office

I - Federal Depository Library Information

J - General (List of Available Products, Email, etc.,)

S Search for a File by Name, Date, or Keyword

T - List Files Uploaded 18-HAR-98

X - EXIT (Logoff the Board) Please enter the selection of your choice:

J^amp^ttw j Num Caps i HdWj FBBS: FTP Screen FTP Address - ftp://fedbbs.access.gpo.gov

Eite few ^iew fio Communcata- tjejj Name Last modified Size

C) cbd/ 24-Feb-98 06: 36 class/ 24-Feb-98 06: 36

CJ congmisc/ 24-FGb-98 06: 36

Cl crime/ 24-Feb-98 06: 36 dll/ 26-Feb-98 11: 27 doj ada/ 26-Feb-98 11: 27 dts0198/ 24-Feb-98 06: 36 dts0298/ 24-Feb-98 15: 19 dts0398/ 17-Mar-98 14: 51 dts0498/ 24-Feb-98 06: 36 dts0598/ 24-Feb-98 06: 36 dts0698/ 24-Feb-98 06: 36 dts0798/ 24-Feb-98 06: 36 dts0898/ 24-Feb-98 06: 36 dts0998/ 24-Feb-98 06: 36 dtsl098/ 24-Feb-98 06: 36 D t ~r . _

J*". jOoauMntUora

2 4 - F.^,b-QR

188
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

FBBS Home Page URL - http://fedbbs.access.gpo.gov

i'he federal Biillelin Board

Online via GPO Access

White Hpuse Prqanlzatlons

Federal Aaencv Files

! OFAC SDN List, EPA Test Methods and Guid«llnes, Dally Doclslons

ury Statements, FLRA Congressional and Legislative Information

U.S. Supreme Court Opinions (1992-1998 Terms^

< FSS Information - Source and Help Files Cgmmsrgg BUSinesg PailV - Templates and Help Files Federal Depository Library Information - (includes Shipping Lists) View Alphabetical List of All File Libraries OR Download the User's Manual

0yfaxati-20Z<i2-i2a2

Wednesday. March 04, 1998

Federal Agency Files on the FBB URL - http://fedbbs.access.gpo.gov/agencies.htm

..tie £dit ^Ew Dimmuiteatty 1 i£ , -it a ift ^ ^ at S »«* rc„t^;. R.ia«i Horn. 5««ch tMt l»nri Federal Agencies Posting Files on the FBB

Cabinet Level Agencies

n SBrvicBs Food and DruQ Administration

jSodal Seg-irlty Admlnlstratign

of Transportation Z!C

>ederol Highway" AcrrTnlst-at on

Other Federal Agencies and Offices

Environmental PrgtettiOT Aqgncy CEPAj

F edprai Labor Relations Aurhoritv (Fl RA)

Internation al Trade Conimission ( ITC;)

f Support Teambylr

11-202-512 1530 or II

.^I3i5iai--^i--^i a^i!*id aifli mm\&\mm\

'.. f^^iT£^?.ii?HM,-,.,.l „.y„t??^,^?M Yml'M

"

^ FedGtai Agency 1.

189
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

FBB: Sample Agency Web Page URL - http://fedbbs.access.gpo.gov/oge01 .htm if ik ^ ^ ^ m

IS

The Federal BulleUn Board Online via GPO Access The U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE)

The U.S. Onict of Covcniment Ethlct (OGE) issues informal advisory letters and r and comply with conflict of interest, post-employment, standards of conduct, and flna branch. The OOE distributes information in 2 file blirarics on the Federal Bulletin Board. The 61e areas listed below arc: OGEAdvisory

Letters and Memoranda and Format Opinionsfor 1973-1995 and OGE Policy Memoranda - DAEOGRAMS. OGE Opinions OGE DAEOG rams"

Office of Government Ethics Home Page

l_regirdlng this stnrice? Co t the GPO Access User Support Team by Internet e-mail at qpoaccettaqpc.qoY: by telephone it (202) 512-1530 or toll free at (888) 293-6498; by fax at (202) 512-1262.

User Support

GPO Access User Support Team

Toll-free and local telephone:

• Local: (202) 512-1530

• Toll-free (888) 293-6498

• Fax:(202)512-1262

• E-mail: gpoaccess@gpo.gov

• Hours: 7 a.m. - 5 p.m., Monday-Friday,

excluding all Federal holidays

Summary

• A component of GPO Access (Public

Lav^ 1 03-40)

• Existed since 1 990 (prior to GPO Access)

• Systems Operator - Selene Dalecky,

(202) 512-1608

E-mail: sdalecky@gpo.gov

• LPS Library Operator - James Mauldin,

(202) 512-1698

E-mail: jmauldin@gpo.gov

• User Support - Provided by the GPO

Access User Support Team via e-mail (gpoaccess@gpo.gov), phone toll-free at (888) 293-6498 or local at (202) 512-

1530. Manipulating the Files Examples

Hints Exporting/Importing Data

Designing a database

• Before you use any software to actually build the tables, forms, and other objects

that will make up your database, it is important to take time and design your

database. A good database design is the keystone to creating a database that does what you want it to do effectively.

190
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Hints for Database

• Determine the purpose of your database

• Determine the tables you need in the database

• Determine the fields you need in the

tables

• Identify fields with unique values

• Determine the relationship between

tables

• Refine your design

• Add data and create other database

objects

Example - Creating a database Create field headings

191
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Headings for a List of Classes database

Importing the List of Classes into your database

192
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Retrieve the downloaded file

Import to newly created database

ui'www.f^y^l^ffllllllliiliiM III I I

193
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

194
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Select font & appearance

196
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Example of a shipping list label

Summary

• The files contained on the FBBS can be manipulated to provide local value added

services to each library or individual who

chooses to download these files.

Questions/Contacts

• James Mauldin (Publications Management

Specialist)

• Phone:(202)512-1698

• E-mail: jmauldin@gpo.gov

197
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

How to Manipulate Federal Bulletin Board Files

David ]. Nuzzo

State University of New York, Buffalo

Buffalo, NY

The Acquisitions Department at the University

at Buffalo took over processing of government documents in 1992. Vafious techniques were

used to automate processing in those early days, utilizing dBase ill and word processing.

In 1996, a QuickBasic program was created

that took scanned shipping lists, automatically checked them against the library's inclusion

list, and produced labels for those included

items. The University at Buffalo joined with

the University of Texas at Arlington (UTA) to make the matching programs and scanned

shipping list files available to all through the

Internet. Thus began the first official partnership between GPO and member

institutions for distribution of processing tools.

The site changed with the arrival of shipping

list data availability on the Federal Bulletin Board, and changed again when UTA chose to leave the partnership. The programs and files can now be found at: < http://ublib. buffalo. edu/libraries/units/cts/acq/gpo/>

.

The University also undertook a document

scanning initiative, wherein library staff take documents of general interest and scan them,

making the scanned images available through

the online catalog, and also through a "popular

index." Access is also provided to documents

that are already available in electronic form

from the agency if they fit the criteria. The

popular index can be found at: <http://ublib.

buffalo.edu/libraries/units/cts/acq/doctab. html>.

198
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Writing the Depository Self-Study

Gail Snider

U.S. Government Printing Office Wasiiington, DC

Steplien Henson

Louisiana Tech University Ruston, LA

Background

A recommendation from the spring 1994

meeting of the Depository Library Council

suggested the LPS (Library Programs Service) re-examine the depository inspection process. As part of this process, LPS developed a draft of a self-study to be used by depository libraries. Throughout 1995 and 1996, LPS asked libraries scheduled for inspection to complete the self- study report voluntarily. As part of the "Federal Depository Library Program Information Dissemination and Access Strategic Plan, FY

1 996 - FY 2001 ," LPS modified the focus of the inspection program. Under the re-directed program, inspectors would visit those libraries that satisfy at least one of four criteria:

• The library did not meet depository

standards established by GPO.

• The library had never been inspected.

• The library requested a site-visit from an

inspector.

• The library reported exemplary services or accomplishments, including a new

building.

In June 1996, LPS adopted the self-study instrument as an evaluation tool for use by

depository libraries. Each depository library

will submit a self-study report to LPS, which

will determine the libraries that will be

inspected. The basis for inspections is

specified in 44 U.S.C. §1909, which states that "the Superintendent of Documents shall make

firsthand investigation of conditions [in depository libraries] for which need is indicated."

In September 1996, LPS issued the Federal Depository Library Manual Supplement 3: Self- Study of a Federal Depository Library. A

revised version of this manual is available on

the FDLP Web site <www.access.gpo.gov

/su_docs/dpos/selfstud.html > . The Web

version is the official text of the self-study template and supersedes the printed manual.

In the preface to Supplement 3, LPS gives two

primary purposes for the self-study. The first is to give the documents librarian as well as the

library administration an opportunity to assess the library's compliance with Title 44, Chapter

19, and other GPO regulations in advance of an inspection visit to determine the library's compliance with Title 44, Chapter 19, and

other GPO regulations.

Secondly, the self-study report can help the documents staff and library administration determine how the library is addressing issues such as the collection development policy for documents, the library's compliance with ADA

standards, and public access to depository

material in print and electronic forms. Another use of the self-study can be to inform and educate library administrators, trustees.

199
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

city officials, or college administrators about

depository needs. The library can do a self-study at any time, not

just when requested by GPO. The self-study report can also be used for library or other

institution accreditation. The depository self-study is now an integral part of the inspection process. Each year, LPS

requests self-study reports from a group of depository libraries based on the date of the

last on-site inspection. In writing the self-study, librarians are faced with the challenging task of describing on paper the depository operation

in a library. Time Line for the Self-Study and Inspection The following time line gives the approximate sequence of the self-study and inspection

process.

• Immediate action. The documents librarian should begin gathering documentation and

drafting answers to the self-study.

• 6 months before the due date. Informal

notification and announcements at professional meetings and in Administrative Notes of depository libraries that will be

required to submit a self-study to GPO in the upcoming inspection - self-study cycle.

• 3 months before the due date. LPS

formally notifies libraries via a letter to the documents librarian to submit a self-study

report. .

• 3 weeks before the due date. The

documents librarian should finish drafting answers and begin editing the self-study

report.

• 2 weeks before the due date. The

documents librarian should finish editing the report and the library administrator should sign it.

• 1 week before the due date. Documents

librarian should mail the self-study report and addenda.

• Due date set by LPS. Libraries are notified

if a self-study was not received by GPO

from them.

• During the next 3-months, library inspectors group the self-studies by state and review them.

• 6 weeks before an on-site inspection. Depository library candidates for inspection and their Regional are notified and

inspection dates set.

• 4 weeks before an on-site inspection. The

documents librarian being inspected and

their Regional librarian will receive a report

titled "Self-Study Evaluation: Summary of Findings and Recommendations" with a confirmation letter and a copy of the pamphlet "How to Prepare for a Library Inspection."

• 4 weeks before on-site inspections of depositories in each state to 8 weeks after, documents coordinators and directors of each depository library not being inspected

in that state and their Regional librarian receive a report titled "Self-Study

Evaluation: Summary of Findings and Recommendations" and a letter confirming

they have passed GPO's inspection process based on their self-study.

• 6 to 8 weeks after an on-site inspection, the documents coordinator, library director, and the Regional librarian will receive a copy of the report titled "Inspection Report: Summary of Findings and Recommendations" based on their on-site inspection.

200
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Preparation

Generally, the LPS staff will give the documents librarian three months' notice to prepare the self-study. In the typical depository

library, the documents librarian will find that the initial self-study report will take longer than

three months to complete. Depending on

changes in the self-study format and the library, later self-studies may be completed faster.

A. Gather Documentation

Before writing the self-study, the documents

coordinator should gather documents that

relate to the depository operation.

• Previous inspection reports. If the depository has been inspected previously, these will indicate weaknesses as well as strengths previous inspectors have

identified. If previous inspection reports are missing from the depository's files, contact the Regional or LPS.

• Departmental or library annual reports. These can provide previously stated goals and list accomplishments. Annual reports may also include statistics.

• The library's collection development policy

for Federal Government documents. This important document should indicate which

subject areas the library collects and

provide a rationale for those decisions. Information about writing or revising the documents collection development policy

is presented in the Federal Depository

Library Manual Supplement: Collection Development Guidelines for Selective Federal Depository Libraries (September

1 994), < www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/

dpos/coldev.html >

.

• Policy and procedures manuals related to the depository operation processed.

• The library strategic plan. This should

describe the role that the depository

collection plays in the larger context of the

library as a whole.

• Other institutional documents, such as

library collection development policies or other publications that influence the documents collection.

B. Notify Appropriate Stakeholders Communication with appropriate stakeholders

is an important key to writing a good self-study.

• The library administration. Communicate

with the library's administration about the importance and implications of the self- study. Explain the procedure for the self- study. Enlist the administrator's support in the process. Explain that writing the self- study may take time away from other

activities.

• The documents support staff. These

individuals can contribute valuable knowledge of the self-study process. The

support staff may be able to write some

sections of the self-study.

• The Regionals. GPO will notify the Regionals about which libraries under their purview must turn in a self-study. The

Regional may have a workshop on writing

the self-study.

• Geographically proximate depositories. Generally LPS will request self-studies from most or all depositories in a state at the same time. Neighboring depositories can

provide collaborative assistance in writing

the self-study. E-mail is a good way for depositories to communicate about the self- study.

201
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

C. Set Deadlines and Meet Them

The prudent librarian will allow plenty of time

to do the self-study. The report will take longer than a week to write. Early in the drafting phase of the self-study, set a completion date

that is at least 2 weeks before the report is due

to LPS. After completing the draft of the report,

set it aside for a few days, then re-read it for omissions and inconsistencies. Try reading it from the viewpoint of someone who is not

familiar with the library's depository operation

or the depository staff. If possible, ask someone outside the library to read the report.

D. Check Computer Equipment

Writing the self-study report is a major

investment of time and energy for the documents librarian. Before writing the answers, the documents librarian should download the text of the current self-study questions from the FDLP Web site. If computer

equipment does not meet minimal technical standards, the depository may not be able to download it. Then the Regional can furnish a copy of the current self-study. Discard older

versions of the template to avoid confusion. Be

certain to have a secure copy of the report so no one, either library users or staff, can type over or inadvertently erase an only copy. Writing the Self-Study The process of writing the self-study calls on

the skills of technical writing: creating, designing, and transmitting technical information so that people can understand it easily and use it appropriately. (Markel, p. 2) While all of us write policies, procedures,

training manuals, and even self-studies, few of us have had formal training in technical

writing. Most of us learned by doing and by

making mistakes along the way. For those depository librarians faced with writing the self- study, we have some suggestions that we think

will facilitate the process for the librarian and

also improve the readability of the self-study

report.

A. Format The structure of the report is important. By

deciding in advance how the report will be laid out, the documents librarian can save time

later. The finished report should include the questions with the answers inserted. This format is easy to do using word processing

software Decide in advance on several factors:

• Font. A very small (8 point or less) or very

large (14 point or greater) font size is not

appropriate. The smaller font is difficult to read while the large font makes the report

larger than need be. A font of the same

size as the template (12 point) is ideal.

• White space. Create a visual difference between the questions and the answers on

the self-study report. Double space between the question and the answer to provide white space.

• Value. Another way to differentiate between the questions and answers is through the use of bold, italic, or regular

type. Consider using bold or italic type for the questions and regular type for the answers

B. Audience

Defining the audience will help shape the

report. Consider the audience for the self-study

report:

• The GPO inspection team. They will evaluate your report and determine if further information or action is needed. Because each inspector has worked in a depository library, he or she is familiar with

the best practices of depository

management. The inspectors will

202
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

recognize poor management techniques as well as attempts to obfuscate. In addition, the inspectors are reading dozens of self- study reports each year. The documents

librarian should have some compassion on

the inspectors and make the self-study as easy to understand as possible. The self-study supplants the on-site inspection

report for many depository libraries and will serve as a record of depository operations for that time period. It will go in the depository's

files at GPO and its Regional library and be a main reference tool for information on that

library.

• Library administrators and officials. Administrators, library's board members,

college or university officials, or others who use this and other similar reports from

institutions as a measurement of where

their institution is at the time.

• Documents department staff. The self- study report creates a snapshot of the department. The self-study can be a tool for learning about the department, and

refreshing knowledge about GPO

requirements. Each question has been

included in the self-study for a reason. The

writer may want to ask, "Why is this question here?" "Where is this topic addressed in depository literature?" before answering it.

C. Writing Style A well-written self-study will be clear, concise, and consistent.

• Clear. The reader must be able to understand the answers presented in the

report; therefore, the writer should present an answer that is clear, logical, and

unambiguous. Answers written in the

active voice tend to be clearer than those in the passive. Where possible, write the answers in the active voice. Local

acronyms and terms can confuse the

reader. Explain any acronyms or local terms to avoid confusion.

• Concise. The writer often has a difficult time knowing how much detail to include

in an answer. A concise answer to a question on the self-study will be long enough to include all relevant material without floundering in details. Depending

on the circumstances, a concise answer may be as short as a couple of sentences or

as long as a couple of pages. The length of the answer is not as important as the completeness of the answer.

• Consistent. The writer (the documents

librarian) should help the reader (the GPO

inspector) to understand the report by

presenting the material in an appropriate and predictable manner. Put the report away for a couple of days, then read through it again looking for inadvertent

inconsistencies.

D. Finishing Touches

After all the hard work that goes into writing

the self-study, the documents librarian will want to present the results in a professional- looking format.

• Cover page. The report should have a cover page following the self-study template. It should include the library and

institution's name, location, zip, depository and U.S. Congressional district numbers,

the names of the library director and documents librarian, phone and fax numbers, e-mail address, and the date the

self-study was submitted.

• The date it was written should be someplace on the report.

• Contents page. The contents page should

list the major sections of the self-study. A

well-organized contents page can help the

203
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

inspection team understand the scope and

organization of the self-study. In addition, the contents page can serve as a checklist

to remind the documents librarian to include all relevant parts of the self-study. The complete self-study package should

include the following parts: > Cover sheet > Contents page > Text of the report > Addenda (as described in the following

section)

• Staple the report. An elaborate binder is not necessary and takes up limited file space at LPS. The addenda can be paper

clipped or stapled to the main body of the

report.

• The average self-study is 20-25 pages, with an additional 1 0 pages of addenda. However, the larger and more complex the depository operation in a library, or more

changes that must be described, the longer and more complicated the self-study report

will be.

• Make 3 copies of the finished report. Send one to LPS, one to the Regional, and keep one in the files. Make sure a copy is sent

to the Regional as well as GPO at the same

time.

• Allow at least one week for mail or package delivery. Suggested Addenda to the Self-Study There are several items that should be attached

as addenda to the self-study report. The text of the self-study asks the librarian to include 6

specific documents. The 6 required attachments are:

• The written collection development policy

for Government documents (Section I, Question 5)

• The library's access policy for users of depository material (Section IV, Question

1).

• The procedures manual for processing documents (Section II, Question 5).

• The binding policy for documents (Section

III, Question 1).

• The replacement policy for documents

(Section III, Question 2).

• Selective housing agreements, if any. Other attachments are optional but often

helpful:

• a map of the library with locations of the documents service points, offices, and

other items mentioned in the self-study.

• An organization chart of the library showing the position of the documents

librarian in the library administration.

• Annual reports for the documents

department. Five years of annual reports are usually sufficient.

• Position descriptions for the documents

librarian/s and staff who process depository

material.

• Other documents and material that will help the inspection team understand the

self-study. Common Errors The inspection team has identified several problems that the careful writer will want to avoid.

• Incomplete answers. Writers often do not include enough information in the answers. Each answer should provide all relevant

204
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

information that the inspection team needs

to understand the situation.

• Misleading information. Writers sometimes

give a misleading answer because they have not read what they have written

carefully, do not understand the question, or do not fully explain terms, such as acronyms or local terminology.

• Overlooked or ignored questions. The documents librarian must answer each

question in the self-study or explain why

the question is not applicable to the

library's situation. Check the completed

report to be certain that no questions were

overlooked.

• Answering questions with "yes" or "no" without an explanation. The answers to most yes/no questions should include an

explanation. For some a sentence will

suffice, others will need several paragraphs.

• Discrepancies between the library's self- study, access or other policies, and/or

information on the Web page.

• Specifically troublesome questions have

been: > Section I, Question 1, identifying titles from the "Basic Collection" that are available in the depository. Each title can usually be answered with a check if received. If not received, or received

in an electronic or commercial version,

this should be noted. > Section I, Question 8, identifying current indexes. The librarian should mark only those titles the library currently purchases. Electronic equivalents should be noted. Do not mark items received at a nearby

depository.

> Section II, Question 1 describing

recording items to the piece level. Each format should be addressed.

Actual procedures do not need to be

included as much as a description of how each format is handled. Include a description of what information is available on the check-in record. Many

depositories have over time used a

variety of techniques (card files, computer databases, or on-line checkin) to record depository receipts. Be

certain to describe each component in the library's holdings record. While challenging, writing the self-study can be a valuable experience for the documents

librarian. The self-study process gives the

library an opportunity to closely examine all aspects of the depository operation in a library

at the depository coordinator's pace and from

his vantage point. The self-study will identify weak areas where the library can improve

services. At the same time, the report will identify areas of strength where the library should continue to offer optimum services. After completing the self-study report, the depository library will have a baseline of knowledge the depository staff has created on which administrators and librarians can take

steps to improve the delivery of Government

information to library users.

Citations The article by Henson cited below includes suggestions on writing the self-study. In addition, most libraries will have books on

technical writing. These books may include

other suggestions that will be useful in writing

the depository self-study.

"Exhibit 1: Federal Depository Library Program:

Information Dissemination and Access Strategic Plan, FY 1 996 - FY 2001 ," Report to the Congress, Study to Identify Measures

Necessary For a Successful Transition To a

205
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

More Electronic Federal Depository Library Program Gune 1996) CP 3.2:EL2/3/FINAL. pp. ElO-Ell.

Federal Depository Library Manual Supplement

3: Self-Study of a Federal Depository Library (September 1996) CP 3.29:D 44/993/supp. 3 www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/dpos/selfstud.

html Henson, Stephen, "Readers Exchange: Hints on

Writing the GPO Self-Study," Administrative

Notes, V. 18, no. 14, (November 15, 1997), pp. 9- 12. www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/dpos/ad1 1 1 597.

html

McGarr, Sheila M., "Self-Study of a Depository

Library Progress Report," Administrative Notes,

V.I 8, no. 8, (May 15, 1997), pp. 27 - 30. www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/dpos/ad051597.

html

Markel, Mike. Technical Communication:

Situations and Strategies. 4'*' ed. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1996.

Snider, Gail, "Self-Study: Review and Fol low- Up," Administrative Notes, v. 18, no. 8, (May

15, 1997), pp. 31 -34. www access.gpo.gov/su_docs/dpos/ad051 597.

html

206
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Department of Veterans Affairs Internet World

Wide Web Server

Walter Houser

Department of Veterans Affairs Washington, DC

Overview

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)

Internet World Wide Web (WWW) server is a worldwide resource that provides information on VA programs, veterans' benefits, VA offices worldwide, and VA medical automation

software. Since September 1994, the VA

WWW has served several major constituencies including the veteran and his/her dependents,

veterans service organizations, the military, the

public, and VA employees around the world. During the month of February 1 999, the VA

WWW provided 2.4 million document views

in nearly 325,000 sessions. There are over 150,000 documents on the server.

This WWW service is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to veterans via the Internet. Internet mail is also available to allow veterans

to make specific inquiries and receive official responses from VA staff. These documents are

easily accessible and richly linked from their table of contents, as well as searchable by a keyword. Personnel across the Department

have made substantial contributions to the high

quality of this Web site. VA's home page at < www.va.gov> is the product of Department-wide cooperation, with

contributions from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the Veterans Benefits Administration, the Board of Veterans Appeals, and the Offices of Public Affairs, Planning and

Analysis, Information Resources Management,

Finance, and Acquisition and Materiel Management. Since the inception of the Web

site, VHA has provided the hardware platform

and system software, permitting program

offices to have a Web presence without the

costly overhead of a production facility. Meeting Our Customers' Needs VA is committed to using < www.va.gov> to meet the needs of our external customers:

veterans, dependents, veterans service organizations, and citizens. The following is a summary of the major sources of information

that are available on the VA Web Server:

• VA Forms - VA posts forms on the Internet, makes them interactive, and tests them for accessibility and print quality. Currently, most electronic forms on the server have to be printed and completed manually. VA is adding interactive fields and controls to these forms, as well as formatting them so

that the Web search engine can locate them with greater reliability.

• Veterans Service Organization Database - This database provides employees,

veterans, and the public with details of dozens of veterans organizations at both

the national and state level, including, when available, links to the electronic

services of each VSO.

• Federal Benefits Manual for Veterans and

Dependents - A general directory of resources and eligibility information, as well as detailed organizational listings of VA Central Office, and all VA benefits and

healthcare field facilities.

207
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

• What Are My VA Benefits? - A collection

of current fact sheets on frequently asked

questions related to VA compensation and

pension, insurance, home loan & sales, and

education benefits.

• Boards of Veterans Appeals Decisions 1994-97 - Over 75,000 decisions of the Board are available for searching. This is a convenient tool used by veterans and

veterans service organizations to research the Board's findings to determine claim

precedent.

• 1-Stop Customer Service Inquiry Page - The VA customer service team ansv^ers electronic mail messages from veterans and

other members of the public. Where to Go

For Help - VA list of toll-free phone

numbers for the convenience of veterans and dependents, including VA benefits, life insurance, debt management center, CHAMPVA, headstones and markers,

Persian Gulf Hotline and

telecommunications devices for the deaf.

• Facilities and Leadership Directory - contains a complete list of all VA facilities complete with addresses and telephone

numbers, a profile of each medical center and pictures of many facilities.

• VA Research - A Research Projects Database containing approximately 1,400

records of currently active VA-funded

research programs and projects and is updated quarterly.

• VA GILS - The Government Information Locator System (GILS) is a "virtual card

catalog" providing pointers to VA-held

information dissemination products, such

as books, publications, studies, automated

information systems, and Privacy Act Systems of Records.

Server Usage Patterns Are Evolving Over the past 1 2 months, the number of sessions per month has leveled off at 330,000. During this period, both the Veterans Benefits Administration and the National Cemetery

Administration have established their own Web

servers and sites, drawing their respective

clientele toward these services. Likewise, numerous VA medical centers and regional

offices have set up their own Web sites offering both general and specialized sources of information. As program offices become more

experienced and their services more

sophisticated, the value of independent

operations becomes more apparent. However,

the hypertext links on Web pages enables

seamless movement from one site to another. So new Web sites and services can be readily incorporated into existing Web pages, allowing customers to move smoothly through the entire

virtual VA. A session is the series of Web pages attributed

to a given user or a personal computer. A

session identification code is created in the

visitor's browser cookie file for the purpose of generating this usage data. VA does not collect these files; nor do these files contain any

personal identifying information on Web site visitors. When the cookie expires after 24

hours, the next contact with the Web server

creates a new cookie and a new session. Hence, an individual may create several sessions in a given month.

Although the number of sessions is steady, the number of hits sharply increased in the fall of 1998. A hit is the downloading of a Web page

or image associated with a Web page. A single page can generate multiple hits; the more

images and other objects on the page, the

greater the number of hits. This effect can be somewhat mitigated by careful Web page

coding. A large number of page objects is not

necessarily undesirable. We have undertaken

208
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

to improve navigational aids, resulting in a greater number of images. Furthermore,

certain showcase applications will involve a

large number of images and sound files. These

applications demonstrate the leading edge of Web technology, encouraging management

support for further initiatives. Nevertheless,

care must be taken to provide low tech

alternative sites for bandwidth-challenged

users. Along with the hit rates, session lengths also rose sharply last fall. This suggests that VA

customers were visiting more pages, or that VA's pages were becoming more complex, or both.

Issues Facing VA Webmasters

Electronic Records Management - Agencies have come to depend on electronic versions of policies and procedures found on their Web

sites and those of other agencies. Agencies

with many field stations cannot afford one or more clerks at each site to organize this information on paper. Web sites may become

the cornerstones of agency record keeping. Paper documents are being converted to electronic media to allow full text indexing and

searches, computer-assisted quantitative and

qualitative analysis, hyperlinks to related documents and files, and support access from anywhere in the world. Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) - GPEA provides authority for acquisition and use of alternative information technologies as a substitute for paper and for the use and acceptance of electronic

signatures. OMB in consultation with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration is to develop procedures for the use and acceptance of electronic signatures not

later than 1 8 months after enactment of the GPEA. Also, not later than 18 months after enactment, OMB is to develop procedures for private employers to store and file electronically with Executive agencies forms

containing information pertaining to their employees. Not later than five years after enactment,

Executive agencies are to provide for the option of the electronic maintenance,

submission or disclosure of information, when

practicable, as a substitute for paper. OMB

issued draft guidelines for comment. These

guidelines provide a road map for agencies to follow in implementing GPEA. Agency

Webmasters will play a key role in the implementation of this legislation.

Public Key Infrastructure - Presently, the cachet

of the agency domain name provides the first and often the only authentication for Web

documents. The framers of GPEA understood

that the Federal Government needs to implement a public key infrastructure that private industry supports. Moreover, Webmasters need effective technology for documenting the custody and online maintenance of electronic documents. We

must be able to determine with certainty who

did what to a document, and when.

Relying on the Web for authoritative documentation is easy and relatively cheap.

Although a bargain for the agency as a whole,

control and integrity of the electronic records

are neither easy nor cheap. If official records appear on Web sites, keepers of the sites will have to limit privileges to those with the appropriate rights. Access for the Disabled - VA is addressing

access for the disabled on VA Web sites. VA

has 481 visually-challenged employees. VA

statistics show a veteran population of over 100,000 with some visual disability. Web

page authors need to understand the value they add for the blind when they use text to describe their graphics. Moreover, the blind have difficulty completing forms online on the

Internet. Scanned photocopies of forms are not

readily interpretable by the software that the

blind use to read text.

209
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Conclusion VA program and staff offices have come to rely on Web-based communications, mirroring the explosive growth of the World Wide Web.

The ability to publicize special emphasis

services, policies, standards and other offerings of the Department has been an unqualified success in achieving the immediate goals of each effort and in advancing VA's presence as a service driven agency^The speed with which

major issues can be disseminated for the widest

possible dissemination is of great importance and value as new initiatives and topics emerge. The Department's management and staff now

think of < www.va.gov> as one of the most

effective means of getting the news out. The

agency's and Webmaster's challenge is to deliver on this expectation.

Number of User Sessions (in Thousands)

400 -

350 -

300 " 1 II

250

200

150 -

100 -

60 - ""1 r

Mar-98 Apr-98 May- Jun-98 Jul-98 Aug-98 Sep-98 Oct-98 Nov-98 Dec-98 Jan-99 Feb-99

Average User Session Length (in Minutes)

p n

r

-98 Apr-98 May-98 Jun-98 Jul-98 Au9-98 Sep-98 Oct-98 Nov-98 Dec-98 Jan-99 Feb-99

210
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Number of Successful Hits for Entire Site (in miliions)

L,.i , L

hMar-S8 Apr-98 May-98 Jun-SS Jul-SS Aug-98 Sep-SS Oct-98 Nov-98 Dec-SS Jan-99 Feb-99

211
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

National Climatic Data Center

]ohn Hughes

National Climatic Data Center

Asheville, NC

Department of Commerce Organization Chart

U.S. Department of Cornrnerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

National Weather Service National Environmental Satellite, Date, and

Information Service National Geophysical Data Center

National Oceanographic Data Center

National Climatic Data Center

Mission

Archive, Access & Describe Manage Global Environmental Data

Acquire / Ingest

• Access

• Archive

• Standards

• Certify

• Quality Control

• Analyze

National Partners

• NASA

• DOD

• EPA

• USDA

• DOE

• DOS

• DOT / FAA

• USGCRP

• NSF

• DOI / USGS

• NOAA (NOS, NWS, NMFS)

International Partners

• World Meteorological Organization

• International Council of Scientific Unions

• World Data Centers

• Bilateral Agreements

• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

• UNESCO

Climate Data & Information

Climate Description / Reference Data Bases / Access Scope of the Mission - National & Global

"Supporting the development of the national economy in a global environment since the mid-1 900's."

All disciplines of the national economic

infrastructure Making the U.S. economically competitive

• Consumer goods

• Investments

• Communications

• Construction

• Aviation

• Transportation

• Agriculture

• Energy

• Insurance & Reinsurance

National Security

212
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Policy

Sustainable development

Applications of NCDC Data by Industry Group

Consulting Meteorologist - Provide expert testimony in court

Legal - Evidence in court cases

Insurance Industry - Rate determination, claims

settlement

Individual - Use in recreation, retirement, entertainment, vacations

Engineering - Provide guidance in the design and construction of facilities / infrastructure

Business - Sales impact, site relocation, environmental impacts

NOAA / Government - Research,

investigations, legal, claims, risk management,

policy guidance/support, etc.

Research - Environmental issues, science

studies, weather prediction, etc.

Digital Data Archive NCDC's digital holdings would fill 1,000,000 CD-ROMs

• 60 times the volume of data held by the

Library of Congress, or

• a stack of CDs equal to the height of

five Empire State buildings

Non-Digital Data Archive Man uscri pt/Autograph 200 Million pages = 37,878 miles (1.5 times around the earth)

35mm & 16mm Film 125,129 rolls = 2,340 miles (Washington to Los Angeles)

Microfiche

1 .2 million pages =114 miles (Washington to Philadelphia) Depository Library Program

All Government agencies are required to participate under U.S. Code Title 44 - Public

Printing and Documents

Chapter 19 - Depository Library Program

Section 1901. "Government Publication" means informational matter which is published

as an individual document at Government

expense, or as required by law

Section 1902. Government Publications, except those determined by their issuing components to be required for official use only

or for strictly administrative or operational purposes which have no public interest or educational value and publications classified

for reasons of national security, shall be made

available to depository libraries through the

facilities of the Superintendent of Documents

for public information NCDC furnishes copies of all serial publications

• Climatological Data (45 states, some

combined)

• Local Climatological Data (270 cities)

• Hourly Precipitation Data (44 states, some combined)

• Storm Data (all states in one issue)

• Monthly Climatic Data for the World

(all countries in one issue)

213
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Also NCDC Data sets on CD-ROMs

Copies distributed initially in paper form

In the mid 80's some libraries accepted

microfiche

Climatological CD-ROMs

Quantity of climatological data distributed On

CD-ROMs

(terabytes)

NCDC CD-ROMs

CLIVUE

Coastal Marine Automated Network Station and Buoy Reports and Summaries

Global Climate Normals 1961-1990

Global Daily Summary

Global Historic Fields Version 1 .0 Global Tropical and Extratropical Cyclone

Climatic Atlas Version 2.0 Global Upper Air Climatic Atlas Hourly U.S. Weather Observations 1990-1995

International Surface Weather Observations

International Station Meteorological Climate Summary Version 4.0 MM4 Meteorological Data NCDC Cooperative Station Data

NOAA Weather Charts

National Climatic Data Center Periodical Publications

Polar Ice Probabilities of Temperature Extremes in the USA Version 1.0 Radiosonde Data of North America

1946-1996

Solar and Meteorological Surface Observational Network The Maury Collection, Global Ship Observations 1792-1910 Time Series of Global Monthly Vegetation Cover from NOAA/AVHRR 1985-1997

U.S. Divisional and Station Climatic Data and Normals Version 1.0 U.S. Navy Marine Climatic Atlas of the World Version 1.1 United States Snow Climatology

Funding versus Data

g| Tolal Data (lerabylas)

FISCAL YEAR

Depository Library Program No funding for this service. Copies of publications requested by nearly 600

depository libraries, the Government Printing

214
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Office, the NOAA Central Library and the

Library of Congress.

Last year's printing costs were nearly $3 IK.

Last year's mail costs were nearly $30K.

Starting with FY 1998, to lessen strain on our

budget:

• Copies of all serial publications are now

distributed on one CD-ROM every quarter

• Serial publications are made available on-line via NOAA National Data Centers On-line Store http://www.nndc.noaa.gov/phase3/product accm.htm

• Passwords have been provided to libraries for access to all publications prior to quarterly CD-ROM shipments

• NCDC's cost of mastering and set up for each CD-ROM is approximately $1 .3K (less for quarterly CD-ROMs)

• GPO covers cost of CD-ROM duplication

for libraries.

215
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

National Cancer Institute and Depository

Libraries: A Productive Partnersliip

Nancy Brun

National Cancer Institute Bethesda, MD

Hello! I am very pleased to be here at the Depository Library Conference. Because this is the first time we have had the opportunity to

tell you about some of NCI's activities, programs, and products, I thought it might be

productive for me to put things into perspective and give you a little history and background on

the Institute itself before telling you about the communications program in which you, the depository libraries, participate.

First, we are a Government agency, the Government's primary organization for cancer

research. As with every Government agency, we belong to a hierarchy, including the National Institutes of Health; the Public Health

Service; and our parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services. The National Institutes of Health, of which we

are a part, are located only two short blocks

north of here on a large campus of laboratories and clinical facilities. Two major pieces of legislation designed the cancer program as we know it today. The first was passed in 1937. The National Institute of Health (NIH) was originally one Federal

institute doing basic biomiedical research. But during the 1 930s, the American public, concerned about the prevalence of cancer, exerted pressure on the Government to do

something about it. The public pressure resulted in Congress unanimously passing the National Cancer

Institute Act in July 1937 and Franklin Roosevelt signing it shortly after.

This Act established the National Cancer

Institute; established a targeted research program (up until that time NIH research was

not targeted at any particular disease); and made the conquest of cancer a national goal.

Again, during the late 1960s, with cancer rates

still rising, the conquest of cancer took on even more urgent significance and motivated an

intense public campaign to target cancer more

fiercely. Many of you may remember that the mantra of the period was that if Americans

could go to the moon, they should be able to cure cancer. Thus, the campaign, spearheaded

by philanthropist Mary Lasker and businessman Benno Schmidt, was fueled by a theory that the problem of cancer could be solved with a NASA-like approach.

President Richard Nixon proclaimed a "war on

cancer" and signed the National Cancer Act in 1971. The 1971 Act created a National Cancer

Program; dramatically increased the cancer

research budget; gave the institute more

autonomy, including a presidentially-appointed

director; and, most importantly for our

purposes here today, mandated the NCI to communicate to the American public about

cancer. The Institute's major mission is, of course,

research. In its laboratories on the NIH

campus, NCI conducts its intramural research program. However, nearly 80 percent of its appropriated budget supports extramural cancer research at institutions across the

216
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

country. NCI also provides support for cancer

centers and the training and education of

specialists and researchers. Cancer research is, by need, multifaceted. But

central to the investigation is the comprehension of the mechanisms at work

within the human cell. Why do normal cells develop into cancerous ones? How does that transformation occur? And, how can this transformation be prevented, stopped, or reversed? These are the basic questions being

studied by scientists at NCI and across the country. Although research is our major responsibility, the mission that most concerns us here today is communications. The 1971 National Cancer

Act clearly stated that we must provide helpful information to Americans coping with cancer. We must also provide the general public with

information on the early detection and

prevention of cancer and help the lay public understand the science behind the research. Thus, NCI target audiences include patients and their families; the general public; health

professionals; and special and ethnic populations.

How do we reach these target audiences? Often we reach them directly, but more often we reach them indirectly, through

intermediaries. One way we reach these audiences directly is through the Cancer Information Service (CIS). The CIS is a nationwide, toll-free cancer hotline with regional offices across the country.

Specialists answer questions, in English and

Spanish, about the latest cancer treatments and

provide tips for early detection and prevention.

It's also a source for NCI publications and for information about community services. We also reach our audiences directly through

the Internet. As you might expect, the Internet

is a valuable tool not only for the public, but

for scientist-to-scientist communications. Over

the last several years with the rush to use the

Internet, the NCI Web site virtually exploded

into dozens of individual sites with a variety of purposes and target audiences. Because it is currently undergoing a major renovation,

collapsing it into one integrated site, I won't emphasize our Web site today. Most of our communications are accomplished

indirectly, through intermediaries. One important channel is the mass media. In addition to the usual press releases, backgrounders and fact sheets, NCI has a press

office to answer questions from the media and

to encourage media coverage of cancer-related

stories. The media car, also be very useful in helping to translate complex scientific concepts

into lay language. Recent studies have shown

that most Americans get their medical

information from the media, mostly television. So you can see why this channel is an

important one.

Primary care doctors, nurses and other health

professionals are important intermediaries through whom we channel our information. Much of this work is done through exhibits at national professional meetings where we

promote our materials and programs. When the science calls for it, we develop

special campaigns to reach a specific audience.

For example, when it became evident that the use of spit tobacco among young boys was

dramatically rising, we developed a video kit. Dangerous Game. The kit was promoted as a

tool for teachers, scout leaders and others to reach this young target audience. We frequently join with other organizations, both public and private. Our most recent examples of this include a joint campaign on

prostate cancer with the group US-Too, and a campaign with the Health Care Financing

Administration (HCFA) to raise awareness among older women of Medicare coverage of mammograms.

217
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

At times, it may take more than pamphlets and

booklets to get information to the public. For example, a kit was designed to train health professionals who will then go out into the community and educate other professionals and the public about clinical trials. And as you well know, we also reach our

target audiences through libraries.

It is evident that in many communities, libraries are the first places peo|5le head when they want information, and community libraries across the country serve as a valuable resource

for cancer information. Now I'd like to tell you a little about the kinds

of information we have available. The NCI is well known as the source for the most accurate and up-to-date cancer information. And we

certainly have a wealth of information, both on

the Internet and in print. Let's start with the

Internet.

Clinical trials are a major priority for the

Institute. In order to prove new and better treatment methods, each must go through

clinical trial. A clinical trial might test a

potentially superior chemotherapy drug, for example, against the standard treatment regimen. We develop information to help

recruit patients to these clinical trials, to help

patients locate appropriate clinical trials, and to answer questions for the patients who are

participating. CancerNet is a Web site that contains

detection, diagnosis, and treatment information on all cancers, both for physicians and for patients. It is the best place to go for descriptions of the most current treatment

protocols available.

This NCI Web site is the current home for patient education information. Information on how to cope with the side effects of cancer

treatments; what are mammograms and who

should get them; how to include five fruits and

vegetables into your daily diet; tips on smoking

cessation; and much, much more. NCI also has a fledgling, but growing, science education site on the Web. The purpose of the

site is to explain the "science behind the news"

for students and the lay public, helping them

better understand the scientific concepts behind the research. The information on all the sites that I've described will all be

integrated into one new NCI Web site to be

unveiled sometime this summer.

Printed materials have always been the basis of the NCI communications program.

It's hard to overemphasize how important our

materials are for cancer patients. Just to give you some idea, we distribute about a half- million copies of each of these publications each year. Each booklet is reviewed and

revised at each printing, so that NCI materials

are always current. These booklets may help

patients deal with radiation treatment or chemotherapy; provide advice for patients with

eating problems; or simply help with some of the psychosocial issues involved in being a cancer patient. One series of pamphlets is site specific and

discusses the causes, detection, diagnosis and

treatments for most cancers. The booklets are

targeted to both cancer patients and the lay public. Other materials are designed to promote

mammography and breast cancer awareness among women over age 40 and in various

ethnic communities. They include colorful

posters, bookmarks, booklets, and easy-to-read brochures. There are materials on smoking cessation, tips on quitting, and effects of secondhand smoke. We try to produce many of our materials in easy-to-read formats, as well as large-print materials for the visually-impaired. These

218
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

include information on mammograms, pap

tests, and treatment issues. Some of our most popular materials are targeted at special populations, including

Hispanic, African-American, and Native American ethnic groups. We also package our science education

information as "speakers kits," sets of slides and

scripts for teaching at almost any level. Our

two most popular kits are "Understanding the Immune System" and "Understanding Gene

Testing." There are more of these teaching kits

in the works. The National Cancer Institute and depository

libraries are now a productive partnership, and

we can make this partnership even stronger. We welcome your feedback to help us make

our materials even better or to make your

professional lives easier. We urge you to let us know about any special needs you might have,

or collaborations you might want to suggest. For example, should you want extra mammography materials to distribute during

breast cancer awareness month, or smoking

booklets for the Great American Smokeout, or teaching kits for library lectures, we'll help whenever possible. Who should you call? You can call your

contacts at GPO, I'm sure they will relay the message. Or, call us directly. Thank you very much for letting me tell you about the National Cancer Institute today.

219
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

CDs in a Webbed World: Implications for Federal

Depository Libraries

Cynthia Etkin

U.S. Government Printing Office

Wasiiington, DC

Abstract Having reached the midpoint of the 1998-99

fiscal year, the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) is well into the transition to a more electronic depository program. We

heard earlier this week that the resources

"distributed" thus far this year is 40%

electronic, 40% microfiche, and 20% paper, but less than 1 % of the electronic data is in CD-ROM form. Annualization of six months

data for this fiscal year indicates that for the

first time since the Government Printing Office (GPO) began distributing CD-ROMs to depository libraries the number of titles will decrease. At the same time the number of Federal Government Web pages continues to increase. The obvious issue librarians are grappling with is the need for and worth of CDs when so much Government information is available via the Internet with more

standardization and a user-friendly interface.

It is true that CDs provide many challenges for

librarians. Various aspects of equipment,

personnel, services, and bibliographic control are among the major dilemmas that must be

resolved. Though some CDs can be

problematic, having information in this format

also provides opportunities for new services,

possibilities for cooperative efforts, a means to increase resources available to library patrons, and a safety net to access information from remote locations. That much of what is available on CD is not duplicated on the Web

cannot be ignored; equivalency of print, CD,

and Web versions must not be assumed.

Federal agencies are still producing CD-ROMs.

And according to the National Commission on

Libraries and Information Science's recent

report, Assessment of Electronic Government

Information Products, Federal agencies still view CD-ROM as a viable method to disseminate information. As long as agencies

are producing CDs, GPO will distribute them

to depository libraries and they will continue to be part of the FDLP Electronic Collection and

have a role in Federal depository libraries. It is incumbent upon depository librarians to define

that role at the local level through its policies:

• Depository Library Public Service Guidelines for Government Information in Electronic Formats;

• FDLP Internet Use Policy;

• FDLP Guidelines on Substituting Electronic

for Tangible Versions of Depository

Publications; and

• Collection Development Policy.

CDs in a Webbed World

Implications for Federal Depository Libraries

Introduction

• 1 989 GPO General Counsel Opinion

affirmed GPO's authority to disseminate

electronic formats

• 1 995 Congress directed GPO to study and

220
7999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

devise a plan for the FDLP to evolve into a more electronic depository program

• 1 998 Managing the FDLP Electronic Collection: A Policy and Planning Document was published

• We are well into the transition to a more

electronic depository library program

• Electronic environment has enhanced

awareness of and increased access to Federal Government information Background

Electronic Government Information Environment: CD-ROMs

• First CD-ROM was distributed to 100

depositories for a Census pilot project in 1988

• CD titles distributed increased from FY to FY: > 306 titles in FY 1994 > 836 titles in FY 1998 > 326 titles through March of FY 1 999

• Agencies view CD-ROMs as a viable medium

• DVDs expected to replace CDs as the standard

Electronic Government Information Environment: World Wide Web

• GAO Report from June 1 997 > 42 Federal organizations reported 4,300 Web sites

• Government top-level domains as of Jan. 1999 > 651,200 .gov > 1,510,440 .mil

• These figures do not represent the Federal

Government's entire Web presence. Excluded are: .fed. us, .edu, .org, and .com Government sites

Electronic Government Information Environment: GPO Access

• Over 70 applications on more than 1,000

databases

• Documents downloaded > FY 96: 30 million > FY 97: 46 million > FY 98: 137 million > FY 99 (Oct -Feb): 67 million

Electronic Government Information Environment: Locator Services

• Catalog of U.S. Government Publications > 1 1 5,900 records of which 6,500 have

hyperlinks

• Browse Electronic Titles > 2,400 titles on service > 1 5-25 titles added per week

• Browse Electronic Topics > Nearly 1 70 topics

• Pathway Indexer > Searches 1,350 Government sites > Searches 3 levels or about 200,000

Web pages

Electronic Government Information Environment: Electronic Collection

• FDLP Electronic Collection (EC) designed

to provide permanent public access to Federal electronic information

• www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/dpos/ec

• EC includes:

221
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

> Internet accessible resources > Tangible electronic products distributed

to depositories

• Managing the FDLP Electronic Collection > www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/dpos/

ecplan.html > SuDocs: CP 3.2:C 68

Challenges

CD Challenges for Depositories

• Equipment > Technical requirements

• Lack of standards

• Permanent public access > Security s > Network or stand alone > Cost

• Personnel > To learn & train staff > Technical support

• Public Service > Access -v:' - ^ V . > Licensing > Training users ' > Documentation > Usability

• Bibliographic Control > Cataloging questions > Shelflist cross references

Revelations '

The Bright Side of CDs

• New service opportunities > Circulate resources > Different formats available > > CIS

• Cooperative opportunities > Documentation > Training > Selective housing sites

• Collection development > More resources available

• Local control > Information there tomorrow > Independent of other systems

• Virtual library projects

• Web is not trouble-free Conclusions

Foreseeable Future of CDs

• Government agencies still producing

• GPO will continue to distribute to depository libraries

• Element of the FDLP Electronic Collection

• Not the "panacea" hoped for

• Equivalency of print, CD, and Web

versions must not be assumed

• Still have a role in depository libraries FDLP Policies to Consider

• Service for Government Information in Electronic Formats > Administrative Notes, v. 19, #1 1 (Sept. 15, 1998)

• FDLP Internet Use > Administrative Notes, v. 20, #2 {jar,. 15,1999)

• Substituting Electronic for Tangible

• Collection Development Policy

222
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

What Is Best for Your Library: Issues to Consider

• Collection Development

• Bibliographic Control

• Maintenance

• Human Resources

• Physical Facilities

• Public Service

• Cooperative Efforts

• Mission > FDLP > Your Library

• Clientele > Primary > General Public

223
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Future Colleagues: Documents Education in

Library and Information Science Programs

Teaching Government Information on the

Internet

]udith Schick Robinson

State University of New Yoric, Buffalo

Buffalo, NY

Offered each fall, LIS 567 Government

Information is the most heavily enrolled

elective in the School of Information and

Library Studies, University at Buffalo MLS

program. The class requires weekly reference- type practice exercises, two exams, and a Client Search term project—a customized

information package produced for a local nonprofit or government agency. Students embark

with a mix of trepidation and anticipation: as they're warned up front, what starts out as fun (who's immune to the charms of documents

examples like Molly Moo or Fred, the Horse Who Eats Bread?) soon becomes a demanding

trek through a rarified body of knowledge. An Internet version of the course was initially taught in spring 1999, with an enrollment of

fifty (the classroom version draws 45-50

students). Rather than Client Searches, the term project was Government Information

Pathfinders created for either Doane College in Nebraska (library liaison was Donna Jurena) or Montana State University—Bozeman (liaisons were Adam Wathen and jodee Kawasaki). Communication with the Doane and Bozeman

librarians about pathfinders was through a class discussion list, while student-teacher communication was through e-mail or Web

Bulletin Board. The course is asynchronous, with weekly

content modules and assignments posted on

the Web, along with a midterm and final exam.

An optional hands-on computer session provided one-on-one instruction from the

professor in support of the first knotty assignment, covering MOCAT, SPC, and

WorldCat. Two "guest lecturers" offered a glimpse of the real world: Charles D. Bernholz, Reference/Documents Librarian at the Farmington Public Library (NM), and Kristen Wilhelm, National Archives and Records

Administration. Although the course is password protected, two

sample modules are available at <http://www.sils.buffalo.edu/faculty/Robinson/

depos/review.htm > and

<http://www.sils.buffalo.edu/faculty/Robinson/

depos/review2.htm >

.

Advantages of the Internet version of the

Buffalo course included:

1 . In-depth teaching and student counseling

2. Convenience for distance students

3. Ability to reach out-of-state students

4. Vitality of Web delivery

Disadvantages:

1 . Teacher workload

224
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

2. Dependence on computer staff for administering exams & maintaining

Bulletin Board

3. Awkwardness of e-mail and Bulletin Board communication

4. Difficulty creating a sense of community

5. Loss of spontaneity

6. Teacher loneliness Other Internet government information courses have been taught by Charley Seavey at the University of Arizona (IRLS 572 Government

Information: Policy and Resources) and by

University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign

through LEEP (LIS 424: Government

Publications)— taught in fall 1998 and spring 1999 by Marilyn Moody.

The University of Arizona course is asynchronous, with weekly content modules

posted on the Web and communication

through a bulletin board, Web chats, and e- mail. The Urbana-Champaign LEEP course combines asynchronous and synchronous

delivery, with weekly content modules posted on the Web and weekly "live" Web sessions

(audio, text chat, with the ability to post slides and other graphics).

225
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Government Documents Assignments: Have We

Really Been There, Done That?

Cassandra Hartnett

University of Wasiiington Libraries

Seattle, WA

Which assignments would you offer, if you were teaching? Why?

The Classic Government Documents Class Not always taught as a separate course

Usually Federally focused

Both specialist and generalist appeal Has practical and theoretical aspects

Introduces students to "the documents

story" Supplemented by high-quality handouts

Inspires students

Selected Textbooks Over the Years Boyd & Rips, United States Government

Publications (1949) Schmeckebier & Eastin, Government

Publications and Their Use (1961) Morehead & Fetzer, Introduction to United

States Government Information Sources (1978-1994)

Sears & Moody, Using Government

Information Sources (1985, 1994)

Robinson, Tapping the Government

Grapevine (1988, 1998)

Memories of Assignments

Assignments: The Required Tasks

Practice questions/source review

Legislative histories Government agency reports Annotated bibliographies or "pathfinders" Indexing, abstracting of articles, Web sites Field observations Research Case studies or simulations Assignments: The Means Homework

Research papers

Class presentations

Field observations: trips to libraries, government offices, or legislative bodies

Reading and discussion of professional

literature

Individual vs. group work

I understand that a picture of the members

of Space Shuttle Mission STS-43 is available

as a government publication. Could you

give me the SuDocs number so I could

order it? The Freedman's Savings and Trust Company was established by the Federal Government in the 1860's. Which

226
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

bibliography gives information explaining

the official status of this banking institution, along with a list of its publications?

• Which three cities in Alabama have the highest percentage of families with yearly incomes of $50,000 or more?

Quality Assignments Should:

• Reflect graduate level work

• Combine challenge with a sense of mastery

• Increase knowledge of government

• Raise more questions than they resolve

• Require questioning and critical thinking

• Change from year to year

• Be discussed in class

• Be relevant and memorable

Areas We Should Be Emphasizing More:

• The reference interview

• Demographic, economic, and Census

sources

• Depository management/collection

development

• Promoting a depository collection

• Getting involved professionally

• Collaboration (good guest speakers!)

• Comparative assignments across

jurisdictions

• Bibliographic control & cataloging (PURLs)

• Theory: > information policy > privacy/FOIA > history of government information > privatization > democratic concepts > future trends

• Positive attitude How many cherries must be in fruit cocktail?

(For the answer, see 21 CFR 145.135.) Anonymous Quotes from GOVDOC-L

Respondents

• The real value to my GovDocs course was

that [the instructor] continued to teach the course whenever I called him with a question during my first job... [I remember]

how well he told the "documents story" and really made it interesting even though

it was an 8:00 a.m. class. I guess the time meant that you really wanted to be there.

• I remember very well [the professor] talking about how our state didn't have a Regional

depository and what a shame it was, etc. I really didn't get it then. But when I wound

up in documents, I understood. [My

library] became the Regional in 1989 due

to my pushing and a willing director. So... an instructor never knows what remark will influence someone-or even how long it will take.

• One of the lasting contributions my gov

docs teacher made to my professional life was the high-quality, well-organized handouts she provided to us at the beginning of each assignment... I used

these handouts heavily in my days as a young librarian. I used them as check-sheets to understand my current

collection, place orders, make wish lists for future large orders, and to get familiar with my collection... Fourteen years later and I still have them handy in a side drawer of my desk.

227
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Future Colleagues: Documents Education in

Library and Information Science Programs

Who Teaches What, When and Where

Bill Sudduth

University of Riclimond

Riciimond, VA

Thank you, Tim, for the fine introduction and

thanks to the audience for attending this session on Documents Education. As Tim

mentioned, this program grew out of a lunch

session held at last spring's conference. In February 1998, George Barnum and George

Carlson posted on GOVDOC-L a request that documents librarians that teach documents

courses for library science programs meet one

day at lunch and share information and

impressions, particularly how to teach the increasing amount of electronic information.

That session was attended by about a dozen documents librarians, all who taught as adjuncts. While the information shared was

valuable and a good exchange of ideas, I left the session wondering if there wasn't more to the issue. In talking with Cass Hartnett, I expressed the thought that it might be an

interesting program to have an adjunct faculty member, a full-time faculty member, and a

library school dean on a program about documents education. As the old saying goes, once you're on a program committee you've

got a 50/50 chance of becoming the program. So here I am.

As I mentioned, I left last year's lunch with more questions than answers. While there were about a dozen in attendance and all taught as adjuncts, I also knew of several individuals who are full-time tenured library science faculty who also teach documents on a regular basis. The names: Hernon, McClure,

Richardson, and Morehead immediately come

to mind. The question that came to mind was how many LIS programs employ adjuncts

(practicing documents librarians) to teach their documents courses? Another question that came to me after the meeting was how many document courses are taught in the traditional classroom setting versus distance courses, courses over the

Internet, or even taught at an off-campus

location? As an adjunct faculty for Catholic

University of America School of Library and

Information Science, I teach at the University

of Richmond site, 95 miles from the main

campus. From this several other questions

began to materialize. Once I realized that I was going to be on a panel and not just organize it, I sat down and worked on a plan to survey who teaches what

to whom when. I decided on two approaches.

First, I would post to GOVDOC-L a survey

asking individuals who had taught a Government documents class for a LIS program

during the last three years some basic questions. I would follow-up this questionnaire with a survey of LIS program Web pages. The questionnaire was sent out on GOVDOC-L

in February. To date I have received responses from 23 individuals representing 22 LIS programs. The questions asked were:

1 . Have you taught a semester length class in Government information resources for an

228
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

ALA accredited Library/Information Science program in the last three years (after 1995)?

2. What was the title of the course listed in the catalog?

3. How many credits was the class valued?

4. What was the enrollment or average enrollment of the class?

5. What percentage of the class was devoted

to Federal, state/local, and international information sources?

6. How many times or years have you taught

the course?

7. Do you teach any other course related to Government information?

8. What is your rank or status in the school or program? If you are a tenured member

please provide your rank. If not, are you

an adjunct or visiting faculty?

9. Is the class taught on the main campus in a

traditional setting, off-campus in a

traditional setting, by satellite or a distance

learning class, or via the Internet?

I augmented these 23 responses with a survey

of the Web pages of the 48 accredited library science programs. While looking at each page

I tried to identify the name of the Government

information course, who taught it, noting rank and status, when the course was last taught, how frequently the course was offered, and what pre- or co-requisites were required to take

the Government information course.

I would like to spend the next couple of minutes going through the data I gathered. Of the 48 LIS program Web pages surveyed, only one school did not list a course in Government information (Texas Women's

University) and five schools listed multiple

courses (University of California-Berkeley, Syracuse, SUNY-Albany, South Carolina, and

Washington). Course titles varied, but the

three most frequent course listings were:

• Government Publications 9

• Government Information Sources 7

• Government Documents 4

I was only able to identify one course covering

State/Local information sources (SU NY/Albany) and one covering international information

(South Carolina).

In addition to the traditional courses mentioned, I found several courses with

impressive and unique names. Now, I have

with me some rewards (M&Ms) for members of the audience who can name the school where

the following courses are taught. The audience

will have three guesses at which point the panel will earn the goodies.

First class title: Government Information: Collection/Organization/Dissemination

School: Indiana Second class title: U.S. Government

Information Policies, Resources and

Services School: Simmons

Third class title: Subject Focused Information Sources and Services: Government

School: Michigan While I did not include it in the audience

participation portion of the show, the title of the document course at UC-Berkeley is Information Policy. So what courses does a library school student need to take before they have the Government

documents class? 16 schools require at least one course, usually an Introduction to Information sources, seven schools require at least two courses, and three schools require more than two courses (Queens, Drexel,

229
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Washington). I include Drexel because it has a core requirement of seven courses and while you do not have to take then all before the documents course it appears that v^ay on the Web page. One school has no pre- or corequisites and 1 9 schools did not list whether

there was such a requirement.

Prerequisites outside the usual introductory courses include:

• Computer-Based Information Tools

(Indiana)

• Cataloging and Classification (Clarion)

• Electronic Database and Information

Services (North Texas) Now that we have an idea of which Government information courses are taught and what prerequisites are required, let's return

to one of my first questions: Who's teaching Government documents? From library school Web pages I was able to

identify 53 instructors of Government

information. Of these instructors around 40%

(23) were full-time library science faculty members. At least 20% (13) were identified as adjuncts. Another 40% (1 7) were not

identified as to their status but are most likely adjuncts. Two important points can be drawn

from this data. First nearly 60% of all Government documents education is being

provided by adjunct faculty. Second, of the

full-time library science faculty teaching Government documents, 1 8 of the 23 are tenured faculties; at least the positions of associate and full professor are usually ,

;

' associated with tenured faculty. , ,j One of the questions I asked of GOVDOC-L

was how many times or years the instructor has taught the class. The number of years or times

taught average almost 7 (6.8). However, at least one-third of the respondents (9) have

taught the class less than four times.

When does the LIS program schedule classes? Most classes are scheduled during the fall or spring semesters (24). Another seven programs

schedule the Government documents class in the summer. Courses are usually taught once a year (12 responses). Most classes are taught at the main campus in a traditional setting; however, I was able to identify four off-site instructors, two instructors using distance or

satellite methods, and three courses taught via the Internet. Classes usually have at least 20

students enrolled (16 of 23 responses). Course content ovenA'helmingly favored the teaching of Federal information resources (80%

of content) over state/local (8.7% of content), and international resources (1 1 % of content). Of the 23 responses, four indicated teaching no

international information sources and another

three acknowledged teaching no state/local resources.

Syllabi were posted for 1 1 courses. Two were

restricted to on-campus viewing and one

syllabus was under construction. Of the 1

1

syllabi, full-time faculty had developed eight; raising the conclusion that full-time faculty have the resources (time or support) to post

syllabi for their courses.

In reviewing pages posted by SLIS programs, I came upon a few that I would like to point out

as good or unique sources of information. I found the following pages of interest:

• University of Illinois

, http://alexia.lis.uiuc.edu

• University of Michigan

http://www.si.umich.edu

• Syracuse University

http://istweb.syr.edu

• University of North Carolina-Chapel

Hill http://ils.unc.edu/ As an alumnus, I am obligated to mention the UNC site. It is unique for its searchable index

230
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

of master's papers that can be searched by

paper advisor so all of you curiosity seekers can see who has done a paper for Ridley

Kessler.

• South Carolina

http://www.libsci.sc.edu/

I mention South Carolina because I found

Professor Williams' page to be one of the best individual faculty pages.

If you would like to look at other SLIS program Web pages, I suggest using Ann Roselle's page

of Library and Information Science Schools - Classes on Government Information. Ann's page is located at: <http://www.library.ewu.edu/godort/classe5. html > and is also available through

GODORT's Education Committee page: <http://library.ucsb.edu/ala/educomm.html >.

In conclusion, the following can be said about

the current state of Government documents

education in accredited library programs in the United States:

1 . classes are still taken in a traditional setting on the program's main campus

2. 607o of the classes are taught by adjunct

faculty

3. full-time faculty teaching Government

information are usually associate or full professors

4. only one in four course syllabi are on the Web

5. The Government information course is usually available at least once a year, during the fall or spring semester

6. Classes are usually at least 20 students

7. Courses focus mostly on Federal resources (80%) with little international (1 1 %) and

less state/local (9%)

8. The instructor has taught the course an

average of 6.8 times but one-third of the

instructors have taught the course less than

four times

Sources of Data: Pre- and Co- Requisites

Analysis of 48 SILS Web Pages None 1 Survey posted on GOVDOC-L (23 responses. One course 16 22 programs) Two courses 7 More than two courses 3 48 programs, listing 55 courses (Queens, Drexel, Washington)

5 schools list two courses (Berkeley, Syracuse, Information not available 19 SU NY-Albany, SC, and Washington)

Who Teaches Course Titles: 53 instructors identified Government Publications 9 Government Information Sources 7 Library School Faculty 23 Government Documents 4 Professor 9

Associate Professor 9 Adjunct faculty 13

Status Not Determined 17

231
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Teaching Experience

Instructor taught the course an average of 6.8

tinnes

1 in 3 have taught the course less than four times

Kent State

http://ariande.slis. kent.eclu/"classes/6061 1/

Clarion

http://eagle. clarion .edu/"faculty/buchanan/

SYLLABUS991.HTM

When Is the Course Taught?

Fall or Spring semester 24 Summer 7 How Often Is the Course Taught?

Annually

2 times a year

Every semester

Every two years

Location Taught

Main campus

Off-campus site Distance/satellite course

Internet course

17

5

12 Average Class Size

Class usually has at least 10 and usually >20

Content

Federal

State/Local IGO/Foreign

Available Syllabi:

80.0%

8.7%

1 1 .4%

UCLA • ' " http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/473/ DLIS_473_Reading_List.pdf

Indiana http://www.slis.indiana.edu/courses/L628S98. html LSU

http://adam.slis.lsu.edu/courses/7203/

Tennessee

http://funnelweb.utcc. utk.edu/'wrobinso/

534syl.html

North Texas

http://courses.unt.edu/chandler/SLIS5660/ index.htm Wisconsin

http://polyglot.lss.wisc.edu/slis/syllabi/653/

Library School Web Pages of Interest

Illinois http://alexia.lis.uiuc.edu/ Kentucky

http://www.uky.edu/CommlnfoStudies/SLIS/

Maryland

http://www.clis.umd.edu/academics/programs/

gels.html (CIS Specialty) Michigan

http://www.si.umich.edu/

Syracuse

http://istweb.syr.ed SUNY-Albany

http://www.albanv.edu/SISP/

UNC-Chapel Hill http://ils.unc.edu/ Searchable Index to Masters

Papers

South Carolina

http://www.libsci.sc.edu/ Professor Williams' home page

232
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Another Source of Interest Ann Roselle's Library and Information Science Schools links http://www.librray.ewu.edu/godort/classes.html Also linked from GODORT Education Committee page

Conclusion: Course usually taken on main campus; 60%

taught by adjuncts; there is usually at least one

pre-requisite course, only one in four syllabi on

the Web, course usually taught during fall or

spring semesters; usually taught once a year, classes usually larger than 20, courses focus on

Federal information (80% of content), little state/local (8.77o), or international just over 10%); the instructor has taught the course an

average of 6.8 times, one-third of instructors have taught the course less than four times.

233
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Bureau of Labor Statistics Web Site

Deborah P. Klein

Bureau of Labor Statistics Wasiiington, DC

BLS Homepage: http://stats.bls.gov Bureau of Labor Statistics

|^B|gyiQB I^K^^il li^^glgj^]

BLS Data Menu

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data (I

1^,.-^^^: p^x'ib^ fTilBB

Economy at a Glance Menu

Civilian Labor Force Unemployment Rate Employment Consumer Price Index Producer Price Index

Productivity Hourly Earnings

News Releases By Month

By News Release

Entire 1999 Schedule of Release Dates Archived News Releases Employment & Unemployment

Prices & Living Conditions Compensation & Working Conditions

Productivity Employment Projections Other Programs

Regional News Releases

234
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

BLS Regions

Regional Information ^

_ -'AjS # iffn Vlt C VtU I

Cll<k >n rt|l»i ti inttrtit.

Regional Information Menu Region III ^ Philadelphia;

Surveys & Programs Menu Surveys & Programs

Prices & Compensation &

Living Conditions Iworliing Conditions I Employment

Projections

Otlier Sui'veys

Prices & Living Conditions

• Consumer Price Indexes

• Producer Price Indexes

• International Price Indexes

• Consumer Expenditure Survey

Consumer Price Indexes

• News Releases

• Most Requested Series

• Selective Access

• Historical Indexes

235
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Employment & Unemployment

Labor Force Statistics Nonfarm Payroll Statistics (National) Nonfarm Payroll Statistics (State & Area) Covered Employment & Wages

Occupational Employment Statistics Local Area Unemployment Statistics National Longitudinal Surveys

Publications & Research^'apers Menu

Labor Review

Occupational Employment Statistics

• National Employment and Wage Data

• State Employment and Wage Data

• Occupational Data - OES Code and Alpha

• News Release

MLRi MLR: The

Editor's Desk

Monthly Labor Review Online Other Publications

• Articles - Abstract, Excerpt, and Full Text

• Online Index

• Archived MLR's

• How To Subscribe Occupational Outlook Handbook

• Keyword Search

• Online Index

• Ordering Information

Issues In Labor Statistics Major Programs Handbook Of Methods

Catalog

Latest BLS Publications BLS Periodicals Online Ordering

Contact Information

236
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

U.S. Department of justice, Bureau of Justice

Statistics Web Site: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/

Kathleen Quinn

Bureau of justice Statistics Wasliington, DC

Welcome to a tour of the BJS Web site: < www. oj p. u sd oj . govA)j s/tou r/i n tro . h tm >

.

Just click on the screen images to go to the next

stop on the tour. The tour starts at the White House: <www.whitehouse.govAA/HAA/elcome.html >

.

The White House is the gateway to the Federal Government. The Executive Office of the President provides access to current Federal

social statistics and links to information and

data produced by a number of Federal agencies

in the Federal Statistical Briefing Rooms. Many users get to the BJS Web site from the White House site—home of the Statistics Briefing Rooms.

• Statistical briefing rooms for economic and

social statistics are available on the White House Web site: <www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/ssbr.html >

.

The indicators which are presented there come

from the Federal agencies responsible for the

data. For example, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), the Bureau of Labor

Statistics (BLS), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the Bureau of the Census and the Bureau of Justice Statistics

(BJS). The responsible agency updates these

indicators automatically. The White House knows the new information when the public

knows, not before.

The Social Statistics Briefing Room contains

materials on several topics including crime. The crime indicators come from both BJS and

the FBI: <www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr>.

Each of the six indicators has a thumbnail

chart, a statement about recent trends, the most

recent figures, and links to the agency home

pages. The thumbnail charts are linked to a

larger version of the chart which is on the BJS Web site.

• The first thumbnail chart links to a larger version of trends in the number of violent crimes committed from 1973 to 1997: <www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bj s/g I a n ce/cv2

.

htm>.

Serious violent crime levels declined between

1 996 and 1 997 as measured by the National Crime Victimization Survey and the Uniform Crime Reports. The larger version of the chart is linked to a

text table of the data used in the chart.

• You can view or reuse the data that was

used to create the graphics: <www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/4meastbl.

htm>.

The text data tables which are linked from each

indicators' chart are parsable into spreadsheets.

All of the charts from the Social Statistics Briefing Room are a part of the Key Facts at a Glance section of the BJS Web site <www.

237
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htnn#Crime>. These graphics along with many more

comprise this section. Many other topics on

crime and criminal justice are also presented, including trends in Federal investigations and

prosecutions, trends in felony convictions in State courts, corrections trends, and

expenditure trends.

Additional charts and data tables are available

for each crime type and many victim

characteristics: <www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/gvc.

htm#Vioience>

.

Currently, this section of the BjS site houses 26

charts with data trends over time, and most are based on data from the National Crime

Victimization Survey. The BjS Web site has been organized to allow

users to get information on a topical basis: <www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/welcome.html >

The primary list of topics can be found on the home page under "Statistics about."

• Each of the topical sections contains summary findings with the latest data about

the topic, information about the data

collections (including questionnaires), and

a list of related sites: < www.ojp.usdoj.gov^js/cvict.htm >

.

For example, the Crime and Victims section contains basic facts about crime; information about the National Criminal Victimization Survey, and links to several sites including the

FBI and the victimization pages at the Online Sourcebook of Criminal justice Statistics.

• Many of the topical areas are broken down

into subtopics: <www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_v.htm>. From the Crime and Victims page you can go

to several subtopics including Victim

Characteristics, which includes information

about female victims, elderly victims, and

teenage victims. More detailed summary

findings are presented at this level.

In addition, you will find links to all of the

publications that we have published which

relate to the subject of the page: <www.ojp.

usdoj.gOv/bjs/cvict_v.htm#publications>.

For example, the Victim Characteristics page

has links to our report American Indians and

Crime.

Every publication has its own abstract with

links to the electronic versions of reports: < www. oj p. u sd oj . gov/bj s/abstract/a i c >

.

Each abstract also contains links to:

• any press releases about the publication

• supporting spreadsheets or ASCII tables

• a discussion of the source data

• relevant datasets at the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data

• a help page for using some of the downloadable formats. The text versions of BjS publications are

available: <www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/

ascii/aic.txt>

.

ASCII versions of publications do not include

graphics and large tables.

Publications are also available in Adobe

Acrobat pdf format: <www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/

pub/pdf/aic.pdf>

.

PDF files look like the printed publications and

include all the graphics, text and tables. PDF

files must be viewed in the free Adobe Acrobat

reader.

238
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

You can also find BJS publications from What's New at BJS, Publications, and the Press Releases: <www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/>.

BJS publications are organized:

• chronologically on the What's New at BJS page

• alphabetically on the Publications page

BJS press releases are also organized

chronologically with the most recent first. Another feature of the BJS Web site is Data for Analysis: <www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ welcome.html >

.

• Data for Analysis has two sections — Crime

and Justice Electronic Data Abstracts and

Online Tabulations, Datasets &

Codebooks: < www.ojp.usdoj.gov^js/>

.

• This section provides access to datasets and

spreadsheets available for analysis. Crime and Justice Electronic Data Abstracts

consists of a series of spreadsheets that put

together reusable data: <www.ojp.usdoj.gov/

bjs/dtdata.htm>.

Many of the spreadsheets include trend data by

jurisdiction. Currently, there are over 100

spreadsheets available by jurisdiction-Federal,

State and County-and trends overtime, dating

as far back as 1900.

• These spreadsheets are organized by topic and by jurisdictional coverage: <www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dtdata.

htm#index>

.

Some of the holdings include a series of spreadsheets on correctional populations by

State over time, and a spreadsheet on the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports indexes crimes from 1960-1996 for each State.

Online tabulations, datasets & codebooks

allow for an additional level of detail. Here you can conduct online queries to generate customized statistics and download datasets for more detailed analysis: <www.ojp.usdoj.gov/

bjs/otdc.htm>. The data analysis system allows you to subset

variables or cases for analyzing or downloading and produce crosstabulations, descriptive statistics, and frequencies. The Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center

<http://fjsrc.urban.org/> provides on-line access to the BJS Federal Justice Statistics Program (FJSP) database. The FJSRC database

includes suspects investigated by U.S.

attorneys, defendants prosecuted in the Federal

courts, defendants sentenced pursuant to the

Federal sentencing guidelines, offenders supervised under pretrial release, probation,

parole and supervised release, offenders

incarcerated in Federal prisons, and offenders appealing some aspect of their case.

• Machine readable data sets and codebooks

are available free from Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR): <www.icpsr.umich.edu/

NACJD/home.html>.

Visit Related Sites for more links: < www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/>

.

Related sites gives you access to other Federal

sites and to the organizations that assist BJS in disseminating crime and justice statistics: <www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/sites.htm >

.

The National Criminal Justice Reference

Service (NCJRS) disseminates information for

all of the Office of Justice Program agencies and the Office of National Drug Control Policy: <www.ncjrs.org/>

.

The topical pages usually consist of a list of documents including BJS reports, and a list of

239
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

additional Web sites, as well as other relevant

links. The Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics is an updated electronic version of the annual book: < www.albany.edu/sourcebook >

.

Unlike the book version, tables are updated

when they become available. All of the tables are available in Adobe Acrobat format and are accessible by an index similar to that in the book. To see what has been updated, you can

visit the What's New page or look up your

favorite table in the index and note if there is a New sign next to it.

Fedstats points to the statistical data on the Web from all of the Federal agencies:

<www.fedstats.gov/>

.

You can find links to data by topic, program

area, or agency. This site was intended to provide one-stop-shopping for Federal statistics. BJS participates in Fedstats along with the other

Federal statistical agencies although many of the links are to those agencies that have other missions but produce statistics such as the Bureau of Prisons and Drug Enforcement

Administration. At Fedstats, users can search

the Web sites of all 13 major Federal statistical agencies.

To help you find the information you need, the

BJS Web site has a search capability: < www.0j p . u sd oj . gov/bj si. >

Just enter the key words you are searching for

in the box provided: < www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/bjssrch.htm>

.

You can search all of our site or simply select the type of document you are interested in such as press releases, text files, .html pages, or even .pdf files. You can also expand your search to all of the

Office of Justice Program agencies or to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service.

If you want to know how to reach BJS, go to About BJS: <www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs>. About BJS tells you how to write, call, find, or

e-mail BJS: <www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/aboutbjs. htm#address >. We value your feedback. Thank you for taking the tour of the BJS Web

site. This tour is available on the BJS Web site at <www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/tour/intro.html >

.

240
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Tools People with Disabilities Use to Interact with

the Web

Robert Neff

U.S. Mint

Washington, DC

A government's, company's or organization's

failure to provide universal accessibility on the Web is a serious impediment to its ability to provide information, services or products to over 54 million People With Disabilities (PWDs). For example, if:

• An e-commerce Web site is not accessible

to PWDs, the business has just lost an immediate customer and potential customers.

• An organization or Federal, State or local Government does not provide access to its information, then they are not providing a public service.

• A city does not provide bus routes in an

accessible format, then PWDs cannot check

the schedule, especially if the bus office closes at 5:00 p.m.

• A library does not have the staff trained to support public computers or Internet terminals, then they cannot effectively serve the local community. The Web provides information, products and

services to people through the Internet, Intranets, or Extranets. Computers have

enabled people to function at home or at work, and study, train, or surf the Web for information. Computers have also opened up

the world to enable PWDs to be productive at home or work - the office now has no

boundaries. The Web and other assistive devices have also enabled PWDs to use computers and to be productive.

More importantly, through the Web, the world

has no boundaries. We can now learn about

another city, culture, or train schedule from the Web. Whereas the Web has facilitated access

to information, e-mail has expanded our exchange of ideas and friendships. We can now communicate to a larger audience, rather than by a single telephone call or a teleconference call. We no longer need a dedicated office for the Web and e-mail-just a computer and

connectivity to the Internet. There are several

policies, including Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) and Rehabilitation Act Amendments

of 1998, Section 508, that address accessibility of information for PWDs under Federal, State, and local government. While ADA references

State and local governments. Section 508

establishes a requirement that the Federal Government, and by extension, through the

Assistive Technology Act of 1998 <www.

itpolicy.gsa.gov/cita/ATl 998.htm > , state government also, procure information technology that is accessible.

Universal accessibility Is not just for PWDs - it is for everyone. Universal accessibility is needed to ensure that PWDs and others can

access Web-based information. Even though

ADA and Section 508 require Federal, State and local governments to make

accommodations for PWDs, there are currently no Federal guidelines for agencies to use. However, some states, colleges, cities, and

Federal agencies have implemented

accessibility guidelines, for example the City of San Jose, California.

241
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

To build a universally accessible Web site, here

is an outline of the processes the Web designer, coder, content manager, graphic artist or team

can use. The foundation for any universally accessible Web site is the guidelines. The World Wide Web Consortium's Web

Accessibility Initiative (WAI) has drafted guidelines. The Web Content Guidelines, for people to use. On this Web site you will also

find Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines and List of Checkpoints for the Web

Content Accessibility Guidelines. The Web

Accessibility Initiative also provides an Interest Group or forum for discussion on issues

relating to Web accessibility, particularly issues related to WAI activities.

Universal accessibility incorporates usability and universal design. So when building a Web

page or Web application, accessibility problems or other design errors can be greatly reduced before the Web page or site is released

to the public. This is accomplished by applying

quality assurance to check the concept, syntax and code; layout, navigation, and graphics; and

acceptance testing on multiple browsers and

users.

Quality assurance incorporates internal or

external reviews or peer reviews, and applying

third party tools, for example, CAST'S Bobby for an accessibility check, W3C's HTML to validate the code and StarBase's StarSweeper to check

for ALT Tags, Titles, Height and Width and

other quality assurance functions. Acceptance

testing can be accomplished on multiple browsers to ensure the information is conveyed

and there are no navigation or site usage problems.

For example, here is a simple process to follow

in order to build a universally accessible Web

page or Web applications:

Step 1 Define the audience, business requirements and rules, objectives, and

timeline with the user.

Step 2 Determine resources, schedule, and

sketch the process with a flowchart.

Step 3 Determine the design requirements and universal approach, refer to the Web Content Guidelines and internal design documents.

Step 4 Design and layout the Web site or Web application.

Step 5 Design review with the customer to ensure the design is what they

envisioned.

Step 6 Quality Assurance. The Web coder or programmer would then conduct a Quality Assurance review by using

Bobby; and a HTML code validator and one or a combination of the following tools or methodologies:

content review; preview on Lynx, a

text based browser; multiple browsers and versions (Internet Explorer 3 and 4, Netscape Navigator 3, 4.x, and Opera); voice-based Web browser (pwWebSpeak), and screen readers (WIN Vision and Jaws For Windows),

Palm devices, StarBase's StarSweeper and Web site Garage. Other items that can be checked are. Does the page

print properly in black and white and

color? Can all the print and graphics be read?

Step 7 UNIT TEST. This is conducted by the coder or programmer to test compliance to the business

requirements. For example, test to ensure the e-mail functions and the message is received by the recipient, forms are tested and data checked,

links are tested. Usability testing can be either simple or more formal. This can be conducted by users who are not

associated with the design or an independent third party can provide a review of the design concept. If the

242
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

design uses queries or updates to modify or retrieve information from the database, then this will need to be

tested. The coder can develop

scenarios using a spreadsheet to document the process, more commonly referred to as a script. There are also automated testing tools

that will record your script and play it back anytime or simulate different browsers. These tests serve as a baseline for the design criteria and also can document the expected results.

Step 8 Acceptance Test. This is formal acceptance by the customer of the product you designed as based upon

customer requirements and a test plan. This procedure can be either a simple

checklist or a more formal document if

it is part of a more business critical function. There are also several efforts underway by

university-related, non-profits, consortiums and government agencies to (1) Research new

technologies and apply to the home or workplace, and (2) Provide education and

outreach. These efforts conduct critical research and provide methodologies,

guidelines or tools to support universal

accessibility. Therefore, everyone must be

cognizant of PWD accessibility needs for the Web to ensure we can provide universally accessible information to everyone.

Referenced Resources

• Web Accessibility Initiative, www.w3.orgAA/AI

• Americans with Disabilities Act (1 990) and

Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998,

Section 508, Policy References, WWW.W3 .orgAA/AI/References/Pol icy

• The U.S. Access Board, < www.access- board. gov> and the Electronic and

Information Technology Access Advisory Committee (EITAAC)

• The President's Committee on Employment

of People with Disabilities, www50.pcepd.gov/pcepd/

• Bobby, www.cast.org/bobby

• Quick tips to make accessible Web sites, www.w3.org/WAI/References/QuickTips

• Web Content Guidelines, www.w3.orgA"R/WAI-WEBCONTENT/

• Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAIWEBCONTENT-19990324/wai-pageauthtech

• List of Checkpoints for the Web Content

Accessibility Guidelines 1 .0, www.w3.org/TR/1 999/WAIWEBCONTENT-19990324/full-checklist

• Web Accessibility Initiative also provides, www.w3 .org/WAI/IG/

• Starbase, www.starbase.com

• Web site Garage, http://Websitegarage.com

• Miscellaneous Information, www.webspots.net

243
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Hands-On TechnoIog(eye)s, Touching The

Internet

David Poehlman

Independent Consultant Wheaton, MD

What do people with disabilities use to access

the Internet? There is not a simple answer

even though the question may appear to be

simple. It has many aspects upon which I will touch, but first some background on me and

then I will provide the answer.

I have been involved with the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (NLS) since I was quite young.

First as a patron of a special program which

they administer through regional libraries around the country to produce books and other

materials in formats other than standard print so that those with print impairments such as dyslexia or blindness can read them. Later, I became a volunteer technical consultant in Braille production for the Maryland State Regional Library for the Blind and Physically Handicapped (LBPH) in Baltimore. You can

find more on this service at: <http://lcweb.loc. gov/loc/visit/ada.html#nls>

.

The Internet began as primarily a text tool and

remained that way for most of its short history.

It is only recently, say in the past 5 years, that the internet has begun to be littered with things we can't access. Rather than replace libraries, though, the Internet has come to enhance their services and potential offerings.

Beginning to answer the question: People with

disabilities use the same things that we all use

to access the Internet and work, live, and play on and in it. Telephones, PDAs, set top boxes, computers, monitors, mice, microphones,

headphones and keyboards all play a part, sometimes subtractively, in this. Using the

industry and resources, we have to adapt to society and raise awareness of the issues. We

can continue to do so and expandingly so

rather than diminishingly. As we move towards a more advanced

technological age, it can mean that many

people, due to a need for diversity, are closed out due to the narrowing of potential avenues

of access. Or, it can mean that we all shall have access because of the greater diversity and flexibility that can be achieved with the technologies that bring this about. Much on how this can be accomplished can be found at Web Able whose Internet address is: < www.webable.com >

.

The Internet can and has often leveled the playing field between us. As a matter of fact, it is doing this right now as I compose and send my thoughts to you. Through this tool, we can

interact, create, share ideas, images, and

sounds as well as meet instantly through the power of the Internet and multi-media.

244
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

The Able Channel

Jeffrey Pledger

Able Channel

Reston, VA

With the advent of new technologies introduced to the Web, e.g., video streaming, the subject of Web site accessibility often is not regarded as a primary issue. What exactly Is video streaming? Video streaming is the ability to play and view video content via the Web

without having to download the video to your

PC. The video is buffered or streamed Into your PC through your modem and once your

video buffer fills, the video will start playing. You can control the actions of the streamed video content like it was a video in your VCR

at home; the difference here is that you are viewing it over the Web.

One group stands out as an exception as an

info-mediator. The Able Channel, in a cooperative partnering effort with TV onthe Web, is changing this situation by meeting the requirements of individuals with disabilities.

Both the American Census Bureau and the World Health Organization estimate that there are over 50 million people in America and

approximately 750 million people worldwide

with an identified disability. These numbers

are increasing daily due to an aging

population, illnesses and accidents. The

principal founder of the Able Channel

particularly understands the importance of Web site accessibility. Jeffrey Pledger,

President, lost his sight 15 years ago due to

illness. The mission of the Able Channel is to provide and share information on a variety of subjects

concerning people with disabilities. By

providing the information in an accessible

format, the Able Channel will assist in empowering this growing segment of the world

population to make value added choices. We plan to accomplish this through the power

of the human spirit in cooperation with the

tools of science and technology. The Able Channel will bring you the activities, information and assistive technologies of the

differently-abled communities. Our vision is to be the central repository on the Web for storing data about activities, assistive technologies and

general information concerned about and for

all types of disabilities. The information presented will be in an

accessible video format, including audio

descriptions and closed captioning. The use of the WWW as a delivery mechanism for this type of product has two main strengths: world wide coverage and affordability.

Both TV onthe Web and the Able Channel

have the ability to provide this leading edge

technology via the Real Network's G2 video

player. With the recent implementation of the

Real Network's G2 server software, the

capability of delivering accessible videos through the Web via video streaming

techniques can be realized by all people. We

are also investigating the use of Microsoft's Windows media player as another choice for you the public to choose as your video player.

245
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

The Web and Effective Usability

Mark Hakkinen

Ray Ingram

Productivity Worlds, inc. Trenton, N]

Accessibility is perhaps the wrong way of looking at things. We are really talking about

effective usability. When we think in these terms the audience we need to support is greatly expanded - visual and print impairments, colorblindness, short and long

sightedness, mobility restrictions, dyslexia, attention deficit disorder and last, but not at all least, people who are not PC and Graphical User Interface literate. This groups then accounts for probably 40% or more of the

potential audience for public access to the

Internet and library information and services. Today we are talking about, and showing, a public access kiosk that incorporates

accessibility and usability features. The

information provided to the kiosk is from

standard Web pages, which our software then makes accessible. The software being used is called pwKiosk. The software provides access

for people with print impairments and literacy

problems, as well as people with mobility

problems who cannot use a touch screen. The

demonstration demonstrated these types of

interfaces. The kiosk and PCs represent only two of the forms of access to Internet and Web related information. There is also the telephone,

electronic book reading devices, and handheld devices, all of which may deliver information to a user. You need to start looking at your Web sites a different way.

Think of them as the master source for people

calling in by phone, using public access kiosks, PCs, or hand-held devices. A single source

with multiple delivery modalities. Designing your Web site for usability will make the Web site accessible to the widest

possible audience.

246
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Ready Access to Information for People with

Disabilities

Joseph Roeder

National Industries for tiie Blind Alexandria, VA

Access to information is not just a nice idea, it can mean a person's job!

National Industries for the Blind, together with

its 88 affiliates nationwide, works to create, sustain and improve jobs for people who are blind or visually impaired. Electronic information is a major part of nearly everyone's job and this has produced both opportunities and obstacles for blind workers.

Hospital switchboard operators need to find

staff and patient phone numbers in computerized directories; service representatives need to look up product

information in computerized catalogs; attorneys and judges need to research law

libraries and deal with court documents; many

persons use the Internet to track down all sorts of information. These and many more jobs are being done by

people who are blind, using computers

equipped with speech, Braille or large print displays. These special accessories are called "access technology," "assistive technology," or "adaptive technology."

Information needs to be not only accessible, but READILY accessible. This means if most

people can get to it with just a mouse click or

2, it should not take a blind person 6 or 8

keystrokes to do the same thing. When

information is READILY accessible then a person with a disability is as productive and

competitive as everyone else. The biggest and costliest barrier to accessibility

is at the interface between the human and the machine. By taking into account the need to accommodate different modes of presentation and interaction, we simplify the problem, and

the earlier this is done in the hardware and

software design stage, the easier and less costly

it becomes. Much effort and money is being

spent by computer hardware and software developers to smooth out this interface. Perhaps one day it will be as easy to change

the mode of operating a computer or other

electronic device as it is to shift gears in a car.

But access technology is only part of the

solution. There are tools and guidelines to help us ensure that documents, Web pages and

other information products are created in a way

that can be shared with others who need (or simply prefer) a different mode of presentation. Everyone who deals with information needs to be aware of these tools and how to use them if they want to reach the widest possible audience.

247
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Things Change: The FDLP Setting and Early

Partnership Efforts

Duncan M. Aldrich

University of Nevada, Reno

Reno, NV

Introduction ^

While putting my thoughts together for today's presentation I took a short break, did some

channel surfing, and came across an old

favorite Don Ameche and Joe Mantegna movie

called Things Change. While there aren't any

insightful anecdotes from the film pertinent to today's presentation, the title. Things Change,

is certainly appropriate for any discussion of the developments that have led to today's

session on Web based, Federal Depository

Library Program (FDLP) electronic partnerships.

In the first part of my talk I will discuss developments in the information delivery environment over the past 1 0 to 1 5 years that have led GPO to consider a network of partnerships as a plausible mechanism for managing the FDLP Electronic Collection. Second, I will describe several partnership

efforts I was involved in establishing while working at GPO in 1996/97. And third, I will conclude with a couple of observations on what I believe to be the greatest challenge

facing the partnership program. And boy, have things changed!

Background - Technological Change ;i , When I started work in documents in August

1 986, we were searching the Monthly Catalog on an AutoGraphics product called MicroMax, which was a computer generated roll of fiche

that contained the entire Monthly Catalog from

1 976 on. At that time, all the computerized

searching we did was on a 1200 baud phone

connection to DIALOG, OCLC, or RLIN. The

basic InfoTrac index had just started up as a

laser disk product in the reference area in 1985. The library had no CD-ROM products.

In 1987, we began to experience a bit of change. We were a test site for AutoGraphics

GDCS MoCat CD-ROM.

In 1 988, the year the film Things Change was

released, things really began to change. We

received the first GPO electronic pilot product,

a CD-ROM named Census Test Disc #2. How

many of you remember Test Disc #2? And

how many of you still keep it in the bottom

desk drawer with all those other things you

never were sure what to do with?

In all, there were five GPO electronic pilots, which really did pave the way for the use of electronic materials in our libraries. How

many of you remember the Department of Commerce's Economic Bulletin Board (EBB)? As a pilot project, the EBB was the first online product made available through the FDLP (GPO Pilot Projects). By 1994, Federal agencies were spending an

estimated $7.8 million dollars on dial-up

bulletin boards and nearly $51 million on

Internet resources. By 1996, agencies were

still spending in the neighborhood of $7

million on dial-up access, but were spending some $325 million on providing Internet-based information resources (Report to the Chairmen). I would imagine that has escalated

significantly over the past three years. And,

according to the 1997 Biennial Survey results.

248
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

over 88% of us are providing public Web

browser access to that information in our

departments. How many of you provided

public Internet access in 1988? Things indeed do change.

Background - Persistent Principles On the other hand, while some things have

changed, others have stayed the same. While

information technologies have changed

dramatically, the mission and goals of the

Federal Depository Library Program have remained relatively constant.

For example, I would guess that virtually everyone in this room would agree with such

basic FDLP assumptions as:

• The public has a right to access Government information;

• The Government has an obligation to disseminate and provide broad public access to its information;

• The Government has an obligation to guarantee the authenticity and integrity of

its information, and

• The Government has an obligation to preserve its information.

For the most part these remain the guiding

principles for our activities as participants in the FDLP. Over the past decade, the library community

and Federal information providers, particularly the GPO, have struggled to assure these

traditional public access values in an era of rapidly changing information technologies. This struggle has been particularly difficult because changes in information technology have far outpaced adjustments to Federal information policy.

The problematic policy issue has been the question of whether Federal agencies are required to cooperate with the FDLP in the dissemination of electronic information

products. Simply put, the section of Title 44

U.S. Code that defines Government

publications is by some interpreted to apply

only to printed materials, not electronic. In fact, many agencies accept this interpretation and ignore the FDLP as an avenue for distribution of electronic publications. As most of you know, the library community

has worked valiantly over the past two years to

draft, lobby, and negotiate Senate Bill 2288

(105th Congress), the Wendell H. Ford Government Publications Reform Act, through

Congress. This bill would have taken great

strides toward resolving the growing fugitive documents problem. Unfortunately, despite all the good work done by the library associations, GPO, and others, S. 2288 did not pass. Given this policy vacuum and the transition to electronic distribution, it is difficult to envision how the sort of centralized coordination of access to Government information that the FDLP provided in the world of paper will translate into our new universe of electronic

resources. In the old world of paper, agencies were required to print through the GPO, and

with these materials in the GPO print plant, the

Library Programs Service could fairly readily

identify items that should be distributed through the FDLP.

In the new universe of HTML editing and

Internet access, agencies often publish their information directly on the Web, cutting out

the GPO as printer. Library Programs Service as coordinator, and FDLP libraries as repositories. This bypassing of the FDLP, of course, raises the critical question of how the assumptions and principles assured through the more or less centralized FDLP program in the past will play out in the significantly more scattered Internet- based information environment into which we

are evolving.

249
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Report to Congress

In August 1995, GPO managers were given the opportunity to collect their thoughts on how to adapt the "Program" to the new information environment. Responding to changes in technology, to efforts to trim the budget, and to Al Gore's efforts to re-invent the Federal Government, Congress instructed the GPO to undertake a Report to Congress, Study to

Identify Measures Necessary for a Successful

Transition to a More Electronic Federal Depository Library Program. The final report from this study (hereafter the Study) was issued

in June, 1996, and has provided a framework

for many FDLP efforts over the past several

years. One basic assumption of the Study is that the scope and volume of Government information made available in electronic formats has become so vast that no one entity will be able

to manage it and that a new FDLP model will develop to accommodate the increasingly new

information environment.

Several quotes from the Study demonstrate the extent to which the Study envisions

partnerships to be an integral component of

this new model FDLP:

• The Strategic Plan proposes a new FDLP

model that allows the traditional partners in the program to interact in new ways and which defines the various partners in the process by the services they provide rather than by the actions they perform (p. 20).

• GPO also may establish partnerships with depository libraries to retain and provide

permanent public access to certain types of information (p. 24).

• An enhanced system is needed to ensure permanent public access to electronic Government information products through

the FDLP. Such a system must include all of the institutional program stakeholders:

information producing agencies, GPO,

depository libraries and NARA (p. E-v).

• In the new FDLP model, forward movement of information products can

stop at any one of the points in the dissemination process: the point of creation

(the issuing agency), the point of coordination (GPO), or the point of local access (depository library). Nor will Government information products always

reside at the same location both for immediate and permanent access. Some agencies may decide to fulfill their obligations for public and depository

access through their own electronic information services for the short term, only

to pass responsibility for the information on

to GPO for permanent access through the FDLP. Under other partnering arrangements, depository libraries may

accept responsibility for permanent public access to some types of Government

information products. The party that

retains physical custody of the information

for on demand depository access will be

responsible for the information's

authenticity, storage and maintenance (pp. 20-21).

Significantly, the Study vests in GPO the

responsibility for coordinating this new model. Quoting again:

• GPO, as administrator of the FDLP, will coordinate a distributed system that provides continuous, permanent public

access, involving the publishing agencies,

the National Archives and Records

Administration, and regional and other depository libraries (p. E-7). While these statements outlined a substantial

responsibility for GPO as administrator of the FDLP to oversee some sort of network of

partners to provide access to the burgeoning mass of electronic Government information.

250
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

there was little beyond these statements of principle and general responsibility to provide

guidance to the GPO employees given

responsibility for implementing the strategic plan. They provide little in the way of concrete suggestions on how this system of partnerships would be implemented.

Implementing the Study's "Strategic Plan"

Defining what partnerships would be and how

they would work would need to be worked out

as GPO staff began to implement the Study's

"Strategic Plan." Of that I became intimately aware when I started working for GPO as a consultant in June 1996, less than a month

after the "Strategic Plan" was published. The

partnership questions was assigned as one of my primary responsibilities. Sandy Morton-Schwalb, also a consultant at that time, and I set out with various GPO staff to try to establish one or more prototype

partnerships. Because there were no FDLP

partnerships, it was our hope that by actually establishing prototypes we could work through some of the details that would define

partnerships. The projects on which Sandy and I worked

took dramatically different directions, defining

a sort of dichotomy in the way partnerships are organized. Sandy looked toward establishing partnership agreements in which GPO would work directly with agencies. In effect, she worked to establish partnerships as Interagency agreements between GPO and other Federal agencies.

Early on Sandy's main effort was to establish an arrangement with the Department of Energy, which led ultimately to the DOE Information Bridge partnership of which you heard Dr. Warnick speak on Tuesday morning. Sandy

also worked on the Interagency Agreement

which formalized the NTIS/FDLP pilot partnership.

My focus was on partnerships looking in the other direction, toward libraries as potential

partners. This immediately suggested two

possible types of library partnerships: one in which there was a two way partnership between GPO and the library, and one in which there was a three way relationship between the GPO, the library, and the Federal agency producing the information. The latter scenario seemed the more interesting and

desirable because it would lead to new and

unusual relationships among the three partners.

I will confess that I took the path of least resistance in my efforts to identify potential prototype library partners. Rather than start from scratch I identified a couple of libraries that were already working with agencies and

tried to negotiate partnerships with them. I contacted two colleagues whom I knew and who were involved in existing arrangements

with agencies:

• John Shuler at the University of Illinois, Chicago (UlC), who was working under

contract with the Department of State to manage the DOSFAN Internet site, and

• Greg Lawrence at Cornell, who was

similarly under contract to manage USDA

Economic and Statistics Service Internet resources. Owing to various factors, the discussions with UlC advanced more quickly and provided the opportunity to work through a prototype Memorandum of Understanding (or MOU)

which was signed by UlC, the Department of

State, and the GPO. The MOU outlined

responsibilities of the three partners, and, at base, assured that the information UlC

maintained on DOSFAN would remain permanently accessible through the FDLP. If UlC were to have difficulties in the future that would preclude them from operating

DOSFAN, GPO assured that they, or a new

partner, would absorb the responsibility for making these Department of State products

251
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

available for FDLP access. I will confess that what I saw as the most significant outcome of establishing the DOSFAN partnership had more to do with having successfully gotten the MOU through the GPO legal review process than with folding some excellent information resources into the program.

Discussions with Cornell regarding a partnership bogged down. Cornell has a unique arrangement with the Department of Agriculture and the issue of a partnership assuring permanent access raised questions that could not be resolved at that time. However,

being at the table with Cornell did provide

GPO with some exciting opportunities, including participation in the national conference on the preservation of digital agriculture information, about which Pam

Andre spoke yesterday.

Participation in this conference, one of only a handful of efforts addressing the electronic preservation issue at that time, provided GPO

the opportunity to interact with others

interested in providing permanent access to a

specific subset of Government publications. Because the basic underpinning of partnerships

as we perceived them at that time was

permanent access, discussions with Cornell

pretty much ended there and a partnership was

not established. However, during our

discussion Greg did make some interesting suggestions for possibly forming a reference oriented partnership which would be based on

the value added bibliographic and reference

assistance that Cornell had built into the site. While no partnership was developed, I did

think his idea was intriguing. In fact, a

substantial portion of the value of the FDLP

partnership with University of North Texas on ACIR (Advisory Commission on

Intergovernmental Relations) products, and DOSFAN 's Electronic Reference Service, of which John will speak shortly, is the librarian- enhanced access they incorporate into their Web sites.

Another interesting possibility for identifying partnerships I explored beyond turning to UlC

and Cornell is what George Barnum calls the dead agency partnership. That is, identify an agency that has recently been eliminated and

then find a library willing to partner on those

materials. I made my initial contacts with Cathy Hartman in this light on ACIR materials. What makes the dead agency scenario easier is that only GPO and the library need to sign off on the MOU - there is no agency.

I don't have time to talk of all the partnership angles I tried to work, and in fact have

probably forgotten many. One that was

interesting was establishing a "pilot" partnership with OCLC on ERIC documents. OCLC was interesting as a potential partner owing to their huge digital storage capacity and

their familiarity with the library community. The duration of that partnership is over and the

results are being assessed. With these accomplishments and near accomplishments under my belt, I left GPO to return to the university library. I couldn't help

but feel that what I had done was the easy part. Sure, we had worked out some details and come up with some models as called for in the Council recommendation. But the real work of making these partnerships lay ahead. The real daily operational details had yet to be worked

out. Concluding Observations

I also exited the doors of GPO with several big questions that I knew would need to be

resolved, yet were hardly at that time even on

the table. I will conclude my comments with a

three part summary of what I believe is the

biggest challenge facing the partnership program.

1. Agency non-compliance:

I believe that unless Title 44 is revised. Federal agencies will tend to deliberately not use the

252
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

FDLP as a channel for distribution of their electronic information products. This is partly owing to a lack of knowledge within agencies

of either the extent to which their information products are available through depository

libraries or the degree to which GPO catalogs and provides access to their publications. Agencies tend to see their responsibility as getting information to targeted audiences, then

preserving the few publications having

historical value in the National Archives and

Records Administration. Their basic awareness

of GPO is as Federal printer, not as the coordinator of the library program. Agencies

are probably unaware that the positive efforts they are making to save resources and provide

timely, ubiquitous access by making their current information available via the Web are

potentially undermining future access to Federal information through the library program.

2. Active Model: Assuming that agencies avoid (deliberately or

unintentionally) using the FDLP, new energies

will be necessary for the FDLP to function as a more or less central source for accessing

Federal Government information. The old paper model of FDLP distribution was

relatively passive. The stuff simply came to GPO and GPO distributed it; agencies were

required to use GPO for printing. Some

mechanism will need to be established in the Web model for the discovery, capture, and

preservation of agency information products.

3. Matchmaker: Someone needs to take the lead in linking

potential partners together. In my opinion, all players have some responsibility and must

contribute some level of energy toward this end, but I believe equally that it is critical that GPO take the most active role, essentially to establish a mechanism whereby GPO functions

as matchmaker between agencies and libraries.

My impression is that the sort of relationships

that Greg Lawrence has arranged with the Department of Agriculture and John Shuler has made with the Department of State are praiseworthy exceptions to the norm, but they

are exceptions and I don't believe that there

are many libraries that will follow their lead. Someone needs to be there to lubricate or

facilitate the process.

If the FDLP is going to effectively tame the

electronic information beast through

partnerships, my opinion is that GPO is going

to have to be that middleman. I know staffing

is tight given other responsibilities, but the advantages GPO has are 1) they are local to many agencies, 2) they have the auspices of being a major Federal agency, and 3) they have

existing contacts and outreach to agencies. It makes sense that GPO take advantage of these

existing advantages rather than having multiple

libraries work from scratch.

References

Aldrich, Duncan M. and Janita Jobe. "GPO

Pilot Projects." In Swanbeck, Jan and Peter Hernon, editors. Depository Library Use of Technology: A Practitioners Perspective. Norwood, Nj: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1992.

Aldrich, Duncan. "Partners on the Net: FDLP

Partnering to Coordinate Remote Access to Internet-Based Government Information." Government Information Quarterly, v. 15 n.l pp. 27-38, 1998.

Report to the Chairmen, Committee on

Appropriations and Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate. Internet and

Electronic Bulletin Dial-Up Bulletin Boards:

Information Reported by Federal Organizations. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office, 1997. 44 pp. < www.gao.gov/cgiA)in/getrpt?GGD-9 7-86 >

253
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Government Printing Office. Report to Congress. Study to Identify Measures

Necessary for a Successful Transition to a More

Electronic Federal Depository Library Program. Washington, DC: GPO, 1996. <www,access.gpo.gov/su_docs/dpos/

studyhtm.html >

254
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Partnerships on the Web: FDLP Partnering to

Provide Access to Electronic Resources

George Barnum

U.S. Government Printing Office Wasliington, DC

Good morning! When I first arrived at GPO

almost two years ago, I found myself being

referred to as "the new Duncan," since I followed Duncan Aldrich as expert consultant. As my time in the big red buildings has worn

on, I've acquired a new moniker, "Mr.

Partnership." So it's in that role that I'm thought to have a contribution here this morning.

In reality, taking Duncan's name in vain is not completely in jest here, since it was his white paper that first collected and made clear the notion that GPO is assuming responsibility for permanent access, in a way that we see as analogous to our role in continuing

accessibility for paper documents distributed to depositories. We delegate the specific tasks and responsibilities to a partner, via a written agreement. Two of the principal challenges in our commitment to providing permanent

accessibility to electronic Government

information products, which Duncan identified

in the white paper, are the issues of the capacity required for storage of the data and

the expertise required for making it available. Both of these tasks are formidable.

Partnerships are a way for us to model various

strategies for redefining the FDLP, taking advantage of the possibilities of the electronic environment. To date, we've tried out several basic models

for working in partnership with agencies and

libraries:

• Content partnerships, in which an agreement for storage and service of

specified electronic publications is struck between the agency, a library, and GPO;

• Service partnerships in which the partner produces a resource or tool of use in administering the FDLP;

• Gateways, in which partners provide useful

alternative views and locally tailored

interpretive information for GPO Access; and

• agency agreements in which we're experimenting with agencies on providing

access directly to their information. We can identify a number of potential benefits

in these arrangements:

• Permanent public accessibility

• Assured bibliographic control

• Distributed workload

• Increased involvement of libraries • Strengthened relationships between

agencies, GPO, and libraries The common thread, from GPO's point of view, that runs through all these arrangements, and which differentiates them from the

traditional relationship between depository

libraries and the FDLP, is that there is in all these cases some formalized, written agreement defining the terms and goals of the

partnership. For content and service

partnerships, there is a Memorandum of Understanding, signed by all participating

255
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

parties, which details specific expectations by which the performance of all parties can be

measured. For Gateways, a letter from the Superintendent of Documents summarizes GPO's expectations. Agency projects are formalized by an Interagency Agreement which

functions much like the Memorandum of Understanding. The other common denominator, in all our agreements to date except one, is that GPO

makes no direct monetary payment to the

partner.

I've spent some time considering a number of

issues about how GPO can make the most of partnerships. For a time, we were looking very

hard for ways to "streamline" - that is, move the formation of the partnership and the written agreement process from the "work of art" stage

to more a regular process.

I've come to believe that the more important

issue than that is the whole way partnerships should germinate. I've been asking lots of questions: If a library wants to be a participant, what's the best way to get it together with an agency? Is the best approach to work with agencies and actively seek library partners according to their needs? Or should we work

to reduce the administrative obligations on

agencies as active participants? Is the single agency/single host model the only one we

should consider, or could partner libraries derive more value from a topical approach?

What about partners who are interested in scanning retrospective content? And what do we at GPO do when a library approaches us with a really good idea?

All of these are questions we're pondering, and

that have in many cases been brought to mind

by the other folks on this panel and their

projects. We're still searching for a set of models that will be as effective and inclusive as possible. Inclusivity is the key - there is probably not a single answer, no one-size-fitsall approach.

We have recently been much encouraged by a meeting with some agency Webmasters in the

idea of placing a far greater responsibility on

the partner and GPO to discover and capture

information, and involving the agency "after the fact." The cold fact seems to be that while

there may be some interest in the idea of permanent accessibility on the part of the

agencies, it's not much of a priority for them, and no large allocation of their resources is going to be given over to initiating it. This approach may lend itself to our "topical" idea,

in which we feel that libraries may have an

interest in being tlie FDLP partner site for information on whatever, and it may be all information from one agency, or from several. One piece of my work in recent weeks has been the revision of our basic Memorandum of Understanding document. We originally thought to work from a "boilerplate" document

that could be adapted for each individual

situation. I'm now at work on what I'm calling a "drafting guide" that will give sample

language and guidance on what content fits what situation, in a sort of "two from column

A, one from column B" format. It's my hope

that this guide will make the mechanics of

starting partnerships a good deal easier.

So, that's the view from "the two Duncans:" where we've come from and where it might be

leading us. Now Donna Koepp, who

(fortunately for me) needs no introduction, will describe her recent experience in trying to create a partnership project.

256
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Constructing a Partnership: Nuts and Bolts

Perspective

Donna Koepp

University of Kansas Lawrence, KS

I have been asked to share with you

information about the partnership that I have "under construction." I've been working on

this for a couple of years, and still have a ways

to go, but I think there may be some

information about the process that I have gone

through that may be worth sharing with you. As many of you probably are aware, I have been involved with maps and cartographic information for a long time, so it will come as no surprise to you that the partnership that I am

working on involves cartographic and spatial data. I have two underlying concerns that caused me to pursue a partnership idea. One, I am and have been for a very long time, concerned with the preservation of data. Long

before we talked about the transition to an

electronic depository, I was concerned about what was happening to historical data when

map revisions were made electronically in the map producing agencies. This has been going on for a long time.

Secondly, I became concerned when it became

apparent that spatial databases were being withdrawn from the depository library program

because there was no cost-effective way of

distributing some of these huge data sets, specifically the DOQs (digital orthophotoquads).

Now, having said that much, I would like to

interject here, that the content of my

partnership idea is not what is important about what I have to say. I'm talking about

cartographic and spatial data, but I could just

as easily be talking about Bureau of Reclamation projects or National Park Service

data or trade data from the Department of Commerce. What I hope to communicate is the process that I have gone through to get to where I am now. It is my hope that by sharing

this process with you that it may inspire you to pursue a partnership idea in some area that is of special interest to you. My opportunity to pursue the partnership option came from my involvement with and membership on the Cartographic Users Advisory Council. For those of you who are not familiar with this Council, the Cartographic

Users Advisory Council (CUAC) is made up of representatives of six map library organizations and organizations which have an interest in maps. These organizations are ALA's Map and Geography Round Table (MAGERT), the Government Documents Round Table (GODORT), the Geoscience Information

Society, SLA Geography and Map Division, the Western Association of Map Libraries (WAML),

and the North American Cartographic

Information Society (NACIS). CUAC meets annually, usually in the Washington, DC area with map producing

agencies and at least one representative of GPO. Each representative on CUAC is assigned one or two agencies to liaison with throughout the year. The goal is to establish a good contact with the agency, learn as much as possible about the activities of the agency and

to communicate to the agency the mission of the Federal Depository Library Program.

257
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Over the years we have gotten to know some

of these agency representatives very well and

have developed a good working relationship with them. CUAC has been meeting since 1978. Beginning in 1984, when both U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Defense Mapping Agency partnered with GPO for the management of their depository programs, CUAC began working with GPO as well. The mission of CUAC is similar to GODORT's

adopt-an-agency program, which operates

within the Federal Documents Task Force. It seems to me that the adopt-an-agency program

or concept would be a very good vehicle through which one could pursue an agency

contact that could ultimately lead to a

partnership.

At the 1 997 CUAC meeting, USGS explained

that they were having to withdraw the DOQs

from the depository library program, and

explained the reasons for having to do that. The DOQs are digital orthophotoquads, which

are aerial photographs covering most of the

U.S. Basically, these huge datasets were

expensive to produce, and sales of this product

to the public and commercial vendors had not reached the level that USGS had anticipated, so they had decided to press them on demand

only. As an alternative to putting them into the depository program, they were also offering to provide them on demand for a price to GPO,

but they could not continue to distribute them

to all of the libraries that had selected them.

This was not a matter of the agency not wanting to cooperate with the depository program, but the reality of the situation was

that they could not afford to distribute the information in the way they had originally hoped to do. Of all of the electronic spatial datasets that USGS has distributed, the DOQs are the only one that is not distributed in any other way.

There is no paper product. If we don't get them electronically, we don't get that information at all. This is truly information that

is not making it into the public domain in our

libraries. Some of you may have accessed DOQ information on Microsoft's Terraserver < http://terraserver.microsoft.com > . USGS

has a Cooperative Research and Development

Agreement with Microsoft for putting images

from the DOQs on the Internet. This has been

a research effort for Microsoft to develop their technology for serving very large datasets. It is not certain how long they will maintain this

site. The Terraserver has a huge amount of DOQ

data, images of the whole US, but they are just images and one cannot do anything with them

other than view them. With the data that we

should have gotten on CD-ROM we would be

able to download the data for the image we

wanted into a software program, such as ERDAS or ArcView and incorporate it into whatever map we are working on. We could

display thematic information on it, or overlay

the image with another map. In other words, from the CD-ROM we would have information

that our users could interact with and use in their research, not just view on the screen or order off-line. Although the DOQs are the only firm example

I have of spatial data that has been withdrawn

from the depository program, it seems to me

that this could be just the tip of the iceberg. There is probably other electronic data

available in other map producing Federal agencies that is just as expensive and complex

to distribute to libraries that we probably are not getting into the depository program at all. Maybe we don't even know it exists. And how

do we know that it is being preserved? Are

revisions being made over the top of old data without a copy of the old being saved for

historical purposes? If this data goes to NARA,

do they have the capacity to archive it, refresh

it, and to migrate it when necessary?

At the CUAC meeting where USGS announced

that it had withdrawn the DOQs from the depository program, there was also a

258
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

representative from the Federal Geographic

Data Committee (FGDC), who indicated that she would be willing to work with us to see if there was any other way that this information could still be distributed. That willingness on

the part of another Federal agency was the impetus for exploring the partnership idea. Shortly after this I talked with a few folks at GPO about the idea of a partnership, but only

that this was an idea I was pursuing on behalf

of CUAC. We took no action at that time. GPO noted the fact that I was interested in pursuing this, offered to help if they could and

asked that I keep them informed. About a year after that particular CUAC

meeting, two members of CUAC met again with GPO, uses and FGDC to discuss how we might proceed. By this time I had begun to think in terms of all, or at least many Federal map producing agencies and not just USGS. And I began thinking that a partnership for cartographic and spatial data would need to Involve more than one library as well. My Idea is this. That a consortium of depository libraries be established to partner with Federal map producing agencies and GPO. The consortium members would each commit to providing permanent, user friendly access to spatial and cartographic data. The

agencies would provide just one set of their data to the consortium and the consortium would make it accessible over the net. The way in which the data would be distributed among consortium members has not been

determined. Consortium members have not been totally determined. What is known is that consortium members, which would be

depository libraries, likely those with a strong map library committed to electronic cartographic information access, would likely have to work with others on their campus such

as geography departments and computer

centers In order to have the resources to make

this commitment.

Our hope is that with the help of expertise from geography departments, better access could be provided to spatial and cartographic

data. Perhaps a query by geographic area would give one the option of clicking on a

variety of types of data. A common Interface would be developed for accessing all types of cartographic data. Huge data sets would be

stored on large servers in the computer centers

of consortium members. Data that could not be stored could be available 'near line' on demand by using robot technology. Data would be refreshed to assure continuing access and migrated to new technology as necessary.

I envision a consortium of perhaps 10 libraries. This would be small enough so that members

could work together to share expertise already developed in the geographic information systems field and to further make this technology easier for us to use In our libraries.

This Is the part that is still under construction. This cannot be done without major money. My goal is to get grant money of some kind

that would fund this Idea. That Is where I am

at the moment.

The details of this particular partnership idea

are less important here than the process by which the inspiration for the partnership occurred and the steps taken toward

implementation. Let me say In summary, that there are certain elements that appear to me to be necessary for the formation of a partnership. Number one, request and read GPOs

partnership agreement to determine if this is something that you are interested In being

involved in. If you are, then:

1 ) You need to have an area of interest or area

of need that you wish to pursue for your

Institution. You need to have an Interest In making this information accessible and

permanently available.

2) Make some contacts with the agency

concerned. Try to find someone in the agency who has similar Interests in assuring

259
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

permanent access to their data. This may

not be the first or even the second person you talk to, but keep trying. You may be

interested in doing this through GODORT's

adopt-an-agency program.

3) Talk to GPO about your idea and your

goals.

4) Be patient and persistent. Partnerships, I believe, may not be built overnight, or at least the relationship with your agency

contact usually will take a bit longer than

that. Although I would agree with George that we must move beyond each partnership being a work of art, I suspect there will always be some that will require a bit of

creativity and careful crafting. At the same

time, however, the process will get easier with more experience. After all, the first few of these have required charting new

territory. Since GPO now has experience

in the development of several partnerships, the process should be easier and faster.

5) Get the approval of your administration

early on. This is a significant commitment

that is being made by your institution, and

not just by you.

It seems to me, that this 'notion' of partnership,

as I have heard George refer to it a few times

this week, is very exciting. We are charting a new way of doing things. The old method of

regional libraries preserving everything in perpetuity doesn't work any more. The

paradigm has shifted, as much as I dislike that term, I guess it suits this situation better than anything else. We have an opportunity here to be pioneers in developing a new way of preserving public information. Until someone

comes up with a better idea, partnerships are the way we will do it. The field is wide open. There are literally hundreds of areas that need

our attention. From the tiniest subagency or bureau to the very very big, there are many

exciting opportunities. I hope that you will give this notion of partnerships some thought.

260
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Contributors

Duncan M. Aldrich Head, Business & Government Information Center

University of Nevada, Reno

University Library 1664 North Virginia Street Reno, NV 89557-0044

(775) 784-6500 ext. 256

duncan@unr.edu

Barbara J. Aldrich

Assistant Chief, Customer Services Center Bureau of the Census

Marketing Services Office Building 3, Room 1572

Washington, DC 20233-0800

(301)457-1225

barbara.j.aldrich@ccmail.census.gov Don Altom

Product Manager

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific & Technical Information

1 75 Oak Ridge Turnpike

Oak Ridge, TN 37830

Judy C. Andrews

Electronic Transition Specialist U.S. Government Printing Office

Library Programs Service (SL) 732 North Capitol Street, NW

Washington, DC 20401

(202) 512-1114 jandrews@gpo.gov Todd S. Bacastow CIS Coordinator

Pennsylvania State University 128 Land & Water Building

University Park, PA 16802

(814) 863-0049

bacastow@gis.psu.edu

George D. Barnum

Electronic Transition Specialist U.S. Government Printing Office

Library Programs Service (SL) 732 North Capitol Street, NW

Washington, DC 20401

(202) 512-1114 gbarnum@gpo.gov

Steve Beleu

Director, U.S. Government Information Oklahoma Department of Libraries 200 Northeast 1 8th Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105-3298

(405) 522-3327

sbeleu@oltn.odl. state. ok. us Sharon R. Blackburn Government Documents Librarian Texas Tech University School of Law Library 1802 Hartford Avenue

Lubbock, TX 79409

(806) 742-3883

xpsrb@ttacs.ttu.edu

Greta j. Boeringer Reference/Documents Librarian Pace University School of Law Library 78 North Broadway

White Plains, NY 10603-3710

(914) 422-4357

gboerin@glawlib.law.pace.edu

Nancy Brun

Chief, Information Resources Branch

National Cancer Institute Office of Cancer Communications, Bidg. 31-10A28

31 Center Drive MSG 2580

Bethesda, MD 20892-2580

(301)402-7405

nbrun@box-n.nih.gov

261
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Carol F. Cini Associate Director

U.S. Government Printing Office

Institute for Federal Printing & Electronic Publishing (FP) 732 North Capitol Street, NW

Washington, DC 20401

(202) 512-1265

ccini@gpo.gov

Robert D. Clair ^

Senior Training Specialist Bureau of the Census Customer Services Center, Marketing Services Office Building 3, Room 1575

Washington, DC 20233-0800

(301) 457-1220

robert.d.clair@ccmail.census.gov

Kay Collins

U.S. Government Information Librarian "

' University of California, In/ine Main Library Campus and University Drives

Irvine, CA 92623-9557

(949) 824-7290

; kcoilins@uci.edu

''''

Dr. Roland G. Droitsch Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy '

' U.S. Department of Labor 200 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20210

(202) 219-9058 ext. 173

rdroitsch@dol.gov Donna Dye ^ 0*NET Project Manager

U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration 200 Constitution Avenue, NW Room N-5636

Washington, DC 20210

(202) 219-7161 ext. 130

ddye@doleta.gov

Lillie J. Dyson

Public Libraries & State Networking Branch

Chief Maryland State Dept. of Education

Division of Library Development and Services 200 West Baltimore Street Baltimore, MD 21201-2595

(410) 767-0443

j1 1 52@umail.umd.edu

Cynthia L. Etkin Library Inspector

U.S. Government Printing Office

Library Programs Service (SLLD) 732 North Capitol Street, NW

Washington, DC 20401

(202) 512-1119

cetkin@gpo.gov

Walter L. Finch

Associate Director for Business Development

National Technical Information Service

U.S. Department of Commerce

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

(703) 605-6507

wfinch@ntis.fedworld.gov

Mary M. Finley

U.S. Documents Librarian California State University, Northridge DelmarT. Oviatt Library 18111 Nordh off Street Northridge, CA 91 330-8327

(818) 677-5001

mary.finiey@csun.edu

Gail Fithian Coordinator, Government Documents

Boston Public Library 700 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116-2813

(617) 536-5400, ext. 227

gfithian@bpl.org

262
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Sandra Fritz Federal Documents Librarian

Illinois State Library 300 South Second Street Springfield, IL 62701-1796

(217) 524-1795

sfritz@l ibrary. SOS. state, i I .us Kenwood E. Giffhorn Deputy Secretary, Management & Technical

Services PA Department of Environmental Protection Rachel Carson Building, 16th Floor P.O. Box 2063

Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063

(717) 787-71 16

giffhorn. kenwood@dep.state. pa. us John W. Graham

Head, Public Documents & Patents Public Library of Cincinnati & Hamilton County 800 Vine Street - Library Square

Cincinnati, OH 45202-2071

(513) 665-3358

johngraham@plch.lib.oh.us Markku T. Hakkinen

Senior Vice President The Productivity Works

7 Belmont Circle Trenton, NJ 08618

(609) 984-8044

hakkinen@dev.prodworks.com

Laurie B. Hall Program Analyst

U.S. Government Printing Office

Library Programs Service (SL) 732 North Capitol Street, NW

Washington, DC 20401

(202) 512-1062

lhall@gpo.gov

Cathy N. Hartman Documents Librarian University of North Texas

Libraries Highland Street Denton, TX 76203-5190

(940) 565-3269

chartman@library.unt.edu Cassandra Hartnett

U.S. Documents Librarian University of Washington

Suzzallo Library

Seattle, WA 98195-2900

(206) 685-3130

cass@u.wash ington.edu

Stephen Henson Documents Librarian Louisiana Tech University

Prescott Memorial Library

Everett Street Ruston, LA 71272-0046

(318) 257-4989

sdhenson@latech.edu Suzanne L. Holcombe

Assistant Documents Librarian Oklahoma State University Edmon Low Library

Stillwater, OK 74078-1071

(405) 744-6546

sholcom@okstate.edu

Forest Woody Horton

Consultant

National Commission on Libraries and

Information Science 1110 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 820

Washington, DC 20005

(202) 606-9200

whorton@nclis.gov

263
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Walter R. Houser Webmaster

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Information Management Services (045A4) 810 Vermont Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20420

(202) 273-8012

walter.houser@mail.va.gov John Hughes ;si-rv;^:'; F. Outreach Coordinator -

National Climatic Data Center

Federal Building 151 Patton Avenue

Asheville, NC 28801-5001

Ray Ingram

Executive Vice President The Productivity Works

7 Belmont Circle Trenton, NJ 08618

(609) 984-8044

prodinfo@prodworks.com Deborah P. Klein Associate Commissioner for Publications Bureau of Labor Statistics U.S. Department of Labor

2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Rm. 41 10 ~

' Washington, DC 20212

(202) 606-5900 .

' klein_d@bls.gov Donna P. Koepp

Head, Government Documents & Map Library University of Kansas 6001 Malott Hall .

• Lawrence, KS 66045-2800

(785)864-4660

dkoepp@ukans.edu

Karie T. Lew

Analyst

U.S. Government Printing Office

Electronic Information Dissemination Services (SDE) 732 North Capitol Street, NW

Washington, DC 20401

(202) 512-1525 klew@gpo.gov

Joan Loftus U.S. Government Documents Bibliographer

Stanford University Green Library Stanford, CA 94305

(650) 725-1030

loftus@sulmail.stanford.edu James M. Mauldin

Publications Management Specialist U.S. Government Printing Office

Library Programs Service (SLLA) 732 North Capitol Street, NW

Washington, DC 20401

(202) 512-1698 jmauldin@gpo.gov Nan L. Myers Government Documents Librarian Wichita State University Ablah Library 1845 Fairmont

Wichita, KS 67260-0068

(316) 978-5138

myers@twsuvm.uc.twsu.edu

David Nathanson

Chief, Library and Archives Services National Park Service Harpers Ferry Center

P.O. Box 50

Harpers Ferry, WV 25425-0050

(304) 556-0238

david_nathanson@nps.gov

264
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Robert Neff

Intranet Project Manager

U.S. Mint One Mass, 5th Floor, OEIP

633 3rd Street, NW

Washington, DC 20220

(202) 216-1642

robert.neff@usmint.treas.gov

Dr. Brand L. Niemann

Digital Librarian & Computer Specialist U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Statistics & Information Division 401 M Street, SW (MS 2164)

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 260-2510

niemann.brand@epa.gov

David J. Nuzzo

Acquisitions Librarian

State University of New York, Buffalo Lockwood Library

Buffalo, NY 14260-2200

(716) 645-2305

dnuzzo@acsu.buffalo.edu

Christopher X. Pfeiffer PAS DA Metadata Specialist Pennsylvamia State University

Pattee Library E506

University Park, PA 16802

(814) 865-1858 cxp7@psu.edu

Kathleen Quinn

Project Supervisor Bureau of Justice Statistics Clearinghouse 2277 Research Boulevard (MS 2-B) Rockville, MD 20850

(800) 732-3277

kquinn@ncjrs.org

Robert C. Richards, Jr. Technical Services Librarian University of Colorado Law Library Kittredge Loop South

Boulder, CO 80309-0402

(303) 492-2706

rrichard@stripe.colorado.edu

Judith S. Robinson

Associate Professor

State University of New York, Buffalo School of Information and Library Studies 534 Baldy Hall

Buffalo, NY 14260-1020

(716) 645-3327

lisrobin@acsu.buffalo.edu

Joseph Roeder

Access Technology Specialist National Industries for the Blind 1901 North Beauregard Street, Suite 200

Alexandria, VA 22311

(703) 578-6524

jroeder@nib.org

Jeffrey D. Pledger

President Able Channel

P.O. Box 3274

Reston, VA 20195

(301) 890-5944

jpledger@minespring.com

David Poehlman

Independent Consultant 115 00 Bucknell Drive #1 Wheaton, MD 20902

(301) 949-7599

poehlman@clark.net

Martha Jo Sani

Assistant Librarian University of Colorado White Business Library Campus Box 419

Boulder, CO 80309-0419

(303)492-2021 sanim@colorado.edu

265
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Fred C. Schmidt Government Documents Specialist Colorado State University William E. Morgan Library

Fort Collins, CO 80523-1019

(970) 491-1881

fschmidt@manta.colostate.edu

Gail Snider

Library Inspector

U.S. Government Printing Office

Library Programs Service (SLLD) 732 North Capitol Street, NW

Washington, DC 20401

(202)512-1119

bsnider@gpo.gov

William Sudduth

Reference Librarian University of Richmond

Boatwright Memorial Library Richmond, VA 23173

(804) 289-8851 wsudduth@richmond.edu

Timothy L. Sutherland Government Information Librarian Indiana University, Northwest

Library 3400 Broadway

Gary, IN 46408-1197

(219)980-6946

sutherland@indiana.edu

Jan Swanbeck

Head, Documents Department

University of Florida George A. Smathers Library 241 Library West

Gainesville, FL 3261 1-2048

(352) 392-0366

janswan@mail.uflib.ufl.edu

Dr. Walter L. Warnick

Director

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific & Technical Information 19901 Germantown Road, MS F-237 Germantown, MD 20874

(301) 903-6132

walter.warnick@science.doe.gov

Archie Warnock

U.S. Geological Survey

Federal Geographic Data Committee

Secretariat 590 National Center

Reston, VA 20192

Arlene Weible Government Documents Librarian Willamette University Mark O. Hatfield Library 900 State Street Salem, OR 97301-3992

(503) 375-5343

aweible@willamette.edu Marc W. Wolfson

Public Affairs Specialist Federal Emergency Management Agency

Office of Public Affairs 500 C Street, SW, Room 824

Washington, DC 20472

(202) 646-3766

marc.wolfson@fema.gov

Patricia B. Wood

Web Manager

National Partnership for Reinventing Government

750 1 7th Street, NW, Suite 200

Washington, DC 20006

(202) 694-0063 pat.wood@npr.gov

266
1999 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Elizabeth J. Yeates

Chief, Public Documents Room

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commssion

Public Document Room (LL6) Washington, DC 20555

(202) 634-3380

ejy@nrc.gov

267


U.S CO-';:-;