Proceedings of the

T"^ Annual Federal

Depository Library

Conference

April 20 -23, 1998

Library Programs Service

U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, DC 20401
U.S. Government Printing Office

Michael F. DiMario, Public Printer

Superintendent of Documents

Francis ]. Buckley, ]r.

Library Programs'Service

Vacant

Depository Services Staff

Siieiia M. McGarr, Ciiief
Proceedings of the 7^^ Annual

Federal Depository Library

Conference

April 20-23, 1998

Washington National Airport Hilton

Arlington, VA

Library Programs Service

U.S. Government Printing Office

Wasliington, DC 20401

1998
Marian W. MacGilvray

Editor

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

by the U.S. Government.
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Table of Contents

Agenda v

Draft: Depository Library Public Service Guidelines for Government Information in Electronic Formats: Ridley R. Kessler, }r, Daniel C. Barkley 1 How to Draft a State Plan: Stephen Henson, Paula Kaczmarek 3 Promoting Depository Libraries: Kathie Brinkerhoff 6 Government Information? What's That? Old Challenges in a New Landscape: Promoting Government Information: Maria Teresa Marquez 9

Distributed Depository Responsibility: Maureen Harris 13 30 Years of Distributed Depository Responsibility: Nancy Mulhern 18

Distributed Regional Responsibility: Tennessee's Shared Regional Holdings Arrangement: Ann Marie Sanders 21 The Federal Bulletin Board: Helpful Hints in Its Use: Catrena Hairston, James M. Mauldin 24

Daily Treasury Statements via the Federal Bulletin Board System: James M. Mauldin 26

Electronic Shipping Lists: James M. Mauldin 27

Writing the Depository Self-Study: Ca/7 Snider, Stephen Henson 29

Instructing the Undergraduate in Government Information: Elizabeth A. Estes, Cheryl B. Truesdell 37

Collection Management Using the Documents Data Miner: Nan Myers 44

Architecture and Functionality of Documents Data Miner: John Ellis 52 Documents Data Miner: A Resource for Collection Development and Management:

Cathy Hartman 56

Mainstreaming of Technical Sen/ices Processing for Federal Depository Collections: Fred C. Schmidt 61 Public Access to Government Information: Deborah Klein 66 US Nonprofit Gateway: http://www.nonprofit.gov: Thomas Freebairn 71 DOE Update: Embracing Technology to Increase Impact: Walter L. Warnick 74

Selected Models of Depository Management: John W. Graham 77 Models of Depository Management: From Archive to Access: Nan Myers 80 Government Documents as a Special Collection: Coleen Parmer 87 DOE Information Bridge: DOE R&D Full-Text on the Internet: Kathleen Chambers,

Lorrie Johnson 93

Designing Your Government Documents Web Page for Your Community's Needs: C;nny Hopcroft 96

FDLP/ERIC Digital Library Pilot Project: George Barnum 100 FDLP/ERIC Digital Library Pilot: John Hearty 102

Office of the Federal Register and Its Publications: Ann Maso 104

GIS Software, Applications & Management: Donna Koepp 107

GIS Software, Applications, and Management: Providing Public Access to Maplnfo and

ArcView: Barbara Levergood 1 10 ArcView 2.1 and Bureau of the Census Data Sets: John S. Walters 1 14

U.S. Senate Bibliographies Project: John A. McGeachy 1 1

6

Training Non-Documents Staff to Do Documents Reference: Cynthia Teague 1 19

111
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

Access to EPA's Information: An Update: jonda Byrd 123

U.S. Congressional Serial Set: Virginia Saunders 125

U.S. Congressional Serial Set: Its History and Future: Robin h-laun-Mohamed 131 Web-Based Library Instruction for Government Documents: Stephen Allan Patrick 1 33 NTIS/GPO Electronic Image Format: Pilot Project: Sandy Schwalb 1 36 NTIS-GPO Imaging Pilot Project: Kristin M. Vajs 138

Report on a "Pre-Pilot" of a Project to Deliver NTIS Electronic Image Files to a Depository

Library: Linda Kennedy 143 Web Page Template for Government Information: Cathy N. IHartman 148 LandView III and the CEIS Digital Library of the State of the Environment: Brand L. Niemann. ..^49 The SEC Website as a Reference Source: The EDGAR Database and Beyond: Ruth S. PitX 160

Assessment of Electronic Government Information Products: Study Status: Woody Norton 163 The Hill on the Net: Chris Casey 165 Out of the Basement: The Internet and Document Public Services: Grace Ann York 1 70

Contributors 1 77

iv
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Agenda

Depository Library Council sc Federal Depository Conference

April 20-23, 1998

Washington National Airport Hilton

2399 Jefferson Davis Higliway

Arlington, Virginia

Sunday, April 1

9

Morning All day meeting of regional librarians at University of Maryland

8:45 Welcome

• Sheila M. McGarr, LPS, GPO

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

9:00 Service Provided by Regionals for Electronic Products

• Ridley R. Kessler, Jr., Documents Librarian, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

• Daniel C. Barkley, Government Information Librarian, University of New

Mexico

10:15

10:45

12:00 Afternoon

1:30

Break

State Plans

• Paula Kaczmarek, Manager, Government Documents, Detroit Public Library

• Stephen Henson, Documents Librarian, Louisiana Tech University Working Lunch

Promotion of Government Information

• Kathie Brinkerhoff, Documents Librarian, University of Nevada, Reno

• Maria Teresa Marquez, Head, Government Information Department, University of New Mexico

V
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

2:45 Break

3:00 Distributed Depository Responsibility

• Maureen Harris, Head, Public Documents Unit, Clemson University

• Nancy Mulhem, Head, Documents, Patents & Periodicals, University of North Dakota

• Ann Marie Sanders, Depository Librarian, Library of Michigan

4:00 Tour of University of Maryland Regional Operation

• Linda Spitzer, Acting Head, Government Documents & Maps, University of Maryland

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 Etkm, LPS, GPO, Facilitator • Gail Snider, LPS, GPO, Facilitator

6:00 Informal pre-dinner get-together to network by food preference Monday, April 20

Morning

8:00 Registration and Coffee with Council and GPO Staff

8:30 Welcome & Remarks

• Anne Watts, Council Chair

• Michael F. DiMario, Public Printer

9:00 GPO Update

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

• J.D. Young, Director, Documents Sales Service

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

Services (EIDS)

10:00 Break

10:30 GPO Update (continued)

• Gil Baldwin, Chief, Library Division, LPS

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

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

• Sandy Schwalb, Management Analyst, LPS

12:00 Lunch

VI
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Afternoon

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

Efforts

• Staff, Promotion & Advertismg, 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 GPO staff will be available.

• Vicki A. Barber, LPS, GPO, Facilitator • Sheila M. McGarr, LPS, GPO, Facilitator

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

Part I: Introduction, Overview, and New Products

• Terri R. Barnes, BIDS, GPO

• Jackie Gregory, BIDS, GPO

2:00-3: 15 Open Text Software for GPO Access (demonstration)

• Bonnie B. Trivizas, Graphic Systems Development Division, GPO

2:00-3: 15 Federal Bulletin Board: Helpful Hints in Its Use

• Catrena L. Hairston, BIDS, GPO

• James M. Mauldm, LPS, GPO

2:00-3: 15 Hints in Writing the GPO Self-Study

• Stephen Henson, Documents Librarian, Louisiana Tech University

• Gail Snider, LPS, GPO

2:00-3:00 LPS Tour

2:00-3:00 Patent Public Search Room Tour

2:00-3:00 Center for Legislative Archives Tour

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

3:15-3:45 Break

3:45-5:00 Pathway Services (demonstration)

• Lee Morey, LPS, GPO

vii
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

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

Part II: How to Set Up "Tram the Trainer" Sessions and Q & A

• Terri R. Barnes, EIDS, GPO

• Jackie Gregory, EIDS, GPO

3 :45-5 :00 Instructing the Undergraduate in Government Information

• Beth A. Estes, Government Information Librarian, Valparaiso University

• Cheryl B. Truesdell, Government Documents Librarian, Indiana University- Purdue University, Fort Wayne

3:45-5:00 Collection Management Using the Documents Data Miner

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

• John M. Ellis, Senior Database Analyst, National Institute for Aviation

Research, Wichita State University

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

3:45-5:00 Depository Library Council Working Session

5:30 Dinner with Council and GPO (Informal groups meet in hotel lobby) Tuesday, April 21

Morning

8:00

8:30

Coffee with Council & GPO Staff

Depository Library Council: Plenary Session

Service Guidelines for Electronic Information: Final Report

• Diane Eidelman, Council Member

9:15 Depository Library Council: Plenary Session

Statistical Measurement and the Biennial Survey: Report

• Diane Gamer, Council Member

10:00

10:30

12:00 Afternoon

1:30-4:00

Break

Depository Library Council: Plenary Session Managing the FDLP Electronic Collection

• Gil Baldwin, LPS, GPO

• George D. Bamum, LPS, GPO

Lunch

Depository Library Promotional Materials, Order Forms, and Upcoming Marketing

Efforts

• Staff, Promotion & Advertising, GPO

Vlll
7995 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

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

• Topics TBA

2:00-3:15 Talk Tables FDLP/ERIC Digital Library Pilot Project (demonstration)

• Staff, OCLC

Mainstreaming of Technical Services Processing for Federal Depository Collections

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

2:00-3: 15 Federal Agency Update Session, Part I Census Bureau

• John C. Kavaliunas, Assistant Chief, Marketing Services Office, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce

Bureau of Labor Statistics • Deborah P. Klein, Associate Commissioner, Office of Publications & Special

Studies, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor STAT-USA

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

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

Part L Introduction, Overview, and New Products

• Terri R. Barnes, EIDS, GPO

• Jackie Gregory, EIDS, GPO

2:00-3: 15 Pathway Services (demonstration)

• Lee Morey, LPS, GPO

2:00-3: 15 Open Forum: Sales Program

• James T. Cameron, Promotion & Advertising Branch, GPO

• Alan E. Ptak, Sales Management Division, GPO

• Denise L. Thompson, Order Division, GPO

2:00-3:00 LPS Tour

2:00-3:00 Tour of the Ralph Bunche Library

2:00-3 :00 Trademark Public Search Room Tour

2:00-3:00 National Digital Library Demonstration

3:15-3:45 Break

3:45-5:00 Talk Tables FDLP/ERIC Digital Library Pilot Project (demonstration)

• Staff, OCLC

AskLPS (demonstration)

• Joseph P. Paskoski, LPS, GPO

ix
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

3:45-5:00 Federal Agency Update Session, Part II U.S. Nonprofit Gateway

• Thomas Freebaim, Director, Communication Catalyst Department of Energy

• Dr. Walter L. Wamick, Director, Office of Scientific and Technical Information, U.S. Department of Energy PubMed

/ • Rhonda AUard, Technical Information Specialist, MEDLARS Management

Section, National Library of Medicine

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

Part II: How to Set Up "Train the Trainer" Sessions and Q & A

• Terri R. Barnes, EIDS, GPO

• Jackie Gregory, EIDS, GPO

3:45-5:00 Hints m Writing the GPO Self-Study

• Stephen Henson, Documents Librarian, Louisiana Tech University

• Gail Snider, LPS, GPO

3:45-5:00 Open Text Software for GPO Access (demonstration)

• Bonnie B. Trivizas, Graphic Systems Development Division, GPO

Wednesday, April 22

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 Selected Models of Depository Management

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

Cincinnati & Hamilton County

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

• Coleen Parmer, Head, Government Documents, Bowling Green State University 8:30-10:00 Understanding Patent and Trademark Basics for Better Referrals

• Amanda Putnam, Administrative Librarian, Patent & Trademark Depository

Library Program, U.S. Patent & Trademark Office

8:30-10:00 Department of Energy Information Bridge: DOE R&D Full Text on the Internet

• Kathleen Chambers, Product Manager, Office of Scientific & Technical

Information, U.S. Department of Energy

• Dr. Walter L. Wamick, Director, Office of Scientific and Technical Information, U.S. Department of Energy

• Lorrie Johnson, Technical Information Specialist, Office of Scientific and

Technical Information, U.S. Department of Energy

X
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

8:30-10:00 Talk Tables Designing Your Government Document Home page for Your Community's Needs

• Ginny W. Hopcroft, Government Documents Librarian, Bowdoin College Planning Like It's (ALA) 1999: Government Resources for Citizen Participation, Advocacy, and Education

• Robert A. Hinton, Reference/Documents Librarian, Indiana University-Purdue

University, Indianapolis

8:30-10:00 FDLP/ERIC Digital Library Pilot Project

• Blane K. Dessy, Executive Director, National Library of Education, U.S. Department of Education

• John A. Hearty, Director, Business Development Division, OCLC

• George D. Bamum, LPS, GPO

8:30-12:00 Depository Library Promotional Materials, Order Forms, and Upcoming Marketing

Efforts

• Staff, Promotion & Advertising, GPO

10:00 Break

10:00-11:00 LPS Tour

10:00-1 1:00 Tour of the Ralph Bunche Library

1 0:00- 1 1 :00 Patent Public Search Room Tour

10:00-11:00 National Digital Library Demonstration

10:30-12:00 Office of the Federal Register and Its Publications

• Ann E. Maso, Writer/Editor, Office of the Federal Register, National Archives &

Records Administration

10:30-12:00 GIS Software, Applications, and Management

• Donna P. Koepp, Head, Government Documents Library, University of Kansas

• Julia F. Wallace, Head, Government Publications, University of Minnesota

• Brent Allison, Head, John R. Borchert Map Library, University of Minnesota

• Ridley R. Kessler, Jr., Documents Librarian, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill • Barbara Levergood, Electronic Documents Librarian, University of North

Carolina, Chapel Hill

• John S. Walters, Head, Government Documents, Utah State University

10:30-12:00 Talk Tables AskLPS (demonstration)

• Joseph P. Paskoski, LPS, GPO

Senate Bibliographies Project

• Jack McGeachy, Documents Librarian, North Carolina State University

xi
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

10:30-12:00 GPO Access Focus Group

• T.C. Evans, EIDS, GPO, Facilitator .

10:30-12:00 Making Documents Reference Less Threatening: Training Non-Documents Staff

• Cynthia Teague, Federal Documents Librarian, Michigan State University

12:00 Lunch

Afternoon

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

2:00-3: 15 Federal Agency Update Session, Part III U.S. Geological Survey's New Products

• Rea Mueller, Geographer, U.S. Geological Survey

Environmental Protection Agency

• Jonda C. Byrd, National Library Network Program Manager, Environmental

Protection Agency

National Labor Relations Board

• Ken Nero, Chief Librarian, National Labor Relations Board

2:00-3: 15 U.S. Congressional Serial Set: Its History and Future

• Virginia Saunders, Congressional Printing Management Division, GPO

• Robm Haun-Mohamed, LPS, GPO

2:00-3:15 Talk Tables

Partnership Opportunities with GPO

• George D. Bamum, LPS, GPO

Web-based Library Instruction for Documents

• Stephen A. Patrick, Head, Documents, Law & Maps, East Tennessee State University

2:00-3: 15 NTIS/GPO Electronic Image Format Pilot Project

• Kristin M. Vajs, Director, Office of Database Programs, National Technical

Information Service

• Sandy Schwalb, LPS, GPO

• Linda M. Kennedy, Head, Government Documents, University of California, Davis

• Duncan M. Aldrich, Head, Business & Government Information Center, University of Nevada, Reno

2:00-3 : 1 5 GPO Access (demonstration): All Databases

Part I: Introduction, Overview, and New Products

• Tern R. Barnes, EIDS, GPO

• Jackie Gregory, EIDS, GPO

xii
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

2:00-3: 15 Federal Bulletin Board: Helpful Hints m Its Use

• Catrena L. Hairston, BIDS, GPO

• James M. Mauldin, LPS, GPO

2:00-3:00 LPS Tour

2:00-3:00 Trademark Public Search Room Tour

2:00-3:00 Center for Legislative Archives Tour

3:15-3:45 Break

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

Part II: How to Set Up "Train the Trainer" Sessions and Q & A

• Tern R. Barnes, BIDS, GPO

• Jackie Gregory, BIDS, GPO

3:45-5:00 Talk Tables Government Information Web Page Template

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

3:45-5:00 New Products from the Census Bureau: American Community Survey and LandView

III • Paul T. Manka, Landview Project Manager, Geography Division, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce

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

• Elaine Quesinberry, Marketing Specialist, Marketing Services Office, Bureau of

the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce

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

Securities and Exchange Commission

• Ruth S. Pitt, Computer Specialist, Office of Information Technology, U.S.

Securities and Exchange Commission

FedStats

• Paul Bugg, Economist, Office of Management and Budget

3 :45-5 :00 Assessment of Electronic Government Information Products: Update and Discussion

• Woody Horton, Consultant, National Commission on Libraries and Information Science

Xlll
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

Thursday, April 23

Morning

8:00 Coffee with Council & GPO Staff

8:30 The Hill on the Net

• Chris Casey, Technology Advisor, Democratic Technology & Communications,

Uniled States Senate

9:15 Out of the Basement: The Internet and Document Public Services

• Grace A. York, Coordinator, Documents Center, University of Michigan

10:00 Break

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

12:00 Adjourn

xiv
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Draft: Depository Library Public Service

Guidelines for Government Information in

Electronic Formats

Ridley R. Kessler, ]r. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, NC

Daniel C. Barkley

University of New Mexico

Albuquerque, NM

1 . All depository libraries should have a

written policy regarding public services for Government information in electronic

formats. This policy should also contain

provisions for no-fee access to computer

workstations with CD-ROMs, diskettes, and the Internet. These should be equal to or exceed the services provided by other departments of the library.

2. All depository libraries should offer access

to electronic information for the general

public. Attempts must be made to purchase hardware that meets the latest Recommended Specifications for Public Access Work Stations in Federal Depository Libraries as published in Administrative Notes (updated annually).

3. All depository libraries should make

tangible electronic products and services (CD-ROMs, floppy diskettes) available to the general public in a timely manner. For example, if a product is not currently loaded and/or supported on a depository

library's computer workstation, the depository library should attempt to provide access to it within a designated time frame as determined by each library.

If the depository library is unable to

provide adequate access to and technical support of tangible electronic products,

circulation of those products should be made available in accordance with the

library's circulation policies of other non- Governmental tangible electronic products

or other depository resources.

4. All depository libraries should provide

Internet access to Government information

at no cost to the general public. Access

should also include Telnet and FTP

capabilities to encourage downloading

and/or transmission of electronic data.

5. Depository libraries are encouraged to develop home pages or bookmarks for Government information and/or work

cooperatively with other depository

libraries in their area to provide links to prominent or useful sites for the general

public; such efforts would be in line with

Section 8-6, (publicizing the depository

collection) of the Guidelines for the Federal Depository Library Program.

6. Depository library public service areas should have a capability for fax and e-mail delivery of Government information to

1
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

distance users in accordance with existing policies in the library.

7. Depository libraries are obligated by law to provide public access to depository

receipts, including electronic Government

information products. Depository libraries should provide the ability to download or

print electronic Government information in accordance with GPO requirements and

guidelines. Limits tcror cost associated with printing or downloading shall be

consistent with other public service provisions of the library.

8. Whenever possible, depository libraries are encouraged to provide hard disk space on

publicly available computers for temporarystorage of electronic Government

information for patron use.

9. Depository libraries should provide

adequate reference service and help

guides/documentation of tangible electronic products and the Internet for the general public.

10. Depository libraries are encouraged to

offer training for the general public in using tangible electronic products and

Internet resources.

2
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

How to Draft a State Plan

Stephen Henson

Louisiana Tecii University Ruston, LA

Paula Kaczmarek

Detroit Public Library

Detroit, Ml

The discussion of writing a state plan is not new. At its meeting in Spring 1981, the Depository Library Council passed a resolution recommending "the Public Printer investigate the feasibility of requiring each state to prepare

a plan to coordinate the Federal documents

depository program within the state." Faull describes the development of the idea of state plans. The original idea for writing a state plan was to assist the regionals in meeting their responsibilities. Function of a State Plan A state plan can do several things.

• Define the roles of the various stakeholders

in the plan: the regional/s, the selective depository libraries, library users, and

others.

• Set goals and objectives for the depository

libraries in a state.

• Outline strategies to reach the goals. Purpose of a State Plan A well-crafted state plan can accomplish

several things for the depository community in a State.

• Focus efforts of all Federal depositories in the state.

• Encourage Federal depository librarians to think of themselves as part of a system,

rather than as a lone entity.

• Foster communications through meetings and committee work.

• Encourage cooperative efforts among

depositories.

• Distribute responsibilities among the

depositories in a State.

• Promote partnerships with libraries or other agencies.

• Create a standard procedure for discards and other depository procedures.

Before Writing a State Plan

• Use e-mail to initiate discussion of the purposes of writing a plan.

• Look at plans that are available on the Web.

• Discuss the process of writing a plan and

seek a consensus as to who is in charge

of the plan.

• Involve Governmental agencies as appropriate in the State.

3
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

• Solicit input from all types of libraries or

library representatives and associations. Conduct a Needs Assessment The needs assessment will identify what the various players need and what they can

contribute. The needs assessment will serve as a diagnostic tool to identify what the depositories need to do to improve their effectiveness.

• What can the regional contribute?

• In what areas does the regional need help?

• What can the selectives contribute?

• In what areas do the selectives need help?

• Are there libraries outside the depository program that can help?

• Look at electronic service networks and

electronic needs.

Draft the Plan

• Appoint a representative committee to write the draft.

• Include in the plan the desirable features outlined by Faull or O'Mahoney (see below).

• Decide what to omit from the plan. What

you omit may be as important as what you

include. 10 Elements to be Addressed or Considered in All State Plans

• Collections—Responsibility for a complete

collection Current item selection Retrospective collection development

Disposal

Transfer of material

• Service—Services must be related to collections On-site

Interlibrary loan

• Bibliographic Access—Ail depositories must have a convenient way to know who

has what

• Communication among state plan

participants

• Financial responsibility

• Goals

• Review and evaluation mechanism

• Signed agreement among the participants

• Approval by state library agency or other designated body

• Other considerations

Visits Training

Publicity Optional participation by Federal

libraries

Faull, Sandra K., '"State Plans': Their Development and Potential for Regional

Depository Libraries Participating in the GPO

Depository Program," Government

Information Quarterly, vol. 2, no. 2 (1985) p. 161, citing Report of Depository Library Systems Committee—September 1981

(Washington, DC: GPO, 1981)

State Plan URLs 4/98

Louisiana '

'' http://www.lib.lsu.edu/govdocs/laplan2.html

Michigan

http://www.libofmich.lib.mi.us/publications/ feddocdep.html

4
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Missouri http://www.m issou ri .edu/' el I iswww/govdocs/

fdl_plan.htm Oregon

http://www.lib.pdx.edu/resources/govdocs/

stpln.html Elements of State Plans

1 . Designation of partner libraries by

congressional district. ^

2. Provision of specific steps for meeting Government information needs of local users including users with special needs.

3. Delineation of partnerships between

partner libraries and other agencies or

entities that create and/or provide access to Government information.

4. Sharing of access/collection

responsibilities, both current and historical, based on subject strengths of libraries or geographic considerations.

5. Identification of Government information holdings through online catalogs, union

lists, and other locator systems.

6. Integration and improvement of existing resource sharing/document delivery agreements.

7. Provision of opportunity for all partner

libraries to provide basic electronic access.

8. Coordination of training for staff and public

in the use of electronic information

resources.

9. Provision of enhanced services for access

to complex electronic products requiring

special software and/or equipment.

archiving and preservation of Government

information.

1 1 . Encouragement of local/state advisory and

support groups.

12. Identification of measures of accountability

for program partners.

13. Advocacy for citizen access to Government information and citizen education regarding such access.

14. Provision of feedback mechanisms for information creators and access providers

to evaluate Government information products and services.

15. Coordination with other appropriate state plans, including plans for interlibrary cooperation under the Library Services and

Construction Act, state plans for public access to state Government information, and state telecommunications plans. -Existing library plans meeting, or modified to meet. Partnership

specifications may be used as the Partnership plan. -The state plan requirement also may

be met in whole or in part by

reference to multi-state plan or a

regional plan.

O'Mahony, Daniel P., "State and Regional

Service Strategies for an Electronic Federal Depository Library Program," Journal of Government Information, vol. 23, no. 4, (1996) p. 434, app.

10. Incorporation of library arrangements

within the state/region for national level

5
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference Promoting Depository Libraries

Kathie Brinkerhoff

University of Nevada, Reno

Reno, NV

Teresa and I decided tojry to keep our

presentations short so that we can have a discussion with everyone sharing ideas and

suggestions on what you've done that has worked or not worked. Our goal is to start each of us thinking about what we can or might do in our own libraries. What are the

possibilities? Teresa is going to talk about some of the more unusual places or ways to promote our depositories while I'm going to

talk about promotion as part of a larger marketing plan and focus mainly on the planning process, the things to consider before we promote. We need to think of marketing

or promotion as more of an ongoing process than as a single task. We need to carefully plan out what we want to accomplish and whom we want to reach. There are several elements we need to consider in our planning process. We each have a different clientele and environment. Some of us are academic, some state, some

public libraries. Some of us have more money

or staff than others. We offer some different services, but we have definite-obvioussimilarities. Even if our libraries were totally different, we would still use the same planning

process, though each of us must determine the

best plan for our own library. The Marketing Mix

In the marketing literature, they talk about the marketing mix, or the 5 P's. People, product,

price, place, and promotion. A marketing plan

is built around these five elements. We have

to consider each of them as we plan how to promote or market our depositories.

People The first thing we have to do is identify our

users and potential users. Who are they? What information do they need? Where are they getting their information now? Are they

using the library? Why or why not? What is their library skill level? Do they have

electronic access? Do they know we exist? Do they want or need our products? Why?

What's in it for them? Our promotion will be more successful if we can target it to a specific group. Some depositories, such as a legal library or an

agricultural library, may have a very

specialized user group. But most of us have many user groups. At the University of Nevada, Reno we have a combined business and documents collection, so we count the College of Business as one of our principle user groups. We can divide that group into students and faculty, undergraduate and

graduate. There are also international

students, international marketing and economics majors, etc. One large group can be narrowed down in many different ways. We also serve the town patrons who come in to use the depository collection-or they come

in to use the business collection and discover

the depository collection. Since we are Regionals, we all serve colleagues in the

selective libraries. We also serve Government

officials, school children, reporters, business

people, disgruntled tenants and more. We

have to know our own user groups and design our product marketing efforts for them.

6
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Product Once we know our target market, we can decide on which product or service to market. What do we have to offer? What is our

product? Is it the whole collection? Maybe it's a special subject matter or a particular agency. What about our services or our electronic access? The knowledge and abilities of the

librarians and staff? What do we have that's special? What do people want or need? What

will they respond to? As we determine what we want to promote, we must make absolutely certain that we

market only those services that we can do

well. If we don't, we make ourselves look bad and lose credibility with our users.

Patrick O'Brien related a story in his article "Accentuate the Positive: Marketing Our

Services, Marketing for Change" about a Cleveland company that was in the business of making drill bits. He said that was how they defined their company, "We manufacture drill bits." Then the technology changed and there was no longer a demand for drill bits and their business dropped dramatically. They had to change the way they thought about their business. They went from "we make drill bits," to "we make holes," and they changed

their technology to keep pace with the times

(O'Brien, 7). We need to decide what our

business is. Do we need to redefine the way we look at it?

Price

I almost hesitate to say the word "price." I said

it once in a roomful of librarians and their collective gasp almost sucked in the windows.

Information is not free. We may not charge for

it, but there are definitely costs involved. We have costs associated with processing and

maintaining our collection and equipment,

overhead, staff time, and paper and other

supplies we use for ourselves or our patrons. There are also costs to the user even when the

product is "free." Transportation, parking, and

time all must be taken into consideration. It doesn't really matter what the product is worth

to us. What is it worth to the user? Do they

consider what we have to offer worth giving up an afternoon or evening to get? What do we have that is of value to them? Price is often a measure of quality. You get what you pay

for. How can we make a "free" product or

service appear valuable? Can we afford to market or maintain the product or service ourselves?

Place and Distribution Next we need to consider how people will access our product. Will they come to us or

will we send the product to them? If users must come to our library, is it convenient to get to and to use? Is it inviting? Comfortable?

Clean? Are our services obvious and easy to use or will users need help identifying them? We need to consider how our library appears from the users' point of view and organize it accordingly. Then we look at our channels of distribution.

If we have phone or e-mail reference, is it convenient and easy to use? Does the service (and the technology) function well. What

other means of distribution are possible? Promotion Communication. How are we going to make

our products or services known? How are we

going to get users into the library? How will we make users perceive our products and

services as valuable? When we get to this step we should know

what we have and who we want to reach. Then we decide what methods we are going to use to reach each target group. We should

look at what resources we have available (staff, time, money) and decide where are we going

to put our energies. We also need to decide what we aren't going to do.

7
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

Evaluation Change," Public Library Quarterly 12:2 (1992)

pp. 3-1 6. Once we have a plan in place and have begun

our promotion, we need to evaluate its effectiveness and determine what worked, what didn't, and what we will continue to do

or will do again. We must evaluate the cost effectiveness of the promotion in terms of time,

staff, money, and equipment. Was the result worth the cost? Did we reach the intended

user group? Did they geTthe message we

wanted them to receive? What were the

effects on our library as a result of the promotion? The marketing process can take quite a bit of time, but if we take the time to do the necessary planning, our promotion efforts can be a lot more effective. The marketing process has some similarities with the reference process and fee-based

searching. When I was in library school, I worked in the Computer Assisted Research

Services Office at Brigham Young University. When users came to me to do a search for them, I might spend as much as 30 minutes on

the reference interview to find out exactly what they wanted before going online. If I did

a thorough job with the interview, I could log

in, find the information I wanted very quickly, and log out. Thirty minutes of interview for

five minutes or less of online time so the cost

to the user was minimal. The same holds true for the planning process. We need to spend time on the planning stage before starting the promotion. Once the plan

is in place, the time we spend in the promotional tasks may seem very short by

comparison. The time and effort we put into our planning can make the difference between

a very successful promotion and a mediocre

one.

O'Brien, Patrick M. "Accentuate the Positive: Marketing Our Services, Marketing for
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Government Information? What's That?

Old Challenges in a New Landscape:

Promoting Government Information

Maria Teresa Marquez

University of New Mexico

Albuquerque, NM

The questions in the title of my presentation

reflect the reaction, usually accompanied by

quizzical looks and some apprehension, that I get when I introduce myself, outside library communities, as Head of the Government

Information Department at the University of New Mexico Zimmerman Library.

Mildly curious about what is Government

information and what is a Federal depository

library, people's interests perk up when I explain that the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) and its services are available through taxpayers' money, are free to the public and that the program's purpose is to inform everybody about the political, social and economic aspects of American life. This mild curiosity bears out the public's virtual unawareness of the FDLP's existence,

significance and usefulness. The challenge we

face, then, is to overcome the public's unawareness by promoting the program in new and exciting forums. A key assumption of the electronic Federal Depository Library Program Transition Planthat nearly all of the forthcoming information

will be in electronic format-opens new

opportunities for promoting the FDLP and Government information. Web pages and

reciprocal links are new feasibilities, although

trustworthy approaches like advertising, considered a bedrock of business, will continue to be used. Newsletters, flyers, and bookmarks are such examples. Moreover,

radio and television are promotional links to be more fully explored.

In this paper I present a number of suggestions

for promotional campaigns. Some will be

recycled ideas in new contexts, but others, I hope, will be different, challenging and

effective.

Presently, a trend in the education field that

finally has gained momentum is distance education. Courses offered through distance education programs offer exciting promotional

opportunities. For instance, library instruction sessions can be incorporated into course

requirements. These sessions could introduce

the depository library program and the many

resources available in Government

information. A key to successful participation in distance education programs is to manifest to professors or instructors that the service offered will

facilitate their teaching and further enhance

their students' success. Our department

recently contacted the director of the

University of New Mexico (UNM) Extended

Education Services to get a list of the classes offered through interactive television. Three

professors teaching distance courses were

contacted because their classes were in disciplines that could use Government

information for research projects. While the responses were positive, the professors were

not yet ready to have us participate in their

9
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

new endeavors. Nonetheless, we will continue to press forward until such time that they feel comfortable with the usefulness of our program.

In another effort, our department met with the

director of the UNM Media Technology

Services Unit to discuss the feasibility of conducting a series of training workshops,

through live interactive television, for librarians in the state's depository libraries. We also considered including training sessions

for other librarians. During our discussions the

director was responsive and supportive as he

explained his unit's operations and what we

would need to do before launching such a program. We very quickly realized that we would need

to seek funding outside the library before

forging ahead with our plans for the future. And looking into the future, we further realized that live interactive television and

distant education programs open a possible new field for librarians and that is training

librarians to conduct instruction before a live camera.

Library instruction workshops through live television can also be linked to Federally funded programs such as those sponsored under the Adult Basic Education Act

established in 1964. Under this act the UNM

College of Education provides professional development programs and sponsors regional and statewide conferences, among other

activities, for teachers of adult learners. Adult learners are usually eager learners and

introducing them to a treasure of information would trickle down to their families as well. Teachers of adult learners would also learn about the various resources available to them

for use in classroom instruction. Another opportunity for promoting Government information would be through

adult literacy activities which often function

with limited funding and could use free resources. As you know, there are numerous

readers, coloring books, posters, cookbooks, and pamphlets that would be appropriate for these programs. Programs such as talk shows on your local television stations would be other

opportunities to promote your depository

library and Government information. Television stations often carry programs that feature local community activities and leaders. And radio, as previously stated, still remains a

largely untapped outlet. One of our local radio stations sponsors a Sunday morning

program to promote the city's various cultural

leaders, organizations and activities. Consult

with your television and radio stations to find out which feature public service announcements and would be willing to highlight your library. Perhaps programming

could be planned to celebrate National Library Week.

In the print medium, alternative newspapers

are always looking for new material. Contact

the editors and invite them to visit your library and demonstrate GPO Access. If your local newspapers carry an arts and culture or book

section, ask the editors if they would be

interested in reviews of Government

publications of potential interest to their readerships. Such a publication is The Roswell

Report: Fact Versus Fiction in the New Mexico

Desert, which focuses on unidentified flying objects and sightings and encounters in New

Mexico.

In the new electronic environment digital technologies offer opportunities for enhancing

instruction, learning and research. The

creation of services related to electronic information access and retrieval such as Web

pages and reciprocal links are great promotional tools. The Reciprocal Web Pages Work Group of GODORT's Federal Documents Task Force, at ALA Midwinter 1998, discussed efforts to

10
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

create reciprocal links with congressional

delegations. Members of Congress would be

invited to link up with their respective depository libraries. The Nevada State Library and Archives is one

of those libraries with reciprocal links to their

state's congressional delegates. Of New

Mexico's congressional members, one senator

is not linked and one representative does not

yet have a Web page. Senator Jeff Bingaman's

office is directly linked to GPO Access via UNM's Gateway. In time, with the promotional efforts of librarians, congressional

delegations will recognize the value of having

reciprocal links with depository libraries. The same promotional efforts for reciprocal Web pages can be applied to state legislators and legislative councils. Presently, four members of the New Mexico Legislature have Web pages but none are linked to our

department's Web page. The same is true of the New Mexico Legislative Council whose Web page does not include a reciprocal link with any library in the state. There are plans to

invite those four state legislative members and

others as they establish their Web pages and

the Legislative Council to connect with us. Promoting reciprocal Web page links with

other agencies and public institutions can be

explored. For example, community colleges,

cultural centers and their libraries, chambers of commerce, and public school districts. In Albuquerque the library of the local community college has a reciprocal Web page

to UNM's General Library. So does the chamber of commerce, whose Webmaster

thought the idea of linking up was a terrific source of information. The Indian Cultural Center, a strong point of interest to worldwide

tourists, is considering connecting. Public school districts or individual schools, elementary and secondary, can also be invited. One local high school, the only one

approached at this time, is open to having a

link. The Webmaster for Albuquerque's public

school district connected to our Web page

recently. Private schools can be considered as

well. Albuquerque's two major private preparatory schools are thinking of including

links on their Web pages. As more and more businesses include Web

pages for their daily operations, selected

enterprises can be contacted and invited to make reciprocal links. For example,

businesses might need the Federal Register, the Commerce Business Daily or the Davis-Bacon Wage Determinations. Such businesses can be found in local publications like the Albuquerque Journal Business Outlook. A

recent issue showed that a new firm had

established an office in town. This firm, a

distributor of high purity pipe, tubing and

related components for the semiconductor and

industrial markets, could be a possible contact. Other possibilities for Web page reciprocal

links are community centers, senior citizens

centers, retirement homes and shopping malls. There is strong interest at these locations to

learn about electronic information and they would welcome instruction.

E-mail is another great marketing tool. A

recent brief survey conducted on GOVDOC-L

indicated that a number of libraries use e-mail

to do selective dissemination of information to faculty and interested persons. E-mail, along

with Web pages, is used for distributing newsletters and other informational sources about new acquisitions, services and programs.

In the print world of advertising, billboards are

still a useful promotional tool. Contact your

local bus company and ask about the types of billboards available within your budgets. Albuquerque's bus company has special rates for nonprofit organizations. Billboards posted on the outside of the bus are more expensive

than those that are inside the bus. The tail end

of the bus is another affordable location for advertising.

11
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

Listing your library's number in the phone

directory's blue pages is another possibility. In Albuquerque, the rates for a year would be a

little over $150.00.

Bookmarks, an old tried and true advertising

tool, can be decorative and colorful or simple, depending on the needs of the library, are

relatively inexpensive to produce and easy to

distribute. Next time you visit your local grocery store, check with the manager, if he or she will permit the distribution of your library's bookmarks at the checkout counters. Also

contact your local bank and inquire if your bookmarks can be made available at the

teller's counters. Most bookstores, especially used books bookstores, are willing to post

library flyers and distribute bookmarks. Most of us, at one time or another, have wondered what to do with all those superseded CDs that accumulate in the corner

of the office. These can be unusual calling cards. Include a CD in your letter of welcome,

along with a bookmark and your business

card, to new faculty or new community

leaders. Community leaders such as the Fire Chief, Police Chief, or the new mayor would

most probably notice your unusual welcome

packet. Most people enjoy receiving flowers. Welcome your new faculty with a bouquet of two or three flowers in your school's colors and your business card and you will be remembered for your thoughtfulness and

creative ways of bringing attention to your

library. Finally, the new electronic environment offers new possibilities and

creative approaches to promoting the Federal Depository Library Program and its services.

12
J 998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Distributed Depository Responsibility

Maureen Harris

Clemson University Clemson, SC

When preparing for this presentation, I re-read an earlier presentation I had made about the Shared Regional in South Carolina and I find that that presentation is still accurate in describing the origins of the Shared Regional and in touching upon some of its problems. The difference for this presentation is that I am

going to attempt to explain WHY I think we

have had a less than total success for the South

Carolina Shared Regional.

I need to emphasize here that this is MY

interpretation, that it has not been "approved"

by anyone at my library or anyone else at a South Carolina depository. In addition, many

of the "villains" are no longer working at South

Carolina libraries so cannot defend themselves

or even offer a differing interpretation. It is possible that I am dead wrong-but I don't

think so. I may be wrong on some details but

the main analysis is, I believe, correct.

First, a brief history of the South Carolina Shared Regional. The movers behind the program were depository librarians at several

selectives, especially those with many items they wanted to dispose of. I am told that

efforts were made over some years to convince

the University of South Carolina (USC), the

state's largest library, to become the regional but the then director was adamantly opposed

to this. A state GODORT was formed with one of its purposes being to set up a Shared Regional and this was done involving 4 different

libraries, 3 to be shared regionals and the State Library acting as a sort-of "secretariat" for the

plan. Since I was not then involved in

documents in South Carolina, I do not know

how they convinced the libraries, especially

the reluctant USC director, to participate. But

note this significant fact: the push for setting up

this program came from libraries other than USC or Clemson, both of which ended up as the Shared Regional after this early plan

crashed.

If I had to give one reason for the less than

successful Shared Regional in South Carolina it would be this: the two libraries which became

the Shared Regional were not the ones most

involved in setting up the program; one in fact was not only reluctant but hostile to the idea (I refer here, of course, to the library's administration, not to the documents

librarians). The two libraries could be said to have little or no "ownership" in the program. And this led to the greatest problem

experienced in the plan: the unwillingness of the administration of the USC library to devote any resources to their Shared Regional

responsibilities. And GPO didn't help any either, revealing another potential problem for any future Shared Regionals. GPO's distribution section began sending all regional shipments to USC,

expecting them to then distribute them to the other two libraries. This didn't last long but it gave USC a legitimate gripe against GPO. It also showed a lack in GPO's organization which could be significant if other states explore the Shared Regional alternative. Should there be additional Shared Regionals, GPO really needs to have a distribution system

appropriate for that group of depositories and

13
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Libraiy Conference

there needs to be a lot of communication between the libraries and GPO about HOW

shipments will be made. This "nuts and bolts" issue was overlooked at the beginning of the South Carolina Shared Regional and it almost sunk the program at its inception. Now to return to my statement above about

the use library, what precisely do I mean?

Although a regional is charged with several

responsibilities including reference assistance, training and orientation and so on, what the South Carolina selectives wanted was the

ability to dispose of older materials. The state's GODORT had been quite active in training and the larger selectives had given

informal reference assistance for some time so those regional responsibilities were, at least in part, taken care of without having a South

Carolina regional. But the older selectives in the state had accumulated many older documents for which they no longer had a need or space.

Disposal regulations were drawn up, the two

Shared Regional libraries divided up the active and the "dead" agencies, and disposals began

with Clemson handling the A's. Although some of the lists were very long (Clemson's

first disposal list covering E, ED, and EP was 32

pages long, single spaced-and this was after we accepted numerous titles in these areas), Clemson managed to keep up the schedule we

had set. But USC, with a larger professional but smaller non-professional staff in documents, could not process the lists it received and later stopped accepting disposal lists-which meant that South Carolina

selectives could not dispose of materials from many agencies. USC was handicapped not only by staffing restrictions but by a lack of equipment. My

library had numerous computers and word

processing software from the beginning of the Shared Regional program-and this greatly

facilitated the preparation of disposal lists- while my colleagues at USC had a typewriter

(and I'm not even sure it was electric). I remember once commiserating with Debbie

Yerkes of USC who was typing (yes, typing with a typewriter) a disposal list while at Clemson we had students creating a disposal

list on a computer. (I should add here that this situation has changed and USC has staff computers today.)

But my purpose is not to trash the USC library but to warn any of you contemplating creating some kind of shared arrangement to be certain

that the libraries involved-especially their administrators-understand what is involved and are willing to commit needed resources to the program or you will not accomplish your

goals.

In South Carolina, libraries were able to dispose of older materials for half of the agencies but that is less than they had hoped

when the program began in 1986. In fairness,

I must say that within the past 6 months, the

situation has improved and Clemson and other

libraries have been able to have disposal lists processed by USC. I hope that this will continue.

It's appropriate now to mention another lack of the South Carolina Shared Regional that might have been useful in the situation described above. There is no evaluation mechanism for the South Carolina Shared Regional; no official way to assess progress and to describe problems. There is not even any provision for an annual meeting of depository librarians although we have often had an informal annual session. The first South Carolina State Plan related only to drawing up the initial Shared Regional, the one involving 4 libraries, and when that ended, so did the State Plan. And that State Plan concentrated only on

setting up the program, no one contemplating

that it might not operate as described.

I am now convinced that a State Plan that includes an elected advisory council and an annual report on regional activities written by

that council would be a good thing, especially

14
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

if the assessment was taken seriously and if the

report was sent to library directors of the Shared Regional and all the selectives (and, of course, to GPO). This would serve as almost a "mini-inspection" where problems could be

listed with the expectation that the Shared

Regionals would report back to the depository

advisory council about their plans for correcting shortcomings. So what does all this say to any of you

contemplating moving to some kind of a Shared Regional?

1 . First, make sure that the program and its requirements are honestly described to the administration of the libraries involved. There WILL be extra work in being a Shared Regional and some provision must

be made for this. If the library administration of any of the libraries is less than enthusiastic about the program-as was the case in South Carolina-you can expect problems as that administration will be reluctant to designate any resources to the program. As I have already said, I was not in South

Carolina when the South Carolina Shared

Regional was set up but I can only guess

that the eagerness of some depositories to dispose of materials blinded them to the dangers of depending upon a library whose administration was reluctant to enter into the program.

2. Should there be other Regionals that want

to explore some kind of a Shared Regional arrangement, I believe that GPO must

create a "shared regional liaison" person to answer distribution questions. (To say nothing about who gets to sit on the bus. I believe we were told "one per regional" for

this meeting; so how many seats are alloted for a Shared Regional?) Should there be numerous libraries moving

toward a shared arrangement, it may be

necessary for GPO to rethink its "regional

or selective" distribution system and to create a third distribution category. We

have sometimes had to query GPO about how our library will be treated for a

particular publication (such as dual format

materials. Congressional Record, etc.) and we do not always receive consistent answers from GPO-which reflects the fact that Shared Regionals fall outside the boundaries of GPO's two distribution

patterns. And this also means that, although my library is the South Carolina

regional for DOE, we do get "rain checks" and "short, do not claim" for DOE titles so

that we end up with a less than complete

collection. (In a recent case, we failed to get a major DOE title (rain check) but a very small selective in our state did get it-l suppose we will eventually get it as a discard if GPO doesn't send it as a "rain check" item.)

3. Make sure there is some kind of evaluation procedure for the operations of a Shared

Regional. And be certain that the evaluation results in a written document

which is sent to GPO and to the library directors of all of the state's depositories. I think this could best be accomplished by

writing it into a State Plan which would

include an elected advisory committee which would actually write the evaluation but certainly other methods could be

devised to accomplish this. I would also suggest that there be a provision for an

annual meeting of depository librarians at which the most recent evaluation would

be discussed.

4. In considering Shared Regionals, think

"outside the box." In South Carolina (and I think in North Dakota which was our

"model") we simply divided all regional

responsibilities in half. That's certainly an

acceptable way to do it but I can think of other ways to accomplish a sharing of

regional responsibilities.

15
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

Perhaps a library with a large storage

facility could maintain the entire retrospective collection for a state while another library-maybe one blessed with

staff but not space-could receive ALL

materials and later transfer many items to the "retrospective regional." Some responsibilities such as help with

loading CD's, trainijig for Internet access, running a depository listserv might be

assigned to another library depending upon interest and expertise. In South

Carolina, the documents listserv is run by a

selective because the librarian there had

the knowledge and the interest to do it. And, as I had earlier explained, most

training has been handled by the SC GODORT organization which used workshops as a way to generate revenue.

If our state writes a new State Plan, I see no

reason why these tasks could not be

written into the plan but continue being handled as before. Perhaps one member

of the state plan advisory group could be

appointed as the training liaison to the SC GODORT. This would ensure that SC GODORT would always be aware of training interests among the depository

libraries.

5. Make provision for tasks or responsibilities not even considered when the regional program was set up. The two tasks that I think of are recon of older documents and

assistance in using all the new electronic resources now a part of the depositor/ program. To my knowledge, there is no GPO

requirement that older documents appear

in a library's online catalog, but many

libraries are adding OPAC records for their retrospective collection. My library is now

considering whether we can afford to begin a recon project. A plan for a recon

project could be included in a State Plan or other document setting up a Shared

Regional if the libraries concerned are

willing to take on this task.

At the very least, any new Shared Regional

plan should include a requirement for one member to monitor cataloging projects such as the CIC pre-1976 documents

cataloging project so that all depositories

in the state can be kept up to date on these developments.

Work with the new electronic sources should also be addressed, although I think

this is a task that could be "assigned" in a

State Plan or a Shared Regional agreement

to a library other than a regional. Again,

this could be decided based upon the

staffing of the Shared Regionals, and the

interest and knowledge of the state's depository librarians. As mentioned earlier, in my state the more

knowledgeable depository librarian for the new electronic sources is at one of the

state's smaller selectives. Should SC write

a State Plan, I would expect that he would

figure in the plan as our "electronic guru"

at least initially.

6. While it may not always be possible, I think a Shared Regional could best be

planned when the librarians involved know one another and have had some

experience working in the state (i.e., they

know where the bodies are buried). I assumed responsibility for documents at Clemson with only two years experience in South Carolina and without having even met most of the document librarians in the

state including the librarians at our other Shared Regional library, USC. I did not

learn until later of the reluctance of the USC administration to take on the Shared

Regional program or of some other features of that library that had an adverse impact upon the program. I like to think that I would have been more cautious in recommending participation by my library had I had more knowledge of these facts.

16
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

So am I sorry that Clemson has been one half of South Carolina's Shared Regional? I'm not

sure. We have certainly expended staff time in processing disposals for South Carolina's

selectives but, in turn, have been able to dispose of very little ourselves until the last few months. And we definitely receive

materials that are never used in our library, some of them "problem" titles that require lots of work and/or space. (Why, oh, why don't those accursed Davis-Bacon reports get transferred to the Internet?) Our library has

fallen upon hard times in the past year and

withdrawing from the Shared Regional has been suggested as one means of coping with our diminishing resources. But being part of a Shared Regional definitely fits with Clemson's

mission as South Carolina's land grant school and I believe our dean is unlikely to want to face the wrath of his fellow depository

directors when they learn that the program

allowing them to dispose of documents has ended. (I am assuming here that Clemson's

withdrawal would mean there would be no

Regional in SC.) My prediction, then, is that the South Carolina Shared Regional will continue but I hope that

it can be improved by the drafting and signing

of a State Plan by all the library directors concerned-a State Plan that would address the

issues I have raised here. As I mentioned at the beginning. South Carolina is now operating under its second Shared Regional plan, the first one having been a dreadful fiasco from which

Sheila McGarr rescued us (but that's another

story). Maybe it's now time for the third South

Carolina Shared Regional-the one of which it can be said "third time's the charm."

17
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference 30 Years of Distributed Depository Responsibility

Nancy Mulhern

University of North Dakota Grand For[<s, ND

In June 1968, the GoveTnment Printing Office approved the creation of the first joint regional depository library. The University of North Dakota (UND), Chester Fritz Library and the North Dakota State University (NDSU) Library have for the last thirty years shared the

responsibility of providing Government

publications to the state of North Dakota.

Chester Fritz Library and the North Dakota

State University Library Directors wrote to the Government Printing Office, "We have

investigated the implications of this proposal and believe that it will prove to be in the best

interests of the two Universities and the State of North Dakota." From its inception in North

Dakota, the shared regional depository has shown itself to be an effective organizational model. Over the course of 30 years, as Government

information expanded exponentially, it became increasingly difficult for depositories

to meet the Government information demands

of a varied population. The joint regional depository structure of shared responsibility can serve to lighten the burden. It has allowed

this sparsely populated state to develop a comprehensive collection of Government

information, with an effective delivery system. NDSU and UND have been able to fulfill this major function of regional depository libraries as well as serve the needs of their respective campuses. A committee representing both institutions negotiated the division of the depository

materials. Depository responsibilities were

divided by letter, taking into consideration the

curriculum strengths of the two campuses. Where disciplines overlapped, the committee

negotiated the division. Both institutions have

strong teacher education programs that would

utilize the Department of Education documents. North Dakota State University

retained responsibility for the E's. The

University of North Dakota in turn selected approximately 40% of the E's to serve the needs of the University. Each institution selects materials that are appropriate to the mission of the library, their primary clientele, and local community. A reasonable amount of overlap occurs. When curricular strengths change, the division

of the letters is renegotiated. The

establishment of the Center for Aerospace

Sciences at the University of North Dakota was

followed by the transfer of the letter N, with its thousands of NASA publications, to the Chester Fritz Library. Each institution retains responsibility for: bibliographic instruction, outreach, technical

processing, equipment and maintenance for their respective letters. The shared regional depository library model

has strengths, as well as weaknesses. Conserving available shelf space was a major

concern for both libraries at the onset of this arrangement. However, over the past 30

years, that advantage has largely disappeared. By only having half of the documents, the

respective institutions have become more

expert in their use. The completeness of the

collection is assured by each partner offering

18
J 998 Federal Depositor)^ Library Conference - Proceedings

the other the overlapping publications that are withdrawn after 5 years. The two regional librarians share the oversight

of the 7 selective libraries. The two librarians can easily arrange on site visits to the selective

libraries in the state. The document community in North Dakota is small, but covers a wide geographic area. For the most

part, the librarians at the selective libraries are seasoned veterans of state as well as Federal documents. Document librarians meet

through the Government Documents

Roundtable section of the North Dakota

Library Association. The advances in technology have also bolstered the effectiveness of the shared

regional model. NDSU maintains a listsen/ for North Dakota Government document

librarians. Both institutions have developed

Web pages with links to one another and to the wider world of documents. In 1 993, UND

added the 1976+ documents to their online

catalog, which significantly increased

accessibility of documents to patrons from

across the state. There are drawbacks to being a shared

regional depository. Shared regionals are sometimes treated like selectives when

claiming items. In addition, it is occasionally

difficult for patrons to identify which institution has a needed document. This last problem has been addressed in two ways.

In 1992, UND and NDSU established a daily

shuttle bus to transfer documents and

Interlibrary Loan materials between campuses.

This has provided patrons with a seamless method of rapidly retrieving documents from

either institution. The state of North Dakota expects to implement a new online system by the year 2001 . At that time, NDSU and UND will use

the same online system. This will further

facilitate document access to residents of North Dakota.

Chester Fritz Library and Distributed

Responsibility

At the University of North Dakota, depository documents are part of the Documents, Patents, Trademarks and Periodical Department. UND

has been a Patent and Trademark Depository

Library since 1990. Technical service, as well

as public service for documents, periodicals, microforms, software and media kits are the

responsibility of this department. The

department is staffed by one librarian, six library associates and 30 student employees.

Departmental student employees are cross

trained in the use of periodicals and government documents. The wide range of

activities in this department has necessitated

distributing document responsibilities to other departments in Chester Fritz Library. The reference and research services librarians respond to the majority of the reference questions concerning documents. All reference librarians are trained to respond to the questions concerning Government

documents. The bibliographic instruction

librarian coordinates the instruction on the use

of Government documents, as well as the

creation of pathfinders and guides. Promotion and outreach are a joint effort of the Reference and Research Services staff and the Documents staff. The electronic services

librarian maintains a core number of document CD-ROM's on workstations in the Reference and Research Services Department. In the summer of 1998, a GIS workstation will be

placed in the Reference and Research Services

area. Document responsibility has been further distributed by selectively housing Government

documents in three campus libraries. The

Harley French Library of the Health Sciences, Thormsgaard Law Library and the Geology

Library house a significant number of documents. Annually each library is encouraged to select or deselect items.

19
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository! Library Conference

These housing agreements benefit the Chester

Fritz Library as well as the University. The

documents are placed in the library where

they will have optimum use and greater

accessibility. The University of North Dakota Geology Library selectively houses thousands

of United States Geological Survey

publications and topographic maps.

Selective housing enhances the capability of these libraries to develop collections of greater depth. The selective libraries assume

responsibility for the cataloging, binding and maintenance of the selected documents.

Promotion, bibliographic instruction and

reference for these materials also become the

responsibility of the selective library. The judicious use of selective housing agreements has served to alleviate some

concern over space in the Chester Fritz Library, as well as heightened the accessibility of documents on the University of North Dakota campus.

Distributed depository responsibility has been

a reality, a necessity, as well as a successful organizational structure that has been a benefit

to the citizens of North Dakota. North

Dakota's joint regional depository library celebrates its thirtieth anniversary and looks forward to the next century.

20
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Distributed Regional Responsibility: Tennessee's

Shared Regional Holdings Arrangement

Ann Marie Sanders

Library of Michigan

Lansing, Ml

The establishment of the University of Memphis as Tennessee's regional depository in 1989 presented some unique challenges in establishing a regional collection for the state. Tennessee's depositories had never been

served by a regional, and collectively held over a hundred years of material in collections

that had never been weeded in any way. Other than through the Government Documents Organization of Tennessee, a unit of the Tennessee Library Association, there were few avenues for formal communication between depositories. A shared holdings arrangement in which seven institutions share the responsibility for the pre-1989 regional collection has proven a creative and effective solution to these challenges. Tennessee Depositories Tennessee has twenty-four selective depository

libraries. Fifteen of these are academic

libraries, four are public libraries, three are law

libraries affiliated with university law schools, and the Tennessee State Library and Archives

is also a selective depository. One Federal agency library, located at the Tennessee Valley

Authority in Chattanooga, is a small selective depository but is excluded from the procedures discussed here as its disposal procedures are coordinated through the

Library of Congress. Tennessee's selective libraries range widely in age. The oldest depository is at the University

of the South in Sewanee (1873) and the youngest is the Law Library of the University of

Memphis (1979). The Tennessee Valley

Authority library is the smallest, selecting four percent of the available items, while the

largest, the University of Tennessee-Knoxville,

selects seventy-eight percent. The average age

is fifty-three years, and size is twenty-eight

percent. The University of Memphis was a large selective depository (60-80%) and known as Memphis State University when it sought

regional designation in 1989. The library was

a relatively young depository, established by

representative designation in 1966, but had

exercised every opportunity to build its collection retrospectively in areas of important and standard series. Its major obstacle to regional designation was space; the anticipated discards of twenty-two depositories could not be housed in the library, although a new

library was in the planning stages. A Shared Holdings Arrangement

The University of Memphis staff sought

partners in the summer of 1 990 in five

institutions: Vanderbilt University, the Memphis/Shelby County Public Library and

Information Center, East Tennessee State University, the Tennessee State Library and

Archives, and the University of TennesseeKnoxville. These institutions were sought as some of the largest and oldest collections, along with those with specialized, long runs of

material, and it was hoped that these

institutions could and would house the

regional collections of these materials. After

21
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

an initial positive response from these five

institutions, an open letter was sent to all Tennessee depositories seeking any additional

partners. Tennessee Technological University joined the partnership in September of 1990, and representatives met to plan the initial "adoption" of specific agencies that each

institution would take responsibility for. Agencies were selected or suggested based upon existing collection strengths, the

curricula of the academic institutions involved, and, to some extent, the geography of the

state.

Each institution signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the University of Memphis to

solicit and maintain pre-1989 material in appropriate agencies. The University of Memphis "reserved" certain agencies or

classes to remain with the post-1989 regional

collection. The group of institutional representatives also established a semi-annual schedule for depositories to weed. The

specific agencies or classes chosen by each

institution follows:

Partner institution and description Agencies housed

Vanderbilt University

(est. 1884, large academic, 58% selective) Department of State Executive Office of the President

President

All hearings Some major serials, including:

Official Gazette, Congressional Globe and

Record, Scientific and Technical Aerospace

Reports, Energy Research Abstracts Memphis/Shelby County Public Library

(est. 1896, large public, 45% selective) Department of Labor

Smithsonian Institution Small Business Administration

East Tennessee State University

(est. 1942, medium academic, 60% selective) Bureau of Mines (and predecessors) Environmental Protection Agency

Mining Enforcement & Safety Administration Mine Safety and Health Administration Appalachian Regional Commission

Tennessee State Library and Archives

(est. unknown, state library, 51% selective) Department of Interior (with exceptions) Library of Congress War Department

University of Tennessee-Knoxville

(est. 1907, large academic, 78% selective) Department of Agriculture Bureau of the Census

Department of Transportation Congress (Y l.'s) All maps

Tennessee Technological University

(est. 1969, medium academic, 47% selective) Fish and Wildlife Service (and predecessors)

All independent Councils, Commissions, and

Boards (Y 3.'s) (with some exceptions)

22
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

The Process Withdrawing libraries are required to list publications in SuDocs classification order when each agency is called for in the schedule. The list must include title, format,

dates, and linear measurements or number of volumes when appropriate. Libraries must

also indicate if volumes are bound. Libraries are not limited in the size of their lists, and may photocopy shelflist cards instead of listing

if they so choose. The lists are sent to the appropriate institution and the regional simultaneously if pre-1989 material appears on

the list. Within the shared holdings

institutions, some libraries have indicated if they would also like to review lists in a

particular class, after the responsible library and the regional have made selections.

Lists are marked with requests and returned to the withdrawing libraries. Either the shared holdings library or the regional may require

shelflist cards for selected publications, if they

desire. Boxes must be packed in SuDocs

classification order (indicated on the box) and

postage is the responsibility of the withdrawing

library. Problems The initial rounds of weeding and discarding were not completely uneventful. Several shared holdings libraries found they were

spending far more time checking lists than

creating lists of their own, and adjustments were made in the weeding schedule. The

need to mark documents received under the arrangement as regional copies was also noted, and libraries receiving lists of large sets (such

as hearings) often found themselves in receipt of multiple copies of the same publications. A

minor, but heartfelt problem arose when

discarding libraries packed discards in very

large boxes that were unmanageable at their destination. The largest problem encountered during this period became the adoption of the many

miscellaneous agencies that had yet to be

claimed. The shared holdings representatives met twice to assign additional agencies, but it was clearly becoming difficult to find homes

for some of the more esoteric groups of documents. (At one meeting, a representative suggested adopting regional responsibility for the Peace Corps because their ex-spouse had been a member!) The problem was finally resolved by the completion of a new library and acquisition of remote storage in the old building at the University of Memphis in 1 994. Comments

The staff of the University of Memphis have

observed an approximately even split of

selective libraries among those that weed

regularly, weed occasionally, or never weed

collections under the new arrangement. The

experience is generally characterized as one of "remarkable cooperation." Shared holdings

libraries have found that while the arrangement has generated a great deal of work, any disadvantages have been

outweighed by both the increased opportunity

to weed their collections while allowing the

creation of superior collections that complement existing subject strengths.

Selective depositories that are not shared

holdings libraries have found the greatest benefit in having the opportunity to weed at

all. They have also found that the turn-around time required to dispose of unneeded material has been reduced, since the workload is shared among seven libraries. In addition,

several librarians have commented that public

sen/ice is improved because they

"automatically" know other libraries' collection strengths. Few Tennessee documents librarians had

experienced the benefits of a regional prior to 1989. The shared holdings program, coupled

with technological solutions such as a statewide listserv, have provided mutually

beneficial opportunities for communication

and networking.

23
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference The Federal Bulletin Board

Helpful Hints in Its Use

Catrena Hairston

U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, DC

James M. Mauldin

U.S. Government Printing Office Wasliington, DC

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

1 989 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.

1 2/95 All GPO Access products were made

free to the public. Nov 1995, Internet access offered.

5/96 FBBS made available via the Web

Features

• Some agencies use it to meet Americans

with Disabilities 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

24
1998 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 Programs Service (LPS)

• Client Agencies:

Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)

Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Top 15 File Libraries, FY 1998 Agency or POC Library Total GPO/LPS shiplist 14,508 MSPB mspbfree 10,740

MSPB mspb_97 10,571 OGE oge_daeo 3,180 MSPB mspb_dec 2,598 MSPB mspb_96 2,540 GPO/LPS mfich97 2,477 FLRA flra_syn 2,337 FLRA fira dec 2,239 GPO/LP shipl97 2,132 GPO/LPS paper 2,103 GPO/HCFA hcfa fr 1,990 GPO/EPA 40_cfr 1,921 FLRA recent 1,753 GPO/LPS class 1,675

Helpful Hints

• Contact the SYSOP with problems with the system - connecting, downloading, etc.

• Contact the agency representative or

library operator with questions or problems

or questions about file content

• Refer to available online guides about adding helpers, readers, etc., to Web

browsers

• New software version offers an online keyword search capability Access to the FBBS

Dial-up: (202) 51 2-1 398 - Settings: 8, N, 1 Telnet: fedbbs.access.gpo.gov

FTP: fedbbs.access.gpo.gov

WWW: http://fedbbs.access.gpo.gov User Support

• GPO Access User Support Team:

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 Law

103-40)

• Existed since 1 990 (prior to GPO Access)

• Systems Operator (SYSOP) - Catrena

Hairston, (202) 512-1607

E-mail: chairston@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

E-mail: gpoaccess@gpo.gov

Toll-free: (888) 293-6498

Local: (202) 512-1530

25
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository. Library Conference

Daily Treasury Statements via the Federal Bulletin

Board System

]ames M. Mauldin

U.S. Government Printing Office Wasliington, DC

The Daily Treasury Statements (DTS) summarize the financial activities of the Federal Government and off-budget Federal

entities in accordance with the Budget of the

U.S. Government. The DTS are now available

via the Federal Bulletin Board.

Features and Benefits

Daily Treasury Statements are available in PDF

and ASCII text format. The Daily Treasury Statements are uploaded daily except for weekends and holidays. The electronic version of the DTS is available three days after

its printed paper counterpart. The visual display of the PDF version of the DTS is identical to its printed counterpart.

Electronic Access via the Web, FTP, Telnet, and Dial-up

Uploaded Daily Access '

• WWW:

http://fedbbs.access.gpo.gov/dailys.htm Hints for downloading: > Single click on the desired file > Select desired folder location to import

the downloaded file

• FTP: fedbbs.access.gpo.gov

Hints for downloading: > Single click on the desired file > Select desired folder location to import

the downloaded file

• Telnet: fedbbs.access.gpo.gov

Hints for downloading: > Space bar - tags the desired file > Ctrl-D - downloads the file

• Dial-up: (202) 512-1387

Settings: 8, N, 1 Hints for downloading: > Space bar - tags the desired file > Ctrl-D -downloads the file Contacts

• James Mauldin (Publications Management

Specialist) Library Programs Service (SLLA)

U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, DC 20401

(202) 512-1698 jmauldin@gpo.gov

• Nick Ellis (Publications Management

Specialist) Library Programs Service (SLLA)

U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, DC 20401

(202) 512-1071

nellis@gpo.gov

• Catrena Hairston (Management Analyst)

Electronic Information Dissemination

Service (SDE)

U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, DC 20401

(202) 512-1607

postmaster@gpo.gov

26
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Electronic Shipping Lists

]ames M. Mauldin

U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, DC

The Federal Depository Library Program offers electronic versions of depository shipping lists via the Federal Bulletin Board. The electronic shipping lists provide a mechanism for identifying past and

forthcoming depository shipments made to the Federal depository libraries. Shipping lists are uploaded twice weekly. These shipping list files can be imported and exported from

spreadsheets and databases.

Features: Downloadable DBF files of all formats of depository shipping lists including maps

Benefits: Timeliness, importability, enhanced shipping list capabilities

Electronic Access via the Web, FTP, Telnet, and Dial-Up

Uploaded Twice Weekly: Wednesday and

Friday Access

• WWW:

http://fedbbs.access.gpo.gov/fdlp01 .htm

Hints for downloading: > Single click on the desired file > Select desired folder location to import

the downloaded file

• FTP: fedbbs.access.gpo.gov/shiplist Hints for downloading: > Single click on the desired file > Select desired folder location to import

the downloaded file

• Telnet: fedbbs.access.gpo.gov

Hints for downloading: > Space bar - tags the desired file > Ctrl-D - downloads the file

• Dial-up: (202) 512-1387

Settings: 8, N, 1 Hints for downloading: > Space bar - tags the desired file > Ctrl-D - downloads the file

Hints for importing a shipping list file:

1 ) Launch any spreadsheet or database

2) Select Open file feature, then choose

location of the shipping list file 3) Then select Open.

Contacts

• James Mauldin (Publications Management

Specialist) Library Programs Service (SLLA)

U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, DC 20401

(202) 512-1698

jmauldin@gpo.gov

• Catrena Hairston (Management Analyst)

Electronic Information Dissemination

Service (SDE)

LJ.S. Government Printing Office Washington, DC 20401

(202) 512-1607

postmaster@gpo.gov

27
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

Enhancements/Partnerships Enhanced shipping list services provided in partnership with the State University of New

York-Buffalo, the University of TexasArlington, and GPO, include:

• Searchable Database of Shipping Lists (HTML)

• SuDocs Label Generating Program

Available from: www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/dpos/shipping.

html

28
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Writing the Depository Self-Study

Gail Snider

U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, DC

Steplien Henson

Louisiana Tech University Ruston, LA

1. Background A recommendation from the spring 1994

meeting of the Depository Library Council

suggested the Library Programs Service (LPS) reexamine the depository inspection process. As part of this review, 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 1996 - 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; or

• The library reported exemplary senv'ices 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 mandatory 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" [emphasis added]. In September

1996, LPS issued the Federal Depository

Library Manual Supplement 3: Self-Study of a Federal Depository Library. A slightly revised version of this manual is available on the FDLP

Administration Web site at: < 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

1 9, 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.

29
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

Another use of the self-study can be to inform and educate library administrators, trustees,

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.

2. Time Line for the Self-Study and

Inspection The following time line gives the approximate sequence of the self-study and inspection

process.

a. Immediate action. The documents

librarian should begin gathering documentation and drafting answers to the self-study.

b. 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.

c. 3 months before the due date. LPS

formally notifies libraries via a letter to the documents librarian and library director to submit a self-study report.

d. 3 weeks before the due date. The

documents librarian should finish drafting answers and begin editing the

self-study report.

e. 2 weeks before the due date. The

documents librarian should finish editing the report and the library administrator should sign it.

f. 1 week before the due date. Documents librarian should mail the

self-study report and addenda.

g. Due date set by LPS. GPO notifies

libraries if a self-study was not received from them.

h. Self-studies are grouped by state and

then reviewed during the following 3- month period by library inspectors.

i. 6 weeks before an on-site inspection. Depository library candidates for inspection and their Regional are

notified and inspection dates set.

j. 4 weeks before an on-site inspection. The depository operation being

inspected and the Regional librarian

will receive a report titled "Self-Study

Evaluation: Summary of Findings and

u Recommendations" with a confirmation letter and a copy of the pamphlet "How to Prepare for a

Library Inspection."

k. 4 weeks before on-site inspections of depositories to 8 weeks after. Documents coordinators and directors of depository libraries 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.

I. 6 to 8 weeks after an on-site inspection. Documents coordinator,

library director, and the Regional

librarian will receive a copy of the

report titled "Inspection Report:

30
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference ~ Proceedings

Summary of Findings and Recommendations" based on the onsite inspection.

3. Preparation

Generally 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 1994), < www.access.gpo.

gov/su_docs/dpos/coldev.html >

.

• Policy and procedures manuals related

to the depository operation.

• The library strategic plan. This should

describe the role of the depository

collection in the larger context of the

library as a whole.

• Other institutional documents 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 to the self-study process. The support staff may be able to write some sections of the self-study.

• The Regional/s. 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

31
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

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.

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.

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 both facilitate the process for the

librarian and 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:

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 Administration 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.

4. Writing the Self-Study The process of writing the self-study calls on

the skills of technical writing: the process of

creating, designing, and transmitting technical information so that people can understand it easily and use it appropriately (Markel, p. 2).

• 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 self32
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

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 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

33
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

cover page following the self-study template. It should include the library and institution's name, location, zip code, 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 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 10 pages of addenda. However, the larger and more complex the depository

operation in a library, and the more

changes that must be described, the longer and more complicated the selfstudy 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.

5. 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 written collection development

policy for Government documents

(Section 1, Question 5).

• The library's access policy for users of depository material (Section VI, 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.

34
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

• Annual reports for the documents

department. Three 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.

6. Common errors The inspection team has identified several problems that the careful writer will want to avoid.

a. Incomplete answers. Writers often do

not include enough information in the answers. Each answer should provide

all relevant information that the inspection team needs to understand

the situation.

b. 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, as acronyms or

local language.

c. 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.

d. 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.

e. 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 online checkin) to record depository receipts. Be

certain to describe each component in the library's holdings record. Summary

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 or her 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

35
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

knowledge the depository staff has created on which administrators and librarians can take

steps to improve the delivery of Government

information to library users.

Snider, Gail, "Self-Study: Review and Follow- Up," Administrative Notes, v. 18, no. 8 (May

15, 1997), pp. 31-34. www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/dpos/ad05 1 597. html

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 More Electronic Federal Depository

Library Program (June 1996). GP 3.2:EL 2/3/FINAL, pp. ElO-Ell.

Federal Depository Library Manual

Supplement 3: Self-Study of a Federal Depository Library (September 1996). GP 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. 18, no. 8 (May 15, 1997), pp. 27-30. www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/dpos/ad05 1 597.

html

Markel, Mike. Technical Communication:

Situations and Strategies. 4"" ed. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1996.

36
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Instructing the Undergraduate in Government

Information

Elizabeth A. Estes

Valparaiso University Valparaiso, IN Cheryl B. Truesdell

Indiana University-Purdue University, Ft. Wayne

Ft. Wayne, IN

Today's presentation is not just for undergraduates. Anyone who is unfamiliar with libraries, especially your library, will benefit from these tips. We will cover many

different topics, including teaching methods

and how to present paper and electronic Government information effectively. The first element of an instruction session is choosing an appropriate teaching method.

Four of the basic methods are lecture, hands- on/demonstration, students teach, and a combination of these. Deciding which one is best for you depends on circumstances such as

class size, media you are teaching, and the number of students in attendance. Everyone has sat through a lecture before. As

a matter of fact, many of us experienced this method this morning. So you know, a lecture can be many things. At times, it can be a

stimulating presentation of wit and

information, and at other times it can drone on

for hours and all you get out of it is a not so

restful nap. What we, and everyone else, need

to keep in mind are the questions "When is a lecture a good teaching method?" and "When

is it bad?" A lecture can be good when the

class is very large. Lectures can also be useful when the class time is very limited, under 40

minutes. This time frame gives you just enough time to teach the vital information the students might need to begin a project. To

help make the lecture more stimulating, use

subject related visual effects and examples in your teaching. If you have a comic strip or

joke/story that is applicable, show or tell it to the class. However, telling long stories that do

not have a punch line or are not applicable to the assignment at hand can be detrimental to your 40 minutes or less of teaching. The more

unclear and unfocused your lecture is, the more students will lose interest. This is inevitable. Think carefully about this method

if it is the only one you intend to use because a bad lecture is usually a bad learning experience.

Much more interesting than the lecture method

is the hands-on/demonstration. Most people have a better learning experience when they

practice and learn at the same time. Example: most students will understand searching a database

better if they search themselves

than if they were instructed while

sitting at a table in a classroom and

were never able to try themselves. The hands-on method is excellent to use when

students have a specific assignment that they

are working towards. This way they can

search their subject while learning the source

at the same time. The only time this is slightly ineffective is when the class does not have a

37
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

specific assignment or when the class is so

large there is not enough equipment or books

for everyone. (Two students per computer or books works fairly well. Any more than this gets crowded and distracting.)

For small classes (under 20), an excellent and

interesting method is to let the students teach much of the class. This is a great opportunity

for peers to teach peers. Plus, all students get the chance to become experts on a particular source. This works really well for either print or electronic media. However, if the class is too large, this method will be too time- consuming if you only have one class period. Example: Pair students in groups of 2 or 3. Each group is given either a reference book, an index, or a UKL

(Uniform Resource Locator). Students are given 5-10 minutes to answer the following questions: What is the title/URL? How is the source accessed? Is it indexed? How? What type of information can you find in it? How is it useful

for this assignment or course? Have

students tell the rest of the class the answers to these questions. The best method, and first choice in my

opinion, is a combination of any of the above. The best thing about a combination of methods is that everyone is happy. You have

the opportunity to say anything vital that must

be stated and the student gets a chance to be

an active learner in the class. If including a

lecture, be sure to keep it focused on the assignment or topic! Once you have chosen your method of teaching and have planned your course, keep

the following tips in mind. These will help make your presentation clear and effective to the listeners.

1. No library jargon without definitions Never assume that a student knows the

definition of bibliography or citation. Some

will know, but many will not. Always define your terms the first time you use it.

2. Be enthusiastic

If you act bored, why shouldn't the students? Your enthusiasm will be catching if you make

the most of it.

3. Body language

This is especially important during a lecture. Move around the room and be active. Point to the overhead, if that is what you are using. Hold up a book and flip through it when

talking about it.

4. Room elements Remember how easy it is to fall asleep at the beach under the warm sun? It is just as easy in a classroom with a furnace set too high and 40

other bodies. Keep the room a bit on the cool

side to keep students (and yourself) awake and

alert. Another room element to keep in mind

is the room setup. You want to be able to see

all eyes, but you do not want them to be so compact that they are uncomfortable.

5. Your voice Use it to its potential.

6. Be casual and have fun

This class is not going to make or break your

career. Learning, and teaching, how to find information should be a great experience for

all. Don't spoil it for you and the students by

taking yourself too seriously.

Effectively teaching Government information is primarily the same between paper and

electronic formats. The few differences are how to present the information and using it in

38
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

the chosen teaching method. Paper is the format that we librarians must often force feed

to today's undergraduates. Paper indexes and

reference books are often seen as artifacts of research days past. The most effective techniques for teaching paper is either hands- on or students teach. With both of these, students get the chance to see what wealth of information various books and indexes have. One thing to remember is that the more

difficult the research, the more assistance the students may need. This may include offering

office hours or an extra instruction session. A quick method to help students that will educate after the instruction session is over is to give handouts that explain a particularly

difficult source or concept (Census tracts or bill tracking). Example: N410 Tertiary Care in the Community

This class is taught every semester

at Valparaiso University to senior nursing students. Their assignment

is to find demographic information and statistics for a particular area of

a Northwest Indiana town.

Essential documents that are taught

are Census tract maps and the accompanying CD's and books, MMWR, and several local and state documents with health statistics. Handouts that are given to the students include a photocopy of a portion of a tract map, the tract legend, and a sample page from the book showing the statistics for a particular tract area. Before leaving

class, each student looks at a tract map and figures out how to interpret the lines and numbers. As

students return to the library to work on their project, they refer back to the handouts to remember

what they were taught and educate

themselves.

The N410 library session is highly effective because students learn a specific skill that helps them complete an assignment. They

also come away confident in their abilities to conquer an area of the library and their research. Some of the most frequently taught documents

are:

• Census & Statistics

• Anything having to do with Congress and

Bill making

Congressional Record, Y fiche. Public Laws, Serial Set, CIS indexes (although they are privately produced, they are wonderful for teaching the undergraduate)

• Maps of any nature

• Department of Health & Human Services As mentioned before, teaching paper and

electronic can be very similar. Following are some similarities and several similarities that

will affect the success of your instruction

session. More and more students are coming to the

library and expecting all of the answers to their questions to be available via the Internet or by some other electronic means. Fortunately, the

U.S. Government is a leader in the electronic presentation of information. It is exciting to be

able to showcase Government documents in the electronic environment. The problem is not lack of electronic information, but retrieval of the exact piece of information when

needed. The challenge for Government

documents librarians is to master, organize and

negotiate the wealth of electronic Government

information and be ready to share it with our

users. From my experience teaching undergraduates

how to use both paper and electronic

39
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

Government documents, and as one of three

trainers for GPO Access in Indiana, I have developed this top ten list of suggestions for introducing electronic Government

information to undergraduates.

Top Ten List

10. Size up your audience Most students have never been introduced to the wonderful world of Government

information. While many young

undergraduates have used the Internet, returning adults may be computer illiterate or downright computer phobic. Size up your

audience. Ask them what their experience

level is with both Government documents and

using electronic databases to find information. Don't expect them to necessarily tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Throughout the session talk TO them, not AT

them. Ask questions for feedback that denotes some level of understanding. Watch their eyes and body language. Glassy eyes and tense or overly relaxed postures either means a very

late night or complete incomprehension. Be casual and have fun! Encourage questions and don't be flustered if you don't know all of the answers. Make a note of the questions you

can't answer and get back to the class or

individual at a later date.

9. Explain a few sources well Although you want to encourage students by

showing them the wealth of Government

information available, you don't want to overwhelm them. Most students are in your

classroom for one reason and one reason only. They have a paper to research and need

specific answers to specific questions. Even if their assignment involves the use of a lot of

different sources DO NOT TRY TO TEACH

MORE THAN TWO SOURCES IN DEPTH.

Take two databases that complement each

other, like the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations, or choose a Web site, like

the Census Bureau, and illustrate the best searching techniques for retrieving data from

that site.

8. Use CURRENT and/or RELEVANT

examples

Nothing turns a class of undergraduates off faster than to sit and listen to an explanation of

library research that does not relate specifically

to their class assignment. They want to know

how every source that you introduce can be

used to find information on their topic. Talk to the instructor. Get a copy of the class assignment. Get a list of topics that students have already chosen to work on. Pick a topic

yourself and work through the assignment. If the type of research is defined but not the

subject, for example, do a legislative history on some topic, use current events or other timely

topics of interest.

7. Explain/review Boolean and free-text searching techniques Boolean logic, free-text searching are jargon, gobbledegook to most students. While natural language searching is inching its way into some databases and Web search engines, the

best results still come from some organized arrangement of keywords, the use of

truncation, and synonyms. The key is to keep your instruction simple. We all know that most databases offer a plethora of advanced searching techniques, and certainly you will want to tell the students where they can locate instructions on search enhancements. However, you cannot cover them all without losing most, if not all, of your

audience. Introduce students to the basic search techniques that will retrieve what they need most of the time.

• ADj,AND, andOR

Most databases can be searched using

these three boolean operators (connectors), so make sure students understand how to

40
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

use these basic terms.

• "Quotation marks"

Databases in GPO Access and many Web

site engines use quotation marks to search an exact phrase.

• Truncation

Explain what truncation is and how it can be used to retrieve roots of words that encompass plural and variant spellings.

• Relevancy ranking

It is useful to discuss relevancy ranking

when introducing GPO Access databases. Because retrievals can be very large in some of these databases, relevancy ranking helps students select the most important

items. The pitfalls of free-text searching should be emphasized. Warn students that most

databases are not ready for natural language

queries. Tell them about stop words and using synonyms to broaden their searches.

6. Use a combination of teaching methods

Research shows that everyone learns

differently. Some students prefer being shown how to do something. Others want to be told, and still others like to work from an instruction sheet. Most of us learn better with a combination of these techniques. The optimum setting for teaching electronic Government documents to undergraduates is a computer lab with a teacher's workstation where you can show and explain an electronic source and then leave time for the students to experiment on their own. However, if you

don't have a computer lab, try to have some way of giving the class a live demonstration of the product with plenty of time for questions and further demonstrations after you have

covered the basics. Always have a handout

that summarizes the main information that you

want them to remember.

5, Prepare online guides Not only is it essential to have handouts for the

students, but it is also essential that you put your handouts on the Web for increased

accessibility. These handouts can be

bibliographies and/or Webliographies,

complete with hot links to databases and/or Web sites. They can be how-to guides for individual databases, subject guides, guides to using specific types of materials like maps,

census, or statistics, or guides to using your

library or documents collection. Making your

guides available electronically serves many

purposes. Inevitably the students will lose

their handouts and come looking for another

copy. Having your guides in electronic format can save the library money in printing costs. Students can easily locate the sources you

introduced them to by just clicking on the hot

links on the guide. Library staff can easily access information needed to help students working on class assignments. Since it is easier to update guides that are in electronic

format, electronic guides can and should be

revised frequently to keep them relevant and

informative.

If you don't have time to prepare your own

online guides, you might be able to find a guide already prepared by someone else which you can link to until you have time to develop your own. ALA/GODORT has an

excellent Handout Exchange available on the

University of Michigan's Documents Center Web site: <www.lib.umich.edu/libhome/

Documents. center/godort.html > . Be sure if you use someone else's guide that you give them credit on your Web page.

4. Create a permanent Web site of Government sources

If you are going to teach electronic Government information it is important that you develop at least one Web page of links to

41
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

core Government sources. Again if you

cannot develop your own pages the Government Information Technology Committee of GODORT has prepared a Government Information Web page template

for libraries without the resources to design and maintain a Web page on their own. The

template is created to be quickly and easily edited and loaded. It is available at < www.library. unt.edu7gpo/template/index. html>.

3. Teach evaluation of Internet resources

It is a natural inclination to accept everything

in print as the absolute, gospel truth. Just as we have taught students to evaluate printed sources, we need to remind them to always

question the validity of electronic information, including Government information. A few

basic checks can help them evaluate their source(s):

• Check the authority of the author. > Who is the author and what are his/her credentials for providing the information? > What institution (company.

Government, university, organization) sponsors this information? > What bias might there be with the information presented by this author or

institution?

• Check the scope and criteria for inclusion. > What kind and how much information

is included/excluded in/from the databaseAA/eb site? > What is the purpose of the information-

-to inform, explain, persuade? > Who is the intended audience for the information?

• Check the currency of the data. > When was the site last updated? > What information was updated?

2. Be prepared for electronic failure As prepared as you might be, remember

something always goes wrong. You could

experience a minor glitch to a major electronic

failure. Count on having some kind of backup. You may even have to resort to the low-tech, hands-on, paper handouts and show and tell.

1. Encourage future contact Encourage students to contact you for individual follow up on their project or future

projects in which Government information may be useful. Depending upon your library policies, give each student a business card, or

tell them how they can best reach you, via e- mail, phone, or by appointment. Even though we may be knowledgeable about Government documents and eager to help

students find Government information, the rest of the library staff may not be as willing or able

to help when students come to the library for help in locating Government information. The

other issue is that many Government

document librarians do not have the opportunity to teach an instruction session. It is important that we not only share our knowledge and enthusiasm for Government

documents with students, but with librarians and staff as well. Here are some ways that will help you teach other librarians the wealth of information that is available through Government documents.

• Invite other librarians/staff to your

presentations

• Keep your peers informed of Government

documents and information

42
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

• Team teach

• Share enthusiasm for the wonderful world

of Government Information

• Provide a bibliographic instruction session

for other instructors Now for the hands-on part of the presentation. We have prepared for you actual assignments

that students have brought into the library needing answers. These questions come from

all areas of the academic curriculum. Think of three or four Government documents or areas

that might be helpful for the students. Try

using these questions in your instruction session with other librarians and library staff. Good luck!

1 . Choose a census tract, identify three socio- economic data elements. Compare 1980

and 1990 figures.

2. Research the evolution of Supreme Court

interpretation of a specific aspect of the Bill of Rights.

3. Research some aspect of the U.S. - Central American Relations.

4. Track the effects of El Nino on the weather

conditions of the Midwest.

5. Investigate the behavior of the spotted owl.

6. What percentage of sex offenses are committed by juveniles and what is the

recidivism of teenage sex offenders?

7. What is the average amount of time that a person 20-26 stays at their job?

8. What is the employment projection for Hospital ityATourism/Leisure management

and saiaries to the year 2005?

9. Write a legal brief on a Supreme Court

case in the area of Mass Communication

Law.

10. What is the Government's perspective on

music education?

1 1 . What is the Government's current policy on school lunch programs?

1 2. I am looking for a grant that will allow me

to dance in France.

13. I am looking for information on public

grazing rights on Navajo Indian

Reservations.

14. I need information on pancreatic cancer.

1 5. What is the current role of the Government

with the issue of tobacco advertising?

43
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

Collection Management Using the Documents

Data Miner

Nan Myers

Wichita State University

Wichita, KS

Introduction Thank you for attending our demonstration of the Documents Data Miner (DDM). I'm Nan

Myers, Government Documents Librarian at Wichita State University. With me today are John Ellis, Senior Database Analyst with the National Institute for Aviation Research, and

Cathy Hartman, Documents Librarian at the University of North Texas. John and I have been working on the Documents Data Miner

since August 1 997. Included in our effort was

the development of the GPO partnership which we hope will facilitate better access to FDLP administrative information.

1 will set the stage for our presentation with a

little background on the Data Miner and then demonstrate the features available at the site. John will explain the technical development of the utility. And, Cathy has been generous enough to take time to critique the site over

the past couple of months. She will address

several collection development scenarios which employ the Data Miner in decision

support.

[slide 1] Timeline: Fail 1995 thru Spring 1998

• Benchmarks:

1. Records Tapeload (1994)

2. Mainstreaming Documents (1995)

3. Collection Decisions: RDBMS (1996)

4. GPO Partnership: Web Database

(1997/98)

• Acquisition of a Repertoire of Techniques

• Development of Interactive Professional Relationships

• Open Systems Follow-On's To briefly place the Data Miner in a research and political context at Wichita State, I prepared a slide which shows a time line overview of progress towards this Web-based

tool for managing the collection development

tasks we all face in depositories. When I came

to WSU in 1994, my first task was to oversee a tapeload of bibliographic records for the documents collection, both retrospective holdings and currently received items. I was

also charged with regularizing cataloging

functions in Technical Services. Second, we

mainstreamed the documents processing workload in Technical Services. And, third, we began a challenging collection management initiative:

- to downsize the physical collection,

- to emphasize electronic access, and

- to market Government documents.

At this point, what is now the Documents Data Miner began to grow out of operational imperatives at Wichita State. Basically, we

needed a decision support system that would

allow us to do three things:

1 . eliminate labor-intensive tasks associated with documents processing and record

keeping;

44
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

2. electronically warehouse item card

information; and

3. facilitate our vision for Documents

collection management.

As space to house the collection was critical, we wanted to intelligently downsize based on

usage statistics and holdings of other Kansas

depositories. Eventually, we are interested in statewide cooperative collection management.

[slide 2] Desktop Data Mining

• Fast, Accurate Data Acquisition

• Reliable Data Updating at Regular Intervals

• Simple, Comprehensive Application

Platform

• Utilitarian Data Extraction

• Speed

• Reliability: Stamina of the System

In the fall of 1995, we began developing an in- house relational database, which we called GPRD, for Government documents Processing

Relational Database. GPRD was an

Information Management System for our

depository complete with data mining

programs. It provided a report generation

platform, and it was a decision support system. We are all familiar with data mining,

unfortunately. When our credit card providers

sell our purchasing history to marketers and we receive unwanted third class mail and

salespeople call during dinner, we know we're

being mined. A glance at the slide behind me

will indicate the characteristics of desktop data mining.

[slide 3] Federal Documents Metadata

• List of Classes

• Inactive and Discontinued Items

• Selection Profiles of Depository Libraries

• Other Data as May Arise

The application of this same methodology to Federal Documents metadata (the equivalent

to a purchasing history) is focused, for us, upon electronic versions of the List of Classes,

inactive and discontinued items, and selection

profiles of depository libraries. In the future, we may add other databases to the DDM.

We began prototyping our mining operation

last spring from Tom Tyler's BDLD Web site using C+ + programs run on a Unix server. From the BDLD we mined the List of Classes, the Kansas Union List (which Tom had put up

for us) and inactive/discontinued information. The mined data was housed in Paradox 7.0 and was extracted using Structured Query

Language.

This work confirmed the viability of our

techniques and, because of the cooperation and interest of faculty and students in our Computer Science and EE Departments, the

costs were affordable. To me, GPRD pointed to a national need for a standardized set of electronic tools for working on documents. Our primary goal by last summer was to meet the need of our community for a powerful search engine which could associate various databases of administrative information from the FDLP.

[slide 4] Documents Web Tools

1. Searchable:

List of Classes Inactive/Discontinued List 2. LOC/ltem Lister Merger

3. Regional Union Listing

4. Scalability

I wanted the following:

• A searchable List of Classes.

• Information on Inactive and Discontinued

titles at my fingertips.

45
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

• Data from the List of Classes associated with the items in our profile from the Item

Lister.

• Item selections for the other Kansas

depositories and items selected by those

depositories within a 100-mile radius of Wichita.

• And, a platform that would grow with the changing documents environment.

Thus, last summer, the Documents Data Miner was born. Moving the techniques we had developed from a desktop to the Web involved much more than differences in scale, however.

In order to rapidly implement the development

of the Web site, we were fortunate to be able

to capitalize on the expertise of colleagues in NIAR, the National Institute for Aviation Research.

[slide 5]

The National InsOhite for AviaOon Research ( NIAE

) provides technology development assistance and

Initially, NIAR was willing to lease space on

their server to us for the Data Miner project. However, John became interested in the complexities of prototyping a database for a

large body of metadata because of similarities to some other projects he was working on. In exchange for a nominal monthly storage fee, they have contributed time, expertise, hardware and software. If properly billed to

us, the Data Miner would have cost in excess

of $25,000!

In addition, without the cooperation of the GPO, we would not have had access to all the

official data that we wanted. We began to explore a partnership relationship last fall and,

at our request, GPO made files available in a custom format for FTP. In addition, they have

agreed to publish the Inactive or Discontinued

Items list on the Web in the near future. There were other, technical challenges the

Library could not have singly addressed, but John will discuss those in a few minutes.

[slide 6] Web Data Mining

Official Source of Data (FDLP) Very Large, Fast Server Mirroring and Security/User Profiling User Friendly Data Extraction Sophisticated Platform National Utility Turning to the next slide, now, I would like to add the following about Web data mining:

• Our official source of data was the FDLP.

• Server requirements eventually reached 1 Gigabyte of storage and the requirements

for higher memory became critical, because of the size of some of the tables.

• The partnership raised mirroring and

backup as central issues and informed our

wish to know how our users were working

the site.

• The GPO partnership, obviously, was the only relationship that would justify the expense of the site.

46
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

[slide 7] DDM: Development Goals

• Searchable List of Classes

• Searchable Inactive/Discontinued Items

• Collection Profiling

• Build/Downsize w/State/Region Profiling

• Easy Export of Query/Profile Results

• Directory/E-mail access

• In-House Functionality w/Exported Tables

• Open System Follow-On Development The primary goal of the Data Miner development is selection/deselection decision

support. The handouts given to you show

eight criteria for meeting that goal. In addition

to the first four, we projected that users would

want to export the information from profile queries in order to build in-house databases. We further decided to include the information from the depository directory with e-mail access for convenient communication among

depositories. And, we designed DDM as an open system, allowing for rapid redesign and

modification.

Demonstration

I'm going to move now to a demonstration of the main features of the DDM.

First, requirements for use of the Documents

Data Miner are:

1 . Netscape or Internet Explorer at 3.0 or

higher.

2. Browsers must support frames.

3. Cookies must be turned on.

4. JavaScript must be enabled. There are two ways to navigate in the DDM.

The home screen offers the four key tasks performed by the DDM, and these are also accessible at the frame on the top. The frame

also offers an Introduction, Support screen, and Home. We determined to have a frame in the overall design:

• For ease of use

• For quickness of use

• To eliminate having to back out of a series of pages

if you read the Introduction, you will learn that the DDM is a search engine combining files from the latest version of three databases

published by the FDLP: The List of Classes, Current Item Number Profiles for Depository

Libraries, and the Federal Depositories Library Directory. A fourth title. Inactive or Discontinued Items, is not yet available online from the FDLP. However, we have mined this information from an external source (the BDLD). The latest date that the files have been

refreshed on the DDM is built into the frame. Our intention is to update files on the same

day they are updated at the FDLP sites, which

is usually the first Friday of each month.

Button 1 - List of Classes:

Returning to the home page, I want to start the demo from the List of Classes. From this screen, you can:

• Search the current List of Classes by field,

• Or, search the Inactive/Discontinued items by field,

• Or, merge the searches by choosing "all" at the "Status" box.

Clicking on this feature brings up a search grid with the following choices:

• Agency: You may search "all," or the pop- up box provides the list of agencies with

the sum of active item number stems for each agency.

• Item Number: You may enter a full item number, which requires exact spacing and

punctuation, or you may enter a partial item number.

47
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

• SuDocs Stem: You may enter a complete

or partial SuDocs stem.

Notice that the function choice (SuDocs

stem) is in blue text. Whenever you see blue text, you may click on that and obtain an example or explanation. These are the

JavaScript applications that require Java to be enabled. Examples of search

possibilities for SuDocs stems are: C, C 1

,

or C 1 .54. Spacing and punctuation must

be exact, but the ending colon is not

required.

• Title Search: You may search an exact title, or words from a title. Automatic left/right truncation is built in.

• Format: A drop down box allows you to choose from: Any Format, Paper, Microfiche, CD-ROM discs. Electronic, and

Electronic Library. These are the formats used by the GPO.

• Status: You may search for either active, inactive/discontinued, or all. Some Searches Demonstrated:

1. "Agency" and "Active": To see what is actively published by an agency, such as the FCA (Farm Credit Administration), select that agency and status "active," which is the default

at the status box. Then, submit. The results screen, called "Complete Class

List," shows what we requested (FCA and

active), then offers a list of results arrayed in SuDocs order. The display gives us the complete information about each item - the SuDocs stem, Item Number, Title, Format, Frequency and Status.

Additional features: If, at this point, you click on the SuDocs stem of an entry, DDM brings up a screen displaying a list of SuDocs stems

assigned to that Item Number. Or, if you

click on the Item Number, you can access the

Union List feature. I will be discussing the Union List feature in more detail later, but I will mention that if you do not have Union List parameters set at this point, the DDM will take you to the page to set those up.

2. "Agency" and "AM": Let's look now at the FCA and all of its Item Numbers, both active and inactive. Whereas we found seven active items for that agency, this search produces 12

records, indicating in the far right status column which are active and which are discontinued.

3. Title Searching: Returning to the List of Classes page, let's try a title search. In a title search, the search engine allows us to input an

exact title, or use a word from the title, or make use of the automatic left/right truncation

feature. Try a title search on the word "free" and we find titles for A) a Department of the

Interior report to Congress about "free-roaming

horses," B) the Freedom of Information Act Annual Report, C) the Freedom of Information Case List — both from the Justice Department, and D) a publication from Congress which is printed on "acid free paper."

4. The "And" Function: The Documents Data Miner allows the user to "build" selections. If we want to narrow a search, we may. Suppose we want to determine all the titles issued by

the Census Bureau in CD-ROM format, we

select the agency (Commerce), and input the SuDocs for the Census Bureau (which is C 3)

,

and select the format we want (CD ROM).

I find myself using the List of Classes search

screen for a variety of purposes. Sometimes I have a mystery item number. Or, I may I want

to see all the titles in a certain format - all the CD-ROM titles, etc. Or, I may want to concentrate on Inactive/Discontinued titles. Button 2 - Inactive or Discontinued The Inactive/Discontinued feature is in development. As you know, the publication

titled Inactive or Discontinued Items... is not

48
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

yet available for downloading from the FDLP

Administration page. Data available in this section was originally mined from the BDLD

site. You may search this data from the List of Classes feature, or from this location. Search Demonstrated: From this screen, you may search by Item Number, SuDocs stem, or by title.

For example, let's just check to see what is inactive from the U.S. Information Agency.

For that search, we can input the partial SuDocs "lA." The results screen provides us with a list of four inactive SuDocs stems for

this agency.

Additional Features: At this point, you see the unique feature for the Inactive/Discontinued component: the NOTES field. The annotations

for the NOTES originated from Shipping Lists, the List of Classes, Surveys, the BDLD title List of Classes - Additions & Changes, and other Depository Library Program sources.

If a note is available, the word "YES" is in the box. A note can be accessed by clicking on

the blue text. Clicking on the SuDocs stem

provides a note for that SuDocs, and clicking on the Item Number provides all the notes

available for the SuDocs stems attached to that item number.

Button 3 - Depository Selection and Directory

Returning to the Home page, the third button

is called "Depository Selection and Directory." You will use this point of entry if you want to search your own depository profile. This

feature merges profile data from the Item Lister with the List of Classes, allowing the user to view complete item information for the

selections in their own profile. It also provides

directory information for each depository and

e-mail functions for ease in communicating. The search parameters at "Depository

Selection" are designed to let you search in several ways. You may:

• Enter the depository number,

• Enter an institution or library name — or a

partial name,

• Search for depositories in a certain city,

• Request depositories for an entire state,

• Or, search by type of library, such as Community College Libraries, Academic Law Libraries, or State Libraries. There is a pop-up table for states and types of

libraries. Search Demonstrated: Let's do a search for a depository number. I'll enter 0204A, which is Wichita State University's depository number,

and click on submit. This presents us with a screen that allows three functions:

• Click on the Depository Name for directory information. All the fields available in the GPO database are displayed: names, addresses, phone

numbers, depository type, size, year

designated as a depository, and

congressional district.

• Click on the E-Mail Address to send a message to the depository librarian at that

institution. (Since this data is supplied to the GPO by individual depositories, you may occasionally encounter an outdated e- mail or a blank box if a library has not kept

the GPO informed of up-to-date information. Corrections should be sent to the GPO.)

• Click on the Depository Number to search

the profile. Depository Profile Search: Clicking on the Depository Number 0204A brings up a screen

titled "Selections for 0204A, Wichita State University, Ablah Library, Wichita, KS." The

search grid is similar to that of the List of

49
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

Classes, with fields for Agency, Item Number, SuDocs Stem, Title, Format and Status. However, queries will only produce results for items selected by the depository you are searching.

Additional Feature: The Agency drop-down

box provides a summary of item number totals by agency for this depository. For example,

Wichita State selects 230 items from the Agriculture Department and 1,347 from the Commerce Department.

I frequently want to know if our depository has

selected a certain item number, so I'll do a search on 0546-D to find out if we do select

that. The results screen brings up 21 titles from the General Accounting Office which are attached to that item number. If I wanted to consider de-selecting a specific title here, I would need to be sure that I could let go of all 21.

In addition, I might be better able to make a decision to de-select if I knew which other

depositories in my region or state were also selecting this item number. Clicking on the Item Number in the display of the 21 titles will provide me with union list information, after I have set an appropriate filter. If I click on the Item Number without initially setting that filter. Documents Data Miner immediately sends me

to the Union List Profile. Button 4 - Union List Profile f At this point, I'll describe the Union List Feature, which is available at the last button on

the Home page, as well as on the frame. Or,

as I just mentioned, you will be sent there if you are requesting union list information, but have not already set up a filter. So, let's go ahead and set that filter. Our choices are to

filter by:

• State

• Region

• Or, by Distance from a Depository

Let's go ahead and choose State, which for us

is Kansas, and submit. If you are setting this before beginning your work, hitting "submit"

will return you to the Home page, where you

can enter "Depository Selection." If you have been sent to the Union List Profile while

already in "Depository Selection," Data Miner

sends you right back to your search grid after you set up a filter.

If you recall, our initial query was for Item Number 0546-D, which produced a total of 21 GAO titles. Checking to see how many

depositories in Kansas select that Item Number, we find a total of eight which do. Decisions to retain or deselect the item number could then be based on use of the

items, depth of coverage in our area, and

availability of reliable courier service. In Kansas, we have an excellent courier service, with potential 24-hour turnaround. Now, suppose I want to refine my union list further and see how many depository libraries within 100 miles of Wichita State select this item, I return to the Union List Profile and

change the filter to 100 miles radius at the "Distance from a Depository" option. Hitting "submit" returns me to my search grid, and I once again click on the item number. This time I find that only one other depository

within a 1 00 mile radius of Wichita selects this item, and that depository is in Oklahoma.

The Union List feature is designed to assist depositories with building and/or downsizing

their collections. The addition of a Gazetteer

to the tables of the Data Miner allows the user

to customize a group of depository profiles and

extract selection information on item numbers.

For libraries which already have consortial collecting agreements, I hope this utility will very helpful. For those who WANT

cooperative collection development, but thought it was too much work, I hope this tool

will get you started. Cathy will talk more about the uses of the Union List function for regional collecting in

50
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

her presentation, so this concludes my portion

of the presentation. I'll turn this over to John

Ellis, who will tell you about the architecture and functionality of the Documents Data

Miner.

51
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference Architecture and Functionality of Documents

Data Miner

John Ellis National Institute of Aviation Researcli, Wicliita State University

Wicliita, KS

Actually, I had no notes when I did my

presentation of the technical side of the DDM.

Most developers are like ue\N fathers or mothers who need only an audience to expound for hours about their latest creation. I will, however, use the presentation slides and

try to recreate some of the ideas that came to mind as they were flashed on the screen.

[slide 1] Wichita State University National Institute for Aviation Research

John M. Ellis A.j. McCormack

The discussion of the technical side of the DDM will center on these key points:

• Design Parameters

• Current Attributes

• What It Cost

• Some Statistics

• Future Enhancements

• KISS

[slide 2] GPO Data

• Profile.dbf (txt) • listclass.txt • appendix.doc

• unioni (ff-ddis or cd-ddis)

• fedbbs.access.gpo.gov

Early on we decided on these parameters: Use only GPO data and when external data was added we tried to find FIPS data to

augment what the GPO supplied. For

instance, longitude and latitude data for the

institutions were supplied mostly from USGS

databases.

[slide 3] Design Parameters

• Use only GPO data

• Use low cost wintel database server

• Use low cost wintel Web server

• Use only Web based clients

• Target Netscape and IE browsers

• Make it flexible Use low cost wintel (Windows OS and Intel cpu) database servers and Microsoft Operating systems. Our experience with Intel based servers has proven them to be reliable and extremely effective if configured correctly. Our servers use dual cpu's, dual SCSI disk

controllers, mirrored disk systems exceeding 20 Gb and a minimum of 256 Mb of memory.

These typically sell in the $8-12,000 range and

Microsoft offers extremely deep discounts on

their OS products for educational institutions. You can do it even cheaper than this. The demo that we did at the conference was LIVE and it was all on a Pentium 1 33 laptop running

a Microsoft Access 7.0 database on a CD,

Microsoft personal Web server and IE 4.0 for the browser. It wasn't fast, but it did the show

and cost about $3,000. This wasn't a watered down demo with a couple of depositories loaded up. This was the full database with all 3 million item lister elements included.

52
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Use low cost wintel Web server. There are

several to choose from but the IIS 4.0 server from Microsoft comes bundled with NT server 4.0 and is therefore free. It also is extremely

powerful and easy to use. There are about 4

sets of ASP (active server pages) which are the core components of the DDM. The Microsoft paradigm for serving dynamic data on Web

pages is both elegant and simple. It takes very

little (but finely tuned) code to produce the pages that pop up when those queries are submitted. Use only Web based clients. There is a plethora of products out there that will serve

quite well as a front-end client. The big problem is, " How do you distribute these programs out to the masses?" The Web

browser has made that problem moot. Everyone has a browser on his or her desk in the form of Netscape or Internet Explorer. For

the developer this is as good as it gets. All users have a client program on their computer

that acts pretty much the same no matter what

you throw at it, and when they want a new

client, they go bug Netscape or Microsoft, not

the developer.

Target Netscape and IE browsers. We were

very careful to make sure that our programs would work equally well on either Netscape

3.0 or better and IE 3.0 or better. The bottom

line was that the client had to accept cookies and had to haveJavaScript enabled.

[slide 4] Keep It Simple

• Microsoft VB 5.0

• Microsoft Access 97

• Microsoft Interdev

• No C+ +

• No special libraries

• No custom CGI's

• Built by 2 developers

Make it flexible and keep it simple. You can

design any system to death. Or you can use

flexible tools to throw something together and

see what you like, and don't like. The DDM

was throw together from pieces of previous

projects and data downloaded from the GPOin 2 days. I did the prototyping and Nan

Myers did the critical evaluation of the

directions we should pursue. I'm not sure that either one of us understands quite what the

other does for a living, but between us we

collectively built something that had never

existed before. Programmers or Web masters can't do a

project like this on their own. It is very

necessary that the client be very involved in the development process to keep the developer from wandering off track. The

programming for this project was completed

using only Microsoft VB 5.0, Microsoft Access 97 and Microsoft Interdev. There is no C + + , no special libraries and no custom CGI's. It was built by 2 developers.

[slide 5] Current Attributes

• Dual Pentium Servers

1 backup/development server

1 production Web server

1 production SQL Server

• Microsoft NT Server 4.0

• Microsoft SQL Server 6.5

1 development database

1 production database

• Microsoft IIS 4.0

1 backup/development server

1 production server

• 1 .2 Gigabyte of storage about 600Mb per database

• University supplied T1 network

• GPOdata + "discontinued notes"

53
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

• WebTrends analysis software

• Can use any ODBC compliant Db

• A work in progress The last statement if of particular interest. This

project will probably never be finished. We

constantly see things that need to be corrected,

refined, or added. We encourage the user community to make suggestions for enhancements and to notify us when the programs or data appear to be in error.

[slide 6] What It Cost?

Data free Microsoft Back Office $3000

MS Visual Studio $1400

1 Pentium server $8000

Db Analyst 40@60/hr. $2400

Db Programmer 120@50/hr. $6000

Web programmer 120@40/hr. $4800

approximate $25600

The items on this slide represent approximate

street prices for the Microsoft products that were used to develop and support the DDM

project. The majority of the cost is for developers and servers. If you already have

this resource on site then the cost is diminished. In reality, at least two servers are needed and three is even better. The Web

server should be different than the database

server and it is always nice to have a separate development server that is isolated from the production system.

[slide 7] Current Statistics

• depository active 1,364

• depository inactive 5

• gpoclasses active 9,507

• gpoclasses inactive 8,158

• Unionlist active 2,718,126

• unionlist inactive 225,754

The current stats slide shows the record counts

for the depository table (profiles), the classlist table and the unionlist table. Inactive counts

are the items that have been dropped from the

official monthly data feeds from the GPO.

Instead of dropping these items from our

tables, we just mark them as inactive.

[slide 8] Future Enhancements

• Subagencies

• Export Features (full or profiled)

• Inactive Profiles?

Future enhancements will probably involve designing an export feature to allow users to download all or any part of the database that they wish to maintain on their site. Most of the future features will probably come from

requests made by the user community.

Finally, I can offer some sample report output from the administrative side of Documents

Data Miner.

[slide 9]

Valid item# not in a depository

ilcra* jctiw udalt

o:«>-EJ)l Y (mill) 0466-A-()5 Y (null) U494-K-I0 Y (null) 0494-K-IO Y Apr 3 1998 10 08AM

- 11557-D-ol Y (null) 0851^^)1 Y Fch II 1998 n,38AM

0831-C.Ol Y Feb II 1998 M:38AM

090(W:-14 Y Ftb II 1998 II 39AM

l07ttLJ32 Y (null) 107(l-L.O; Y hull)

(1 1 rov^slafTecled)

54
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

[slide 10]

j Orphan Item/Sudoc pairs

^ jtACUs Of orphu iC€u found in Tpoclasats

j orphan lt«m5 sudocjctB status last update

023l-fi-23 C €1.40: inactive Har 6 1998 10:48AM

• 023«-B c 13.36/7: inactive Inull) 0371-t-Ot 0 5.351/3-2: Inactive Oct 10 1997 4:12FM

0431-1-41 ZS 1.8/7: inactive Mar 24 1998 2:49PM

1 043S-t-12 t 3.11/4: inactive Oct 15 1997 S:21PM

0449 MX 23.12: inactive Nov 10 1997 i::46PM

048S-r-02 HI 20.5301: inactive (null) 0507-G-49 MI 20.3161/2: inactive Nov 10 1997 12:46PM

' 0512-A-27 HI 22.25/2: inactive (null) 0512-A-27 HI 22.25: inactive (null)

; OSBl-I-11 HH 1.46/6-2: inactive Mar 6 1998 10:48AM

' 05»l-£-ll HH 1.46/6: inactive Mar 6 1998 10:4eAM

0768-C-03 I. 2.3/5; inactive Oct 15 1997 5:23PM

1061-L r 3.r 31/25: inactive Oct 10 1997 1:26PM ^ 1

[slide 11]

j Orphans - Depository count

1 orph4m iteaa number of depositories

\ 0231-B-23 552 0238-B 217 037e-E-08 429 0431-1-41 247

. 0436-E-12 220

! 0449 1100 0486-F-02 394 0507-G-49 633

, 0512-A-27 315 OSei-E-ll 491 0768-C-O3 1238

; 1061-L 287

55
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference Documents Data Miner: A Resource for

Collection Development and Management

Cathy Hartman

University of Nortli Texas Denton, TX

Introduction

Let me begin by saying "thank you" to Nan

Myers and John Ellis for making this resource

available to the depository library community. A few months ago, Nan contacted me to ask if

I would work with her to test and evaluate the Documents Data Miner as a collection development resource and then present

practical uses of the Data Miner as a member

of this panel. After one viewing of the site, I immediately agreed to join her team. From my first searches of the databases, it was

readily apparent that the Data Miner would be

an exceptional tool for many aspects of our

collection management and development

work.

For several weeks. Nan and I had weekly, long phone conversations during which she very

patiently walked me through all the features of the site. With this basic knowledge, I spent

the next few weeks using the site. Nan and John have given you an overview of the Documents Data Miner, including the

features, search techniques, and the technical aspects of the relational databases. To

illustrate practical applications of the Documents Data Miner, I selected a few of my

favorite uses to demonstrate for you, including

uses for your library, for cooperative collection development in your city, state, or region, and

for other miscellaneous uses. Then, I will close with a few suggestions for enhancement

of this wonderful resource.

Collection Development and Management

At the University of North Texas (UNT)

depository library, we serve a population of over 25,000 students in addition to the

Dallas/Fort Worth region. We are classified as a large depository library with depository

holdings of more than one million volumes in the documents collection, and this fall we will be celebrating our 50"" anniversary as a depository library. Within this context, there

are many ways we can use the Data Miner to

assist with collection management and

development.

Collection Management and Development

within Library A long-standing goal in our department is to better understand the usage patterns of our

collection. We recently implemented a new

integrated library system that allows us to build

circulation reports by call number ranges. We

simply supply our head of circulation with a range of SuDocs stems for the reports. Reports organized by SuDocs stem, i.e., by publishing agency, facilitate using the data for stack management and item selection. Also, if your

library scans barcocJe^f items used in-house,

the usage data will be more raTnprehensive,

covering non-circulating titles, as well. Usage

statistics will assist our decision making in two

areas:

1 . With limited stack space, parts of our

collection must be sent to a temperature and humidity controlled remote storage

56
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

unit. We, of course, prefer to send seldom-used materials. Usage statistics facilitate informed decision-making about

relocation of materials. Also, selective depositories need solid usage data for targeting of specific areas for weeding.

2. With all collections, accurate usage

statistics are invaluable in the annual item

selection review process. Documents Data Miner allows us to build the circulation report lists of currently received SuDocs

stems quickly and easily:

a. From the main page of Documents

Data Miner, select "Depository

Selection and Directory."

b. Type in depository number. UNT's number is 0608A. Submit.

c. Data Miner found the specified depository. To see UNT's item

selections, select depository number

0608A.

d. The resulting screen allows for searching items that UNT selects by

agency, by SuDocs stem, and by item number. To search by agency, select the down arrow key on the text box.

e. Displayed is the number of items

selected by UNT from each agency.

f. Select, for example, the Government

Printing Office, and submit or double

click.

g. Displayed is a list of the 29 items UNT

selects from GPO. This data can be

used and manipulated in so many ways

because it can be saved and opened in spreadsheet software. Simply open the

file menu, and

h. Select "Save frame as."

i. Open your spreadsheet software (example uses Excel) and click the "open file" button.

j. The application asks that a file be

selected to open. Be certain to change

the type of file to "all files" since files from the Data Miner will save with a

.asp extension. Find your file and open it.

k. The headings and the table are saved,

in color. Because this data is now in spreadsheet format, it can easily be

manipulated in many ways, such as deleting columns, merging tables, or adding a column for local notes. To

build our list for usage statistics, we

need a simple text list of call number

stems.

I. Simply block the column with SuDocs

stems, then select "edit/copy" or use

the key strokes, <ctrl > C. m. Open word processing software, then

select "edit/paste" or use the key

strokes, <ctrl> V.

n. The column of the table has been

copied. Using the table pull-down menu option, "convert table to text," a simple text list of SuDocs numbers

remains, ready to forward to the head

of circulation for our report. Cooperative Collection Development:

City/State/Region The North Central Texas area has several Federal depository libraries, and to support

cooperative efforts, we formed the North Texas Documents Group. The group includes

librarians from about 15 depository libraries that meet twice each year to discuss issues of

interest to all. Represented are a variety of

sizes of libraries, both academic and public. Cooperative collection development has long been discussed informally in the group.

57
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

however we found it difficult to coordinate a

plan. In 1991, a group of 4 or 5 libraries using one of the first electronic List of Classes, commissioned a printout with each library's selections tagged. Other libraries, experiencing a cycle of lean budgets, could

not afford to participate, and of course, the

printout was quickly out of date with the next

item selection cycle. The Documents Data Miner solves all of ourlechnical problems by

allowing each library easy, free access to the

up-to-date selections of every library in the group. To monitor the selections of the other

libraries in the group when making retention or selection decisions is simple.

a. Using the Documents Data Miner,

> Select "Union List Profile" in top frame.

I find the frame at the top very useful making switching from one feature to another fast and easy.

b. Type "100" (or any number of miles) in the text box indicating desired radius

in miles around your library and your

depository library number (0608A) in the depository number text box and

submit.

c. Select "List of Classes" from the frame

at top.

d. Select down arrow key by the "Agency" text box and highlight an agency name. For this example, I will select EPA.

e. Now, select the down arrow key by the "Formats" text box and highlight a format. As Electronic Resources Coordinator for the UNT Libraries, I am expecially interested in seeing what

electronic products other libraries in my area have chosen, so I will highlight CD-ROM. Submit.

f. Displayed is a list of all CD-ROMs

offered by EPA. Select the item number of any CD-ROM,

g. to see libraries within 100 miles that

select it.

h. Should this EPA CD-ROM bean item

that we are considering for deselecting,

I may want to query the libraries on

this list to see if someone else will be

retaining it. If the list includes only one or two libraries, I can use e-mail

links on the table, but if the list is longer, I may prefer to build a list of e- mail addresses using the same

technique demonstrated earlier. I can

easily save/block/copy a list of e-mail addresses to paste into my e-mail address box to query several librarians with one message. Now that we have all of our technical impediments removed by Documents Data

Miner, the North Texas Documents Group no

longer has a reason (excuse?) to delay

formulating a cooperative collection development plan. Because Documents Data Miner allows us to monitor selections by

agency and by media, it will facilitate assignment of specific agencies for in-depth

collection and retention.

Also, we frequently make referrals to other

libraries in the group. Another benefit of the Data Miner is the enabling of easy referral of patrons to the appropriate library in the area. Miscellaneous uses

In the few months since Nan asked me to review the Data Miner site, several miscellaneous tasks offered the opportunity to use the databases. I selected two examples to

illustrate tasks made easier by Data Miner.

First, as the Content Partner with GPO to provide permanent public access to the

electronic records of the Advisory Commission

on InterGovernmental Relations (ACIR), we

receive requests from other states and other

countries for ACIR documents currently

available only in paper. One morning, I

58
7995 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

received a phone call from an elderly gentleman. He was calling from a distant state and wanted to know if I had received his fax. He told me that he had called several places

trying to find a series of ACIR documents and someone in North Carolina had referred him to

us. His fax was sent to a fax machine somewhere on campus (the unknown recipient

is probably still wondering what it is), so he

resent it to the correct fax number. The fax included clippings from an "unorthodox"

publication with an amazing amount of misinformation about the ACIR. With considerable effort, we found the documents he wanted. Then, I used Documents Data Miner to locate a depository

library in his area (there was one in his city), and to e-mail the documents librarian. I sent the list of call numbers and titles for the desired documents. The librarian immediately

responded that they did not have them, but would borrow from their regional and that I should refer the gentleman to them. I faxed

the information to him and he called a few

days later, called me "little lady," and told me

how often librarians had helped him find information and what a great group we are. The Documents Data Miner facilitated the exchange between libraries. It was a quick,

easy, and effective means of finding and communicating with another depository

library. Second, before the recent conference of the Texas Library Association, I used the Data Miner to build a list of e-mail addresses of all the depository libraries in Texas. I used the list to quickly let everyone know about a meeting

that was added too late to be in the conference program. With more than 50 Federal depository libraries in Texas, typing in each e- mail address or sending each a separate message was an unacceptable alternative. Enhancements Nan and John have devoted so much time to

this project already that "ideas for other

enhancements" may meet with the response

of, "Okay, but only if you are willing to help."

I do have two ideas for enhancement, and I am

willing to help with at least one of them. The first idea for enhancement is for the

feature. Depository Selection and Directory. When the depository library number has been

entered and the number selected on the next

screen, the search screen appears. A search by media/format in this section would

assist with planning for space in MF and CD- ROM cabinets. By selecting an agency and a

format, a library could view all items selected from that agency in a specific format and with

the frequency notes included in the table, make projections for purchasing cabinets or

other storage equipment. Trends for moving to electronic publishing could be observed for an agency as the percentage of electronic items grows and other media decrease. Second, we suggest enhancement of the Inactive/Discontinued feature of the Documents Data Miner. The Inactive/ Discontinued database currently contains

items from 1950 to current, but these items cannot be matched to individual library selections from that time period. By including

previous selections for libraries for Inactive/ Discontinued items, this feature has immense

potential to assist with collection management,

referrals, and cooperative collection retention

projects. If inactive/discontinued items from 1942 (in November of that year. Item Numbers

were first used) to 1 950 are added to the database to complete the coverage, then

depositories that wish to participate could add

their own retrospective item selections. Nan

and John would be needed to coordinate with

libraries that wish to participate and to outline the technical requirements of the data that we

would provide.

This enlarged inactive/discontinued database would, in my opinion, be a major national resource. Collection management for the older sections of our collections would be

59
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

added to the list of Data Miner uses. Also, because most of us are batch-loading records

in our catalogs for depository library titles, our

library symbols are not set in OCLC. An

enhanced inactive/discontinued database would clearly facilitate the process of referrals and interlibrary loans.

In closing, again, thank you to Nan, John, and

others at Wichita State University involved in this project that began as a local collection development tool and developed into the Documents Data Miner.

60
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Mainstreaming of Technical Services Processing

for Federal Depository Collections

Fred C. Schmidt

Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523

Good afternoon. Today I want to discuss what

is perceived to be a trend throughout the Federal depository system: the merging, or mainstreaming of technical services processing with the processing that is performed for general library materials. Sooner or later, every depository library may need to consider

different alternatives for its technical processing functions. All of us are aware of the fact that some of the oldest and largest depository libraries in the system have mainstreamed their technical services operations for documents for many years. Including the cataloging of most or all of their depository holdings. Indeed, a select number

of these libraries house their depository

collections in the general collections, using

LC, Dewey or other classification schemes.

This method of organization is used by a number of very small depository libraries, as

well. The majority of depository libraries house their collections in separate locations and rely on

the Superintendent of Documents classification scheme. Most have an organization that combines technical sen/ices and public

services. This is the type of organization that my institution, Colorado State University (CSU), has had since it became a depository

library in 1903. A review of our situation, while perhaps not completely typical, may be

of use to those institutions contemplating a change in their organizational structure. Chronic staffing shortages (where have we

heard that before), changing services and the

receipt of funding for an addition to the main

library were the factors that led to two library- wide studies: the Realignment Task Force

(RAF) and the Rethinking Reference Task Force

(RRTF) , with the objective of developing ways

to provide more efficient service to its users. A

number of recommendations from these

studies focused on Government Documents

Services by calling for integration of the department's technical services functions with

the various units in the Technical Services

Division and moving the reference service,

instruction and collection development into the Public Service Division. As a result of these recommendations, the

library administration established a Task Force

for Mainstreaming Documents Technical

Processing, with a charge to create a plan for mainstreaming technical processing to effect improved user access to the large amount of Government information available in the

Library's holdings.

Rationale for mainstreaming documents

operations included the following: Government information has become available

in a greater variety of formats and sources; there is a greater commitment of the librarians' time to collection management, user education and reference service; reference service time commitment is manifested in providing user

assistance for accessing and interpreting the wide variety of databases (with a variety of software) available on the Web and on CD- ROMs. In addition, the librarians were

providing users with very specialized services,

61
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

such as electronic maps, geographic

information systems (CIS) and others, which were demanding more and more of the

librarians' time. The Congressional directive

to GPO to convert the depository program to one that disseminates more information in electronic format contributed to the significant increase in public service provided by

departmental staff. With the Libraries' commitment to more of a

unified access to its collections and its load of the GPO/Marcive tapes of post-1976 records

into CSUL's online catalog, integrating documents technical services activities into the general Technical Services units became quite

viable. CSUL's migration to a new OPAC

(INNOPAC) in 1996 indicated that it might be

an appropriate time to automate the Government serials records and close the

shelflist because of the online catalog's

(locally called SAGE) ability to provide an

accurate automated shelflist. Staff felt that mainstreaming would lead to greater consistencies in processing. Integration of technical processing would enable Cataloging

Services to streamline its workflow in order to more efficiently integrate the Libraries' goal of

total integration of pre-1976 depository and

non-depository Federal publications bibliographic data with the general library materials accessed through SAGE.

The planning of CSUL's new library addition

also influenced staff in its decisionmaking. The addition was designed to provide for a

unified technical services division, which

separated it from reference services by one

floor. Public services areas were designed to combine separate science/technology, social sciences/humanities and Government

documents reference areas into a centralized reference point in order to improve user access and interaction. The Task Force The Mainstreaming Study Task Force was composed of subject specialists, documents

librarians and staff, the serials librarian and the head of Database Maintenance. The Head of the Documents Department presented a series of sessions on the policies, procedures and

workflows of the department and reviewed its organizational structure. At the time of the

study, staff consisted of four librarians (including two temporary half-time librarians), four support staff and student assistants. The Task Force analyzed workflows and

routines. Position development questionnaires

completed by each classified staff member

were reviewed in detail to identify the

technical services tasks performed by each and

the estimated time assigned to each task. Technical processing duties of librarians and

student assistants were also reviewed to determine how each could fit into general

technical services units. Tasks were prioritized and time lines were discussed. Requirements

for supervisory levels and reporting lines were

reviewed, as were the impacts of potential changes in existing units.

Staffing and Workload Review

For a period of years, the Department was

unable to perform all of its mandated tasks at a

satisfactory level, which contributed to

significant processing and maintenance

backlog. This situation existed in large part because over the years the Department was

assigned or assumed responsibility for a number of new initiatives which were not always adequately staffed as these initiatives grew. These tasks are common to many documents

depository units in research universities. They

included the following: the Library's map

collection was consolidated and transferred to the Documents Department; the decision to bring the collection up to acceptable state and

national standards resulted in a dramatic

increase in the number of depository

selections; in the number of maps purchased and received with a concurrent increase in the amount of time required to process, shelve.

62
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

and maintain bibliographic records; and an

increase in the need for map reference and

location assistance. CSUL's participation in the ARIVGIS Literacy Project required a

significant additional time commitment by the

librarian responsible for the map collection. This commitment requires a significant, continuous amount of training to provide user

assistance for CIS activities. Assumption of the supervision and management of the microtext collection and

services required a significant time commitment of departmental staff. Budget

cuts eliminated a full-time staff member; the department's Library Technician II had to spend some 30% of her time in supervising the microtext area.

Designation of CSUL as a full depository for State of Colorado publications added to the Department's responsibilities and workload. Although a librarian was assigned

responsibility for the collection, there was a chronic shortage of support staff to process new and retrospective receipts. Load of the Marcive tapes into SAGE

necessitated a commitment to ongoing online

bibliographic and item record maintenance, as well as quality control of the Marcive loads. At the time of the Task Force study, few of the records of the post-1976 documents had barcoded linked holdings records; serials holdings records had been created for approximately one-half of the active Federal depository periodical titles and input into SAGE; bibliographic and item records existed

for selected State of Colorado publications. Concurrently with the initial Marcive load, the department initiated retrospective conversion

of bibliographic records of pre-1976

depository and non-depository titles. Part of these tasks were assumed by departmental

support staff, in addition to maintaining manual check-in records. The Marcive load increased the circulation of Government publications by some 253

percent; the ever increasing amount of Government information becoming available

in electronic formats and the continual loading

of Marcive tapes increased the amount of reference service by some 207 percent. In order to meet this increased demand,

documents reference hours were increased to nearly the same number of hours that were

provided by the Science/Technology and

Social Sciences/Humanities reference desks

(besides the documents librarians, four graduate students were hired to provide

evening and weekend service). Although these new services and the

substantive amount of database maintenance were performed with some new staffing, such

staffing remained inadequate for technical

services functions; instead, more staffing continued to be assigned to public services to cope with the ever-increasing user demands

from both on-campus users and distancelearners. Clearly, it was necessary to continue

to achieve greater efficiencies in processing and bibliographic access to the collection. Recommendations of the Task Force The Task Force recommended that mainstreaming be done in phases to accommodate processing priorities, availability of supervisory staff from new reporting units to

train the Documents processing staff, and to coordinate move of staff with completion of new Technical Services facilities. The first operation recommended for mainstreaming was database maintenance.

After approval, a new job description was

prepared for a Government documents

database maintenance position in the Database Maintenance Unit (DBM) of Cataloging

Services, and in June, 1995, a Documents staff member was transferred to DBM and training was initiated. Subsequently, cleanup and DBM activities began for online records:

linking of circulation records to their bibliographic records; updating classification numbers on bibliographic records; correcting

63
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

typographical mistakes on the records; adding

contents notes to the records; eliminating

duplicate records; making location changes and updating of the item records; modifying

the bibliographic records as needed; and

initiating quality control and cleanup of problems resulting from duplicate barcodes in the Marcive loads.

In March of 1997, DBM began to load Marcive

Shipping List Service (SLS) records into SAGE.

This enabled the department to begin to close the documents shelflist, and made available to users a brief record for new depository titles upon receipt. DBM assigned part of one

additional position to cope with the resulting increase in bibliographic maintenance and

quality control. The second phase of mainstreaming was the

transfer of acquisitions functions to the Acquisitions Department. Purchased documents had always been ordered through

Acquisitions; all orders for non-depository gift items were assimilated in the Acquisitions workflow. Collection development activities remain the responsibility of the documents

librarians. This phase was originally scheduled

for July 1 997, but was delayed until October

because of the usual delays in completing the consolidated technical services area and

because the Library sustained on July 28 what

is considered to be the worst flood ever to

strike an academic library. The processing of Government serials was

concurrently transferred to the Serials Unit of the Acquisitions Department. Documents

Processing Unit staff were trained by the serials librarian to convert the serials records in the manual shelflist to SAGE. As soon as all current serials records are converted and

receipts are routinely recorded in SAGE, the manual shelflist for these records will be

closed. Other routine processing, including all remaining manual operations, will be performed by the Documents Processing Unit

staff under the direction of the serials librarian. The documents librarians continue to be

responsible for liaison with Federal and state depository entities. Conclusion

Institutions contemplating mainstreaming

technical services functions should carefully study the advantages and disadvantages of

retaining processing functions within the documents unit. If the study identifies elements of processing that could result in greater efficiencies in terms of staff utilization, processing turnaround time and increased accuracy of records by merging processing

functions with general technical services processing, then mainstreaming should be

seriously considered.

At Colorado State, staff have observed the following benefits of mainstreaming technical

services operations: there is greater consistency in maintaining local standards for general library materials records and those for Government documents; on-time quality control/cleanup of records enables the user to more easily rely upon the online catalog as the source for correct holdings information; modification and loading of SLS records allow immediate user access to records of newly

received titles; maintenance of Government

documents records is done concurrently with

general library records; and closure of the manual shelflist is on schedule. Documents librarians have been able to devote considerably more time and effort to collection development (necessary to acquire

at least a portion of the estimated 50 percent of Government imprints considered fugitive), to electronic and traditional reference assistance and to user education and outreach. They

continue to interact closely with technical

services units assigned to process documents

by being involved in training activities and in reviewing all materials received for proper

routing and disposition. The mainstreaming of documents technical processing will be reviewed and evaluated

64
]998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

after one year to ascertain its effectiveness; however, our experience has shown that it is quite successful in meeting its objectives of

better staff utilization and more efficient processing of materials.

[An amended version of this presentation

entitled "Mainstreaming Government Documents Technical Processing: the Colorado State Experience: (jointly authored

with Nora S. Copeland) appears in Colorado

Libraries, 24:5-7, Spring, 1998.]

65
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

Public Access to Government Information

Deborah Klein

Bureau of Labor Statistics Wasliington, DC

Rather than talk about^ecific new products from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), I would like to use my time today to discuss my

views on my role in the process of disseminating BLS information and how it interfaces with the role of the FDLP. Let me

stress that I am not speaking for the

administration, or even for the statistical agencies as a whole. I am planning to tell you how I view these issues, and how the situation looks from my perspective. I think the value of these meetings is the opportunity they provide

to broaden our understanding. I am speaking

as someone with the responsibility for the publishing and information dissemination at one statistical agency and as a person who

firmly believes in the importance of disseminating Government information widely

to users along with assistance in understanding and using the information that their Government collected and developed. BLS is an agency with a long history of reporting on the studies it conducted; the first annual reports of the Commissioner of Labor were published in the 1880's.

In the course of carrying out its mission, BLSlike other Federal agencies-develops, collects, and distributes information. To whom does

this information belong? In my view, the public paid for it with their tax dollars and the producing agency developed and understands

its properties. Attempts to improve access to Government information and to ensure

accountability need to deal with this reality as well as the current and future technological

possibilities. This point is particularly important to me, and much that I have read on

this subject seems to ignore the role of the producing organization.

Criteria for Information Access Many groups have enumerated basic principles

of information access. One set of principles was developed by the National Commission

on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS):

• The public has the right of access to 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.

• The Government has an obligation to preserve its information.

• Government information created or compiled by Government employees or at Government expense should remain in the public domain.

http://library.berkeley.edu/GODORT/

gpo_prin.html Current Challenges

Among the current challenges to the existing system are:

• the vast increase in Government

information;

66
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

• the emergence of new forms of information, particularly electronic;

• the impact of tightened budgetary

constraints;

• the emergence of private sector information providers; and

• the changing views about the proper roles of the legislative and executive branches in this arena, as well as changing views on

the public's right to Government

information. The emergence of low-cost printing technology coupled with the availability of information in electronic form has given Government agencies improved ability to reach the public without using either GPO or the FDLP. It has also expanded the explosive volume of Government information. At the same time the public has become both more demanding in its quest for Government

information, and more sophisticated in its use. Moreover, Government concern over cost control has shifted from paper production to applications of technology for electronic production and distribution. At the same time,

I understand that participating FDLP libraries have serious and legitimate concerns with

costs for cataloguing, provision of public

access, and storage. The 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act "reaffirms

that dissemination applies to all publicly- available agency information, regardless of format." It also mandates that "agencies

develop Government information locator services (GILS), and requires the integration of access and dissemination planning into life- cycle management." The February 1996 revision to OMB Circular A-130, which implemented the 1995 PRA,

requires that agencies should provide

information about the nature of their

information resources and how the public may

gain access to them. Further, agencies are required to take advantage of as many

dissemination channels as possible in recognition that information reaches the public

through many secondary sources. The role of newspapers and other private publication

vehicles is recognized, as well as information

specialists, and database providers. This approach reflects positions detailed in the recommendations of the National Performance

Review, which supported executive branch

responsibility for printing and the development

of agency locators for public access to Federal

information.

Statistical data

Electronic access is particularly important in the statistical area because users are becoming

more sophisticated and want more than just published tables. They want the data in a form

that they can put in spreadsheets and statistical formulas. This suggests that the solution is not

to restrict the Federal agencies from making

their data available electronically, but rather to improve the ability of the depository libraries to handle material in this format.

This will become even more important in the

future because the statistical agencies are engaged in activities to improve the overall information infrastructure. Some of the

directions in which we are heading include the development of better tools for information

finding, extraction, and reuse. In these

activities, we are partnering with the library and information service community that has

long been a leader in this field. Our goal is to increase statistical literacy and

the ability of the public to transform

information into knowledge. To accomplish

this we are working to link metadata - by which we mean information about a survey and the information it provides - to the actual data from a survey. This would permit users to

find definitions, reference periods, survey size, and other pertinent facts that can help them

67
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

evaluate the relevance of the data to their objective. Again, these are all areas in which

the library community should be a valuable

resource. Should Dissemination be Centralized? The GPO-FDLP model envisions a system in which all Government information goes

through GPO to Federal depository libraries. Viewed from the user perspective, those who

want information go to their local public or

university library, if it happens to be a depository library it would have the information needed, if not it would contact the

regional depository library for the appropriate

material. A more decentralized approach, such as that underlying the procedures described in OMB

Circular A-1 30, relies on information producing agencies to select appropriate means of access, balancing the usefulness of the information to the public against the cost

of distribution. This approach recognizes that information reaches the public in many ways:

a news release may only be sent to a mailing

list of 1 ,000, but if the information is picked up on the network evening news, it becomes

available to millions. This is the rationale behind locator systems, a recognition that all information does not have to go directly between the developer of the information and

the end user. To some extent the current FDLP centralizes access to Federal information in distributed

locations. Centralized access is the cost determinant in today's information-demanding

society, whereas centralized publication and

distribution was the cost determinant a century

ago. Accountability for access and

preservation of information must also be

assigned. Locator Models

In theory, the major advantage of a centralized model of information dissemination is ease for

the end user. The user could find all Government information at one location. A

major advantage of a decentralized model is that information would be provided in the context of related information from providers

who best understood the properties of the

material.

In reality, neither of the extreme versions of the two models would be realistic. There is no way that every piece of Government

information could be collected in one place, nor is it realistic to expect the public to search every possible location for a specific piece of information. One strategy that, at least, some producers of Government information are pursuing is the development of locator systems. A prime

example is in the area of Federal statistics. The

United States has a decentralized statistical system in which statistical agencies are generally located in a parent agency

responsible for the overall topic (e.g., agricultural statistics in the Department of

Agriculture, education statistics in the Department of Education, labor statistics in the Department of Labor). Because of this decentralization, there are more than 70 agencies that produce statistics that are of interest to the public. Moreover, many of the questions that the public wants answered require information from multiple

sources.

In order to improve public access, the

statistical agencies have developed a single Web site on the Internet (FedStats) that organizes and provides access to the entire range of Government statistics while leaving

the individual agencies responsible for maintaining the data and ensuring their accuracy < http://www.fedstats.gov/>

.

The user can obtain Government information without having to know which agency

produces it by using a table of contents, a keyword search, a listing of subject matter

68
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

contacts, or a directory of statistical programs. The Web site also includes links to statistical policy working papers, statistical news

releases, and a clickable map to identify regional information.

This approach is consistent with the broader GILS (Government Information Locator

Service), which has been defined as a decentralized collection of locators and

associated information services used by the public either directly or indirectly or through

intermediaries to find information. The

developers of GILS envision the utilization of a standard syntax for records describing Government documents that can be organized

for access. The FedStats home page has proven to be a popular site, and it has gotten favorable write- ups in the press. (Paul Bugg of OMB will be

discussing the FedStats site at the conference tomorrow.) Because many users of statistics do know

which agency has the data they want, more of them go directly to the agency sites than to FedStats. Thus, in February (a short month)

there were 300,000 visits to the BLS Web site, and nearly 200,000 distinct hosts serviced. A

visit consists of a series of consecutive views of a Web site by the same user. You need to multiply that figure by about 20 to get the approximate number of hits (6.5 million for the BLS site alone in February)- the statistic most

often quoted to judge a site's popularity. People stayed at the BLS site for an average of more than 7 minutes, they looked at about 8 pages per visit, and they downloaded many many megabytes of data. My understanding is that the Census site is getting around three times that amount of traffic and other Government sites also are recording large and

increasing numbers of visits.

I cite these numbers to show that electronic dissemination is an important and useful way

for Federal agencies to distribute their information. It is also cost effective, because

the marginal cost of each additional user is virtually zero. Without minimizing the importance of depository libraries, the most

recent statistics I've seen show that there are

less than a million customer assistance events

per month on all subjects in all depository

libraries combined. While I am comfortable with the progress we

are making on disseminating statistical data, I am less sanguine about the situation with

respect to preservation and archiving. BLS has

not yet completely replaced any print publications with electronic materials, and I hope we never will. But new information, information that would never before have made publicly available, is now being put up

on the Internet. This is to the public good in the short run, but we have not fully resolved

all of the issues involved in ensuring that this information is archived. Our goal should be to harness the technology that gave us the ability to disseminate data more broadly to insure that the functions of preserving and archiving

information also are achieved.

Also, in the broad area of archiving is the question about how to preserve all the print material. BLS has paper documents that are more than 100 years old, and we need to preserve them for future generations. As

resources permit, our plan is to scan them into both ASCII and PDF files, so that they can be

searched and loaded into databases, while

bibliographic control can be maintained and we will be able to preserve the authenticity of the specific data. While there are many views on these issues, it isn't a question of the good guys versus the bad guys. I believe that all of the players wish

to improve public access to information. There

are serious issues about ensuring that all users have access to information, about ensuring that users can find out that the information exists so

that they can access it, and about ensuring that there be permanent access to this information. The disagreements largely center on

determining the best methods to achieve these

69
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

goals, and open discussion is the best way to reach a consensus that will work. I look forward to continuing this dialog with you.

70
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

US Nonprofit Gateway

http://www.nonprofit.gov

Thomas Freebairn

Communications Catalyst Washington, DC

1. Introduction ^

Thank you for your interest in Federal interagency Web sites.

I'll be describing the US NonProfit Gateway, a one-stop Web site and network, that serves as an initial starting point for nonprofit organizations that wish to access Federal information of particular interest to them. For

nonprofits this might mean grant announcements, or new regulations, or information about the specific field that they

serve, whether it is health care, or the environment, or community development, or something else.

First though, a disclaimer. I am a volunteer, based in a nonprofit organization, so I don't speak officially for the White House or for any

of the other agency partners that are responsible for posting the final content. However, I've been closely involved with the

project from its earliest planning, and have

participated during all its many stages of development up until the present.

I will describe the NonProfit Gateway: its benefits as well as its shortcomings.

I will also ask for your assistance: to review and send comments about how to improve the

site for your patrons; and to help us identify best practices for classifying the information.

2. Some background about nonprofits Almost everyone has been associated with

nonprofits in some way in receiving or giving

services. Or, with most people, during their

lifetimes they have done both. When I was growing up I was a member of the Boy Scouts. And in college I remember

buying a winter coat from the Hadassah thrift store. And when my mother died, we donated

her furniture to a local shelter for homeless women. Maybe you volunteer or donate to local

charities. Or support a local orchestra, or

choral group, or dance company, or soup

kitchen.

Formally, the term nonprofit includes more

than one million separate organizations, large and small, that have registered for tax benefits from the IRS. But in the broader sense of

social and civic participation, the term

nonprofit, in spirit, also includes all sorts of informal responses to local needs, such as

natural disaster relief, or neighborhood watch

safety programs, or food or clothing drives: community response to obvious needs.

It includes everything from the Girl Scouts, to the YMCA and YWCA, Goodwill and the

Salvation Army, the Red Cross, the National Education Association, and local performance

groups, community centers, and volunteer fire departments, and of course the American

71
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

Library Association and many other

professional associations you might belong to.

It also includes policy and research centers

that closely track and review Government

performance, provide an early warning system

for potential problems, and offer suggestions

for possible solutions. Needless to say, libraries are an exceptionally

important potential resource for all these groups, so I'm delighted to offer the NonProfit Gateway as another tool for you to use.

3. So, where is all the Government

information these nonprofits need?

Virtually every Federal department, bureau,

administration, agency, office, or project has at least some information that nonprofits need. We knew much of it would be at HHS, and

Labor, and Education, and HUD, and of course

the IRS, which decides on the tax categories

for nonprofits.

But there were so many surprises that we

finally concluded that the information was

everywhere. For example, the Department of Defense, which we hadn't expected would be

a major participant, was actually one of the

earliest and most active supporters. Why?

They contribute surplus equipment to nonprofits, make their facilities available, and work actively in communities where their bases, and the families of their service personnel, are located.

4. How did the White House respond?

Basically, the White House began by

reviewing the US Business Advisor Web site which Vice President Gore's Government

reinvention team developed and concluded

that they could probably do an even better job

for nonprofits, now that they had a model to build from.

It activated its forum of "nonprofit liaison

officers" who were already based in agencies

throughout the Administration. It encouraged them to recruit technical and content experts from within their agencies to volunteer for a Governmentwide Task Force to develop a "one-stop" Web site for nonprofits. And, it convened a few hundred nonprofit

representatives in large and small groups, and

individually, to learn what information they wanted and to collect examples of the Web

sites nonprofits used most often.

It turned out that the challenge was much

larger than anyone expected. It became a microcosm of all the larger information issues facing the Federal Government. We needed to respond to virtually every issue and point of view, and do it openly and fairly.

5. The resulting US NonProfit Gateway

The Task Force quickly realized that nonprofits, collectively, wanted virtually every

bit of information that the Federal Government

produced. They wanted to be able to search it easily. And they wanted to be able to compare and contrast information across

agencies.

This probably sounds familiar to most of you:

everything for everyone, but with very limited resources. The Task Force also realized that they, as a

centrally-located volunteer Task Force, couldn't guarantee that they could collect and

post information on a timely basis, or sustain the service once the Task Force disbanded.

Basic model

The solution was to jointly design a central site and then to assign each participating agency to create its own local nonprofit site, which was

to be built on their own local information so

that they could assemble locally. The result is a central site (which is hosted by GSA, the General Services Administration) plus a

72
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

network of 15 local sites. These local sites have a core of common elements - such as

grants, directories, and volunteer opportunities - and then an open-ended challenge to find and post whatever else they think might be

useful.

6. Demonstration of key screens

Nonprofit Gateway home page

Includes a basic directory of key Federal

resources, direct links to all the 15

participating local sites, a search function, and links to instructions, comments, etc.

Chart of Cabinet departments screen Includes a listing of all participating Departments, each with options for additional locations within each Department (its home page, nonprofit links page, GILS, and their local search engine.

Example of a local Department nonprofit page: HUD, Housing and Urban Development

This includes all the links within HUD that might be of interest to nonprofits. Example of one of HUD's connections from

this nonprofit page - "Funding"

This includes a full range of information, including access to its CIS mapping

service. Key Information sites screen White House, GPO Access, FedWorld,

CFDA, etc. GPO Access screen

Direct connection to GPO Access and all

its resources, including search function. GOVBOT screen Developed by The Center for Intelligent Information Retrieval at the University of Massachusetts. Currently searching more

than 625,000 <gov> and <mil> Web

pages.

7. How can libraries help? How can the NonProfit Gateway assist your

Library patrons? Send us your own

professional critiques of the site.

8. Comments to:

http://www.nonprofit.gov

Visit the site and click on the "comments"

button at the bottom of any page.

73
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Libraty Conference DOE Update: Embracing Technology to Increase

Impact

Walter L. Warnick

Department of Energy Oak Ridge, TN

Good afternoon. It is an honor for me to be

invited here today. I will give a brief overview

of the Department of Energy's Office of

Scientific and Technical Information and the

exciting new activities that we are working on

to make the Department's scientific and

technical information (ST!) available. The Department of Energy as a whole is very much in the information business. Information

is the principal product of the Department's R&D programs, and R&D is the bulk of what DOE does now. The mission of the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Scientific and Technical

Information (OSTI), operating from Oak Ridge, Tennessee, for 51 years, is to collect, preserve, and disseminate STI generated and acquired by

DOE programs. For approximately the last 20

years, we have had a partnership with the Government Printing Office (GPO). This

partnership allowed us to provide the public

DOE research literature in microfiche format

via the Federal Depository Library Program. Many of your libraries house DOE report

collections. Today, OSTI is challenged with new

expectations and sharply reduced budgets. We no longer have the luxury to continue both paper and electronic collection and

dissemination. We are urging both the DOE

organizations that generate and submit

research reports and the customers who use DOE information to become automated as fast

as possible. We are making significant progress.

Information Age technology offers us the chance to do a better job of ensuring overall stewardship and accessibility of STI. Just as the

Industrial Revolution extended the reach of human muscle, the Information Age is extending the reach of human intellect. OSTI

has aggressively moved from magnetic tapes, paper and microfiche format report processing and distribution into the electronic information

age. We can now make STI available quicker, cheaper, more completely, and more

conveniently. Recent initiatives have resulted

in several systems that provide public access to DOE STI. I want to briefly mention four of those to you today.

First is EnergyFiles, our new Web-based Energy

Science and Technology virtual library < http://www.doe.gov/EnergyFiles> . It currently consists of over 1 00 DOE and non- DOE core collections. It will evolve into the primary umbrella under which information

collections, electronic journals and preprints, engineering standards, database and document

delivery services, and regulatory, funding and

reference material are made available at the desk top, both for DOE researchers and the public user community.

EnergyFiles sets the stage for a digital National

Library of Energy Science and Technology.

This National Library would link energy

resources locally, across the country, and

internationally. It will be a virtual facility

74
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

accessible at any time from anywhere to provide a foundation for education, research and economic growth to a variety of users. It will be a library with wings, not branches, as branches imply duplication. To actually

establish a National Library requires Administration and Congressional action. Many hurdles remain, but OSTI is addressing

the hurdles in a multi-year endeavor to build on the foundation that has already been laid. Second, is the DOE Research and Development Project Summaries < http://www.doe.gov/rnd/dbhome.html > . It describes over 12,000 R&D projects currently ongoing within the DOE. This application was

developed by the Office of Scientific and

Technical Information specifically to educate and inform the general public of R&D

activities and receives over 800 accesses per

day.

Third, is the OpenNet Web Site. References to 350,000 recently declassified reports are now

available electronically via the Web as a result of the Department's ongoing Openness

Initiative.

Finally, what I am especially excited about

today is the fourth system, again a component

of EnergyFiles, the DOE Information Bridge

full-text Web site. The DOE Information Bridge is available through the GPO Access Web site beginning today. Here is the URL < http://www.doe.gov/bridge > . As a result of a joint effort between OSTI and GPO, anyone

in the world that has Internet access can now

get the results of DOE R&D in physics, chemistry, materials, biology, environmental

cleanup, energy technologies, and other topics immediately, at their desktop, when and where it is needed. Public access to the DOE

Information Bridge Web site via the GPO

Access service is a cooperative effort funded by GPO and DOE. This new full-text Web

site, free to anyone, currently offers over 1 .4 million pages of searchable text from DOE

sponsored research report literature processed

and distributed by DOE since January 1996

and additional reports are added each day.

Here's what it looks like! You will be pleased

to know that there are no password or

registration requirements! The features you

will see include the capability to access,

locate, search, and download full-text and/or

bibliographic information electronically. Three formats, PDF, GIF, and TIFF are available for viewing the full-text page images, and one format PDF (image only) is available

for immediately downloading full-text documents. An "Easy Search" offers a quick way to find items of interest. This option is similar to many popular Internet search

engines. The "Advanced Search" option

includes the ability to combine numerous

fields to precisely describe what is wanted, to use Boolean logic at two different levels of the

search, and the option to select from extensive

pick lists as a search is conducted.

Senior leaders of DOE consider this system to be a significant step in our effort to respond to the new needs and requirements of the public and the research communities, to provide tools

to efficiently and effectively leverage DOE's

investment in research and development, and

to respond to the Clinton Administration's challenge to move Federal programs and

activities into the age of technology and

information. This OSTI developed service represents a breakthrough in reducing the cost

of obtaining and in expanding public access to

results of DOE's annual 6 billion dollar research program. In addition, this is a major

step in GPO's transition to a more electronic Federal Depository Library Program. We believe that the DOE Information Bridge

will have a significant effect on users and even

on researchers submitting the research reports. Consider for a moment what the GPO

agreement means for researchers. Their world

is changing, too. While researchers have long had to produce their reports, many of them,

especially on the basic research side of DOE,

did not consider their reports as a primary

75
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

mechanism for getting their information out. They looked upon DOE reports as an unwelcome burden. However, effective today, because of the Information Bridge,

researchers' reports will be instantaneously

accessible and searchable by 40 to 60 million people all across the country and the more

millions of people who visit libraries-everyone who has Internet access. I think that full-text availability in a quick, convenient, no-cost, and searchable format like the Information Bridge will cause a change in attitude among

researchers about their reports, as the Information Bridge becomes widely known.

Please attend the 8:30 debut, presentation, and

demonstration of the DOE Information Bridge tomorrow morning in the James Room. We

are excited about these new services and our

plans for the future. We look forward to many

more opportunities to bring timely and useful STI to the desktop through new information technologies and practices as we continue to build upon our current products and services and focus on the development of a National

Library of Energy Science and Technology.

And, we solicit your advice in reaching these

goals and tackling the challenges that we face.

76
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Selected Models of Depository Management

John W. Graham

Public Library of Cincinnati SC Hamilton County

Cincinnati, OH

Introduction The Public Documents & Patents Department

at the Public Library of Cincinnati & Hamilton County was established in July, 1997. Located

in a new main library addition in downtown

Cincinn'ati, the department centralizes the public library's collection of depository maps, documents, and patent and trademark

collections. Staff was assigned from a variety of library branches and departments. Documents are checked in by hand, and the

collection is not on the library's OPAC system. This presentation discusses the reasons the

library created this new department, goals for

its first year of operation, and lessons learned from the experience. The Public Library of Cincinnati & Hamilton County has been a Federal depository since 1884. The current selection rate is quite high,

at 95%. The library is also one of the original 21 Patent & Trademark Depository libraries, receiving its initial designation in 1871. The

department's collection is composed solely of depository items, although a small budget is available to purchase commercially produced

indexes and standard reference sources.

Staffing levels for the new department are very generous. We have five full-time librarians, three full-time library assistants, two part-time

library assistants, one full-time, and four part- time shelvers. Total staff is 15 people, at 12

PTE. Some staff were interviewed and hired

for their positions; however, most staff were

transferred from various library departments which were losing part of this collection.

Why Did We Do It? The clear depository trend is scaling back staff, resources, and space allotted to documents. Why did Cincinnati Public buck this trend?

Several clear problems gave rise to a closer look at documents operations. The first step was an internal Public Documents Committee composed of public and technical service staff who handle documents on a day-to-day basis. Among the chief problems in our former documents setting were:

• Documents backlog and processing

problems mounted. Staff in various library departments were responsible for this large collection.

• Lack of hands-on supervision. Authority

for documents collections were removed

from any hands-on processing activities.

• Check-in of documents took place in the

technical services unit, two floors removed

from the collection and public service staff. Public service had no ready access to records of what items were received, and when they were checked in. Access was

completely off-limits during nights and

weekends.

• Completion of a $40-million renovation and expansion gave the potential for a newly created department.

• Staff received almost no training in processing documents. Each department

established its own procedures.

77
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

• Documents were drastically under-used. Almost no usage was recorded outside of

specific areas, such as topo maps, census

data, or the Patent & Trademark

Depository collection. Management Priorities

Training was a top priority. Most staff had

never worked with public documents before

starting in the department. Even staff with some experience had not used all parts of the

collection. No one had worked with the

Patents, for example. This was especially important, since the entire staff was assigned to

start in the department the same day it opened.

This gave me the odd experience of giving the

staff a one-hour tour of our department and

their work area, and declaring them fully trained for public service work! Do sweat the small stuff! As documents

librarians know, the routine is composed of many decisions of the most minute nature. To

bind or not? How to handle a new item? Do

we have the software to work with a new CD- ROM? We had to work very hard to get our house in order. That means undoing many

mistakes and processing errors from the past. So sweating the small stuff of hundreds of small decisions has paved the way for a collection that's probably in the best shape it has been for decades. And this process

continues, with a large stacks shifting project underway at this moment.

Publicity, Publicity, Publicity. It has been a constant goal to let people know what we

have, where we are, and what we can do.

This applies not only to the public (our patrons) but our fellow staff as well. (Don't overlook fellow staff; many are unsure what documents are and what we actually do.) We

organized daily, then weekly, and now finally monthly tours for the public. We had articles

in the library's monthly newsletter. We've

also had myself and other librarians speak at inventors' groups to promote our patent

collection, and we have done the library's first

staff-produced half-day program for inventors. We also pioneered the library's first series of public Internet training sessions, and our

departmental Web page is the library's most

complete.

Lessons Learned

• Several truths have been discovered so far. Some were expected and confirmed;

others have been more of a surprise. First of all, we've learned the notion that separate is definitely not equal. When

you're viewed as a special collection, you

get placed out of the loop by many fellow

staff, patrons, and even the administration. Not having the collection on our OPAC

only magnifies this feeling. Promotion,

both internal and external, is the key to overcoming this problem. It also helps that my staff, and myself, are involved in many

shared library activities, such as giving

tours of our new facility.

• Secondly, keep the Administration happy

and informed. Documents are a mystery

to most non-documents professionals. We

were lucky that my immediate boss had been a documents librarian earlier in his career. The mere presence of a new

documents department elevates documents

to an equal place at the table with other departments-and subjects. Give the Administration information on what you're

doing, while trying to create a sense of excitement about the documents

collection.

• Also, match their goals with your strengths. Program attendance is important, and

we've had over two dozen tours, workshops, and public programs. We

organized the library's first-ever patents program for the public, and it drew over 60 registrations. Circulation is also important, and we do allow "special charge," hand-charged items to go out to boost these numbers. Working toward an

78
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

automated system will help in this regard,

too.

• Make the collection accessible. This means either keep it an organic part of subject reference-or have it cataloged in

its own right in a free-standing department.

Non-organic and non-cataloged is not the way to go.

• Centralized handling and authority for a documents collection is imperative. When

you separate the processing of these items from the ability to make decisions, problems result. Centralized authority is not viewed here as a rigid command-andcontrol scenario. Rather it means the people who see problems or have ideas have the authority to act, decide, and plan.

• Capitalize on your strengths. Our Patent &

Trademark Depository collection is among

the oldest and most complete in the country. Furthermore, the PTO staff are very receptive to helping with programs and publicity. This has been helpful in our

launching of public patent searching programs, the first in the library's history.

79
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference Models of Depository Management:

From Archive to Access

Nan Myers

Wichita State University Wichita, KS

The subtitle "From Archive to Access"

describes a deliberate process we have

undertaken at Wichita State University's (WSU) Library. Since 1994, we have very

deliberately been moving our Government

depository collection out of archival repose towards active use.

[slide 1] Mission Statement

"The mission is to provide access to and promote the usage of government information, and to support the academic curriculum,

scholarship and research needs of the Wichita

State University community, as well as the information needs of the citizens of the Fourth Congressional District of Kansas. To this end,

the library actively seeks ways to enhance

access to government information."

This is the story of a mission undenA/ritten by

the administration of our library and effected by teamwork and inter-departmental cooperation. The mission statement of our Government documents policy is on the screen. I won't read it to you, but I will point out the phrases "provide access to," "promote

usage," and "actively seeks ways to enhance

access to Government information."

[slide 2] Background

• Depository 0204A

• Established 1903

• Kansas Congressional District 4

• About Wichita State University

• Prominent Programs

• Patent Depository Since 1991

Just a little background about the depository at WSU, which was established in 1903. Wichita State is the only metropolitan

university in the Kansas Regents' system of six universities and has about 14,000 students. WSU's student profile of both traditional and

non-traditional students reflects many

educational needs in a sizeable city. The

average student age is 27. In addition to our main campus, we have three off-site centers, and many programs are driven by local industry. Prominent programs are in engineering, health professions, business, economics, and fine arts. The city of Wichita

itself has an MSA of close to 500,000 people and is the largest city in Kansas. The WSU

library has also been a Patent Depository since 1991 and shares a service point on the first floor of the library with Government

Documents.

[slide 3] Scope of the Program

Physical Collection

• Select 57%

• Collection Breakdown

520,000 Paper 225,000 MF

2,000 CDs

20,000 Maps

• Program Support

80
1 998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

As you can see on the screen, the physical

collection is sizeable. For many years we

collected at the 62% level, but we have been

gradually downsizing and are currently at 57%. Notable holdings are for Census, Labor, Congress, Department of the Interior, State Department and the Smithsonian Institution. Teaching areas most served by the collection are in the fields of: administration of justice, anthropology, minority studies, political science, sociology, social work, economics,

aeronautical engineering, geology, biology and

the health professions.

[slide 4] Scope of the Program

Electronic Access

• Catalog Tapeloads

• WebPac & URL Project

• Internet Access & Docs Icons

• WSU is a GPO Access Gateway

• CDs on Networked & Stand-Alone PCs

• Gov't Information home page

Since 1994, we have worked to provide access

to online information mandated by the

electronic transition.

• Records and holdings are online for both

retrospective and new titles.

• A year ago we added the WebPac module

to our NOTIS system, allowing hotlinking

of URLs in the library's catalog.

• The 58 computer stations in the reference area are Internet accessible and have Adobe Acrobat loaded on them. All documents staff, both in cataloging and

public services, have Pentium computers.

• Icons for Government information are well represented on the library's home page.

• Last fall, WSU became a GPO Access Gateway, and the icon for GPO Access is

prominently displayed on our home page. STAT-USA has its own icon.

• CD-ROMS: Five documents CDs and the Marcive CAT-PAC are loaded on a network

for easy access. Software for our other CDs are loaded on two stand-alone work

stations.

• The Government Information home page

provides access to many electronic titles and sites.

[slide 5] Our Main Assets

• Location, Location, Location

• Library Administrative Support

• Technology

• Staffing

• Long-Range Planning

• Professional Relationships Our main assets are, first: Location, location,

location! The Documents collection occupies

prime real estate space on the first floor of the

library, adjacent to the Reference stacks and computer terminals, and only a few steps from

the Reference Desk. We have also retained a Documents Office, which is about 10 steps from the Reference Desk, primarily because we are also a Patent Depository.

I would say that the second asset is a library administration which desires to emphasize

and promote the documents collection.

Third, technology. The administration has for many years invested heavily in state-of-the-art computer equipment and training. We now

have three systems support staff, one stationed

in Reference and two in Technical Services. In addition, there is a graduate assistant in Reference responsible for evaluating, loading and upgrading software.

I will address the staffing component in some

depth shortly, but we have satisfactory

81
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

resources in staffing, with the flexibility in job

descriptions to roll with the punches. In addition, many of our staff are long-term employees.

Long-Range Planning Initiatives have given us focus and goals. And, we have been very

fortunate in our professional relationships: on campus (other departments such as engineering, computer science, the computing

center, media resources, and NIAR), statewide and national contacts.

[slide 6] Administrative Vision for Government

Documents

• Increase Visibility

• Increase Access

• Increase Efficiency --^ • Increase Use

I think the administrative vision for documents combine four directives which are intertwined:

1 . to increase visibility of documents - this began with the tapeload of over 200,000

cataloging records and has continued

2. to increase access to documents - coincides with an overall push to increase

electronic resources in reference; but also focuses on an emphasis on more staff training, a commitment to becoming a GPO Access Gateway, a commitment to statewide consortial purchases of such

databases as STAT-USA, a potential re- design of the layout of the documents

collection, a review of signage, and a resolve to pursue marketing of the documents collection.

3. to increase efficiency by mainstreaming

services within the library

4. to increase use by the dedication to making 1-3 happen.

[slide 7] Traditional Model for Documents

• A Special Collection

• SuDocs: Separately Classed Means

Separately Shelved

• Separate Paper Trail and Inspection

• Need for a Gatekeeper As you well know, the traditional model for a Documents collection is that of a Special

Collection. The separateness of Documents is reinforced by:

1. The Superintendent of Documents

classification system. Separately classed means separately shelved.

2. The traditional requirement for special

attention and treatment. Depositories must

account for the selection, receipt and deselection of items, as well as respond to the mandate to array the collection and the recordkeeping, or shelflisting, for regular inspection (now self-inspection) by the Regional Librarian and Depository

Services.

3. The need for a gatekeeper. Lack of user- friendly access to the collection and lack of

a broad understanding of documents by

the general reference staff mandates that a

specialist be on-site to handle documents

reference and oversee the collection.

[slide 8] Initiatives: Archive to Access

• 1 994 - Records Tapeload

• 1 995 - Mainstreaming Processing

• 1995 - Digitizing the Paper Trail • 1 996 - Downsizing Begins

• 1 996 - Two-Librarian Model

• 1997 -GPO Gateway

• 1998 - Data Miner

Since 1994, we have moved away from the

traditional archival model towards what I call

82
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

an "access model." The dates of our projects are listed on the slide and I will briefly comment on each step:

[slide 9] 1994 Records Tapeload

• Retro: 200,000+ Records Overnight

• Ongoing: Monthly Tapeloads

• Making It Happen

Assembling the Project Team

Designing the Workload

Database Clean-Up & Holdings

Continual Fine-tuning My first task at WSU was to oversee a tapeload

of bibliographic records for the documents

collection, both retrospective holdings and

currently received items. The "stakeholders"

in this project were: the Government

Documents, Cataloging and Acquisitions Departments, the Computing Center, and our

vendor, Marcive. I was also charged with

regularizing cataloging functions in Technical

Services. The Government Documents Project Team

was assembled from in-place staff, except for myself. Even so, I was hired to fill a vacant

position previously titled Special Projects Cataloger and given the responsibility of Team

Leader. No new positions were created.

Since we could not add more staff in Technical

Services, we rewrote the job descriptions of

five staff to include a documents component

and held weekly meetings and training sessions. A staff member from Documents moved into Cataloging half-time for eight months to assist me with both the Cataloging

transition and the mainstreaming of processing. Our strategies were to:

1 . Use pilot projects to gather information

2. Phase in the gradual reassignment of staff 3. Phase in the workload, which continues to include database cleanup.

[slide 10] 1995 - Mainstreaming Processing

• Eliminate Duplicative Services

• Processing & Cataloging Entwined

• Expediting the Materials Flow

Periodicals Pilot Project Training Phased In 'Staffing Phased In Labeling In-House To expedite the materials flow and eliminate

duplicative services, we moved all mail receipt and processing of documents to Technical

Services. Regularizing the documents

workload required heavy front-end work, and

for a while it doubled the workload in Cataloging. The primary payoff I want is a smooth continuations flow. Since at least 85%

of documents can be considered serials, we

manage as many titles as possible on serial records.

[slide 11] 1995 to Present: Digitizing the Paper Trail

• Development of GPRD

Eliminate Labor-intensive Tasks Data Warehousing/Data Mining

Report Generation

• Documents Data Miner

National Collection Management Tool We developed an in-house relational database which we call GPRD to warehouse the Item

File, List of Classes, Inactive/Discontinued

Titles, our profile, our Marcive profile, the Kansas Union List, our Claims, Map Holdings, Use Statistics, and even a run of LC subject headings from our documents in the OPAC.

Using data mining techniques, we can

generate reports which have been especially

useful in collection management. Over the past year, we have worked to create

a national utility for collection management,

called the Documents Data Miner (DDM),

83
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

which has just become a partnership tool with

the GPO. DDM is a search engine associating

files from four databases: the List of Classes, Item Lister profiles, the Depository Directory, and the Inactive/Discontinued items.

[slide 12] 1996 - Downsizing Begins

• Space Problem ^

86% Full - Zero Growth Imperative

• Emphasis on Electronic Access

• Collection Management Initiative Weeding & De-Selection Project

• Move to Statewide Cooperative Collecting

In 1996, we were able to begin addressing our

serious space problem in the documents

stacks, which filled 86% of the space and were

growing at 4% a year. No additional library space will be available for at least ten years.

Off-site storage and compact shelving were not

options. Weeding and de-selection were our

only options.

At this time, the Collection Development

component of Documents was given to the Head of Collection Development. She worked

with Documents Librarians and Subject

Librarians to produce a sizeable withdrawal list for exchange. We finished withdrawing this

list at the end of 1 997, freeing half of a range

of shelves. Even so, we continue to rely on

continual weeding, supersedes and deselection

of items to break even on space. We hope that a movement towards statewide cooperative

collecting will assist with our space problems.

[slide 13] 1997 - Two-Librarian Model A Two-Year Pilot Project

• Government Documents Librarian Reports to Head/Technical Services

• Government Information Librarian Reports to Head/Reference

With the retirement of our Depository

Librarian in June 1996, we rethought the

direction of documents leadership. The Government Documents Mission Statement and Policy were rewritten to focus on Government Information. We now have two professionals providing team-based management for the physical and

electronic collection, as well as for the

traditional split between technical and public

services.

[slide 14] Government Documents Librarian

• Responsibilities: Reporting Function to the GPO

Manage Processing, Database,

Cataloging

Manage the Physical Collection Promote the "Model"

• Staffing:

1 .00 FTE Professional

1 .75 FTE Staff (divided among 5 people)

Students: 30 hours

I received the title Government Documents

Librarian with the responsibilities for:

• Reporting to the GPO

• Managing Technical Services

• Managing the Physical Collection

• Maintaining the "Model"

Staffing: Our staffing breakdown is 1.00 FTE

professional, 1.75 FTE classified staff, and 30

student hours. Besides myself, there are 5 people in Technical Services who work a

portion of their time on documents, making up

the paraprofessional 1.75 FTE.

84
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

[slide 15] Government Information Librarian

• Responsibilities: Public Service (Docs & General

Reference)

Electronic Government Resources

Patents & Trademarks

Promotion, Marketing, Training

• Staffing:

1 .00 PTE Professional

1 .00 PTE Classified Staff Students: 15 hours office, 16 hours

shelving

My counterpart is responsible for public

services, electronic access, patents and

trademarks, and promotion, marketing, and

training. She has a full-time classified staff person and 34 student hours split between

office and shelving.

[slide 16] 1997 - GPO Access Gateway

1998 - Documents Data Miner

• Support for the GPO's Electronic Transition

Initiative • Support for the GPO's Partnership Program

• National Utility which Supports Our

Internal Needs We have made a decision to support the GPO's electronic transition. In 1997, we

became a Gateway for GPO Access. Last week, the GPO announced a new Web tool, the Documents Data Miner, which we have been developing during the past year. This is a partnership between the GPO, WSU and our

affiliate organization, NIAR (National Institute for Aviation Research).

[slide 17] Accomplishments

• Enhanced Access & Increased Use

• Effective Public Services

• Efficient Technical Services

• Embracing the Electronic Transition By increasing access to and visibility of the documents collection, we have dramatically

increased the use of it. Our external checkout

statistics, which we have kept since 1990, show an overall increase of 284% between 1990 and 1996. More significantly, they

increased 520% the first full year we were on

line.

Internal statistics for re-shelving between 1990

and 1 997 show an increase of 525% in activity. In 1990, we only re-shelved 4,230

pieces. In 1997, we re-shelved 22,035 pieces.

(In 1996, we re-shelved 24,565. In 1997 we

are probably seeing the impact of URLs in the

catalog, CD-ROMs and GPO Access, which

are degrading the use of the paper and

microfiche formats.)

In addition, we feel good about our public and

technical services efforts. And, we are going where we said we would with regard to the

electronic transition.

[slide 18] Challenges

• Communications

• Momentum

• Collection Development

• Administrative Changes

[slide 19] Prospects

• Shifting the Stacks

• Re-Designing the Documents Layout

• Marketing & Outreach

• Statewide Collection Development

• Celebrate 1 00 Years in 2003 We have a few tasks which must be addressed:

• Shifting the stacks

• Possibly re-designing the documents layout

85
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference We must continually re-address:

• Marketing and Outreach - we can never do

enough

We have a political agenda statewide - collection development

And,

in 2003 we can celebrate 100 years as a depository library!!

86
1998 Federal Depositoiy Library Conference - Proceedings

Government Documents as a Special Collection

Coleen Parmer

Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, OH

Bowling Green State University (BGSU) has a long tradition of special collections. The

Music and Sound Recordings Archives and The Popular Culture Library are probably the

best known collections and receive national

attention. Government Documents has only

recently-fall of 1996-moved to special

collections.

Special collection department heads report to the Head of Special Collections, a chair

position that will rotate every three years. While each collection is unique, we have found a great deal in common, including

building research collections and serving

users, both internal and external to the

university, who have complex research

interests. We supervise all aspects of our departments including acquisitions, processing, collection development, reference

service, library instruction, resource and staff management, and collection advocacy and

promotion.

Special collection heads attend the more or

less weekly department heads meetings with

the Associate Dean, and the monthly Library and Learning Resources Council meetings conducted by the Dean. We interact directly and regularly with the LLR Dean and

participate in helping to set library policy, goals and directions. As a depository, we find ourselves in a rather unique situation in terms of serving the congressional district. We have, since 1933,

served the fifth district. In 1990, however,

redistricting split Bowling Green City into two

districts: most of the city and county remain in

the Fifth district, but the university now resides

in the Ninth. Due to our historical ties with

the Fifth, and the fact that most of our

surrounding users are from the Fifth, we

continue to serve that district. We have

extended our service, however, to include the

ninth district, since that is the district in which

the library officially falls. Bowling Green State University was

established as a teacher training institute in 1910. We offer bachelor through Ph.D. degree programs. We are a mid-sized

institution, with approximately 15,000

undergraduates and 2,400 graduate students. Our faculty number about 700.

Libraries and Learning Resources (LLR)

consists of Jerome Library, Ogg Science

Library, Center for Archival Collections,

Instructional Media Services, and Popular

Press. LLR also manages the Northwest

Regional Book Depository, a storage facility that serves Bowling Green State University, University of Toledo, and The Medical College

of Ohio. We hold over 2 million books, and 2

million microforms. BGSU became a Federal depository in 1933

and an Ohio depository in 1956. We currently

select 51 %. We have approximately 500,000 volumes and 200,000 microfiche. We have a

rich historical collection that includes all the census reports from 1 790 to date, most of the

Serial Set, with a few gaps, the U.S. Foreign

Relations reports, extensive Smithsonian series, the Congressional Globe and Record, and a number of other important historical materials. We receive and process about 1,500

87
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

documents each month. Most of the documents are housed in Jerome Library, the main library, but we do send USGS and NLM

materials to the Science Library across campus. The Map Library is another main library collection and processes and services depository maps. We have two full time support staff members

and generally eight or ntne student assistants, and of course, a full time department head

with an MLS. In addition to the documents

staff, we get by with a little help from library

staff outside the documents department. The maps are under the care of the Map Librarian, and we do a very little initial processing before sending maps along to her. Science staff check USGS materials into the catalog and maintain

the documents collection. Catalogers search OCLC and download records for us, while

reference librarians provide initial public

service for the documents collection. Documents has a checkered organizational

history. In 1975, when I started. Documents

was a separate department occupying the

fourth floor of the library. There were seven

staff members and we did all our own

processing and reference. We moved to the

first floor in 1984, and, in a move to consolidate service points, we moved under

the Information Service Department umbrella

in 1986. The documents staff focused on

technical processing while the reference department provided public service to the

collection from the general reference desk. The documents coordinator worked on the reference desk and participated in the typical

activities of reference, as well as supervising

the Documents unit and staff. In 1992 we

reorganized under Technical Services; the

office and staff moved to the second floor; and

the reference department continued to provide

public service, with assistance from the Documents librarian, to a collection which

remained a floor away, on first. During the four years we were under

Technical Sen/ices, the Documents staff forged

a strong working relationship with the Technical Services staff; however, daily processing and collection maintenance was

hampered by distance from the collection and, more importantly, patrons seeking expert help had difficulty finding us. With the arrival of a new Library Dean, and after four years of experience in the Tech Service model, we

were reorganized once again, this time under

Special Collections. Part of the reorganization included a plan to move the office back to the

first floor and move all the collections, paper,

microfiche, and electronic, next to the office. We completed moving the office, CD-ROMs,

and microfiche this January. As I mentioned, we moved the documents

office this last January. The documents office now is a roomy space on the first floor near the

front door of the I ibrary and close to the general reference desk. We are still reveling in the new office which has plenty of room for

staff and loads of space including extensive processing shelves-no more tripping over

boxes. Our microfiche and CD-ROM cabinets

are right outside, and the two dedicated documents public workstations are just outside

the office door. Our stacks are still some

distance away, at the back of the first floor, but we are getting ready to move that collection next to the office in about three weeks. The documents office is in a prominent area of the library and readily accessible to our users. We find that we can process and maintain both microfiche and CD collections with

greater ease and efficiency now that they are

closer. And we are truly looking forward to our main stack collection coming over next to the office. Once this move is accomplished,

the documents collection, like the other

special collections, will be in one identifiable area with specially trained staff nearby to assist users.

I'd like to talk a little bit about our day to day

operations next. Like all depositories, we

open and process our shipments each day. Our Library Associate, Mrs. Reynolds,

88
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

supervises daily processing. One student

assistant works under her direction, opening

the boxes, stamping material, and adding SuDoc numbers to the pieces. Mrs. Reynolds

maintains records, such as shipping list tallies, item selection profile, rainchecks, and claims. She also processes separate packages, makes

changes and corrections, and resolves a wide

assortment of problems including missing

shipments or shipping lists. Our student assistants are assigned sections of the collection (i.e. A-C, D-HE, etc.) to shelve,

file, and maintain. They shelve and file paper, microfiche, and CDs daily and record in-house use in a statistical module of our online

catalog. They also shift, shelf read, and add pamphlet boxes and microfiche index cards.

In addition, they perform special tasks such as searching missing documents, barcoding new

volumes and microfiche, photocopying

replacement materials, typing discard lists, and

other duties as assigned. We use Innovative Interfaces Inc. (Ill) as our

integrated cataloging system, and we

participate in the OhioLINK project. OhioLINK is a consortium of 54 technical, college, and university libraries across the state that provide access to a centralized database of the member libraries' holdings. Users can

search and borrow material directly from member libraries. We began cataloging documents in 1987. In general, we send new titles to the Cataloging

Department and they download records from OCLC. Our Library Technical Assistant screens new depository materials and enters volumes into the catalog when a record is available. Periodical issues are checked in on

the serials check-in module. Continuations,

annuals, and multi-volume parts are added to appropriate records. Revisions are generally added to the bibliographic record and

superseded issues are pulled and discarded. Sometimes we have to send a record to Cataloging to be edited so that the revision can be entered. New serials and monographs are

sent to the Cataloging Department every Tuesday and most return to us on Thursday. If the record is not in OCLC, cataloging holds and searches for a month. If the piece has still not been cataloged after a month, one of the

catalogers enters original cataloging on OCLC.

Monographs that return from cataloging are then processed by students: item records are edited and the pieces barcoded. Then they are shelved or filed. Problems are sent to me to

resolve, usually involving SuDocs number

discrepancies. We have been working on several retrospective projects over the past six or seven years. We began first by identifying long series that we were still receiving, such as the Statutes at Large and Vital Statistics, and by

sending students to pull and link the entire run

of volumes. After our current runs were

retrol inked, we began to create records for important historical sets and to link all those volumes. We also created serial check-in

records for periodicals and entered all unbound issues, including a number of microfiche titles such as the FBIS series. And

finally, we targeted some pre-1976

monographs such as the Smithsonian bulletins and the HE 5's for cataloging.

In 1995 we downloaded 1976-1986 GPO

tapes edited by Auto-Graphics (AG) and have been editing and linking them. This has been

a long, painful process and we probably will not finish it for another year or two. Last year we went through our paper hearings and

linked them to AG records if possible. If an AG record was not available, we sent these

materials to Cataloging. This spring we did the same to our microfiche hearings. It has taken

nearly two full semesters, but it is a great relief to say that our all our hearings are cataloged.

It is our goal to enter our entire collection in the online catalog. We continue to systematically review our collection and link material to AG records or send the pieces to be

cataloged. It is also an excellent opportunity

to review and weed the collection.

89
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference We are a bit behind the times in our item maintenance. We still use a paper card file to review selection choices and changes. We do

download and print our item selections from GPO monthly instead of relying on the old

printout. We have found that this service helps us keep up with changes a little better. Even though our Library Associate combs

through the Administrative Notes Technical Supplement and makesJhe changes reported

to our item profile, we still seem to miss a lot of item changes, so the Item Lister is a big

help. I begin each April to review our item

selections for the annual update. It usually takes several months to get through all the

cards. Of course, over the year I make notes

of items I want to add or delete in April. Generally we do not delete items in midyear

unless they are a problem, such as the Patent

discs. After several months of trying to use

these, we decided that they were not for us. Since there were so many discs coming in, I deselected as soon as we decided we did not want them. . . , , We are religious in weeding superseded

material, since we don't have a lot of space. A

careful and thorough review beyond

superseded material however, was not done

except in certain targeted SuDocs areas, for a number of years. Several things have forced us

into better practice. First, we now have a remote storage site where we can send lowuse materials. In order to send items to storage, my policy is that they must be

cataloged. But cataloging costs a lot of money,

so we review all potential storage titles to see

if we have an AG record. If we need to catalog it then we think pretty carefully about whether we need the item in our collection.

I am fairly active in library instruction. I partner with other librarians to teach students who will need to use documents as well as other library resources, and I conduct a number of sessions to focus on such documents resources as the census.

In 1986, when the documents department

moved under Information Services, we

transferred responsibility for documents public

service to the main reference staff. Through all the department transformations, this reference model has prevailed-the first point of documents assistance is the general reference

desk. I work closely with the Head of Reference to set service policies and to provide

ongoing training and review. Users who need

further assistance are referred to the documents staff. We have been faced with tough choices in providing reference assistance because we do not have the full time documents staff to cover a separate service desk. This spring, after the office move to the

first floor, we decided to try supplementing the

service provided at the general reference desk. We added a documents desk staffed by documents student assistants several hours a

day. Our students help patrons with

directional questions, guide users to documents in the stacks and microfiche

cabinets, place searches on missing items, and show users how to borrow documents through OhioLINK. They also retrieve CD-ROMs, load

the discs, and help users with instructions and

documentation. They also refer the more

challenging questions on to me or the full-time

staff.

It's been a long, challenging process to obtain

the staff workstations we need. Currently we

have one Pentium (on my desk), two 486

workstations for the classified staff, a 386

student workstation, and three dumb terminals

for our students. My staff worked on dumb terminals up until

this spring when their machines were finally upgraded. My staff are really happy finally to have Web access and are rapidly learning to use the Web to search agency sites and GPO. We are moving towards automating many of our files and downloading shipping lists and

missing agency publications. As staff become

more facile with the Web, they build their confidence. Their increased computing skills directly benefit our users, because the

90
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

documents staff are better able to find electronic information upon request. We currently have two dedicated documents

public workstations and hope to add a third in the next month or two. Students and faculty can access Government Web sites through a wide array of library Web stations, computer

labs, and of course from home. We have developed a documents home page to help

users find agency resources and Government

indexes. The documents home page is still in

its infancy. I work on it, mostly in my spare time at home, so it's growing slowly. My

student assistants check the links once a week. The two dedicated workstations primarily provide access to the host of CD-ROMs. We

run DOS-based CDs on one station and Windows-based CDs from the other in a Netscape front end. We also circulate many of the discs. Improved communication is probably one of the greatest advantages to the current

configuration. As a department head, I meet

regularly with the library administration and

can communicate our strengths, needs, and

aspirations in a variety of venues, from

personal to large or small group meetings. As

library policy and goals are debated, I have the chance to explain the GPO guidelines that we

in documents live by.

I work with a number of department heads and

unit coordinators: Reference, Maps,

Circulation, Cataloging, Science, and

Acquisitions. Crudely put, as a department

head, I have the standing to negotiate directly with other administrators to establish procedures. And I believe that our users benefit because we stand out as a separate unit and they can find us easier than when the department was primarily a processing unit under some large department.

I firmly believe that documents processing and

reference demand specially trained and

focused staff. In an ideal environment

reference, processing, and collection

management activities enhance each other. The staff who open the shipments and process

the materials each day have an intimate knowledge of the collection. That knowledge

and awareness of the collection is imperative

when answering patron queries. Indexes and

locators, while important, do not substitute for daily contact with material. And, in the same

way, daily contact with users help us define

collection depths and weaknesses. How can I know what items to select or deselect if I don't know what our users want? How can I decide which materials to send to Remote Storage if I don't know how often users will need to access them?

If I am constantly helping faculty and students

identify relevant documents, I know what

topics are in high demand and can target new

publications for resen/e or reference. If I am

aware of the user patterns, I can prioritize older materials for cataloging projects. For example, we discovered through an in-house and circulation study, that hearings, then the

census, then Ohio documents were the most

heavily used parts of our collection, and those were the first retro cataloging projects we

undertook. As a special collection, we've been able to define our resource needs and compete for a

fair share of the pie. I can draw up our equipment requests and student budget

requests and argue our case directly. Of

course that doesn't mean that I get everything I ask for-far from it. But at least I'm on a level playing field, and I can make my case directly

to the library administration instead of trying to negotiate through a supervisor.

Like the other special collections, documents

staff focus their talents on documents so that they can provide special care and attention on

the collection and its users. Becoming a

special collection provided much of the

rationale and impetus for reintegrating the

collection and office in a central, separate

location.

91
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

There is, of course, a downside to this model

and that is too few staff and too much to do. One of the major factors contributing to the

earlier decision to integrate documents into another department was to save money by

downsizing. The urge to cut down on staff by

shutting down a public service desk was

strong, and the literature abounds with

libraries that are even now considering such

measures. In our library, we have found this decision was not ver/ good for our patrons. The best reference librarians with the best intentions still can not provide the kind of assistance that documents staff can provide. In our library, we still have to depend on the general reference desk as our first service provider and we supplement that service as we

can. We were fortunate that our processing was not dismantled and moved to Technical

Processing. We could not have cataloged as much of the collection or maintained the processing standards required by GPO in such

a decentralized environment. But we pay a price for these decisions. Our staff work under

a great deal of stress because of the workload, and it doesn't seem likely that we will regain any staff positions. Without sufficient staff, we

have to decide where to concentrate our

efforts. Some things we do very well, but

other things get short shrift and we can do only

the minimum.

In conclusion, we have tried a number of configurations and we are still trying to evolve

a stronger model and improve our service.

I've planned and moved our office five times and, after June, our collection twice. They say

that practice makes perfect, but I hope I never have to move my collection again.

92
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

DOE Information Bridge:

DOE RfilD Full-Text on the Internet

Kathleen Chambers

U.S. Department of Energy Oak Ridge, TN

Lorrie Johnson

U.S. Department of Energy Oak Ridge, TN

Good morning! It is indeed a pleasure to be

here. On behalf of the Department of Energy

(DOE), I am here to officially introduce the DOE Information Bridge Web site. This system is made available by GPO through the GPO Access Web site.

This is very special day because it is a major

step toward fulfilling a long held DOE and GPO vision of bringing to the Federal Depository Library Program and the American

public, immediate full-text access to the DOE

Report Collection. Today, because DOE and GPO have worked toward a mutual goal, public access to the DOE Information Bridge is a reality. This project reinforces the DOE

commitment to comply with the Clinton

Administration's objective to move Federal programs and activities into the age of technology and information and it is additionally a giant step forward in providing more electronic dissemination options to the Federal Depository Library Program.

I would like to give you a quick glance into the

past to see how we got to the Information

Bridge. The DOE Information Bridge system you will see today is the direct result a longstanding

partnership between the Government Printing Office and the Department of Energy. Dating back some 20 years, DOE and GPO have

formulated Interagency Agreements to bring DOE research results to the public. These

agreements made it possible for the depository

library community to select and maintain DOE

microfiched report literature which was the most economical format available at the time.

It is estimated that over 100 copies each of over 250,000 DOE research reports were

distributed to the depository libraries via these agreements. That's 25 million microfiche

reports all around the country! As

technologies evolved, public laws changed

(and microfiche cabinets filled up). DOE and GPO started to work together to utilize the GPO Access Web site to bring DOE funded

research information directly to the public via the Internet. Working with GPO, DOE offered the depository libraries the most economical

product that was available. Now you have electronic full text access for free because GPO and OSTI had the vision, the knowledge and the desire to make it happen. This is an appropriate time to express

thanks to two of our new leaders for having the

vision and foresight to move this idea forward. Many thanks go to Francis Buckley, the new

Superintendent of Documents and to Walter

Warnick, Director of DOE's Office of Scientific and Technical Information. Without you we

would not be here today. I would additionally

like to express my appreciation to the Federal

93
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

Depository Library Program Staff and the OSTI Management and Project Team lead by Don

Altom in Oak Ridge.

Let us take a look at the system's savings and

benefits.

Free Internet access to DOE's searchable, massive full-text collection represents a breakthrough in reducing the cost of obtaining

information and in expanding public access to the product of DOE's $6 billion annual science and technology research investment. The DOE Information Bridge cost saving benefits have yet to be projected. I do know that it was

certainly worth the effort. Depository libraries will not have to catalog, file, maintain storage,

retrieve and reproduce DOE reports for their patrons. They can use the Information Bridge.

Formerly, fewer than 300 depository libraries selected DOE Report literature for their

libraries. Now all libraries with a computer

and GPO Access have DOE Reports

collections. Researchers will have immediate

access to work of their peers and will be more

cognizant of getting their project reports online. Students will have at their fingertips all of the DOE resources they need, when they need

it. And there are any number of advantages,

not the least of which is reduced costs, that I could cite if we had the time. But, let's get on

to the real excitement. We hope you will like what you see when you

get on the Bridge. Did you know that you

gave us the specifications for this system? GPO told us that you didn't like registration or passwords. GPO told us to create a system for users that would be easily understood and

used. We tried to do this. I am pleased to have Lorrie Johnson from the OSTI staff with

us today to demonstrate the Bridge. We want

you to use the system and go to the "Comments" form and tell the GPO User

Support Team what you think about it. Tell others about it and help us make it widely

known within your library's user community.

Let them know that GPO and DOE created this

system for the public. We are excited about

the DOE Information Bridge. It was designed

for you and the public you serve.

Demonstration of DOE Information Bridge

DOE Information Bridge can be accessed

through the Internet at <http://www.doe.

gov/bridge>. The system employs "frames" technology, which allows for increased

navigational capabilities through a set of buttons in the left frame while the right frame

displays the various search, results, and document display screens. The home page

provides product information and background

on the database, and provides the opportunity

to select the viewer (GIF, TIFF, or PDF) that the

user prefers.

Information Bridge offers two search options: Easy and Advanced. The Easy Search provides

the quick, simple search that is similar to those

of popular Internet search engines, while the Advanced Search screen offers more robust searching capabilities such as fielded and

Boolean queries. Within the Easy Search, the user may choose between three fields for searching. A search of the "OCR Text and Bibliography" field searches the entire bibliographic record plus the associated full text of the document

(scanned OCR images). If the user is looking

for a known document or a specific author, he/she may use the "Title" or "Author" fields in the Easy Search as appropriate. Within the Advanced Search, the user may

choose to search the following specific fields: OCR Text and Biblio, Bibliographic Only,

Title, Author, Identifying Number, Laboratory, Sponsoring Organization, Subject, Keywords, Author Affiliation, Distribution Category,

Publication Date, Document Type, and Entry Date. By providing the ability to search

specific fields within the bibliographic records, searches can be more precisely defined than

with a simple full text search option. In

94
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

addition to the flexibility offered through

fielded searching, users can also employ

Boolean operators both between and within

fielded searching. To facilitate searching

within the Laboratory, Sponsoring

Organization, and Subject fields, pick lists of

valid values are provided on the screen so that the user may simply select the desired values. Once a search in DOE Information Bridge has been initiated, the Search Results screen will appear. This screen contains the title, report number, and publication date of the first 50 documents that match the query with the option to view additional groups of 50 as needed. The full text of the documents can be downloaded by clicking on the PDF icon for the desired document. To view additional information about the document or to view it online, the user may click on the highlighted

title and the Document Display screen will appear. The Document Display screen contains the bibliographic information, including the

abstract, for the document in the top portion of the screen. The bottom portion contains links to the full text images and these may be viewed online by clicking on the image

numbers. Just below the image numbers,

another search box appears which may be

used to search within a document. After completing a search in this box, the image numbers which contain the search term will be

identified by a larger type font. Documents may also be downloaded from this screen, again by clicking on the PDF icon. DOE Information Bridge provides an online help file to assist users in using the database. Three levels of help are provided - General,

Easy and Advanced Searching, and

Troubleshooting Tips. The General help

describes basic information about searching and covers such topics as adjacency, date

searching, and Boolean operators. The Easy and Advanced Searching help gives definitions of each searchable field and examples of how

to enter the search terms and phrases. Within

this section, there is also a cross-walk of DOE

subject categories and GPO subject categories

for those users familiar with searching by GPO

subject categories. Finally, the Troubleshooting Tips section describes common problems and their solutions. A Comment form and a What's New page

provide the opportunity for communications

between the users and the developers of Information Bridge. The Comment form

allows users to send questions, problems and

suggestions while the What's New page gives

the latest information and announcements

regarding the system.

95
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference Designing Your Government Documents Web

Page for Your Community's Needs

Ginny Hopcroft

Bowdoin College

Brunswick, ME

Since the U.S. Government began extensive

electronic publishing a few years ago, Government documents librarians in many

Federal depository libraries have begun

creating Government document home pages on the World Wide Web to help their users access the wealth of electronic Government

information. These Government document home pages sen^/e two differing purposes: to introduce researchers to the breadth and

variety of information available; and to focus

the information so that users can locate it. Because the Bowdoin College Library has made a substantial commitment to using the Web as an information organizing and delivery

tool, I developed one Government documents Web page two years ago, and last summer made major revisions to make it a more

effective tool for research and to make it visually consistent with a new design for the

Library's gateway page. Through reflecting on

this process, I have developed some specific recommendations for the intellectual and

physical design of Government document home pages. The first step is to have a clear reason for creating a Government documents home page and a distinct goal for the page. For most

depositories I think the most important

objective needs to be to connect library users, whether present in the library or at a remote

desktop, most directly with the Government

information they seek. For Government

information the Web offers some unique

access opportunities from a user's perspective.

In addition to ready availability on any computer anywhere, for many of our users the Web arguably offers easier access to Government information because Web search methods are more similar from site to site than

the organization and indexing of paper and

fiche materials are from series to series. For example, searching congressional debate in Thomas is far more similar to searching data in the Census Bureau's Web site than searching

the paper Congressional Record is to searching

the print Statistical Abstract. This is not an

argument, by the way, for a wholly electronic depository; in a world where not all people have computers and networks crash regularly,

print still has an important place. But I think depository librarians should capitalize on the Web's ease of access to help create more

direct connections to Government information

for a variety of our users. While I have just said that the Web offers some

unique ease of access, I also want to point out

that it also presents us with unique confusion and chaos as well, because it is so easy to access and there is such broad dissemination

of so much material. Therefore, another

reason for a depository Web page is that it can

act as a focus, providing researchers a manageable window into the larger landscape

of Government information. Not only can it be a focus by providing a limited number of selected Web sites selected to be most

important for your patrons, but it can also function as an index to the many Government Web sites available. This index feature can be

useful both for library users and also for library

96
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

reference staff.

In our medium sized library, as in many

libraries of liberal arts colleges or medium

sized public libraries, all reference staff assist with Government document questions, but many do not have enough time to gain adequate expertise in the collection. We are finding that the Web page is very helpful, not only for individuals seeking information, but

for librarians assisting them. Another

advantage of a Government documents home

page as a finding aid is its flexibility. Updating

information and making additions or deletions

are easily done.

In creating a Web page, one of the first steps is to decide what sites needs to be included. The

first consideration is what information your community needs most. At my library, a college library, the curriculum is a major

determining factor of the sites that I select. Not only do I select congressional and

presidential sites for the political science

classes, I also include EPA and USGS sites for geologists and environmental studies majors, Medline online for the sociology and pre-med

students, etc. Many of these sites prove useful to students in public schools as well. The social and demographic composition of our congressional

district is an equally important consideration in selection. Mid-coast Maine has a large number of active retirees for whom travel information is important, so embassy

information and travel advisories are included. Our district is characterized by small businesses, so there is a substantial section of

links to Government business sources. An

interesting feature of the business section is that our page incorporates the work of a Government documents colleague, Paul D'Alessandro, from Portland Public Library, who wanted to create a business Web page, but whose library had no Web presence at the

time. The cooperation benefits both libraries and all patrons of the congressional district.

In thinking about information needs, I also considered the kinds of questions that come up

frequently at the Reference Desk from the general public as well as Bowdoin students and faculty. Everyone needs tax forms, social security forms, the addresses of their congressional representatives, foreign embassy

information, the CPI, and so forth. Our

Government documents home page, therefore, includes a selection of sites which answer

these kinds of questions.

After defining the information needs of the

depository's user population, it is then

necessary to locate the sites which provide the kinds of information identified for inclusion on

the Web page. For some information, it is easy

to discover a site or there are many sites that we work with every day. For other needs, it is necessary to search for a site providing the appropriate information. To search for an

agency, the Federal Web Locator works well; GPO Access provides a good range of frequently needed document texts; and the Government Information Exchange site < www.info.gov> offers a subject-organized

approach to locating material. Two good

sources for new material are GOVDOC-L and

the Scout Report <http://scout.cs.wisc. edu/scout/report/> . The Scout Report is an

Internet service which provides timely reviews

of new Web sites, many of Federal Government origin. Also new Government Web sites are often discovered simply in doing

day to day reference work.

In reviewing Web sites to include on the Government documents home page, it is useful to apply some evaluative criteria for selection. Such criteria as currency, authority, effectiveness of display, speed of loading and

others should be applied in determining whether a site is appropriate for your needs. A

number of Web sites provide good lists of evaluative criteria. Two that I like are: Hope

Tillman's at <www.bowdoin.edu/dept/

library/internet/eval/index.html#web > , and one from the library instruction program at UCLA <www.library.ucla.edu/libraries/

97
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

college/instruct/critical. htm > . Some Govemment information is available in more

than one Web site; my recommendation is that the site closest to the issuing agency is likely to be most authoritative. Also in comparing two

sites offering the same publication, it is useful

to do some sample questions to ascertain which has the easier search engine and which

produces the best results. Once a body of material has been selected for inclusion on the Web site, it is time to think about the intellectual design of the home page. There are, of course, many ways to organize Government information and many different structures can be effective. The material itself suggests certain forms of organization, but I think it is equally important to observe the ways in which people look for information and

try to design the page to reflect those approaches.

For Government documents there is always a

strong tendency to organize the material by

originating agency, as with the SuDocs

classification in our depository collections; but many times people do not know what agency

produces the CP! or the Federal Register. In thinking about this I noticed that users usually knew what level of Government—state. Federal, international—they wanted, so that seemed a logical organizing concept. Another

factor that seemed important was categories of information—reference for quick factual lookups, locators for broad searches, and guides for assistance with special categories. The hope is to locate information where people will think

to look to find it; sometimes this requires reworking after the page is used for a while.

Simplicity is a key concept in the intellectual organization of the Government documents home page. It needs to be clear to be easily accessed. Also, the actual facts or documents

sought should not be "buried" too deeply. Having to click on too many links to find material is frustrating to the searcher, and

sometimes leads them to stop short of locating the actual information. Simplicity can extend

to size, as well as organization. Pages do not have to be huge or comprehensive to be

effective; they need to offer manageable

amounts of useful material in an understandable format. A home page can be begun with just a few sections, and more can be added later. Flexibility is a major

advantage of FHTML and the Web; pages can be added and expanded as time and additional information permit.

Simplicity is also a major factor in visual and

technical design considerations. Simplicity in visual design is appealing, especially in a publication designed to inform rather than persuade or entertain. The visual simplicity underscores the philosophic clarity. Technical

simplicity is also critical. Moving objects, banners and other Web accessories are best used only very sparingly and for well-defined and appropriate purposes. In recent usability

tests conducted by Jakob Nielsen of Alertbox,

users clearly wanted recognizable simple

interactions in viewing and searching

information < http://www.useit.com/alertbox/ 980322.html > . Simplicity also adds to manageability in creation and maintenance for the documents staff. For our page we have

created templates for formatting the individual pages, so that individual coding was not

required for each; we simply put the content

into the coded template. The consistency is both a staff time-saver and makes the page

easier for users to grasp when certain forms of material are in predictable places. Another consideration is that simpler pages

load more quickly. Graphics make Web pages more interesting and appealing, but they need

to be applied judiciously, and they need to be

images which load reasonably quickly. On

our page the bars with the titles in them are

graphics, but they are simple graphics which

load quickly, which do not interfere with the

researcher's finding the information efficiently. Also please be sure that the fonts and colors

that are chosen will display well on computers

of different make and age. On Bowdoin's Government documents Web page for

98
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

example, I used italics fairly liberally in one

section, and then happened to look at the page on a Macintosh computer where the italics did not display readably at all. This is a

particularly important consideration for a depository library, since the public is certainly accessing the Web on a wide variety of computers, and the information should be

equally available to all. There are many ways to add explanatory

information to a Government documents home

page to enhance the use of Government

information. One is to annotate the sites on

the home page so that searchers know what to expect from each site and can judge whether a given site is the one they are seeking. Annotations need to be crisp and informative.

In general searchers do not want to read whole

paragraphs, but often find it helpful to have some idea of the scope and content of the

linked site. In other places it can be useful to add other short relevant items of information, such as the local address to send social security forms, which does not appear on the

social security forms page. Another useful addition to a Government

documents home page are guides for the use

of Government publications, whether those

publications are Web sites or traditional paper and microfiche documents in the depository's

collection. One example of this from Bowdoin's Government documents Web page

is the guide to locating congressional documents at <www.bowdoin.edu/dept/

library/govdocs/guides/congdocs.html > . In that guide the location and classification of congressional documents, such as bills, hearings, reports, etc., in the depository

collection is provided along with the URLs for such sources as GPO Access and Thomas

where the texts of those documents can be

obtained online. At Bowdoin the librarians create course

research guides on the Web, and the Government documents home page includes

all the guides relating to Government

documents. In this way the Government

documents home page becomes a tool for accessing both paper and electronic sources and can serve as an advertisement and

reminder of the presence of the depository and

the materials there. One other important

access addition is reaching the depository

librarian. The home page needs to include the

depository's phone number and the librarian's e-mail address. I receive e-mail questions from

both the college community and the general public through our Web page. When a Government documents Web page

has been created, its existence should be

publicized. I suggest posting to your state library listserv or newsletter and to GOVDOCL. Local school and public libraries also are

likely to be interested in linking to the

depository's home page because it can help them better direct their patrons to Government

information, often not found in print form in their libraries. Notifying the library's primary

users, through e-mail or a print newsletter, is also a good idea. A nice bonus is that many

people find it on their own, and it seems to be

a good way to advertise the presence of the depository library. Bowdoin's Government

documents home page has been discovered by

a variety of people from Cub Scouts to retired

citizens.

In closing, I'd like to say that a well-designed Government documents Web page can

substantially enhance access to Government

information for many patrons. I think it is well worth our time to experiment with the information access opportunities this new

medium affords to do our work more

effectively in Federal document depository

libraries.

99
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Librmy Conference FDLP/ERIC Digital Library Pilot Project

George Barnum

U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, DC

It has been written that "Partnership is a key element in stable, long term access to electronic Government information, building on the successful model of cooperation between GPO, agencies, and local libraries for public access to information." GPO's current emphasis on partnership grew

out of the successes of the FDLP and the demands of a task larger than a single entity's capacities. One of the most successful aspects

of the FDLP is that various tasks that would be

far too large or prohibitively costly for an agency alone are shared among participants in the program, producing value for all. Thus,

rather than building a single permanent

collection of records of last resort for Government information in traditional formats, regional depositories receive and retain all documents permanently (in general) and in coordination and cooperation with selectives ensure ongoing access in a convenient

proximity to end users. By engaging in the partnership type arrangement, far better service

to users is provided than GPO could hope to provide on its own.

Similarly, the resources for building permanent

access to online Government information are staggering, extremely difficult to manage and

very costly for a single entity. So, GPO is experimenting with various models that will bring agency producers of information together with partners in various kinds of organizations and institutions, ranging from individual

universities to consortia to large service providers, to seek strategies and know-how for providing storage capacity and effective access

to agency electronic information.

The FDLP/ERIC Digital Library Pilot Project is one such experiment. In October of 1 997,

following negotiations that actually began with my predecessor in ETS, Duncan Aldrich, GPO,

the National Library of Education (NLE), and OCLC, Inc. entered an agreement to conduct a one year pilot project with full text of the public domain ERIC reports long distributed in microfiche to depositories. The project is designed to obtain information concerning electronic archiving, bibliographic access to image files, library and end user behavior and preferences, and other issues relevant to the transition to a more electronic depository program. It specifies that OCLC

will provide free and unrestricted access to public domain ERIC reports via Federal depository libraries, will provide technical support for their use, will meet certain performance measures for reliability, security, and usage of the information, and will participate with GPO and NLE on assessment and evaluation of the project. GPO agrees to coordinate pointers to the

collection in GPO Access, provide general

user support, and to recognize OCLC as an

official site for ERIC digital information. GPO

will also coordinate communication with the depository libraries in the pilot. NLE and OCLC have entered into a separate

technical agreement by which image files of

the ERIC documents are provided to OCLC by

NLE's contractor, ERIC Document

Reproduction Service (EDRS).

100
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

With this pilot we are taking a valuable and

well known product within the FDLP and moving it into the electronic arena, consistent with our goals in the Transition Plan. The pilot

will provide much needed information for us on the ramifications and requirements for making large and high-demand collections available electronically through depositories. It also connects us with a very visible and

forward-thinking pair of partners. The project has potential for providing a model for many

other products and agencies.

I want to emphasize that our objective for this pilot is to gather information on feasibility and

comparative costs for this type of data

archiving. It is a pilot, and as such it has some

limitations that we all need to be aware of. It has a beginning and an end. We certainly hope that there will be sufficient evidence of success and positive response to continue the

project beyond its expiration at the end of December. But that is not certain at this time. Likewise, it's important to remember that this

is the same subset of ERIC documents that have been available in microfiche, which are the ones in the clearinghouse that are in the public domain. We're very fortunate that this

test project happens to be a set of documents

that are popular and will give us good data on

user behavior and handling of large full-text documents in a high-demand setting.

Let's talk briefly about the mechanics: The pilot actually began earlier this year when

OCLC began receiving digital data from EDRS. The pilot will cover reports from January 1 997

forward. Image files are being converted at OCLC and beginning in late June or early July, libraries in the pilot group, the 312

depositories that select item 0466-A-03 will receive packets of information with login and

passwords that will allow them to enter OCLC

FirstSearch to use the full text and

bibliographic data for ERIC reports free of charge.

The pilot group will be phased-in in stages, so

that we can work out bugs as we go. Throughout the rest of 1 998 and into early 1999 OCLC will be gathering data on use and

user behavior, and all three partners will be

conferring and analyzing the data for a report

to appear in January of 1999. What do we hope to know? GPO hopes that we will have data on the feasibility of using a contractor such as OCLC for this archiving

activity. We need to be able to compare the

costs of this route with the costs of other methods. We also will have data on demand

for these reports that should be of interest to GPO and NLE, and will have good information on user behavior and expectations.

At this point I'm pleased to introduce the next member of this panel, who I consider one of the great dividends of my "tour" at GPO this year. During this project, Blane Dessy, who is Director of the National Library of Education, and I have had many excellent meetings and

transacted much business over the specialties of Chef Ted at the establishment halfway between our offices. Blane and Richard Whalen of his staff are enthusiastic participants

in the partnership, and GPO is very proud to be working with NLE (and with OCLC) to bring

this about.

101
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference FDLP/ERIC Digital Library Pilot

]ohn Hearty

OCLC

Dublin, OH

Goals of the FDLP/ERIC Pilot

• Offering broad access to Federal information

• Preservation '

^

• Integration with secondary and ternary information

• Reduction of costs for libraries, GPO, and

Federal agencies Obstacles to Implementation of Digital Libraries

• Libraries concern over stability of electronic versions

• Property rights in electronic media are ill defined

• Costs for initial scanning required for creation of documents

• Metadata in rough shape

• Large document delivery issues Dimensions of Digital Libraries

• Security

• Access

• Economy

• Openness

• Library needs

• Publisher needs

• Information user needs

OCLC Strategies

• Leverage OCLC online system

• Leverage existing OCLC services

• Leverage scanning activities

• Leverage OCLC membership and

cooperative tradition

• Focus on what is practicable in the near

term

• Maintain flexibility for future

Pilot Project Business Model

• OCLC assumes costs of loading, storing, and offering access to the data

• NLE signs a non-exclusive license allowing

OCLC to use their data through 1 998

without compensation

» Collaboration on all aspects of pilot

Pilot System Functionality

• Comprehensive search capability

• Displays of citation, abstract and header, and full text (image, PDF)

• Hyperlinks to GPO's and NLE's home

pages, similar documents, etc.

• Comprehensive statistics, and reports

102
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

• 7 day by 24 hour availability

Rollout Plan and Schedule

• Research Design

• Selected and Open Pilot Demonstrations

• Schedule

Research Design Objectives

• Test technology with several formats > additional pilot tests digitized manuscripts, photographs, drawings

• Gain input from users > image quality; navigation of large documents; delivery options

• Validate concept of preservation and

access

• Determine costs Research Design Questions

• Is it cost effective to digitize documents &

add access?

• Is the process timely?

• How usable are the reports in an online environment?

Selected and Open Pilot Demonstrations

• FDLP Annual Conference

• ALA Annual at OCLC booth

• Technology and software corporate reviews

• FDLP fall conference

• ALA Midwinter wrap up

Pilot Rollout Schedule

• Prototype with 80 documents - Complete

• FDLP/ERIC Pilot Implementation - June

• EA Special Collections Pilot implementation - Early Summer

• ALA Demonstrations - June

• Research Design Implementation - Ongoing

• Pilot Conclusions - December

• Final Report- Early 1999

• Do we need other delivery options/formats? Research Design Methodology

• Focus group

• Phone surveys

• Patron questionnaire

• Site visits

103
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference Office of the Federal Register and Its Publications

Ann Maso

National Archives and Records Administration

Wasiiington, DC

Today I will be discussing the publications of the Office of the Federal Register, and focusing upon the daily Federal Register (OFR) and the research documents that support it. I will ask

for questions from time to time within the

lecture, and anticipate having about fifteen minutes for questions at the end of the lecture. You should each have a handbook, which you

can take home with you, that reinforces this lecture. We will not be following the handbook this morning.

First, I'd like to discuss Vv-hat the Office of the Federal Register does, and clear up some

myths. We are not a part of the Government

Printing Office (GPO). The OFR is an office under the National Archives and Records

Administration. The OFR receives, organizes, reviews, edits and okays for printing documents from Federal agencies that publish

in the Federal Register (FR) and Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). We also receive, organize, review, edit and okay for printing

Presidential documents and laws. We do not

print, sell or distribute any of these

publications. That is done by the GPO. We

also do not write the documents. They are written by Federal agencies. Congress or the Executive Office. The Government Printing Office prints and distributes, while our office is primarily providing review and editing.

Let's take some time now to go over the publications of the OFR. The OFR publishes documents for the Office of the President and

Federal agencies. Whenever the President of the United States signs an executive order, or

presidential proclamation, whenever the White House makes releases or signing statements,

and whenever the President gives a public speech, it is transcribed, and collated by our

office into the Weekly Compilation of

Presidential Documents. These are then

ultimately compiled (with photographs) into volumes of the Public Papers of the Presidents

of the United States. In addition, within the Code of Federal Regulations, title 3 contains

the annual publication of executive orders and

presidential proclamations which were

published in the Federal Register. This title of the CFR is NOT cumulative. Each year's volume needs to be retained. For your

convenience, we have color coded title 3 in reverse colors, to alert you to retain the volume and not remove it each year. The

Office of the Federal Register edits, annotates and publishes the Slip Laws. These are the laws of Congress which have been signed by

the President. And the laws are compiled into the United States Statutes at Large. The OFR

also publishes the United States Government

Manual. This book gives the organizational

structure of each agency, lists each office and

its function, as well as phone numbers and

addresses. It is published annually.

For Federal agencies, our primary publications

are the Federal Register and Code of Federal

Regulations. The Federal Register is produced

every workday, with the exception of Federal

holidays. It contains the rules, proposed rules, and notices of Federal agencies, as well as Executive Orders and Presidential Proclamations of the White House. It serves to inform the public of regulations that are proposed, gives them opportunity to comment

on them, and alerts the public to new

104
J998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

requirements, and other matters, such as advisory committee meetings. The Code of Federal Regulations is an annual

publication of current regulations. It contains only the rules, no proposed rules or notices appear in the CFR. It is updated by the daily Federal Register. For example, if you wanted

to know the regulations regarding how wide doorways should be made to be accessible to the physically challenged, you would go to the CFR, and then check the Federal Register to see if any changes had occurred since the publication of the CFR. To that end, several finding aids materials are published by the OFR. They include the Federal Register Index, which lists publications by agency name, and is published monthly, and the List of CFR Sections Affected, which

lists changes to the CFR by CFR title and

section number, and is also published

monthly. And a CFR Index and Finding Aids book is published once a year. It contains a subject index, a listing of the heading of each

title and part number for the Code, and tables of authority citations. And finally, OFR produces the Privacy Act

Issuances. This is a compilation of regulations and notices published in the Federal Register, pursuant to the Privacy Act. It is revised every two years (1993 CD-ROM only; 1995 online).

All of these documents are produced by the OFR. For the Federal Register alone, we

process one hundred to two hundred documents a day. All of this is accomplished

by 61 people.

I would like to briefly discuss the rulemaking

process with you. I understand that you

receive requests for information that may occur

at any point in the rulemaking process. So, I want to go over that process as it relates to the OFR. The first step in rulemaking is usually a law enacted by Congress. Many laws enacted by Congress require agencies to issue regulations. And issuing regulations means

publication in the Federal Register. Usually, the Federal agency will publish a proposed

rule as a result. Proposed rules are required in most circumstances, by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA dictates proposed rules for the express purpose of giving interested parties an opportunity to participate in the rule making by alerting the public to a change in the regulations, and

allowing the public time to give comment on

the proposal.

After the comment period closes, and the agency reviews the comments, it may or may

not change the regulation. It then publishes a

final rule, in which comments that were

received are addressed, and the regulatory changes are announced. Once the effective date of the final rule is reached, these

regulations are in effect and enforceable. It does not require publication in the annual CFR. And when the CFR volume is next updated, the changes mandated in the Federal

Register are incorporated into the annual Code.

Let's briefly go over the Federal Register

layout. The first page contains general information regarding when and how the FR is produced, subscription information, and citing information. It will also tell you when and where the next workshops will be available for the general public. The next page begins with an index, grouped by agency name. It will list the page span for the document. Then you

will find a listing by CFR title and part for each

rule or proposed rule in the Federal Register of

that day. Then we begin with the text, which starts with

Rules, listed in CFR order. Then comes

proposed rules, and notices. If there are any

corrections that the OFR needs to make, they

are printed after the notices. This is followed by separate parts which can be rules, proposed

rules or notices. They are set apart from the main body of the FR, usually at the request of the agency, sometimes because of OFR

production needs. Separate parts can be

105
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

reproduced separately from the rest of the FR. Agencies request this in order to make

multiple reprints of their document, without reproducing the entire FR.

After all the separate parts, we have printed some reader aids. On this page you will find phone numbers and electronic information for customer assistance, a guide linking page numbers to their appropriate Federal Register

for the month, and a listing of the CFR title and

parts that are affected during the month that

this Federal Register is issued. That is followed by a reminder of rules going into effect on that date and of those proposed rules whose comment due dates end in the following week. On Mondays, a list of CFR volumes and their availability appears behind the reminders list. Now as librarians, I understand you work with

a lot of research type questions. I'd like to take the remaining time to go through some

research examples. Of course, the simplest and easiest way to find a document is through

the online Federal Register. The online FR has every FR volume from January 2, 1994 to present at < www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/>

.

If you have questions at any time, please contact our offices at 202-523-5227, or through e-mail at info@fedreg.gov. And feel free to visit our Web site at < http://www.nara.gov/fedreg >

.

106
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

GIS Software, Applications SC Management

Donna Koepp

University of Kansas Lawrence, KS

Good morning. Welcome to the session on Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Software, Applications, and Management.

This session is sort of a takeoff on a session

that was done last August at the Regional

meeting in Minneapolis. As you may have noticed, everyone on our

panel this morning is from a regional library. The reason for that is that we were all a part of the meeting last August and not necessarily because we are the best depository librarians to address the issues of GIS.

Let me first introduce our panel.

• Ridley Kessler, Government Documents

Librarian, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

• Barbara Levergood, Electronic Documents

Librarian, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

• Julia Wallace, Head, Government

Publications, University of Minnesota.

• Brent Allison, Head, John Borchert Map

Library and GIS Lab, University of Minnesota.

• John S. Walters, Head, Government

Documents, Utah State University.

I am Donna Koepp, Head of the Government Documents and Map Library, University of Kansas (KU).

In Minneapolis our session was two hours. Our panel members each spoke for just a few

minutes and then we opened it up to a discussion by the whole group, a much smaller group of between 50-60 people. Our goal was

to reach some consensus on what regional

libraries should be doing, or what regionals could realistically expect to do with the

electronic spatial data that we are receiving in the depository program. Just so we all have

the same understanding of what we mean by

spatial data, for this program we are talking about the TIGER/Line files, the Digital Line Graphs, Digital Raster Graphics, Digital Data

Series, and NASA's Magellan Full-Resolution Radar Mosaics. We started with one premise. That is, we

recognized the fact that it is not necessarily the

regional library in each instance that is the most logical, or the best equipped depository

in each state to provide GIS service or otherwise deal with electronic spatial data. And we would like to reiterate that fact here. There are a number of depository libraries now

that are providing assistance with automated mapping and GIS. Some are regional, and some are not. It is more dependent upon

whether or not there is adequate staff, adequate electronic resources, and frequently whether there is a separate map library, with adequate staff and cartographic expertise to develop this kind of service. Our presentation today is 90 minutes. All six of us would like to share with you information on how GIS service is provided in our libraries and what our rationale is for our approach to that service. Four of us have some actual

107
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

examples of maps that we have produced in response to specific requests from our users. We will show you these maps and explain

briefly what software and data were used in their production. We ask that you save your

questions until the end.

I would like to begin the map examples with some from the University of Kansas Government Documents and Map Library. My

automation specialist fs Kendall Simmons,

whose job it is to examine, install if necessary, and provide documentation and staff guides

for all of the CD-ROMs we receive in the depository program. In addition, she is our CIS person for the Map Library. Many of the CIS inquiries actually are received and

responded to from the Government Documents side of the library, which at the moment is in a separate physical location, although we are one unit.

Kendall is just now learning GIS, but is doing

quite well. We are able to respond

successfully to most of the questions we get. We have an automated mapping request form on our home pages for Documents and Maps, and we also receive inquiries in Maps and in Documents by phone and in person. We are using ArcView 3.0a. The examples I have to show you are all the results of actual questions.

[slide 1] Graduate degrees, not normalized, by block

group, Riley County, Kansas. A Washburn University student was doing a project with a professor regarding the proper

location for an arts center. They specifically wanted a map that showed the number of people with graduate and professional degrees

by block group. This map was made in response to what they had asked for. ArcView

3.0 and the Wessex TIGER files were used for

this map and the data was provided by the student from STF 3A.

[slide 2] Graduate degrees, normalized by total population, by block group, Riley County,

Kansas.

Later, after taking a free ArcView workshop,

Kendall learned about normalizing. Out of

curiosity, she ran the previous map again, but normalized the data by the total population

per block group. This gives the percent of population with graduate and professional degrees instead of the total number. The

difference wasn't dramatic, but it was

interesting.

[slide 3] Total in poverty, not normalized, by block

group, Lawrence, Kansas. The knowledge of normalization paid off immediately, and provided Kendall with

options she had not known about before. One

of the next projects was a KU student doing a

project based on his hypothesis that poverty in Kansas towns progresses from east to west. ArcView 3.0 with Wessex files were used for

this map with STF3A data.

[slide 4] Total in poverty, normalized by total population, by block group, Lawrence,

Kansas. As you can see, there is an enormous shift in placement of "poverty pockets" when viewed

in the perspective of percentage of population

per block group. This is a continuing project. Kendall is doing about 35 maps for this student. He is getting the data from earlier censuses, back to 1 940, and will try to apply

the data to current maps, to support his hypotheses.

[slides 5, 6, 7] Pharmaceutical Manufacturers, California. These maps were created using ArcView 3.0, the Wessex TIGER files, and data from the County Business Patterns for California, CD108
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

ROM. You will notice that there is no line between Los Angeles County and Orange

County. That is because that county boundary

is missing from the Wessex files. Kendall was

not certain how to add the line in ArcView. She could have done it in Paint Shop Pro, but decided to just combine the data for those two

counties instead. Each map seems to be a learning experience, and for this particular set of maps, the big discovery was that every time

the map is redrawn, or every time the "apply"

button is clicked, the dots showing the

location of the manufacturers move. Kendall had not realized that the dots appeared

randomly within the counties, so it was quite unexpected and amazing to see the dots move

with every update of the map.

[slide 8] Detail of Clinton Lake DRG, Lawrence,

Kansas.

This map was produced for two architecture students who wanted a topo map of an area around Clinton Lake that they could use to create a 3D image. The detail they wanted

needed to be at the scale illustrated by this

slide. ArcView 3.0, the DRG CD-ROM, and

Paint Shop Pro were used to create this map.

[slide 9] Image of desired coverage, Clinton Lake, Lawrence, Kansas.

This slide shows the extent of the area the

architecture students needed, but at the scale shown in the previous slide. Currently we do

not have a large format plotter, so we could

not print the entire map for them at that scale.

It was learned through more careful interviewing of the students that they wanted

to digitize the map for import into a 3D

modeling program. Kendall resolved the problem by FTP-ing the appropriate TIFF files to them. In this instance, one might also have

used the paper topo quad to scan or digitize from.

One problem encountered in FTPing, of which you should be aware, is that it frequently takes so long that the online program may time you out. If one is downloading from America Online, the downloading is not considered acliviiy by

AOL or most ISPs, causing the connection

to be timed out. There is a shareware program called Stay Connected! that will solve this problem.

109
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library! Conference GIS Software, Applications, and Management:

Providing Public Access to Maplnfo and ArcView

Barbara Levergood

University of Nortli Carolina at Cliapel Hill Chapel Hill, NC

Good morning! I would like to do three things

that I hope will give you a sense of what can be done with GIS in a depository on a

relatively limited basis. First, I'll use a discussion of why we provide GIS services in our library as an excuse to show you two

examples of common queries that can be answered and simple maps that can be made

using GIS. Second, I'll outline the services that we provide for GIS in our library. Third, I'll take you through the major steps involved in making a thematic map using GIS.

I. Why We Provide GIS Services There are two primary reasons that we wanted

to get into GIS in our Documents Section.

First, we wanted to provide access to census maps (e.g. block maps) that were not depository anymore in paper or fiche. Let me

give you an example. With the GIS, and using

the depository TIGER/Line data from the Census Bureau, we can create digital maps of

streets (overhead 1), census blocks (overlay overhead 5), or census block groups (overlay overhead 4) and print them out. This level of geographic detail is not available in any other format from Census through the FDLP. However, users commonly request this type of map from us. For example, a user might want

to collect census data for a community

(overhead 1). The problem is that they might have the names of the streets that bound the community but they would not normally know

which blocks or block groups or census tracts define that community. Without that

information, the user cannot collect census

data. The GIS can help the user identify the census geographic areas. We might start with a street map of the neighborhood in Durham County, North

Carolina. This map was created using

depository TIGER/Line data and Maplnfo GIS

software. Using the GIS, we would then

overlay a block map of that area (overlay overhead 2). The user would identify the community and we could shade in the blocks

that are a part of the community. We might

overlay a map of the census tracts (overlay overhead 3); here we discover that the community is entirely within census tract 9. But notice that the community is just a small

part of the tract; collecting data for the entire

tract might not correctly characterize the community. So, we overlay a map of the block groups (overlay overhead 4); here we

see that all of block group 2 is within the community and part of block group 3 is also. The user might decide now to collect data for both block groups or for just block group 2 and ignore that part of the community within block group 3. These are the only options

available if the user is interested in socio- economic information, since that data is available at the block group level but not at the block level. Alternatively, the user may be

interested in block data also. So, we can number the blocks that define the community

(overlay overhead 5). The user can print out

this map or any of the other maps we have

seen as is or considerably elaborated with

titles, legends, scale, etc. The user will now

110
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

have the needed information: the identification of the census geographic areas needed to define the community and to collect census

data for. Note that these maps include spatial (geographic) information: streets, blocks, block

groups, and census tracts; along with street names, numbers, and map titles. But there was no statistical information represented on

the maps.

This leads us to the second reason that we

wanted to provide mapping capabilities for users, for the 1990 census statistical data

especially (overhead 6). This is a simple thematic map showing the geographic

distribution of population density and African Americans in Durham County census tracts. This map is more complex than the maps I showed you before in that it includes not only

the spatial data (the census tract boundaries) but it also includes a representation of

statistical data. The colors represent population density and the dots represent

African Americans. This map could be used to answer the question: "Do African Americans in Durham County, North Carolina live in areas

of high population density?" This type of map

is also commonly requested. We got into CIS, then, for two reasons. First, we wanted to provide access to small area census maps that were no longer depository. Second, we wanted to provide thematic mapping capabilities for 1990 census data.

II. Our Services

Next, I will outline the services that we

provide for the CIS. Our Documents Section is a Regional library. We provide public access to CIS software and

spatial data in support of Government

information. In Documents, we have three

full-time librarians and three full-time paraprofessional staff. I am the only full-time

staff member who works with the CIS, but I

have a student or two whom I train to help me. Our Maps Library, a separate unit in a different building, holds most of our depository maps

but it does not have CIS. We provide public access to two pieces of CIS

software, Maplnfo Professional and ArcView,

on a single workstation in Documents. Users can print out in black and white on a laser printer or in color on an inkjet printer. We ask that people contact us ahead of time to discuss what software, spatial data, and

statistical data are available and suitable, to set their expectations, and to make an appointment for instruction. Ahead of time, we prepare the spatial data files that the user

will need. We support the depository TIGER/Line data from the Census Bureau as well as TIGER, which is commercial data based on TIGER/Line and produced by Wessex. During the appointment, we spend

30-60 minutes assisting the user in learning how to use the GIS software and how to access and manipulate the spatial and statistical data

via the GIS in order to complete the project. We then leave the user alone to do so, remaining available to answer questions that inevitably arise. We provide documentation and custom handouts in support of the software and data. The GIS is a very heavily used resource and it is growing in popularity, by folks from both on

and off campus. Each of a user's sessions may

be from 1 to 8 hours or more, with 2 hours

being a typical minimum. We find that because of the complexity of the software and

data, users need a high level of service. We do not provide full service for the GIS. For

instance, we do not create a map for a user. Rather, we familiarize the user with the software and data and they create the map.

Recall that our mission is to provide access to the GIS in support of Government information. Unfortunately, we can provide a minimum

level of service (or none at all) to those who

are interested primarily in creating an attractive

111
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

cartographic product not using Government

information since that is not a part of our

mission in Documents and because of

limitations of staff and hardware resources. The second major service that we offer is to provide spatial data files for users who want to use them on their own computers using their own CIS software. This is unproblematic in the legal sense for the-Eederal spatial and

statistical data, which is public domain. But

spatial data files are huge, so we have developed a number of ways to get them to

users, including an FTP site that we use to

store large files for users to download.

III. A Sample Maplnfo Session

Please turn to the back page of the handout. I would like to guide you through this sample

Maplnfo session just to give you a feeling for the steps involved in making a thematic map.

Please be aware that there are many other

variations on how to work with the data and

the software that I will briefly describe later.

Let's assume a very simple query: I would like a map showing the distribution of population

in Durham County by census tract.

1 . (overhead 1 0) We might begin by

collecting the statistical data. We'll use the 1990 Census of Population and Housing, STF 3A, to create and download a dBASE

III file giving the population of each census

tract in Durham County, NC. That file must have the census tract numbers in one

column, indicated by the arrow.

2. We will make the map using Maplnfo,

although we do not open the software up

yet.

3. (overhead 1 1) In our library, we use TIGER/Line 1992 spatial data along with Maplnfo.

4. (overlay overheads 1 1 and 1 2) GIS

software in general, and Maplnfo in

particular, cannot read the raw TIGER/Line

files directly off the CD-ROM. First, the

spatial data that we want, census tract boundaries for Durham County, must be

extracted from the TIGER/Line files and

translated into a format that Maplnfo can

import. We use TigerBdry software to accomplish this. You are looking at the batch file that we use to create our desired map.

5. (overhead 13) Once the spatial data has been extracted and translated, we fire up

Maplnfo and import the file into the native format.

6. (overhead 14) We then open the resulting

file within Maplnfo and we display the map of Durham County census tracts (overlay overheads 14 and 15). Associated

with this map is a database containing census tract numbers. The arrow is pointing to that column.

7. (overheads 1 0 and 1 5) Now, if we

compare this spatial data database

containing the census tract numbers that came from TIGER/Line with the statistical data database containing the numbers that we downloaded from the STF 3A file, we

see that the format of the numbers is different. However, we want Maplnfo to be able to join these two databases based on these census tract numbers. To do this, the numbers must be identical in every

detail. Thus, we must edit the file to make

the numbers identical.

8. We will also have to do the necessary

calculations if the user wants to map

density or a percentage or any other number that is not already in the statistical datafile.

9. (overhead 1 6) We are now ready to create the thematic map. This can be a fairly confusing process involving joining the

statistical and spatial data files, choosing

112
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

the thematic values for the map, and

customizing the map.

10. We can label the map.

1 1 . We can work with the layout of the map

and the legend.

12. (overhead 1 7) Finally, we can print out the thematic map showing the population

density within Durham County census

tracts. The estimated total staff and user time involved

in making this map is 1-1/4 to 2-1/2 hours or more. We just made a map using Mapinfo along with depository TIGER/Line and census data. There

are many other alternatives. Instead of Mapinfo, you could use ArcView along with

the depository data, as long as you have the appropriate extraction and translation software

to use in step 4. The other steps would be

similar. Another alternative is to purchase spatial and/or statistical data that has been customized

for use with either Mapinfo or ArcView. Let me quickly take you through that same sample

session, this time using ArcView along with TIGER and census data, both purchased from Wessex.

In step 1, instead of using the statistical data from the Census Bureau, you would create a

file using the commercial package. In step 2, use ArcView instead of Mapinfo. In step 3, instead of using TIGER/Line from Census, you would use commercial TIGER. In step 4, it would be necessary to extract the data from commercial TIGER from Wessex, but

translation is not required. This can save considerable staff time. In step 5, the import

step is not required, again saving time. Step 6

is similar. Step 7 may not be required, since the files may already be customized. This is a very time consuming step and we are glad to save that time.

You may be wondering why we would ever make maps using the TIGER/Line spatial data when I indicated several times that we could

save time and aggravation by using the Wessex

TIGER data. If you look on page 4 of the handout, I outline some of the advantages and

disadvantages of these two options. There are two major advantages of using depository TIGER/Line. First, block boundaries are included in TIGER/Line, they are not included

in Wessex's TIGER. Second, TIGER/Line is public domain. Consequently, we extract and

translate those files and give them away to our

users fairly often.

Let me emphasize there are many variations on the procedures I just outlined that depend

on the GIS software, the spatial and statistical data resources that you have through the FDLP

or that you purchase, and any translation software that you purchase.

This then is a greatly simplified overview of the GIS services and spatial data that we

provide to the public. I hope I have conveyed

my belief in the importance of GIS as a tool working with statistical data, as well as an

appreciation for the enormous resources that can be devoted to the creation and

maintenance of these services, software, and

data.

In the handout, I have included a lot of other

information that you may find useful if you are thinking of getting into GIS. On page 2 is a step-by-step outline of how we have developed our GIS services and resources and some issues and problems with our services. On pages 2 and 3 is an estimate of the costs in terms of software, data, hardware, and staff. On page 4 is an outline of the spatial data that we support and how we make it accessible. This is a critical page and worth looking at in detail if you are interested when you get home. On page 5 is an overview of the

statistical data that we frequently use with the GIS. Finally, on page 6 is the sample Mapinfo

session.

113
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference ArcView 2 A and Bureau of the Census Data Sets

John S. Walters

Utah State University Logan, UT

Using ArcView 2.1 , produced by

Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), in conjunction with Extract, a free software program produced by the Bureau of the Census (BOC), users are now able to access and manipulate BOC data sets and

represent them as thematic maps or reports. Software ArcView is a desktop Geographical

Information System (CIS) that allows users to readily extract and manipulate dBase data sets directly from the Census CD-ROMs in preparation to joining the data with an

associated thematic map. ArcView requires a minimum 486 processor and at least 1 6 MB

RAM. The approximate cost of ArcView is $800.00.

Extract enables easy and rapid location of data

sets available on most Census Bureau CD- ROMs. Designed to run on a DOS platform,

Extract works with any IBM-compatible PC

(386 or later) with a minimum of RAM

(425kb). Extract is available from the 1992 Economic Census CD-ROMs, several of the other census discs, or via the World Wide

Web at the following URL: < http://www.

census, gov/ftp/pub/epcd/www/extract.html >

.

1 . Use Extract to identify appropriate files and

fields using the Census Bureau's STF 3C

disc. 1990 Census of Population and Housing STF 3C Disc

File Fields Description 301 pOOSOOOl Total Households (the denominator when

calculating the percent) 314 p0800001

p0800002

Households with income

less than $5,000 Households with income

greater than $5,000 and

less than $10,000

p0800023 Households with income

greater than $100,000 and

less than $124,999

p0800024 Households with income

greater than $ 1 25,000 and

less than $149,999

p0800025 Households with income

greater than $1 50,000 and more

Example

Create a map showing the percent of households that have income less than $10,000 per year and another map showing

percent households with income greater than $100,000, both by USA Counties.

2. Use ArcView to pull the identified files and

fields from the Census CD-ROM.

3. Once in ArcView, the identified files (301 and 314) need to be modified to limit them

to only the data files necessary for creating our specific map (household income).

Fortunately, we can use the ArcView Table

114
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

menu and choose Properties to select only

the fields we need, in this case:

• Sumlev (field which assigns all county

level data with a sumlev of 50);

• Statefp and Cnty {fips code needed to join our census data with the mapping

data)

pct_hslds_inc which can now be mapped.

We can choose one of three different

classification schemes, Quantile, Equal

Interval, or Unique Interval. We can then choose varying colors from the color

palette and finally draw our final map.

• Household Fields that we previously

identified (p08...).

Next, we need to query the table and

eliminate data we are not interested in. We do this by setting up a query that asks

for data sets for the county level only, sumlev = 50. Once this is done, we can

export the table. We follow these steps

until we have all our tables trimmed to just the information we need.

4. Next, we open the newly modified tables

in ArcView for further editing.

Specifically, we need to create a new field called fips that is simply the statefp and

cnty fields combined (f/'ps = statefp + cnty). The fips field is necessary since this will be

our common field between the BOC data and the ArcView's thematic map tables. Following this, we combine the data sets for relevant household income levels. Using the Calculate menu option we can now create a new field showing the percent of households with the required income levels: pct_hslds_inc =

(hslds_inc<1 0,000 \tot_hslds) * 100

5. Using ArcView, open the map, or View, showing the USA Counties and then open

its associated table. Selecting the fips field, that is now common to both tables, we can

join the two tables.

6. Once joined, we select the window box "View I," double-click on the legend,

select the box with the drop-down menu

labeled Field. Locate the field

115
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference U.S. Senate Bibliographies Project

]ohn A. McGeachy

North Carolina State University

Raleigh, NC

In 1 983, near the beginning of the 1 03d

Congress, the Senate adopted a numbering scheme to provide unique identifying numbers

for its hearings, committee prints, and

publications. Reports and documents had been so numbered for many years, and these new numbers meant that every publication of the Senate would receive a unique number.

Since 1983 the designations "S.Hrg.," "S.Prt." and "S.Pub." have been printed on the covers

of these materials. The House did not follow

the Senate's lead, so hearings, prints, and

publications of the House do not carry similar numbers. GPO recognized that the Senate numbering scheme would provide a quick and easy means to classify these documents.

Unfortunately, the marriage of SuDocs stems

for the issuing committee with the Senate numbering designation, assigned without

regard to the committee, created some

disharmonies in depository collections. When

you browse the hearings of a given committee now, the numbers you see appear to be randomly assigned. For example, here are the hearings from the Aging Committee of the 104th Congress in SuDocs order: 104-0110 Gaming the Health Care System: Trends in Health Care Fraud

1 04-01 1 3 Problems in the Social Security

Disability Programs: The Disabling

of America? 104-0118 Planning Ahead: Future Directions

in Private Financing of Long-Term

Care 104-0149 Society's Secret Shame: Elder Abuse and Family Violence (Field

hearing held in Portland, ME)

104-0230 Breakthroughs in Brain Research: A

National Strategy to Save Billions

in Health Care Costs

1 04-0256 Federal Oversight of Medicare HMO's: Assuring Beneficiary

Protection 104-0384 Medicaid Reform: Quality of Care

in Nursing Homes at Risk 104-0434 Health Care Fraud: Milking Medicare and Medicaid 104-0489 Hearing on Mental Illness Among

the Elderly 104-0490 Telescams Exposed: How

Telemarketers Target the Elderly 104-0491 Hearing on Adverse Drug

Reactions in the Elderly 104-051 7 Alzheimer's Disease in a Changing

Health Care System: Falling Through the Cracks 104-0649 National Shortage of Geriatricians: Meeting the Needs of Our Aging

Population 104-0654 Stranded on Disability: Federal

Disability Programs Failing Disabled Workers

104-0661 Nutrition and the Elderly: Savings

for Medicare (Forum)

1 04-0693 Suicide and the Elderly: A

Population at Risk 104-0705 Social Security Reform Options:

Preparing for the 21st Century 104-0735 Investing in Medical Research: Saving Health Care and Human

Costs Goint with Appropriations) The reports and documents, which make up a

great part of the U.S. Congressional Serial Set, have enjoyed a long history of bibliographic

116
]998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

control through the Documents Index, the Numerical Lists and Schedules of Volumes, and the U.S. Congressional Serial Set Catalog. Despite an obvious need to provide a similar

tool for hearings, committee prints and

publications, the Federal agencies charged

with bibliographic control of Government

publications have failed to provide a comparable bibliography for these Senate

series. The bibliographic control tool for Senate

hearings, prints and publications is available from a North Carolina academic library. Since

the mid-1 980s the depository staff at North

Carolina State University has maintained

database files of Senate hearings, prints and

publications. The database files were first compiled from non-cumulative lists that appeared in GPO's Administrative Notes. Since 1991 the files have been compiled

primarily from title page proofs supplied to NC

State by the staff of the Senate Library. The fact that an individual's project replaced a Government effort did not go entirely unnoticed. Library Journal reported the

situation in its November 15, 1991, issue with

the title, "North Carolina Librarian Picks Up

Where Feds Left Off." The first goal of the Senate Bibliographies

Project is to provide comprehensive listings of the hearings, prints and publications of the Senate from 1983. This goal is accomplished

by a series of Web pages at < http://www.lib. ncsu.edu/stacks/senatebibs/>

.

Links from the top of this page lead first to a

section with a hot-linked list of Congresses, 98th (1983-84) through 105th (1997-98). A

click on any of the Congresses takes you to another page where you are presented with

the names of a series of files, typically nine

files for each Congress. A final click on any of these links takes you to a chosen bibliography. Data is provided in three sequences for the

three kinds of documents covered by the

project. For hearings, committee prints and

publications, the lists are arranged in sequence number order, alphabetically by committee

and within each committee by sequence

number, and in title order. An additional feature allows you to search a single database containing records of all printed hearings, prints, and publications indexed at this Web site, 1 983 to date. Only

title keywords, committee names and Senate numbering system sequence numbers are contained in the database that is searched, and

that is all the information contained in retrieval

sets. Two years ago, after the 1 996 Federal Depository Conference, the Senate

Bibliographies Project took on a second goal. For the years 1 995-96, the number of hearings

printed by the 104th Congress was the smallest

since the Senate numbering scheme began. The table below gives the highest numbered

hearing for the most recent Congresses: 1983-84(98) 1305

1985-86(99) 1098

1987-88(100) 1085

1989-90(101) 1298

1991-92(102) 1204

1993-94(103) 1087

1995-96(104) 934

To identify a universe of hearings for the 1 04th

Congress, staff at NC State examined the Daily

Digest section of the Congressional Record for the years 1995-96, and identified an additional

1 56 hearings that had not yet been printed. The results of this investigation, which

continues, are presented in additional sections

of the Senate Bibliographies Web site.

First there are the Senate Report Cards. These

statistical summaries record, for each Senate committee, the number of hearings held; show

the numbers of hearings printed and unprinted

by the Government Printing Office; and assign

a numerical grade representing how well each committee informs the nation of its activities by publishing transcripts of its hearings. At

117
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

present, there are two Senate Report Cards, one for each of the two years of the 1 04th

Congress. The Foreign Relations Committee

has the poorest printing record.

Next, additional bibliographies for the 104th Congress can be found under the "Lists by

Congress" section. There is a long file listing

in chronological order all the hearings discovered by examining the Daily Digest, both printed and unprinted. At present, this

file covers only 1 995. Data for 1 996 is being

edited and will be added to this file soon.

Also here in the 104th "Lists by Congress," and

in a separate section called "Lists of Unprinted

Hearings," are three bibliographies of unprinted hearings. The bibliographies are sequenced in the same manner as are the

printed ones: in numerical sequence order

(i.e., by date), alphabetically by committee and

within each committee by hearing date, and in

title order-the title being that given in the Daily Digest. These bibliographies of unprinted hearings

presently contain data for 1995 only. Similar data for 1996 is being compiled and will be added later. The summary figures for 1996 are available in that year's Senate Report Card, and are being updated as additional 104th Congress hearings are printed. A keyword title search on the unprinted

hearing file can be performed to retrieve lists of unprinted hearings on topics of interest. The committee chairperson holds final say over whether a certain hearing transcript will be published. The list of unprinted hearings from 1995 contains such titles as

Bosnia: Committee held hearings to examine the United States' overall goals and diplomatic strategy in Bosnia, ... Foreign Relations 19950608 Hearings also held on 6/9/95

Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons, and two

accompanying Protocols on NonDetectable Fragments (Protocol I) and on

Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices

(Protocol II) (Treaty Doc. 103-25), ... Foreign Relations 19950307

Crisis in Rwanda and Burundi: Senate Committee on Foreign Relations' Subcommittee on African Affairs concluded joint hearings with the House

Committee on International Relations' Subcommittee on African Affairs to examine the current crisis situation in Rwanda and Burundi, ... Foreign Relations 19950405 GPO: Committee concluded oversight hearings to review activities of the Government Printing Office, focusing on

cost savings and new information services,

... Printing 19950606 Hong Kong: Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs concluded hearings to examine United States' interests in the

future economic and political stability of Hong Kong after it reverts to the

jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China on July 1, 1997, ... Foreign Relations 19950606

These hearings should be available to the American public. Why they are not is a question our elected representatives should be

asked to answer. Does the same sad business of unprinted

hearings exist in other Congresses? Very

probably. An examination of the Daily Digest

for 1993 has been begun which will provide

further information on the matter.

Conventional Weapons Treaty: Committee

concluded hearings on the Convention on

118
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Training Non-Documents Staff to Do Documents

Reference

Cynthia league

Michigan State University

East Lansing, Mi

Training non-documents staff to do documents

reference has been a topic of interest to me for quite some time. I have heard for years that if documents and general reference share a desk, no one will answer documents questions: patrons will be told to come back when the documents specialist is available.

If documents has a separate reference desk, reference will be done well but no one at the reference desk will think to send patrons to you.

Either way you lose. Or rather, the patrons and the documents collection lose. The answer is obvious: let's train them about documents. This will fix everything.

Well, maybe not. You give a training session and no one comes. Or everyone comes and

nods at what you say but nothing on the desk

changes. Pretty soon everyone's interest flags and you're right back where you started.

I believe that Michigan State University (MSU)

has one of the more successful combined

desks that I'm aware of, and I believe that it is due in large part to our training efforts. I'm going to talk about those efforts today. However, our situation is unique, and our

efforts grew out of historical accidents that probably won't be repeated elsewhere. I find

that when I attend "how we done it good"

talks like this, a part of my mind is busy

explaining why someone else's solution won't work at my own institution. So after I talk about MSU, I'm going to ask you

to break up into small groups of five or six people. Each group is going to talk about a particular subset of training issues. Because

there are so many of us, there will probably be

several small groups talking about each issue.

I hope that these groups will be able to come

up with variations on the programs that have worked for MSU, and that we may together be

able to come up with a broader outline of methods for training non-documents staff to do

documents reference. Michigan State University

MSU has a large Government documents

collection, including a Federal collection which has ranged from 80-90 percent

selective, a Canadian depository collection, a Michigan depository collection, and a very

large collection of documents of inter- governmental organizations ranging from the UN and its subsidiary bodies to regional organizations. Reference for these collections was provided at a separate reference desk until the late 1980's when it became necessary for

staffing reasons to combine the documents

reference desk with the Social Sciences and

Humanities (SSH) reference desk on the same

floor.

At first the two functions were separate although they took place at the same desk. One person sat on the documents side of the

119
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

desk and answered documents questions; another sat on the SSH side and answered

social science questions.

This did not prove workable; there just weren't enough documents personnel to cover all the desk hours. Furthermore, as soon as people

started trading desk hours the balance was lost.

Here's where somethtng unexpected occurred:

the demand for documents was so very high

that the non-documents reference staff were

forced to learn how to provide documents

reference in order to survive. MSU patrons are wild about statistics, and we all know who

produces the bulk of the commonly used stats. At one point our desk statistics showed that 85

percent of questions asked at the GD/SSHR

desk involved Government documents.

There was no formal training, however; the SSHR staff picked things up on the fly or asked

for individual instruction on a particular subject. Some folks were more diligent than

others.

In 1 993 it was decided that the general reference desk on the first floor would be

closed, leaving only an information and

referral center (l/R). The general reference staff and their collection would be divided between

the two advanced desks: Science and GD/SSHR.

As the time for this change grew closer, we in GD/SSHR grew concerned - the change was

going to happen and yet no arrangements had been made for training. Several of us decided

to try and develop a desk training manual. The only notes that seem to remain from this group are two dated four days apart. The first

is of a meeting of unit and departmental heads;

goals and ambitions are lofty, language is vague. Nothing mentioned at this meeting

ever came to pass. The second meeting was

attended by a handful of front line reference

staff and outlined a prosaic plan:

We agreed that self-paced, written training modules would be the best approach to training so many in so little time. Debbi

will consult with Loretta to get her OK for

this approach.

If approved, we will provide a suggested

format: introduction or overview, if necessary; list of major sources with a

description, including hints, tricks, limitations, etc.; 4 or 5 questions which

will require using the sources. Alreadyprepared handouts can be used, but

lengthy ones could be edited for conciseness, and questions must be added.

Sources could be listed in order of importance or most important highlighted, so in a pinch a person could hit only the most important and go back to others later. The name and phone number of the resource person should be listed for questions or feedback. We will send the form to staff asking them

to prepare modules in their subject areas. We will request them back by a certain date (as yet to be determined), but will require a list from them immediately of the subject areas they are going to do. Then we will have time to see if there are gaps

that need to be filled. The modules will be put into notebooks. We discussed different color paper or

sections for prioritizing them in some way

- a "you must do these before you can be on the desk" section. We decided we

should survey staff for "what everyone

should know" lists, from which we can compile a priorities list. We also discussed general things everyone

should know, such as downloading from CDs, how to use the Government

Documents shelflist, SilverPlatter syntax,

etc. Also things that might be

standardized, such as all desks having a

stacks map of their areas, lists of catch names for the uninitiated, etc. 5/23/93

120
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

So the basic plan was in place: have desk staff prepare training modules in their area of

expertise, including questions and their answers. Distribute these to those l/R staff members who would be joining the department. As we thought about this, we realized that the

l/R people would need to train GD/SSHR staff about their resources (esp. biography) and that

this was also a perfect opportunity for GD/SSHR staff to train and retrain each other. The final list of topics is: Desk Training Notebook Modules (1993)

Abbreviations American History Anthropology and Folklore ATL (American Thought and Language)

Biography Sources

Business

Citation Indexes *Congressional Materials Education

Ethnic Studies *Federal Regulations

*European Communities Legislation *EC Citations General History

Military and Naval History Prism Psychology

Public Policy Reviews and Criticism

SilverPlatter Sources for Statistics *United Nations

*U.S. Population Census Women's Studies *Gov Docs Call Numbers *Gov Docs Reference Overview *Gov Docs Shelflist Basics Here are some samples of the documents

training that we offered:

[Rather than reproduce these here, I've put

several on the GODORT handout exchange

Web site.]

I believe that these training efforts worked for several reasons:

1 . Modules were discreet; could be done at own pace.

2. Most topics were well-chosen.

3. Handouts gave step-by-step guidance; could be referred to later.

4. No loss of face was involved; people could

learn what they were supposed to have

already known without embarrassment.

5. We were all motivated to learn fast to prepare for the shift. The notebook containing these modules has been very helpful. A copy is kept at the

reference desk so it can be referred to if necessary. Copies are given to new staff members. Of course the modules become

outdated; many were updated in 1995 or 1996. However, the notebook topics are all pretty

basic, and it began to seem that there ought to be a way to cover more specific topics. Second Hour Sessions Most Friday mornings there is a meeting of those who serve on the GD/SSHR desk. At

various times these meetings have involved

training sessions, but it was a hit or miss affair. A year ago we decided to make a concerted

effort to hold regular training during the second hour of these meetings. Desk staff were asked to suggest topics for possible training, and were also asked to develop a training topic in their subject area. The newly formed training committee then drew up a schedule of topics and trainers.

121
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

They added to the list of topics, prodded

people to choose a subject, and set up a Web

site to distribute the information. [OVERHEAD: Web page topics] As you can see, topics really run the gamut. What you can't tell is that the presenters are

often people who are NOT specialists in that particular area. We've found that sometimes a humanities librarian may have a better grasp of the problems in providing census reference than someone who has worked extensively with the census for years.

For this and other reasons, we have not made

these Web pages public, though we do

occasionally point a patron to them. Note that there are comments in here that are

useful for staff but definitely not for the public. As with the books, one of the big plusses of

this system is that there is something to which you can refer back later. Where we are now: we need to keep training topics vital. We believe that training has to be

regular or it will cease to occur. At the same

time it has to be useful or people will skip it. Best plan at the moment: a suggestion box at the desk so you can toss in a topic when it's fresh.

I hope this has been helpful; clearly there are many other approaches but this has worked

well for us so far.

122
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Access to EPA^s Information: An Update

]onda Byrd

Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, DC

"Increasing the flow of information to cities, communities, and private citizens-giving you

the tools to improve your quality of life as you

see fit-is a very important part of our

administrations's commitment to make

environmental and public health protection for everyone. "-Carol Browner VVWW.EPA.GOV

• Contains over 100,000 html pages

• Receives over 27,000,000 hits per month

• Organized to provide various access points User Categories

Topics

Search Browse

Current Projects and Initiatives to Improve

EPA's Web site

• Cataloging the Web by creating metadata

records and conducting a Web inventory

• Developing an environmental thesaurus

• Developing reading rooms on various

topics

• Redesign of the home page

• Migrate current Online Library System

(OLS) to a Web-based system

• Environmental Monitoring for Public Access and Community Tracking

(EMPACT)

• Center for Environmental Information and

Statistics (CEIS)

• Enhanced data quality and integration, and development of data standards

• Establishment of an Agency-wide Task

Force to review the content of existing EPA

Internet information products and make

recommendations for their revision as needed

• Task Force ensures that information on

EPA's Web site meets the customer needs

• Information is current, appropriate, and

approved

• Design standards and Internet guidelines

are followed

• Good Web practices are followed Access to Publications

• On the Web

> National Center for Environmental

Publications and Information (NCEPI) > National Environmental Publications Information System (NEPIS) Agency Initiatives to Improve Public Access > Publications by Program Office

• Reinventing Environmental Information

123
Proceedings — 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

Traditional Access Mechanisms

• National Center for Environmental

Publications and Information (NCEPI)

• EPA Libraries

• Federal Depository Library Program

• FOIA

• NTIS

In Conclusion We have been emphasizing electronic access

to information, BUT we are not abandoning

our traditional methods. In fact, if we do a good job electronically it will help us to do a

better job in providing information through

traditional mechanisms.

124
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

U.S. Congressional Serial Set

Virginia Saunders

U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, DC

I trust that many of you are in some way

familiar with the United States Congressional

Serial Set, or at least have heard of it. The

United States Congressional Serial Set is considered a "must" for a law library or any

library which is frequented by law students or

legal advisers.

Basically, the United States Congressional

Serial Set, as it is known today, is comprised of the numbered Senate and House Documents

and Senate and House Reports which are bound by Session of Congress. The Senate

Executive Documents and Senate Executive Reports were also included in the Serial Set at the direction of the Joint Committee on

Printing in 1979, beginning with the 96th Congress. Since that time, the Senate

Executive Documents, which were previously

alphabetically lettered, became Senate Treaty Documents in 1981, beginning with the 97th Congress, and they are now numbered. All of the above series begin with Number 1 at the beginning of the Congress and are numbered

consecutively from the 1st Session through the 2d Session of the Congress. Under provisions of Title 44 of the United

States Code, section 738, the Public Printer is authorized to bind a sufficient number of copies of the Senate and House Documents

and Reports and deliver them to the Superintendent of Documents for distribution

to "State libraries and other designated

depositories for their permanent files." The

Public Printer is also authorized to bind Documents and Reports in reserve volumes for the so-called posterity libraries. These libraries are the Senate and House Libraries, the Library

of Congress, the National Archives Library, and the Superintendent of Documents Library

collection which is now housed at the National Archives. The volumes are arranged and bound in the manner directed by the Joint Committee on

Printing. Each volume is assigned a Serial Number for identification purposes. The Serial Numbering Plan which we use today was

devised by Dr. John G. Ames, who was at one

time in charge of the Documents Division of the Interior Department. It began with the 1st Session of the 1 5th Congress in 1817, and the numbers have run consecutively ever since

that time. The material issued for the first 14 Congresses by both Houses of Congress was merely a

series of folio documents to which no numbers

or other distinctive symbol of identification was affixed. Therefore, it was not possible to adopt them into the Serial Numbering Plan. However, in order to make them compatible

with the present numbering system, they have been assigned a separate set of numbers

preceded by a zero. As many of you perhaps

know, this material is known as The American

State Papers. The Serial Numbering Plan has proved to be an orderly and convenient manner by which to identify and preserve for posterity the vast number of individual Documents and Reports issued by the United

States Congress.

For 1 66 years the bound volumes of Documents and Reports had no official title. They were known only by various popular

titles such as:

125
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

• the Congressional Set or Congressional

Series, because the volumes are made up

of Congressional material;

• the Sheep Set, because at one time the volumes were bound in beautiful sheep

leather, which unfortunately did not withstand the ravages of time unless it was

specially treated periodically (this wording was used through the 59th Congress, which ended March 1907);

• the Serial Number Set, because the volumes are identified by a serial number

which is assigned to and appears at the top

of the spine of each volume in the Set.

Finally, in 1981, beginning with the 97th

Congress, the volumes were given the official

title of United States Congressional Serial Set. New stamping and new title pages were

designed to indicate this official title.

I might add here that prior to the enactment of the Printing Act of 1 895, the Documents

Division was under the Department of the

Interior. With the enactment of the Printing Act of 1 895, the functions were transferred to the Government Printing Office, where they remain to this day.

For some time now, only the reports of Congressional Committees have been included

in the Congressional Serial Set. These reports deal with proposed legislation and contain

findings on matters under investigation. Sometimes the reports do contain excerpts from testimony given before Congressional

Committees, but normally this material is printed in separate form as hearings. Under

provisions of Title 44, Hearings can only be

printed as Congressional Numbered

Documents when specifically ordered by

Congress. The documents include all other

material ordered printed by both Houses of Congress. This material once included many

reports of executive departments and agencies. Some of these reports were submitted in

accordance with Federal law, while some

resulted from resolutions requesting

information from executive officers. Some

were published in the series merely because at one time a specified number of each document printed was made available for distribution by Members of Congress. However, in an effort to reduce costs, and where there is no definite statutory authority to be complied with, this practice has been

discontinued. Congressional printing has been

drastically reduced.

At one time such departmental publications as the Labor Statistics Bureau Bulletins, the Geological Survey Bulletins, the Water Supply

Papers, the Minerals Yearbook, the Agriculture Yearbook, the Statistical Abstract of the United

States, the Pocket Data Book, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United

States, American Ethnology Bureau Bulletins, Foreign Relations Papers, and annual reports of many of the Government agencies were all printed as numbered Congressional Documents and included in the Congressional

Serial Set. Foreign Relations Papers were

assigned a Document Number and bound in the Serial Set from 1861 through 1957. The

Senate and House Journals were also bound as

part of the Set. This practice was discontinued

at the beginning of the 83d Congress, since the

statutes provided only for the binding of Senate and House Reports and Senate and House Documents in the reserve sets and the

Journals did not fall within that category.

For a time the Public Reports and the Private Reports were bound in separate volumes. There were also volumes entitled Special

Reports. These volumes contained reports on

a subject and did not accompany legislation.

Miscellaneous documents and reports are cumulated into a group approximately 2 1/2 inches in depth before being sent for binding. On occasion it has been necessary to make

volumes larger or smaller in depth for various

reasons. We feel that volumes larger than 2

1/2 inches in depth are difficult for the user to

126
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

handle when doing research. Large

publications and odd size publications are bound individually and receive their respective

titles.

Title pages were not always used in the volumes, but the present practice is to include

a title page and a table of contents in each volume containing more than one Document

or Report. The Serial Set is bound in very limited quantity. This is why it is so difficult to replace a lost or missing volume.

Prior to the 96th Congress, which began in January 1979, the complete Congressional

Serial Set was not sent to depository libraries and International Exchange libraries. Only 22

copies of the complete Serial Set were bound.

This edition was bound in a more elaborate binding and was, and is, an impressive looking

set of books. It was also expensive to produce

because the gold stamping and colored ink

labels on the spine were all hand work. The

copies were distributed to the so-called

posterity libraries, which, as I mentioned

earlier, are the Senate and House Libraries, the

Library of Congress, the National Archives

Library, and the Superintendent of Documents

Library collection, which is now housed at the National Archives. The edition which the depository and

International Exchange libraries received contained only publications of which Congress was the author. This edition was bound in a very plain binding, with black ink stamping, which was less expensive to produce.

Departmental publications which originated In the various departments, bureaus, and

independent establishments of the Government were sent to depositories in the binding used by the agency issuing them,

provided that prior to printing, the library had

selected the series governing their distribution.

All Congressional material is printed on what we call a 5-digit jacket, such as (55-213). Most

of the Congressional material is printed in house, since the main purpose of establishing the Government Printing Office was to print

for Congress. A star preceding a 5-digit jacket number is a symbol used by the Government Printing Office to indicate a corrected print. It is commonly referred to as a star print and takes precedence over the original print of a Report

or Document. Likewise, a double star print takes precedence over a single star print. Whenever a star print is printed, that print is bound into the Congressional Serial Set. Much has been done through the years to reduce the cost of the Congressional Serial Set.

In 1979 the Congressional Serial Set Committee was established as an advisory committee to the joint Committee on Printing. The Serial Set Committee was composed of representatives from the various major user

libraries of the Serial Set. The objectives of the Committee were to improve the physical makeup of the Congressional Serial Set, to reduce the production cost of the Set, and to provide better access to material contained in the Set.

In an effort to reduce the cost of producing the Congressional Serial Set and beginning with

the 96th Congress in January 1979, the special binding for the posterity edition of the Set was

discontinued and the ruled border on the cover of all the volumes was also eventually

eliminated. Only one edition of the Congressional Serial Set is now bound.

Depository and International Exchange

Libraries receive the same edition as the

posterity libraries. Also beginning with the 96th Congress in 1979, all Reports, both Senate and House, whether they are public or

private, and all Documents are arranged and bound in numerical sequence, making it easier

for the user. Very little departmental material

is now submitted for printing as a Congressional Document and printed in both Document and Departmental editions.

127
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

During the 1st Session of the 100th Congress

in 1987, background material on the

Iran-Contra Investigation was submitted for printing both as a numbered Senate Report and

a numbered House Report. The Senate

material consisted of 35 volumes and the House material consisted of 30 volumes which were duplicative. I sent a recommendation to the Joint Committee on Printing suggesting that only the Senate material actually be bound as

part of the Serial Set. 4-also recommended that the House material be assigned Serial Numbers in order to include it in the Serial

Set, and that it be cross-referenced to the Senate volumes. The Joint Committee adopted

my recommendation thus saving over half a million dollars.

In order to further reduce the cost of preparation of the Congressional Serial Set, and because many libraries were having space

problems, the Serial Set Committee recommended that the Set be offered to depository libraries and International Exchange

libraries in microfiche format as well as the bound format beginning with the 96th

Congress. To provide flexibility in filing and to increase the usability of the microfiche set, only one Document or Report would be put on a piece

offiche. Also, Documents and Reports would

be filmed as soon as they were issued and sent

to those libraries that chose to receive the microfiche. In order to turn this myriad of microfiche into the microfiche edition of the United States Congressional Serial Set, dividers and a single fiche containing the title page

and/or table of contents for each volume is provided at the end of the Congress. Prior to offering the Serial Set in microfiche our total binding count was nearing 1000 copies. By

offering the Set in microfiche our total binding count was reduced by half. Another recommendation of the Serial Set Committee was that the Numerical List and

Schedule of Volumes, which is one of the

principal finding aids for material bound in the

Congressional Serial Set, should be combined

with the Monthly Catalog of U.S. Government

Publications. The consensus of opinion was

that the volumes of the Serial Set should have

full cataloging in the Monthly Catalog. As a

result of this recommendation, the Joint Committee on Printing directed the Government Printing Office to combine the Numerical List and Schedule of Volumes and

the Monthly Catalog, beginning with the 97th

Congress. The Numerical List lists numerically, with a

brief title, all of the Senate and House Documents and Reports issued during a Session of Congress. It also indicates the

specific volume of the Congressional Serial Set

in which each Document and Report is bound. No alphabetical or subject indexing is contained in this publication. The Schedule of Volumes lists numerically, by

Serial Number, each volume of the Congressional Serial Set as well as the contents

of each volume. The Schedule of Volumes is usually planned at the beginning of a new

Session of Congress and it is compiled as the Session of Congress progresses. All documents

authorized to be printed during the Session must be submitted for printing or accounted

for before the Schedule can be completed. A new publication entitled Monthly

Catalog-United States Congressional Serial Set Supplement came off the press in March 1 985.

It indexed all of the Documents and Reports of the 97th Congress that were bound in the

Serial Set and included a List of the Serial Set Volumes. Three-fourths of the publication

consisted of various indices and the Numerical

Listing of Documents and Reports was omitted, much to the dismay of the users. Based on user response, the Serial Set Committee was asked to meet again to review

this new publication and to make further recommendations for changes in the 98th Congress Catalog.

128
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

After much deliberation the Serial Set Committee made the following recommendations:

• That the publication should be

independent from the Monthly Catalog of U.S. Government Publications.

• That the title should be changed to United

States Congressional Serial Set Catalog: Numerical Lists and Schedule of Volumes

to more accurately reflect the purpose and

contents of the Catalog.

• That the Numerical Listing and the Schedule of Serial Set Volumes should be a permanent part of the Catalog.

• That the Schedule of Serial Set Volumes

should be published in Administrative Notes in preliminary form as soon as possible at the end of the Congress, prior

to being printed in the Catalog.

Thus, the present publication entitled United

States Congressional Serial Set Catalog evolved and was issued, indexing Congressional Serial Set material for the 98th Congress.

Libraries who have selected the bound Serial Set should have also selected Item 0557-A or 055 7-B to receive the Serial Set Catalog in either paper or microfiche.

It is not possible to publish the Congressional

Serial Set Catalog immediately following the

sine die adjournment of a Congress, as there

are still many loose ends to be pulled together. However, the Catalog will be issued for each Congress in as timely a manner as relative circumstances will permit. The Congressional Serial Set contains comprehensive and detailed information on a wide range of subjects. It is a useful reference source for genealogical and biographical

research.

The Congressional Printing Management

Division of the Government Printing Office is now responsible for the preparation of the United States Congressional Serial Set. Prior to October 1983, the responsibility was under

the Superintendent of Documents. The documents which comprise the historic United States Congressional Serial Set are

literally the heritage of our Nation. The Serial Set will always be a valuable reference tool for determining the legislative intent of the statutes

after their enactment by Congress.

In this day of electronic technology, I see a real need for continuing input from librarians and

historians regarding the preservation of

historical documents. The Government

Printing Office appreciates your continued

input on this important matter.

This is the end of my presentation on the Congressional Serial Set. I trust that I have

enlightened you as to its beginning and to its evolvement through the years.

129
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

Definitions of Material Contained in the U.S. Congressional Serial Set REPORTS - (Senate & House)

Reports of Congressional Committees

concerning proposed legislation and/or

contain findings on matters under

investigation. SENATE EXECUTIVE REPORTS*

Reports of the ComTnittee on Foreign

Relations relating to Treaties between the United States and Foreign Nations which

have been submitted to the U.S. Senate for

ratification, or are reports of various Senate Committees regarding nomination of individuals. SENATE EXECUTIVE DOCUMENTS

(Lettered) - Contain the text of a Treaty as it is submitted to the U.S. Senate for

ratification by the President of the United

States. Beginning with the 97th Congress

in 1981, Executive (Lettered) Documents became known as Treaty Documents, and

they are now numbered instead of lettered alphabetically. SENATE TREATY DOCUMENTS

Contain the text of a Treaty as it is submitted to the U.S. Senate for ratification by the President of the United States. Numbered consecutively from the 1st Session through the 2d Session of a Congress. Prior to the 97th Congress known as Executive (Lettered) Documents,

and identified by letters of the alphabet.

DOCUMENTS - (Senate & House)

Contain various other materials ordered

printed by both Houses of Congress. Documents can include reports of Executive Departments and Agencies, some of which

are submitted in accordance with Federal

law, then later are ordered printed as Documents. Sometimes, Committee Prints are ordered printed as Documents also, if the information they contain is in demand. Documents have a larger distribution than Committee Prints.

* NOTE:

Senate Executive Reports, Senate Executive

(Lettered) Documents, and Senate Treaty Documents are synonymous to the U.S. Senate only since all Treaties must be

ratified by the Senate and all nominations must be confirmed by the Senate.

All of the above numbered Documents

and Reports begin with No. I at the beginning of the Congress and they are numbered consecutively from the 1st Session through the 2d Session of a Congress.

130
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

U.S. Congressional Serial Set:

Its History and Future

Robin Haun-Mohamed

U.S. Government Printing Office Wasliington, DC

In September 1997, Congress directed GPO to discontinue distribution of the bound U.S. Congressional Serial Set to all depositories, except the regional libraries, and one library in each state without a regional library. This reduced the distribution counts for the bound

Serial Set from over 400 libraries to only 62

libraries, plus the State Libraries, and 14

International Exchange Service (lES) libraries. We are still distributing copies of the bound

Serial Set to all libraries profiled to receive them through the 104th Congress. All libraries selecting to receive the slip, or initial distribution of House and Senate Documents

and Reports will continue to receive them as they are produced.

GPO was directed by Congress to distribute the Serial Set title pages and/or table of contents pages to those libraries wishing to use

the slip opinions to bind their own Serial Set volumes. The most recent item selection survey included an item number for the title pages, and 325 libraries responded to the survey to receive these pages. The future of the U.S. Congressional Serial Set continues to be discussed within the depository library community, and among

many others in the history community.

Although the historical past of the Serial Set is a large and important topic, as evidenced by

Virginia's discussion, future plans for the Bound U.S. Congressional Serial Set are still in the developmental process. At this time. House and Senate Documents and Reports that are submitted to GPO in electronic format are

being loaded onto the GPO Access server. Some Documents and Reports are also being scanned for loading onto GPO Access when

an electronic file has not been sent and the

publication is not too large or too graphically

intense for scanning. You can access the

available online Documents and Reports on GPO Access at <www.access.gpo.gov/

congress/index. html >

.

There are several technical issues to overcome

before a complete, useful and cost-effective CD-ROM Serial Set can be produced. The JCP

has directed GPO to "work with the Secretary

of the Senate and the Clerk of the House, as well as the ongoing SGML working group, to

facilitate Congress' maximum utilization of electronic creation and transfer of information. Such efforts will make possible a complete

electronic version of the Congressional Serial Set in the near future." At this time a CD-ROM

version of the House and Senate Documents

and Reports is not available.

For the first time, the Congressional Serial Set

will be available through the Superintendent of Documents Sales Program at a cost of $1 5,400

for the volumes of the 1 05th Congress. Only

about 25 libraries have sent a letter of intent, thus the number of copies available for sale

will be quite low. Those libraries interested in purchasing the Bound Congressional Serial Set should contact Alan Ptak, Chief, Sales Management Division, at (202) 512-1709 as soon as possible.

131
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

As evidenced by your attendance at this presentation, the Congressional Serial Set continues to be of interest to librarians, historians, and those wishing to preserve access to the source documents of our nation. Please continue to relay your needs and

concerns for the future of the Serial Set to GPO. Your recommendations may have a real impact on the development of an electronic format appropriate to provide the long term

access that is avaiiabievia the distribution of the bound paper volumes.

132
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Web-Based Library Instruction for Government

Documents

Stephen Allan Patrick

East Tennessee State University Johnson City, TN

Depository librarians are ciiarged witii mal<ing

their collections more accessible to different audiences in a variety of ways. One of tlie avenues available to academic librarians is through library instruction, either basic or

specialized. With the advent of the Internet and other electronic means, Web-based library instruction is becoming more prevalent and

can be used in multiple settings. While

depository librarians tend to instruct users in a one-on-one setting, being able to reach larger groups or entire classes at a time is highly

desirable.

For those of us who have participated in library instruction at our respective institutions, there are a variety of challenges which prevail and serve as deterrents to overall learning. These basic challenges include the time of day, food or caffeine deprivation, sleep deprivation, the lure of different forms of entertainment, or the lack of teaching faculty present during the

instruction session to name a few. With the advent of electronic resources, various student or user needs have been

determined to be most important. Among

these basic needs are the ability to define sound search strategies, how to select and use

the multitude of search engines available, how

to evaluate electronic sources for appropriateness and quality information, and how to cite the electronic sources selected. Many librarians have come to realize that there

are definite student or user benefits to Webbased library instruction. Web-based

instruction can accommodate different learning styles and abilities of students and

allow for unlimited drill and practice of important materials or resources. This form of

instruction also allows greater flexibility for students who are self-directed or motivated, as well as provides a variety of resources to distance learners or users beside those who

found your library's Web site serendipitously. There are also a variety of librarian or faculty benefits to Web-based instruction. One of these benefits includes better facilitation of resource management. We all understand the importance of current information and most

resources can be updated more frequently

electronically. Instructors have easier access to information during Web-instruction sessions and they don't have to lug around book trucks loaded with potential resources. Cost-saving

factors are in place in many institutions and Web-based instruction can help reduce

internal/external printing and copying

handouts which become outdated the moment

they are done. Another benefit of Web-based instruction is that it can allow instructors to cover additional or more appropriate materials in less time, as well as allow for flexibility during an

instruction session to go off on tangents and

explore other possibilities. However, one of the greatest benefits to instruction, if pursued

or marketed appropriately, is that it can

increase collaboration between librarians and

teaching faculty in providing relevant

133
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

bibliographic and electronic resources for students. Of course, there can be a downside to this type of activity as well, and that includes increased expectations of students, users or

faculty alike. Instruction Web pages can also increase the workload of already overburdened librarians and staff, as well as create a false sense of security when providing

well-meaning and additional support for faculty. There are a variety of primary objectives which

can be derived from Web-based instruction. Web pages can sen^e as an effective instruction

tool. Personal notes can be tracked for future

sessions, many of which may become Web

pages in their own right. Resources, such as

syllabi, class assignments and selected

readings, provided by teaching faculty can enhance the library instruction Web page or, if provided by faculty, can serve as links to

library Web pages. The key rule to good Web page design used

for library instruction is to keep it simple. A

lot of graphics are not necessary. It's the information that's most important. However, if you use a lot of graphics, remember to include

a text version for those who don't have access

to high-powered PC's. Also use bold font if your library uses a projector for presentations. One should also not use anything smaller than

font size = 3 if projecting images on a screen. This should allow a greater number of students

to see the information. When preparing Web pages for library instruction try to include several basic features. Standard links should be made to a listing of search engines, a variety of electronic evaluation tools <http://www.etsu.edu/

library/eval-www.htm >, and examples on

citing Web resources <http://www.etsu.edu/

library/citing.htm> . Your pages should also include a variety of both print and electronic bibliographic resources owned or accessed by

your library.

Library instruction Web pages should link a

variety of Web resources, such as other depository library home pages in your state or

region, and GPO gateways. Of course, no Web page should be without obligatory links to GPO Access < http://www.access/gpo.gov/

su_docs/>, the Federal Web Locator <www.law.vill.edu/Fed-Agency/fedwebloc.

html>, GovBot <www.business.gov/

Search_Online.html >, and the GODORT

handout exchange <www.lib.umich.edu/

libhome/Documents.center/godort/bibl.htm>

to name a few. Remember to include the URL

alongside the name of the Web site for those who need to print a hardcopy of your Web

page for future reference. Value-added information will enhance your

library instruction Web site in the eyes of your

users, besides giving you extra help or reminders to special materials found in your

collection. Suggested value-added resources may include a list of topics from useful ready

reference materials, outlines of articles from major related reference tools, specialized or customized bibliographies on hot topics, case and legislative histories.

In summary. Web-based library instruction when well-prepared: allows for:

• better organization of resources on a

variety of levels

• adds ease of use from versatility of design;

• enhances the overall learning experience

for students and instructors;

• generates constructive interaction between

teaching faculty and librarians;

• facilitates resources management; and

• increases librarian/faculty collaboration or

interaction.

134
1 998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

This presentation focused on the way the East Tennessee State University Libraries has approached the concept of library instruction

in an electronic environment and how a similar approach can be used in providing both minimal and value-added access to depository items and collections. The ETSU

Libraries home page <http://www.etsu.edu/

library/etsulibs.htm > is designed and

conceived with access and classroom

instruction as a primary objective. Their Web

pages are continually being evaluated for user- friendliness and redesigned for greater

flexibility in classroom utilization.

135
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference NTIS/GPO Electronic Image Format

Pilot Project

Sandy Schwalb

U.S. Government Printing Office Wasliington, DC

Introductions Good afternoon. I am Sandy Schwalb with the Government Printing Office (GPO). Last month I joined the staff at GPO as a permanent

employee. For 18 months prior to that, I was a temporary "expert consultant" at the agency as

part of the Electronic Transition Staff. Before coming to GPO I was with the Special

Libraries Association for 10 years and from 1975-1986 worked on Capitol Hill in the

office of a U.S. Senator. From 1990-93 I served on the Depository Library Council.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to be a

part of this panel to discuss the pilot project, on which we are all working, between GPO

and the National Technical Information

Service (NTIS).

I have been asked to serve as the moderator for the panel and as such I will introduce the other

speakers. Although Kris Vajs has never been a depository

librarian, she has spent virtually her whole

career working with documents. Her first library job was in Minneapolis Public Library's Municipal Information Library. Kris spent 19

years at the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, where she was involved

with database creation, imaging, document

delivery, and the creation of research tools. For the last 18 months, she has been at NTIS, where she is responsible for database creation and online help desk.

Linda Kennedy is Head, Government

Information and Maps Department, University

of California at Davis. She has been a documents librarian since 1971. She is past Chair of the Government Documents Round

Table of ALA and a former member of the Depository Library Council. Duncan Aldrich is Head, Business and Government Information Center, University of Nevada, Reno. He is currently a member of the Depository Library Council and spent one

year, July '96-July '97, as a member of the

Electronic Transition Staff at GPO.

The Pilot As you are no doubt aware, an Interagency Agreement (lA) was signed by GPO's

Superintendent of Documents and NTIS to establish a pilot project through which NTIS

will furnish U.S. Government information products in electronic image format to the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP). In order to assure free public access to these

products, the GPO, as the administrator of the depository program, and NTIS have agreed

that products delivered as part of the project

will be subject to the rules surrounding the use and accessibility of material in the depository program.

I hope that many of you saw the announcement on GOVDOC-L seeking

volunteers for the pilot project. Both Linda and Duncan can fill you in on more of the

details about how their institutions are going

136
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

about selecting and accessing the image files from NTIS and Kris will talk about the work

she has done to get the project up and running

at NTIS.

Kris and Linda have been working together on

the initial phase of this pilot. Now that a formal agreement is in place, GPO would like to go ahead with identifying additional

libraries. NTIS has asked that 20 libraries be added to the pilot on a phased-in basis. We

would like to include a variety of libraries in the pilot, ranging from technologically higher-end institutions to libraries that have an

interest in obtaining this information, but might not have high-tech equipment.

We have 25 volunteers at the moment.

Following this conference, I will be getting back to everyone who has expressed an

interest in being part of the project with more

details. We should be ready to choose all 20

libraries by early June. And now I would like to turn this over to Kris Vajs.

137
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference NTIS-GPO Imaging Pilot Project

Kristin M. Vajs

National Technical Information Service

Springfield, VA

The Vision The American Technology Preeminence Act

established procedures for Federal agencies to transfer unclassified information resulting from

Federally funded research and development

activities to the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). In the regulations implementing the act, NTIS proposed giving

the depository library community free access

to the agency's document image files as soon

as it was technically feasible. NTIS offered to do this in the public interest, assuming all costs associated with preparing and disseminating

the image files.

This vision was reiterated in greater detail in GPO's 1 996 Study to Identify Measures

Necessary for a Successful Transition to a More

Electronic Federal Depository Library Program.

In a document submitted to the working

group, NTIS offered to provide depository

libraries with access to its collection of documents in electronic format at no charge,

as often as needed, and without time

limitations. Depository libraries were only asked not to release the document image files outside the library or to allow the files to be

used for commercial purposes. No restrictions were placed on the use or redissemination of printed documents. The proposal also suggested that a group of 20 depository

libraries test the feasibility of the concept. The Vision Becomes Possible

In the fall of 1996 important developments

occurred which enabled us to begin

implementing the vision.

1. Electronic Ordering via the Web

NTIS put into place an online ordering

capability called OrderNow Online. This Web-based service provides a mechanism

for placing and transmitting document

orders electronically, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. OrderNow Online covers documents received by NTIS during the

last 90 days.

2. Image File Availability Another factor which increased the

viability of the project was a substantial increase in the number of documents

available in electronic format. In September 1996 the Department of Energy

joined the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) in transmitting documents to NTIS in image format. At this time, NTIS

also began scanning documents in the

collection for which orders had been

received.

3. A Test Site Linda Kennedy offered the depository

library at the University of California (UC)

at Davis as the first test site. The

participation of the UC-Davis Library was

crucial because it allowed us to demonstrate the feasibility of the vision

prior to orchestrating the extensive

interagency support necessary for expanded testing. The Pre-Pilot Project

Several months of conference calls between

Linda's team at the University of California at Davis and the NTIS team followed.

138
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Meticulous planning covering both technical and policy issues was necessary before the prepilot project could begin. We sought solutions

to such problems as how NTIS would indicate which documents were available in image

format, how UC-Davis would make the documents available to users, and how an

order-taking system that was prepared to accept either credit card or deposit account numbers could be successfully adapted to this project.

At NTIS, staff in seven different offices in four

directorates were involved in either advising or working on the UC-Davis project. One of the

biggest challenges we faced was trying to link stand-alone automated processes into an

integrated system. Many of the pieces of what we were trying to do were there-we could

take an order electronically, we could create an image file, but automated links between

these processes did not exist. Human

intervention was ultimately necessary to run

the pre-pilot project. Fortunately, ongoing

development work at NTIS will transform this situation. Once the feasibility of the endeavor was

demonstrated, many people at GPO and NTIS worked to get administrative support the

project needed. NTIS wanted the pilot project

to be operated under the sponsorship of the Federal Depository Library Program. On the road to getting the interagency agreement

governing the pilot project signed, there was

consultation with the NTIS Advisory Board, the Depository Library Council, the Joint Committee on Printing, and discussions at the highest levels at GPO and NTIS. During the past year we have done more than send documents to UC-Davis: we developed

the infrastructure, technical and administrative, which now allows us to broaden participation

in the project.

Time for Another Quantum Leap

There are a number of technological and work

process developments taking place at NTIS which will substantially benefit the pilot project.

1. Increase in number of documents

available in image format The range of documents included in the

project was dramatically expanded when NTIS began scanning virtually all incoming documents in October 1997. Documents are scanned immediately after it is determined that they are unique to the collection. Cataloging and indexing follow directly afterwards. This new work process greatly increases the number of documents available through the

pilot project. We estimate that approximately

40,000 Government documents are currently

available in image format, and this number is being increased by nearly 3,000 each month.

All incoming documents in the "PB" series are now scanned, except in the few cases where

full color graphs, charts or maps preclude such

treatment. This scanning also improves the timing of NTIS document delivery functions, because it assures that documents are available

in any format, including image files, at the point when they are announced through commercial versions of the NTIS Database or through our Web site. Our capacity to deal with incoming documents

in electronic form is also being enhanced

through the development of an electronic document processing workstation. We are receiving an increasing number of requests from agencies that are interested in sending

their documents to us electronically. We have

systems currently in place to deal efficiently with large scale electronic transmissioncollections from DTIC and DOE-but our

capacity to deal with a few documents coming

from many places has been limited. Our new

workstations will allow us to retrieve, view

and catalog documents and then send them on

to a conversion workstation connected to the

139
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

document storage system. Documents

received in word processed or PDF formats

will be converted to the TIFF format before

storage as part of the NTIS electronic archives.

2. Fully Automated Delivery of Image Files The linking of our automated ordering service with the automated generation of an image file

is also imminent. In May, NTIS will launch a new service, which TTdriving the development

of tools which will also be useful for the depository library project. TDP/MIS (Technical Data Package/Material Information System) is a Web-based document ordering and delivery system. Government contractors and

manufacturers will be able to search for Department of Defense solicitations of interest and then view online the entire technical package requirements for the solicitation. The

technical package consists of industrial standards and military specifications that products provided by bidders must meet. The TDP/MIS ordering component includes a shopping cart where the user places documents while browsing the system. At checkout time, the user pays for the documents with a credit card, electronic money or a deposit account. The documents

can then be downloaded by the user immediately.

Generalizing capabilities developed for the TDP/MIS project, in the near future we hope

the pilot project will work as follows:

a) The user will identify a document

using the Technical Reports File on the NTIS Web site and submit an order

electronically. The Technical Reports

File covers NTIS document receipts over the past ten years. (By using the Technical Reports File rather than OrderNow, the number of documents

libraries have access to will increase

greatly.)

•i'

b) The ordering library will receive an e- mail message indicating that the order

has been received.

c) The ordering library will receive an e- mail message, only hours after the first message, saying that the document is ready to be picked up on the NTIS

server.

d) Participating libraries will decide whether to make documents available through a directory; transmit them

directly to the requester on their local area network; or print the document.

NTIS plans to fully automate the request

fulfillment system that will allow requests to be

submitted and filled 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Automation will expand the hours the

service is available and improve response

time, particularly for libraries in other time

zones. NTIS staff time will only be necessary

in setting up new participants or if system problems arise.

3. Safeguarding the Electronic Archives NTIS is also taking steps to safeguard its electronic archives. A tape backup is prepared

for each document that we scan. Within the next 6 weeks we will have an offsite storage

site for the backup copy. TIFF images are

currently the de facto industry standard. TIFF was also the format choice made by the CENDI agencies, an interagency information planning organization which includes DOE,

DTIC, NASA, and NTIS. However, NTIS will also have the capacity to convert documents to other formats should that prove necessary.

4. Project Communication

Over the course of the pre-pilot we have used GOVDOC-L as the primary way of keeping the Government documents community informed about our progress. NTIS is developing a Web

page geared to the interests of libraries and

information professionals. The page will

140
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

feature up-to-date information on the pilot project as well as offering a virtual tour of document processing and ordering operations. Additionally, NTIS will host a listserv for pilot project participants to facilitate the sharing of questions and information. Facilitating communication among project participants

will make it easier for selected libraries to get

started and easier to solve any problems that may arise.

Future participants will have the option of picking and choosing among several ways of running the project identified by the early

participants or of developing their own paths. Librarians will make those decisions based on

what's best for their institution, the level of technical expertise available and the amount

of time available to devote to the project. Later participants will benefit from having a peer group to assist them in getting started, as well as help from NTIS and GPO.

Conclusion

This project presents an alternative model for providing access to Government information

via the Internet. If resources are unlimited or document collections relatively small, then documents can be maintained on Web sites indefinitely. NTIS has proposed a cost

effective way of providing the depository

library community with access to a large Web

catalog of documents, the full electronic text of which can be provided quickly and in a standard format, on request.

The NTIS-GPO Imaging Pilot Project: Q&A

What types of documents

are covered by the project? Documents produced by the U.S. Federal Government which are available on the NTIS document imaging system are included in the pilot project. Most of the documents available were issued from 1 996 to date. Materials which are copyrighted or which require NTIS to pay a royalty to the document creator are not included as part of the project. NTIS-produced CD-ROMs, datafiles, audio-visual products and databases are not covered by the program. How many documents will be available to pilot participants?

Currently, we estimate that we have about 40,000 documents of the type

described above on the NTIS document imaging system. This number will grow at the rate of approximately 3,000 a month. How will institutions be

selected for participation in the pilot project?

GPO will select the institutions that will participate in the pilot project.

Are there any costs for participating? NTIS will assume all costs associated with handling the requests and

creating the image files. Participating institutions will need to absorb or charge the user for the cost of printing documents. What is the timeframe for adding libraries to the pilot project?

Three or four libraries will be added in a June-July 1998 time frame.

Additional libraries will be added when the request fulfillment process has been automated.

141
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

What are the characteristics of the image files? The average NTIS document-about 100 pages, TIFF images in a Postscript wrapper-is roughly five megabytes in size. These documents will take time

to download and space to store. Viewing online may be slow, depending

on the type of equipment a library has. Ghostscript or Ghostview is a public domain TIFF viewer that will run on most PCs.

In general terms, how will the project work?1 . The user will identify a document using the Technical Reports File on

the NTIS Web site and submit an order electronically. The Technical

Reports File covers NTIS document receipts over the past ten years.

2. The ordering library will receive an e-mail message indicating that the order has been received.

3. The ordering library will receive an e-mail message, only hours after the

first message, saying that the document is ready to be picked up on the NTIS server.

4. Participating libraries will decide whether to make documents

available through a directory; transmit them directly to the requester on

their local area network; or print the document. How may a library or a

library's clients use the documents received?

Within the library's community, patrons may view, print, or download the images. The documents may be made accessible from an institution's intranet or institutional network. The documents may not be posted on

servers accessible to persons outside the library's user community. How will the pilot project be evaluated? GPO and NTIS, with input from participating libraries, will develop an

evaluation plan. NTIS may also elect to study the impact of project

participation on sales in a given geographic area. Are there restrictions on the number of documents that can be ordered?

Participants are asked to limit their orders to 5 documents per week until the request fulfillment process has been fully automated.

What will happen at the end of the pilot project? NTIS and GPO are optimistic that the project will be successful and are hopeful that a successful outcome would result in the continuation and

expansion of the project. The interagency agreement between NTIS and GPO does not have an ending date, meaning that the project will continue

as long as the two parties to the agreement are willing to continue it.

142
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Report on a 'Tre-Pilot'' of a Project to Deliver

NTIS Electronic Image Files to a Depository

Library

Linda Kennedy

University of California, Davis

Davis, CA

Background The University of California, Davis Library is a

large research library of over two million volumes. It has been a Federal depository

library since 1953. We provide public service

for Government information, maps and

microforms at the Government Information and Maps Reference Desk. We have a strong

collection of technical report literature, used most heavily by the environmental sciences. We first became aware of the NTIS pilot project proposal through the March 29, 1996,

draft report by the Government Printing Office (GPO): Study to Identify Measures Necessary

for a Successful Transition to a More Electronic Federal Depository Library Program. I reviewed Task 9 (appendix D-1 1 of the Study)

for GODORT and the Coalition of Many

Organizations. I was intrigued by the NTIS

proposal to "provide depository libraries with

online access on demand to the electronic images of Federally funded scientific, technical and engineering publications in its collection..." I had participated in a Depository

Library Council review of the NTIS Preview

Project in 1994/95 and was interested in helping to develop a formal and quantifiable

pilot project. On April 25th of 1996, I spoke with Don

Corrigan, Deputy Director of NTIS, to obtain more information about the project. The UC

Davis Library Administration and the campus

Information Technology Department were

enthusiastic when I described the opportunity. Information Technology had just acquired a Xerox DocuTech printer and was setting up a campus intranet to handle electronic reserves and other Web printing. We responded that we would be interested in participating, and

NTIS said they would keep us in mind. As it turned out, UCD was the only library that contacted them, and we were contacted by

project manager Kris Vajs, in November of 1997 about assisting NTIS in a "pre-pilot project" to work out the bugs in the system

before NTIS embarked on a formal pilot project. Recent experience with setting up an

electronic delivery system through Kinko's

outlets indicated that some preliminary work

would be desirable. The technical obstacles

that Kris had to overcome demonstrated the value of the pre-pilot approach. The project at UC Davis has been fully operational for nine months. We successfully requested over 40 documents. We are now

entering a second phase, shifting procedures from Information Technology equipment

elsewhere on campus to a library computer

and printer.

In the first phase of the NTIS pre-pilot project, we divided our work into six major tasks.

First Task: Establish a Local Team to Address

Technical and Public Service Issues We established a local campus team, with

143
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

representatives from Government Information,

the Physical Sciences Library and our Systems

department. The representative from

Information Technology handled all of our

technical operations. Second Task: Test Delivery of Electronic Files Our first sample files, most of them AD, DE, or PB reports, were deliveTed via FTP in November of 1 996. The quality of the images

varied, depending on whether the document

had been scanned. (Old mimeographed

documents do not look much better after scanning, although the quality of the print is higher than from a microform of the same

mimeo.) NTIS receives documents

electronically that have been scanned by the agency, or are original in electronic format, and they also scan documents themselves. According to an early communication from

NTIS, the average size of the documents was

20 megabytes and at 14 kilobytes per second

transfer rate the average transmittal time is 24

min. Files are Postscript Level 1. Kris Vajs

said recently that some smaller files may be made available in PDF. We elected to convert the documents to Adobe Acrobat files for viewing and printing, because in the Postscript format the files were much too large to view or print through

standard personal computers using viewers such as Ghostscript. Adobe Acrobat downloads one page of information at a time. Standard machines used in public service now

are faster, with more RAM and disk space. Some pilot libraries may wish to experiment

with using Ghostscript to read Postscript files. Technical Requirements

Receiving files: Technical staff at Information Technology began processing the Postscript

test files with a Pentium 90 Sender with 1 28 megabytes of RAM, and a 2 gigabyte hard

drive, but the test files soon exceeded the

capacities of the machine. They then migrated

the process to a Dual Pentium Pro 200 with

512 megabytes of RAM, and a 4 gigabyte hard

drive, and the process stabilized considerably.

We received about 40 documents in this manner. After the first few, we had no

problems. In phase 2 of the project at UC

Davis, we are using a server running Windows NT 4.0, with Dual Pentium lOOMhz

processors and 128 Mb RAM and two 2- gigabyte hard disks. I asked our technical person to review the draft 1998 Recommended Specifications for Public Access Work Stations in Federal Depository

Libraries. For those specifications that were

relevant to this project, the recommendations

were adequate, except that 128 megabytes of RAM would be needed, instead of the 34-64 Mb in the draft. Viewing: To view the images, we originally used a 486 PC workstation with Adobe

Acrobat Reader and 1 6 Mb of RAM. We are

currently using Pentium workstations with 32 Mb of RAM with the Adobe Acrobat Reader.

Printing: Information Technology uses a Xerox DocuTech 61 35 for printing. For the library

user, printing an image file is a much superior process over printing from microfiche: the

printed product is much higher in quality, the

print is done as one request (rather than a separate print for each page), and the cost is less (microfiche printing is 15 cents per page, compared to 6-10 cents per page for the

printing of the image files). Prints can be tape- bound, hole-punched, or double- sided if desired. It is our intent to do more testing on

printing documents, on our library machines,

to see if we can print documents for acquisitions purposes locally on less advanced

machines.

Third Task: Develop a Mechanism for Identifying Titles Available in Electronic Format

Project participants, and those interested in ordering publications that have been received by NTIS in the most recent 90 days, use the NTIS OrderNow database. Initially, to request

144
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

some test files, we had to guess which titles might be in electronic format. Kris Vajs worked at the NTIS end to devise a mechanism

to enable the user to identify reports that were

in electronic format and to limit searches to those available in image format. NTIS added

the phrase "ADSTAR" to the order fields for an

electronic format document. The rest of the

price field indicates paper and microfiche

prices. Electronic documents cannot be

purchased as image files, but can be delivered

in that format. The price field is not

searchable, however, so the phrase "Image

format" was added to the end of the abstract in the OrderNow database. In order to limit a search to image files, you add "image ADJ

format" to the abstract box on the NTIS OrderNow search screen. The NTIS ten-year Web database, as Kris indicated, does not contain the image

availability information. When that database is reconfigured, the expectation is that those

publications will also become available for request in image format.

Fourth Task: Develop a Mechanism for Requesting Publications in Electronic Format

NTIS developed its OrderNow database to provide Web-based online ordering of priced publications in paper and microfiche. We

were able to adapt that mechanism, which I will demonstrate, using overhead projections taken from the Web screens. The OrderNow Web address is < http://chaos.fedworld.gov/ordernow/ > . We

generally go there from our technical reports home page <http://govdoc.ucdavis.edu/

Federal/techreports.html> or the UCD/NTIS

pilot project home page < http://libntc. ucdavis.edu/> . You fill out the OrderNow

search screen, placing "image ADJ format" in the abstract field box. From the search results screen, you select titles, review the abstracts, and click on "Add Item to your Order" to begin and add to your order list. When you

are ready to order, click on "Review Your

Order" which lists all of the titles and the

prices. We have always just listed the paper

format, but make sure ADSTAR is also in the

field. Then click "Express Checkout," filling out all the required information (required by

the system, so there is little you can skip). Under Payment Information, we enter our

depository library number in the NTIS Deposit Account number box. After ordering, a confirmation number is immediately

generated. We can use this number when

following up. At the NTIS end, staff identify the project requests, forwarding them to designated staff who locate the requested image files. The requested files are FTP'd to a UCD address and directory, generally within 48 hours.

Fifth Task: Develop Local Service and

Collection Development Parameters

At UC Davis, requesting NTIS image files is a mediated process. Librarians identify files for requesting through the reference process. Most NTIS queries received in reference, of course, are for specific citations. Those doing

a general subject search may not find a

relevant publication in the 90-day database. We also have not publicized the service to the

public, or integrated an OrderNow search into the routine search process. Consequently the volume of OrderNow requests is very low. It would increase significantly if one could

identify and request image files in the ten-year NTIS database. Who should have access to the service? Information vendors or "resellers" may not

request documents. We already have loan

policies in place that preclude loans to information vendors or others on behalf of a second party. Who else has access? Something to consider

is whether requests for NTIS documents

constitute an interlibrary loan. If so, only

certain categories of borrowers have access to the sen/ice. We have not considered the pilot project service to be an interlibrary loan.

145
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

However, the service is not quite the same as accessing a work over the Internet. A request has to be made, the user notified, and the file purged after use. What should be the local limits on access to

this service? At our institution, we do not have much use by local companies. That is not the case in many depositories. Should the

librarian or another staff person in a local company in your congressional district be able

to come in and request NTIS documents- documents they might otherwise have

purchased? The loss of business in this manner might become a concern to NTIS. We also need to explore collection development issues on the campus level. Should we use OrderNow for acquisitions, printing off titles for permanent retention, when we could obtain them in image format any time they are requested?

For acquisitions purposes, it would be very

helpful if OrderNow incorporated a browse

feature that permits review of titles added to the database during a specific time frame. The

demise of the printed Government Reports Announcements has eliminated the ability to see all of the new titles added to the database.

Sixth Task: Develop a Mechanism for Delivering the Information to Our Users We elected to create a Web page

<http://libntc.ucdavis.edu/NTIS_Docs/> which links to a directory listing of the titles received via FTP. We can automatically purge

the titles after a preset time.

After the titles are FTP'd to the appropriate UC

Davis directory, an automatic process runs at a specified time each day to convert newly

received Postscript files to PDF format. In the

first phase of the project, we developed a program to apply a password to each file, since the directory was accessible through the WWW from anyplace. In the second phase of the project, consistent with the NTIS/GPO

interagency agreement, we have limited access

to campus IP addresses, and no password is required. Users can simply be told to keep an eye on the directory, and no notification is required by our staff.

Initially, the project's guidelines precluded our

delivering a publication in electronic format. It could be viewed and printed, but not downloaded. The project guidelines are now

more flexible, and a user would be able to download the work. This is the advantage of making the reports available on a campus Web

site-campus users can download to their own

PC's or Macs. We verbally inform users that if they download the report, they are not allowed to put the text on a publicly available Web site. What if users do not comply? NTIS

has indicated they would discontinue a

library's participation in the project if there appeared to be abuse. Conclusion

Future tasks in the pilot project include developing a more automated system of making requests. In order to add a significant number of participants to the NTIS pilot project, NTIS will have to either dedicate

additional staff to the project, or automate the request and delivery process, which now

requires human intervention at several steps. On the institutional level, we would also like to make the requesting process more

automatic, and possibly patron-initiated. We

have also not determined how statistics would

be kept. Ideally, statistics could derive from

the request/logging process. Our working relationship with Kris Vajs has been harmonious, and she deserves a great deal of credit for her persistence in working

out the details of providing searchable

indicators of image availability, and

developing a mechanism for requesting the

items online. After hearing about the extensive development efforts for DOE and

ERIC document distribution, I am especially impressed with Kris Vajs' accomplishments.

146
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

For NTIS electronic distribution was not intended as a normal distribution channel for technical reports, and is not a revenue- producing activity. Staff must be pulled away

from other projects that fund the agency. The on-demand access we have been testing

offers many possibilities for enhanced service

to users of depository libraries, and the NTIS/GPO Interagency Agreement is an

important step toward expanding access. Should electronic delivery also be an NTIS

sales option? Although paper and microfiche

are still primary forms of distribution, electronic format would be useful for a number of users, and NTIS may consider developing this option in the future. The pilot project can provide useful data for assessing

interest.

Lastly, I would like to note that the NTIS

historical and archival set of technical report

literature is a national treasure. We must

assure its survival amid sporadic attempts to abolish or reorganize the Department of Commerce, and we need to encourage NTIS to ensure the longevity of its electronic documents, including backing up electronic

files and migrating them to new formats.

147
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference Web Page Template for Government Information

Cathy N. Hartman

University of North Texas Denton, TX

Are you interested in pFoviding your library users with convenient access to government

information on the Web, but find yourself too busy to search for the perfect sites, and design

a Web page? Check out the ALA GODORT

Government Information Technology

Committee's (GITCO) Web page template, created by Cathy Hartman, University of North Texas Libraries, and Larry Schankman,

Mansfield University. To view the Template and Help pages, connect to: < http://www.library.unt.edu/gpo/template/ index.html >

.

The Web page template has sections for:

• Federal Government: General Information

• Federal Government: Legislative and

Regulatory Information

• State Information

government. Links to key sources of government information have been selected, and only stable sites were chosen in order to reduce the amount of maintenance required to keep the page current. The accompanying

Help/Readme page offers hints and tips for the novice that allow easy alteration of the Template.

Help sections included are:

• Getting Started

• Adding Local Information

• Down loading/Adding New Links and Adding Graphics

• Removing Template Sections

• Adding Requests for Comments (mailto)

• International and Foreign information

• Statistical Resources

• Additional Resources

This Web page template has been developed

to help the librarian at a small- or medium-sized library add a government

information component to its web page with

ease. With minimal alterations, this template can be added to a library's Web page to provide access to publications of all levels of

148
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference ~ Proceedings

LandView III and the CEIS Digital Library of the

State of the Environment

Brand L. Niemann

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Wasliington, DC

Introduction LandView III is an innovative public domain mapping package (Marshall, 1998) that displays EPA-regulated sites, selected 1990

Census data, TIGER/Line 1995 detailed road networks, and (JSCS schools, public

buildings and other important community

sites. The EPA databases include: air

facilities, air quality monitoring sites, Brownfield Pilots, hazardous waste facility information, hydrologic area boundaries, Superfund sites, toxic release inventory sites, and waste water discharger sites (see <http:// www.census.gov/apsd/pp98/pp.html > for the product profile from the Census Bureau). LandView delivered on the Web and CD- ROM has been credited with supporting the democratization of Government spatial databases by making them readily available

in an easy to use form (Federal Computer

Week, September 22, 1997). In fact, LandView III is the kind of "societal CIS that

is easy, fast, relevant, affordable, and

accessible" that the CIS industry is moving

towards (Dangermond, 1998). The 1998 Recommended Specifications for Public Access Work Stations in Federal Depository

Libraries, April 20, 1998, include LandView

III as suggested applications software. LandView has its origins in EPA's need to visualize the location of sources of pollution with respect to the surrounding community

infrastructure which is important for at least four reasons:

1 . Emergency Planning where LandView has been used by local governments to plan

for chemical emiergencies;

2. Community Right-To-Know laws where

citizens have a right to know the nature of chemical hazards in their neighborhoods;

3. Environmental Justice where EPA and

other agencies are required to insure that disadvantaged populations are not

disproportionately exposed to pollution; and

4. Risk Management Plans (RMPs) to provide offsite consequence analysis guidance required by regulations. The release of LandView III has expanded its utility by developing partnerships with other

Federal agencies to include their national

spatial databases, particularly the USGS

which has begun to use LandView III for publishing scientific geospatial databases. LandView has also been available for download for individual counties from the RTKNet (see < http://rtk.net/landview > . The

Right-To-Know Network is an independent,

non-profit organization, not part of the Environmental Protection Agency. There

have been over 40,000 downloads of LandView II and III from the Internet to date. The new 1 1 CD-ROM LandView III includes

a Guided Tour Tutorial as well as LandView

Help and Technical Documentation. EPA

149
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

also offers LandView training classes, and the manual, Every Community's Right to Know: A

Guide to Community Outreach and

Education on Environment & Health

Information, includes the use of LandView in developing so-called community profiles of environmental and health data. The LandView III installation Readme file is included in Appendix A. The New EPA Center for Environmental

Information & Statistics (CEIS)

In February 1997, EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner announced creation of the Center for Environmental Information and

Statistics (CEIS) as EPA's new one-stop source

of integrated, cross-media data and

information on environmental quality, status and trends. CEIS's customers are EPA's

national, regional, state and local audiences

for environmental information. These audiences are diverse, ranging from:

• community citizenry in search of information about environmental

conditions where they live;

• state and local Government decision makers;

• congressional staff, lobbyists, and industry consultants in search of data supporting

various positions and policies;

• scientists and academics in need of consistent environmental data of known

statistical quality. CEIS is focusing on initially providing three

tools and content vehicles on the Agency's Web site to be released August 5, 1998, namely, environmental profiles, a digital library of environmental quality, and an atlas < http://www.epa.gov/ceis >

.

The first tool that community citizens usually want and need is a paper map.

Unfortunately, the available paper maps

usually do not show the locations of the

facilities in EPA's databases. In the meantime, EPA provides electronic maps

(see "Maps on Demand" at <http://www.epa.

gov/>). However, electronic maps have

limitations in showing both large areas like complete counties and the locations of individual pollution sources at street-level. The CEIS and others are working on

delivering GIS-type functionality to electronic maps on the Web so users can zoom-in and

pan around; however, that type of GIS

functionality and others is already available on the LandView III CD-ROM which is available to the public without Internet access. A Web version of LandView III developed in support of universal access for demonstration

at the Federal Webmaster's Workshop < http://cdserver.er.usgs.gov/fedweb97.htm >

delivers electronic maps for selected communities showing the locations of

facilities in EPA's databases < http://cdserver. er.usgs.gov/ceisprof.htm > . It will be noted

that most maps show a high degree of overplotting (clustering of source locations)

that makes it impossible to distinguish the

individual sources; however, this overplotting

is useful in showing the degree of geographic

coincidence in pollution source locations. A

list of the individual facilities in the LandView

lll-EPA databases is also provided. The steps followed in creating these maps are provided

so community citizens can acquire the LandView III CD-ROM and repeat these steps and zoom-in and pan around to see the

locations of individual pollution sources in relationship to their own neighborhoods. In addition, community citizens and others can add their own spatially reference data to LandView III and create their own electronic and paper maps!

At the recent EPA-sponsored Toxics Release

Inventory and Right-To-Know Conference, September 8-10, 1997, in Washington, DC

150
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

(see < http://www.rtk.net/triconf>, a Community Outreach Training session was

conducted by the John Snow Institute that provided techniques for improving outreach

efforts and training in how to better access

data and information to develop Community

Profiles of Environmental and Health Data

<http://cdserver.er.usgs.gov/jsiprofl.htm>

.

The training materials included a Guide

based on the Local Environmental

Information Centers (LEIC) program, conducted in Massachusetts by the John Snow institute for Environmental Health

Studies and sponsored by EPA Region 1 and

the EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and

Toxics. The Community Profile presented at this recent conference has been used to begin

the development of community profiles for the 84 largest cities selected in the EMPACT

program. The Environmental Monitoring for Public Access and Community Tracking

(EMPACT) project, an EPA initiative, is designed to improve the quantity and quality

of environmental information that is made

available to the public in an understandable manner. The Digital Library of the State of the Environment < http://cdserver.er.usgs.gov/ ceisoe.htm > is compiling the existing state of the environment reports and indexing them

(see example in Appendix B using a form of the Dublin Core) and packaging the community maps, profiles, and key documents so that community libraries can

use them on CD-ROM and the Web to help

citizens. The Environmentalist's Guide to the Public Library produced by Libraries for the Future says librarians serve as " information advocates—listening to people's needs, guiding them to useful data, and helping them to synthesize and centralize information." (Updated 1997 edition.

Libraries for the Future, New York, NY

< http ://www. I ff. o rg >

)

HUD also offers a new community mapping

and planning tool (Community 2020) in partnership with whose commercial

Maptitude product has been tailored for HUD

users to be the lowest priced, full-featured desktop mapping (GIS) software on the market. Caliper Corporation has added

hundreds of macros that make map creation easy for novice users of GIS software. The Community 2020 Data Library includes:

• U.S. Streets and Highways,

• Cities, Towns, States and Counties,

• Census Tracts and Block Groups,

• Congressional Districts,

• 5-Digit ZIP Codes,

• MSAs, ADIs, and DMAs,

• Low- and Moderate-Income Areas,

• Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities,

• Detailed Census Demographic Data,

• HUD Program Data for Urban and Rural Areas, and

• Public Housing Data.

Version 2.0 of Community 2020 will be

released soon with additional databases and

functionality in response to user requests. A

training manual and Discussion Forum are

available on the Web (see <http://www.hud.

gov/cpd/2020soft.html > and <http://www.

hud.gov/cpd/cpdboards/c2020dis/cpdboard. html>). The Urban Institute has created for HUD a catalogue on state and local data sources and

1 7 community mapping applications in 5

cities called Mapping Your Community

(HUD-1092-CPD, October 1997). This

excellent publication contains a description

of 42 nation-wide or urban-area databases in 6 main categories, namely,

• economy (6), • education (3), • health (5), • social services (5), • safety and security (6), • community resources and participation

(6), • housing (5), and

151
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

• environment (6). Demonstration Scripts The LandView III script from the Digitial Library's Guide to National and Community

Profiles of the State of the Environment is provided in Appendic C. This script and

results illustrate the LandView III product .

' design goals: —

1. easy-to-learn intuitive interface designed

for first-time CIS users,

2. simple enough that training classes and

conventional software support systems

are not required, and

3. does not compete with commercial

packages and software code is in the public domain and can be modified and

distributed by anyone. Some Next Steps An Interagency LandView Team is developing

a strategic plan to pursue the principal goals

of: ., . , ,

1. adding more national databases,

2. creating metadata and a clearinghouse,

3. promoting interoperability through the Open CIS Consortium, and

4. developing additional applications for educational purposes. An initial framework for LandView Distributed Geographic Information is provided at <http://cdserver.er.usgs.gov/lvonline. htm>. Some of the LandView III maintenance and development issues are:

1. including the MrSID Extension for basemap images.

2. making the Web-Connection to EPA's

EnviroFacts and other spatial database Web sites,

3. providing for import of additional formats

like shape files,

4. ongoing bug fixes and suggested

improvements, and

5. possible inclusion of LandView III on the Microsoft-USGS TerraServer < http://www.research.microsoft.com/

terraserver/>

.

Finally, some of the LandView III products

being worked on or discussed are:

• a DVD for schools,

• a G IS Starter Kit, and

• LandView III on the EPA Toxic Release

Inventory 1998 CD-ROM.

The Digital Library of the State of the Environment Digital Library is evolving to a warehouse of repurposed, value-added,

interlinked documents on the Web and as a

series of Web-connected CD-ROMs. The

Digital Library of the State of the Environment

is also enlarging its multimedia contents with video clips, large images in compressed form,

statistical analyses, and other elements that provide a decision support resource for decision makers and the public.

References

Marshall, Patrick, 1998: Public-Domain GIS

Programs, civic.com, < http://www.

civic.com/pubs/1998/january/civ-jan- review.htm >

LandView III Product Profile <http:// www.census.gov/apsd/pp98/pp.html >

GIS Maps Out Approach for 'Democratization' of Government Data,

152
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

L. Scott Tillett, Federal Computer Week,

September 22, 1997

Jack Dangermond, Vision for the Future: National CIS Architecture, 1998 ESRI Federal User Meeting, April 30, 1998 1998 Recommended Specifications for Public Access Work Stations in Federal Depository

Libraries, April 20, 1998 LandView III Guided Tour Tutorial, September 1997 (LandView ill 11 CD-ROM

set, December 1997)

Every Community's Right to Know: A Guide

to Community Outreach and Education on

Environment & Health Information, prepared

byJSI Research and Training Institute, Inc., Center for Environmental Health Studies, 44

Farnsworth St., Boston, MA 02210, 61 7-482- 9485 <http://www.jsi.com> and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Information Management Division, 401 M St., SW,

Washington, DC 20460 < http://www.epa.gov >

EPA Center for Environmental Information and Statistics, EPA 235-F-98-001, June 1998,

Office of Policy (2161), Washington, DC

20460 Community 2020 HUD Community Planning

Software, Version 2.0 Fact Sheet, May 1998 Mapping Your Community, HUD-1 092-CPD,

October 1997, available free from the Community Connections Hotline at (800) 998-9999 and ask for the Community 2020

Help Desk.

Appendix A - LandView III Readme File

Introduction to the LandView (tm) III CD- ROM, Version 1.0, October, 1997

LandView III is a desktop mapping system

that includes database extracts from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Bureau

of Census, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of Transportation, and the

Federal Emergency Management Agency. These databases are presented in a geographic context on maps that show

jurisdictional boundaries, detailed networks

of roads, rivers, and railroads, census block group and tract polygons, schools, hospitals, churches, cemeteries, airports, dams, and

other landmark features. Minimum and Recommended Configurations The minimum configuration required to run

this CD-ROM:

• PC with a 486-class processor, or

• Macintosh with a 68020 processor,

• 8MB of RAM,

• 1 0MB of free hard disk space,

• VGA color display,

• 2X CD-ROM drive,

• Windows 3.1 (for PC),

• System 7.0 (for 68K Mac),

• System 7.1 .2 (for Power Mac) To maximize performance the recommended

configuration is:

• PC with 586 or Pentium-class processor,

or

• Macintosh with PowerPC processor,

• 16 MB RAM,

• SVGA color display,

• 4X CD-ROM drive,

• Windows 95 or Windows NT (for PC),

• System 7.1 .2 or higher (for Macintosh).

153
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

Installation Instructions

Place this disc in your CD-ROM drive.

For Windows users:

1. Run the program "D:\INSTALL\WINDOWS\SETUP.EXE"

(where "D" is your CD-ROM drive letter). Indicate where to install LandView, click OK.

2. Install the MARPLOT fonts by choosing

Fonts from the Windows Control Panel, then "Install New Font" from the File menu (in Windows 3.1, press the Add

button). Then choose the directory where LandView has been installed (usually C:\LV3). The fonts MARPLOTP and MARPLOTD should appear in the font list window. Press the "Select All" button, and then the OK button.

3. LandView III is designed to run in Windows 95 and Windows NT. You can, however, run it in Windows 3.1 if you

install the 32-bit processor, called WIN32S. To install WIN32S, go to the \INSTALL\WIN32S\DISK1 directory on

the LandView CD, and run SETUP.EXE.

(Note: do not run _MSSETUP.EXE or _MSTEST.EXE). If you are running

Windows from a network file server

rather than from your local hard drive, you may need the assistance of your network administrator to install WIN32S.

For Macintosh users:

1 . Double-click the LV_PPC.sea icon in the INSTALL:POWERPC folder, or the LV_68K.sea icon in the INSTALL:MAC_68K folder, click Continue, indicate where to install LandView, and click Save.

2. Drag the following files into your System

Folder:

FOXTOOLS.MLB (must go in Extensions

subfolder) MARPFONT (must go in Fonts subfolder)

3. Restart your machine. Documentation LandView III comes with several documentation and tutorial files:

• LandView III Guided Tour (in PDF

format),

• LandView III Help (in both PDF and Windows Help file formats),

• MARPLOT user manual and technical documentation (in PDF format), and

• MARPLOT Help (in Windows Help file format). The Adobe Acrobat Reader for viewing PDF

files is included on this CD.

LandView III version 1.0 Notes The maps and data in LandView III, as in its predecessor LandView II, are divided into 10

geographic areas, each on its own CD-ROM,

plus an additional CD covering the entire United States (see below for a list of states on

each CD). The detailed networks of roads, rivers, and

railroads come from the Bureau of Census

TIGER/Line 1 995 files, and are present on CDs #1-1 0, but are absent from the national CD (#11). (Since the LandView Guided Tour

refers to the map of Prince William County, VA, that map, as well as the maps for the

District of Columbia and the State of Delaware, is included on the national CD.) The national CD has been augmented by the addition of major roads from the Department

154
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

of Transportation (refer to the Help system under "U.S. Highways" for nnore details), and

major streams and rivers from the U.S. Geological Survey 1:2 Million scale Digital Line Graph (DLG) files. The following layers were not part of LandView II, but are included in LandView

III:

• schools

• hospitals

• religious institutions

• cemeteries

• airports (including runways)

• dams

• nuclear sites • Canadian Province boundaries

• Canadian major roads and railroads

• Mexican State boundaries

• Mexican major roads and railroads

• EPA Watershed Assessement data

• EPA Ozone Non-attainment areas

• EPA Brownfields Pilot areas The Population Estimation feature now offers two methods, one that uses Block Group

Centroids (like LandView II), and another that uses Block Group Polygons, and prorates the population statistics based on the land area within the radius. Macintosh users may experience problems

doing population estimation for large radii (100 miles or greater). This is a memory

management issue that will be addressed in a future version. No such problems have been

detected in the Windows version.

State list for the 10 LandView CDs CD #1 : Connecticut, District of Columbia,

Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire,

New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont CD #2: Maryland, North Carolina, South

Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia CD #3: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and

Mississippi CD #4: Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,

Michigan, and Ohio

CD #5: Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin CD #6: Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma

CD #7: Louisiana, and Texas CD #8: Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, New

Mexico, and Utah CD #9: Idaho, Montana, Oregon,

Washington, and Wyoming

CD #10: Alaska, American Samoa,

California, Guam, Hawaii, Northern Mariana Islands, Nevada, Puerto

Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands CD #1 1 : Entire United States and territories, but with a less-detailed network of roads and rivers.

155
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

Appendix B - LandView III Script from the Guide to National and Community Profiles of the State of the Environment The steps in retrieving the selected environmental indicators and creating the maps from the LandView III CD-ROM are as follows:

1 . Start the LandView m CD-ROM.

2. From the LandView Menu, do File-Census

Data.

3. Select a State: Massachusetts, and a County: Suffolk, and Click Show on Map.

4. From the MARPLOT Menu, do List, Layer

List and make the list Hide everything but

the following:

a. Counties (Show) - Color: Black and

Line Style: Solid Heavy

b. States (Show) - Color: Black and Line

Style: Lightest .

c. Shoreline (Show) - Color: Light Blue and Line Style: Lightest

d. Water (Show) - Color: Blue and

Pattern: Fill

e. AIR_FACL (Show) - Color: Black and

Symbol: Power Plant

f. AIR_QUAL (Show) - Color: Yellow and Symbol: AQ

g. Brownfields Pilots (Range) - Color: Brown and Pattern: Cross-hatch

h. HAZ_WASTE_FACL (Show) - Color: Purple and Symbol: Barrel

i. SUPERFUND_NPL (Show) -Color: Red and Symbol: Letter S

j. TRI (Show) - Color: Dark Green and

Symbol: Chemistry Beaker

k. WASTEWATER (Show) - Color: Olive and Symbol: Water Pipe Discharge

I. Hospitals (Range) - Color: Black and

Symbol: Holy Cross m. Schools (Range) - Color: Black and

Symbol: Building with Flag

5. From the MARPLOT Menu, do View,

Legend, Show and View, Scale Bar, Show

and position the Legend and Scale to minimize covering the plotted information as much as possible. (Note: Use the zoom-in, zoom-out, and grabber

tools to get the best looking map.)

6. From the MARPLOT menu, do File, Save

as Picture, and select a file name and

either the bitmap or metafile format

options. (Note: The metafile file format

gives a smaller file size for Web sites.)

7. From the MARPLOT Menu, do List, Search, Search for Objects: select "that are inside or touched by" and select "the currently selected objects" (leave as is since the county selected is still selected); Maps to search: "maps in view (leave as

is); Layers to Search: select "multiple

layers" and click AIR_FACL, AIR_QUAL,

Brownfields Pilots, HAZ_WASTE_FACIL,

SUPERFUND_NPL, TRI, and WASTEWATER so that a total of 7 layers are selected. Click on Search.

8. In the Search Collection, click on Show

All on Map.

9. From the MARPLOT Menu, do File Export, Export (leave the other settings as they are) and select a file name and the

text file format option.

156
]998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Appendix C - Example from the Master Index

of the Digital Library of the State of the Environment

State of the Environment Australia 1996

http://www.environment.gov.au/portfolio/ dest/soe/soe96/soe96.htmi Sound Byte: An independent report presented

to the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment by the State of the Environment

Advisory Council provides a summary on the Web and how to order their comprehensive,

fully illustrated book and CD-ROM.

Summary

This is the first ever independent and comprehensive State of the Environment

Report for Australia. It links land, water, air, plants and animals, human settlements and how we value them. An independent

advisory council and seven expert groups

prepared the report. It draws on the knowledge and skills of more than 200

eminent scientists and other experts. The

report shows that Australia has a beautiful, diverse and often unique environment which

is a priceless heritage and should be a source

of pride to all Australians. Some aspects of the Australian environment are in relatively good condition by international standards. In some areas our approach to environmental management has won international recognition. In many other areas it is not

possible to decide whether our environmental management is adequate. We

urgently need better information and

understanding, which will require data

collection and research. The report also shows that Australia has some very serious environmental problems. If we are to achieve our goal of ecological sustainability, these problems need to be dealt with immediately.

This will be no small task. The problems are the cumulative consequences of population

growth and distribution, lifestyles, technologies and demands on natural

resources over the last 200 years and more. No single Government or sector is to blame

for these problems. We are all responsible. Changes are needed in Government policies and programs, corporate practices and

personal behavior. Australians are among the most environmentally aware people in the world. All sections of the community now

recognise the need to do more to tackle environmental issues. Most of the problems

identified in the report do have solutions. The report details many positive and

successful initiatives. Our actions have been

most effective where they have taken a comprehensive and systematic approach,

integrating different aspects of the overall problem. By contrast, failures tend to be

piecemeal efforts that treat symptoms rather than underlying causes. Australia has an

international responsibility to protect its rich biological diversity and its unique

environmental features such as the Great

Barrier Reef and other World Heritage Areas. We also have a national responsibility towards future generations of Australians.

Australia has a better opportunity than perhaps any other nation to protect its environment and use its natural and heritage resources sustainably. We need to do much

more if we are not to lose this opportunity.

Progress towards ecological sustainability requires recognition that human society is part of the ecological system and integration

of ecological thinking into all social and economic planning.

157
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

Table of Contents

• Executive Summary

Atmosphere

Background summary

• Key threats to sustainability Biodiversity Background summary

Key threats to sustainability

• Estuaries and the Sea Background summary

Key threats to sustainability

• Human Settlements Background summary

Key threats to sustainability

• Inland Waters Background summary

Key threats to sustainability

• Land Resources Background summary

Key threats to sustainability

• Natural and Cultural Heritage

Background summary

Key threats to sustainability

• Keywords

158
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Metatag

Metatag: META NAME = DC.title; CONTENT = Australian State of the Environment Report 1996-

Executive Summary

META NAME = EA.search CONTENT = YES META NAME = DC.creator.organisation CONTENT

META NAME = DC.creator.name CONTENT

META NAME = DC. subject SCHEME = Draft Environment Australia Thesaurus

http://www.environment.gov.au/portfolio/library/ea_thesaurus.html CONTENT = State of the Environment META NAME = DC.description CONTENT = An independent report presented to the Commonealth

Minister for the Environment by the State of the Environment Advisory Council META NAME = DC.publisherCONTENT = Environment Australia, Environment Priorities &

Coordination Group

META NAME = DC.contributor.custodian.originator CONTENT = Environment Australia, Environment Priorities & Coordination Group

META NAME = DC.contributor.custodian.contact CONTENT = META NAME = DC.contributor.custodian.email CONTENT = META NAME = DC.contributor.custodian. position CONTENT = META NAME = DC.date SCHEME = ISO 8601 CONTENT = 1 997-02-04 META NAME = DC.type CONTENT = META NAME = DC.format CONTENT = text/html META NAME = DC.identifier SCHEME = URL CONTENT = http://atlas.erin.gov.au/portfolio/dest/soe/soe96/soe96.html META NAME = DC.source.author1 CONTENT = META NAME = DC.source.author2 CONTENT = META NAME = DC.source.date CONTENT = META NAME = DC.source.title CONTENT = META NAME = DC.source.series CONTENT = META NAME = DC.source.publisher CONTENT = META NAME = DC.source.lSBN CONTENT = META NAME = DC.source.URL CONTENT = <META NAME = DC. language SCHEME = Z39. 53 CONTENT = ENG

< META NAME = DC. relation. isParentOf CONTENT = <META NAME = DC.coverage.placeName CONTENT = Australia <META NAME = DC.coverage.x.min SCHEME = DD CONTENT=112

< META NAME = DC.coverage.x.max SCHEME = DD CONTENT = 1 54 <META NAME = DC.coverage.y.min SCHEME = DD CONTENT = > <META NAME = DC.coverage.y.max SCHEME = DD CONTENT = -9 <META NAME = DC.coverage.t.min SCHEME = ISO 8601 CONTENT = < META NAME = DC.coverage.t.max SCHEME = ISO 8601 CONTENT = < META NAME = DC.rights SCHEME = URL CONTENT = "http://www.envi ronment.gov.au/general/copyright.html

Geographic Domain: Australia Keyword/ Theme: sustainable development, biodiversity, CD-ROM

159
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference The SEC Website as a Reference Source: The

EDGAR Database and Beyond

Ruth S. Pitt U.S. Securities and Excliange Commission

Wasliington, DC

Althougli tlie Popularity of

tlie Web Has Skyrocketed ... Number of Websites On Line

1,200,000^ Jun-93

I.OOO.OOO D«c-93 Jun-94

aoo.ooo Dec-94

600.000. Jun-9S

Jan-96

400,000 Jun-96 njan-97

200,000- —it Jun-97

3 3 3 3

^

byRotert

http^/itifo socorg/guesy2a(«3<iAilani«l/Hi3t!yy/HITJitniJ

...The Web Is Still aA/eivTool

The SEC's Web site: <www.sec.gov>

» Grew out of an experimental EDGAR Web

site offered by a university

• SEC's initial offering added: News ,,:( ,i , Rulemaking

Enforcement Actions SEC Information

Investor Information

Links to Related Sites Has become a means of doing SEC

business, as well as a public information resource How the SEC Website Has

Grown: Resources on the Site

• About the SEC

• Investor EducaUon

• Additional EDGAR materials

•Other sites (links)

• Small Business

• EDGAR help material

How the SEC Website Has

Grown: Use of the Site

A a> ^ o> o) = I i I i

160
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

How Is the Public Using the SEC Web site?

• Investment research Company and industry information Investment basics How to avoid scams, etc.

• Legal research

Securities-related Other matters, using company

information

• Making complaints about fraud (Complaint

Center)

• Schoolwork (from middle school-level on

up)

• Other uses as well (job search, "raw

material" for value-added company

information services, etc.) How Is the SEC Using the SEC Web site?

• Publishing

• Educating the public

• Soliciting public input on proposed rules and other matters

• Communicating with its registrants (companies, brokers, etc.)

• Researching, in much the same manner as members of the public What's Being Used on the SEC Web site

• 80 to 85% of the site's output is EDGAR

data (1 6-1 7 GB out of a typical 20-GB

weekday)

• The remainder is a mix of the other

offerings:

Investor education materials are among

the most popular ...

But use of news, rulemaking, and SEC

legal actions is also significant Some Popular Pages on the SEC Web site*

• SEC News Digest index

• Investor Education home page

• Staff Legal Bulletin No. 5 (re: Year 2000

disclosure)

• Proposed Rules index

• Employment Opportunities

• Press Releases index

• Litigation Releases index

• Concept Releases index *Does not include EDGAR searches or documentation

Using the SEC Web site for Research: A Live Demonstration, including

• EDGAR

• Other materials on the site

Future Plans for the SEC Web site

• Improved EDGAR and site searches

• Ability to download SEC paper forms in PDF (Acrobat®) format

• Expanded SRO Rulemaking section

• More SEC program (Division, Office) information

• Revised Investor Education offering WAIS Search Tips

• Use connectors! To form a two-word phrase (ADJ =

"adjacent to"): Boston ADJ Chicken To limit the search: Downes AND Accounting

161
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

• Avoid searching on overly common words

For example, don't use "Inc." or "Corp." to search for a company

For EDGAR Archives

• Use the CIK (Central Index Key) if you know it: For example, 0000065100 = Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.

• Limit your search by date or form type - or

both: 0000065100 AND 1997* AND 8-K

(gives 8-K change reports for Merrill Lynch

during 1997; date format is YYYYMMDD; note use of asterisk for wildcard) Questions & Answers

• On the SEC Web site and the current EDGAR system
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Assessment of Electronic Government

Information Products: Study Status

Woody Norton

U.S. National Commission on Libraries and information Science

Wasliington, DC

Stage I

• Objective: Define Scope & Boundaries for Research Effort (Stage II)

• Completed Sunnmer 1997

• NRC/CSTB Report Available on NCLIS home page: <http://www.nclis.gov>

Objectives: Stage 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

Chronology: 1997

October - NCLIS & GPO Finalize Task Order

Statement of Work (SOW)

December - JCP Approves SOW; NCLIS

Forwards SOW to NCES

Chronology: 1998

January - Funds Transferred from GPO to NCLIS; Funds Transferred from NCLIS to NCES; NCLIS-NCES MOU Signed

February 12 - NCES Finance & Budget

Approval Obtained

February 20 - NCES General Counsel Approval Obtained

February 26 - NCES Contract Office Received

Task Order SOW & Began Negotiation with Contractor (Westat)

April 6 - Task & Budget Proposal Received

from Contractor (Westat) May - Expected Contract Award; Contractor

Begins Work on Task Order

Project Milestones

1 . Pre-Select Products (In Process)

2. Develop Data Collection Plan

3. Refine Criteria for Product Selection

4. Identify Key Agency Contact Officials &

Conduct Meetings

5. Identify Private/Public Information Experts

as Advisors

6. Conduct Site Visits with Agency

Representatives

7. Create Baseline Inventory Products Database

163
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

8. Collect Data, Conduct Follow-Up, Enter Data into Database, etc.

9. Present Preliminary Findings

10. Prepare Final Report & Conduct Oral

Briefings

Key Issues

• Product Sample Size (Approx. 500)

• Product Quality & Validity

• Appropriate Mix of Agency Participants

• Limited Time for Assessment

• Assessment of Electronic Government

Information Products

• Short Term Agency Planning Horizon

• Varying Perspectives: Agencies, GPO,

FDLP, Users

• Focus on Facts vs. Policy

• Follow-On & Next Steps (Stage III - Conclusions & Policy Recommendations)

164
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

The Hill on the Net

Chris Casey

United States Senate Washington, DC

January 1881 The First Telephone

Installed in the United States Senate

Offlte of Senator Ediuard Kennedi) ii

±

Office of Senator Edward Keimedy

General Information

May 1994

a

Senator Edward M. Kennedy

First Member of Congress on World Wide Web

www.scnatc.gov/~kennedy/

165
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

Thomas A. Daschle Democratic Leader

"I a<(nitri;iti(r v.t)(k Gwigc Xtftchdi \m dtwicasoarMa^ntv t«3dei ovi:? liic past five vt-ats. His suuiiv anditfong

JewStrship allowed us to bfxEjsc partijatt |x>h*jcs anti bytldconscniui jt> yf(i«* tci mov* I^isIaJiofl toftt'serd Hut

ISitiKivi Siato Stnjie

ro. 1274

* Si«uM r-all-i, SI) <7I0I January 1995

Senator Tom DaschJc Home Page version 1.0

¥®in Basclii<&;

March 1998

Senator Tom Daschle Home Page version 3.0

166
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

SENATOR BREAUX'S FEEDBACK FORM

Pl»3« u*e ti» foUovic^ form lo t me vim your comrwBis « 5)io«U pk«e inclwlf yoor Jull tiMX sM MdieM, «»( c-n»il jkMjKsi » vhich I c«n Koi « wjly. If y

5 capabte veil liovsw, vera can contttci roB duecdj' via e-mail M

rim itw. ni4i un. Sufi: StrMt Mdr*xx

City

Zip Co<I»:

8 . (KverOm/e,aVi-Auif«mi

Netscape: Sen«te Ron Call Votes ^

Legislative Activiti^ Senate Roll Call Votes

Senate Roll Call Vote*

"PoB call" vo«j ttiB voles m vhich e*ch Senalof voIm •yea" or "nay" as hie (xr hej came b caSad by t1»

Cfciit, » thsl the MMKS e4 Stnsioo voiSns OB Ms* sae of Die iiwjiton (jc t«ori»a UMer Oic Coiootoaon, a lall call vote irirot t« hea if demaoJed by oM-tUih ot a quomm of Sscarorj p/raai. a mmmora of 1 1 . Thtit afore jnoYik fl» wjuls of ran call vow akua in Hw SmUe doitni; the « ijmni ContKM, ixclwlu* v«s ttfan »lay, M veS »5 roU caB voiej iDten Kn «vtwl jrior Consitwsi, Rot

call TOW Ksulte ai» compilad (himj^li thie Sen** Lagls^ire lafoimatoft S^fllemby ihe Semlfr BiflClirt ondei Ow iincixm of i}v Scdpipiy of tha 3cn9«

.

S^WIW.BpM g«tll,yff,»? THiMl TiXW- Tto reponlisB flie reconled votej fot Die cnmiuisy,

taiiv».«iit da« of Die vow (i&3»y>, «ai Rwniwi U spofea^ie. rejiiJi of iJie vo«, aflil iha a««nji*m of (tie que«oii oii vJsEh Cie vo» vu talarn. RmuIB of rail call vota an ftnerally pojW appuKlnattly one

hoBi «l*r avey sm ajuiouiicei l>y the Preniins Offictr Stiwrn KffM YBM M{.a..HW, reroitastj tj* recoilad tow i»)i»nytuleiiljysn) m06x1 itys duiSte th« ;ut veeX. iiidtratife dotg of Out voc, bill ntxmlM if apjiliaabie, imlt of thii V!i«, ud 1)!* descrtpHiMV of quamott on vMcli Il» to* vajiaWn167
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

Netscape: Senotor Joy Rockefeller — Transcript of Senator Rockereller's online that wW B! B

Tarvv 3 ^3

Online Chat with Geography Stu4«&U At Nitra High School

Ajwrit 9. 1998

SeuitDr Hcito. IftjffioMsdyeo chal Hot; come !f<t9 aHIuwl to &wtvt scJiooP So let's Jo-virluriytitieutionjQifti s^ij may haw I' 0 4o my besi, ajftd I 40 oty ovii typing -- vtinrli is swtiy C- smff, MHS HtaoSfnoior My iww is Shannon. Md-wWi met! Km. V/e «K »Wr« «»jiion3 fiom your ire)! sue

.JSeo&tDz: [ «n Jwppy to «i5vw nowi»n2 on an? 50^>rcT I tiiid«?tf)j^d ihat you tew «ji inrpreal m ^cograjthy.

Iij»tiali?y snd »p cteaars iWw 3C00 Kitis m West

Vttsinii, Stiator. AM ] sny j.DCO o( joonsiliui*

C-»UB(t 4t *nppk ettert* — vtliih iMuro rl»! 600

difitct 10%^ ai To>«is corw ows no ^hiit ostom tuiwi

that an»«nt m tXrf ecojionay Wl^t is mtewsurtg is that V? on rov a £lDh«l ©concmay, and VVosI Virpnis a Oifci to i)» rnHdiJ ol II Hns Ai» lavSt of comity Toques plwt, »rc Sure any oO»r Toyoa conipiinas iiisafio* ixmiz <o MS? We onifuBjid Omi ttey tot to

! fill W« 3 thtm <in jpiw of <tit tofrtUlt pscwK of ow I^sI

;

aoe bolisng at, I'miMllyapreTtygocd (ellt'V.; HHS Cinxnjjteojytt? Stutor. Ho, iteTt is jomt slrch. snJ I e«ri't. HHS. Are ;roil irady fai «b Mil ^luaifon.' Sciutor MoTf ttm re&dy 1 sma you ^ toad

Netscape: lewis and 0»rk in Norttt Dakota - introduction

e*ffc Fwv**'(J Rt'to^d Worn* S^WT^i Ouvth- * Loc«Vwi. ^jhUp /.Vvw £f^^tf .jov/'cJ^^tin/Vs^-if^^rHj^clir

uL iS r£ :i|

bTv#9#* PK4n< 5*«yrHi^ Stop

I

j Lewis & Clark

in

! ^ Jar fit 2)a^<>ta

Aft onlmc c^ittbitiwH j»/eH'«l*Hf In- ® Ami tlic l.ibrJiry «!'< cmgitrv-i

168
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Netscape: Congrcttionol Itesearch Service 3. A ^- ^ «l c.:* r

^f-i Htrff* SvV-iiN Ojvit tfft>>f? Fvlfit S+tur-ltg Si/*

Congressional Research Service

Full Text of CRS

Online Products

Search CRS and LOC Files

CongrcMional Staff Reference Dusk

Inteniet Resources By Topic

Library of Congress

169
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference Out of the Basement

The Internet and Document Public Services

Grace Ann York

University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Ml

Introduction One of the prized possessions in my office is an autographed copy of Chris Casey's Hill on

the Net. Although I may be tracking Congressional e-mail, Chris has actually made

it happen. For that we all owe him a debt of

gratitude. With a name like York, I often come in last. However, Sheila scheduled me last so I could

spread the good news: Government

documents and its librarians have come out of the basement. The basement refers to two things. First, many

Government documents departments have been physically located outside the mainstream of library public services. Second,

its librarians have been seen as eccentrics who

enjoy making endless SuDocs class corrections. That perception began changing

in 1 992, when we were among the first to use CD-ROMs in order to obtain Census data. Now we are considered leaders in the information age. Today I would like to take you through the

history, challenges, and decisions behind the

University of Michigan's Internet site, and the dramatic impact the Web has had on our

public services. Whether or not you maintain your own Web site, we're all facing the same

issues. My goal is that you leave here excited and encouraged about the personal role you

play both to the public and to our profession.

History

When the Documents Center's Web site celebrated its third birthday a few weeks ago, we counted at least 200 HTML pages, 200

image files, 50 frames documents, and 1000

text files. Although some of this development

happened at night, it certainly did not happen

overnight. The history dates back to 1986.

That should encourage those of you who

received Internet connections in January and

are still feeling overwhelmed. Give yourself

time. Our story begins with the Commerce

Department, which inaugurated its Economic

Bulletin Board (EBB) in 1985. John Price- Wilkin, a Documents staff member at the time, decided to download a few selected files and

place them into our departmental e-mail account for ready reference. Cass Hartnett continued the project. My only involvement

for five years was substituting when either had

the temerity to take a vacation. (As an aside, I inherited supervision of the entire project in 1992 with an, "Oh, Grace, you won't have ANY problems." But back to the story.)

In June 1991 I begged John for instructions to

transfer Census STF 1 A summaries for Michigan into the same e-mail account we

were using for the EBB. Ultimately the EBB

and revised version of the Census data formed

the basis of the library's new gopher in spring 1992.

170
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

My first venture with Congressional directories came in Spring 1993. Although my staff and I typed the lists, we depended on others for uploading to the gopher. I naively thought

Congressional fax numbers and subcommittee

assignments would remain stable for two years and saw no need for learning how to update them. Was I ever wrong! The defining moment for me personally was a UNIX workshop in February 1994, followed by permission to maintain the Government

section of our gopher. A whole new world opened because I could do it myself. The GODORT Handout Exchange was mounted

that summer, thanks to Larry Romans, and in September I experimented with the first Congressional e-mail directory. Using a combination of our own

Congressional directories, data from Project Vote Smart, and CNN's television tickertape, we posted a directory of the 104th Congress at 2 p.m. the day after the election, way before any of the commercial sites. Okay, so there were a few mistakes, both with people and

parties, but not many.

Everyone knew about the EBB, but the New

York Times blew our cover on Congressional

e-mail by listing the URL on January 6, 1995. That event really began a new era of going

public outside academia. Then in March an EPA official sent a casual e-mail message,

asking if I had ever listed political opponents

in the 104th Congress directory. I had done

that prior to the 1 994 election but removed the data in mid-January. Apparently someone

from America OnLine downloaded an early

edition, and the EPA official kept a copy for future reference. He later decided to use the

fax numbers to invite members of a subcommittee to a meeting on wetlands policy and interpreted the v. as staffers, so he placed

their names on the same fax. An article in the Washington Post claimed the EPA was illegally keeping a "hit list" and threatened jail to the

perpetrator, i.e. me. Our Web site was created

two weeks after that incident since it seemed

like a safer legal medium. Web Site Overview

Turning to the Web site, there are nine main

sections: Federal, foreign, international, Michigan, state and local Governments other than Michigan, Documents in the News, documents librarianship, political science and

statistics. The advertised entrance point is entitled Government Resources on the Web

(handout, p. 1). The quick jumps at the top go

directly to those nine main sections, but the list of quick jumps has grown as we've added

class assignment materials, site-licensed products, ad infinitum. There really is an

explanation of content if you ever get past the quick jumps. The "directory" is a four-page alphabetic

subject list of the entire Web site (handout, p.

2). The search engine was installed prior to the demise of the ULIBRARY Gopher so that the GODORT Handout Exchange and GPO

Administrative Notes could be indexed when

they were transferred to the Web. The move

to a faster sen^/er two months ago has reopened

the possibility of a stronger indexing program. Web Site Mission The mission of the Web site has always been

internal: to assist the Documents Center staff in answering the reference questions it receives and to sen^e as a platform for bibliographic

instruction. Reference Tool The reference mission is reflected in content and in many little features (handout, p. 3) Government documents are partially integrated into our library collections with the Documents Center serving as a central referral point. We have an extended Web page of Federal bibliographies because it is departmental policy to verify titles and

171
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

locations before referring anyone to a North Campus bus. Ann Arbor is home of the Inter- University Consortium for Political and Social Research; hence, 22 statistics pages. Congress

is handled in great detail because so many of our professional schools conduct lobbying

courses. On the other hand, we scarcely cover

agriculture because we depend on Michigan

State. The bullet annotations^re fairly unusual. The

purpose is to communicate information in a compact fashion to a reference staff without much time. At least that is the official reason.

Unofficially, you can see the structured gopher

influence. Had I looked at Larry Schankman's Web site before developing my own, I would

have followed his pattern.

Reference pages integrate Web links with

other formats to assist student staff working

alone on evenings and weekends. A good

example would be the call numbers for General Accounting Office paper and

microfiche reports in addition to the GPO

Access link for the Web version. The Documents Center interprets its reference

service broadly to include "whatever it takes." That's why you find so many references to non-Governmental sources, like Money

Magazine's rating of cities. The single most important reference feature is interactive Web development based on real questions. The cost-of-living Web page was

based on numerous e-mail questions. We

made a link to the Beijing Women's

Conference while the user was still on the phone. When a fax machine failed, we

temporarily uploaded the 1997 poverty

guidelines from the Federal Register to our Web site so a hospital employee could access them from her desktop. And sometimes we just have fun. When

everyone complained of stuffy heads last year,

I added a link to the pollen count, justified as a health statistic. Apparently John Downey is

allergic to mold, and I am allergic to poplar. New mortgage calculators suddenly appeared

last January, coincidental with my refinance

application. Last November I faithfully updated football scores on the JavaScript

tickertape so the Saturday desk staff would know the Rose Bowl situation.

Bibliographic Instruction A second mission of the Web site is bibliographic instruction. There are two types

of pages, generic and class-specific. Generic pages are meant for multiple classes. Examples include Legislative Histories, International Simulations, and United States Foreign Policy. There are approximately ten

class-specific pages, and often these are mix- and-match offshoots of a generic page but

contain specialized information for the course. Among them: Health Care Politics, Higher

Education Politics, and Middle East Conflicts. The class assignment pages are arranged in the order of my lecture (handout, p. 5). They

usually start with choosing a topic, proceed to subject specific details, and end with citation guides. Sources include a combination of Web, online, paper, CD, and microform,

although the emphasis is certainly on the Web.

We provide public access alternatives to site- licensed products when we know our Web

page is being used outside the University. Everything for a particular course is maintained on a single page so it can be printed as a handout, but I have been adding navigational guides such as frames indexes and quick-jump

buttons to make the pages more interactive. Since the classes are too large for hands-on

sessions, I just demonstrate concepts with a workstation and projector.

Evaluating reference Web pages is fairly easy. How many hits did we receive in proportion to complaints? Those statistics are dramatic, and

I hope to present them in a few minutes.

Evaluating instructional pages is much more

difficult, and the results are mixed.

172
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Faculty express undying gratitude for their Web pages, and most make suggestions for additional links. There are times when this has become a sticky wicket. Last year two faculty requested access to our sen/er so their teaching

assistants could update the corresponding

pages. Fortunately for me, the library administration issued an absolute "no."

In one case, I resolved the problem by

downloading the professor's bookmarks,

reformatting them in HTML, sending them to the teaching assistant with instructions, and

then linking to the bookmarks from my page. One faculty member advertised the Web page

for his class to the media without mentioning

the library. Ultimately I placed a copyright statement at the bottom and added my name

in very small letters at the top. The reaction of students has varied with the

class, individual and semester. Students in the School of Public Policy love the research version of Legislative Histories. Sophomores

find it overwhelming, the reason the

Legislative Histories Tutorial was created. Students in the Arab-Israeli Conflict class use

their Web pages exclusively and never enter

the library. Graduate students in Public Health and Education use their pages but send me e- mail or walk in if they have difficulty.

Reaction has also changed overtime. During 1996/97 students were often seen using Alta Vista rather than their Web page. Faculty complained about the lack of critical analysis

in their papers. The situation has turned 180

degrees since September 1997. Students are taking Web research seriously, asking for substantial help and analyzing the material. Web Site Policies

Policies for creating Internet sites barely

existed in April 1 995 so we made our own and

are now trying them to align them with the

library's (handout, p. 6).

Choice of Links Although we choose links based on scope,

authority, timeliness, and ease-of-use, "whatever works" remains the predominent

philosophy. We often choose two similar Web sites for the same information to guard

against a server crash. New links come from a variety of sources: GOVDOC-L, four different versions of the Scout Report, Net-Announce, colleagues,

requests from Webmasters, CRL News, the Ann Arbor News, and GODORT-Michigan's

Red Tape. Often I scan another meta-index, such as the International Documents Task

Force Web site, when upgrading a section. As

always, the best links are those uncovered

while answering a reference question or updating a class assignment page.

Duplication

We do not duplicate the work of another Web

site already in existence. I am truly grateful for LSD's directory of Federal agencies, InfoMine's

subject approach, and Uncle Sam's Reference

Shelf.

It's embarrassing when a Web page created

after ours is better, but decisions on handling

that are made on a case-by-case basis. I did not enjoy tracking subcommittee assignments

so gladly passed the mantle to Juan Cabanela and Mike Waters. The only reasons I continue

to track Congressional e-mail are my list's printability and the cooperation it is fostering between e-mail list maintainers. Commercial Web Sites

University policy prohibits links to commercial Web sites requiring access fees unless we

subscribe to them or they have free information. We do, however, repeat links to the commercial sites we purchase wherever

they are relevant. In fact, the University

Library has subscribed to so many commercial

sites this past year that they have changed the

173
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

Documents Center's image. USA Today told me in January that we qualified as a "Hot Site" but it only features "public access" Web pages. They may have missed something.

Graphics

Graphics have always been my Achilles heel. Reviewers have variously described them as wonderful, pedestrian, or cheesy. The

"cheesy" really hurt. In^ny mind, they are simply old-fashioned (handout, p. 7). The graphics project was designed to entice

users into the Web site and then surprise them

with content. Small icons were very popular

in early 1996. Fashion has changed. First there were image maps, then animated GIFs, followed by frames, colored strips along the

lefthand side, and now angular, non-pictorial designs. Since I only have one month per year to work on graphics and a 200-page Web

site, I worry about becoming a dinosaur. If all else fails, you can turn the graphics off and still navigate, something I do myself when using a 28.8 modem.

Formatting

We usually delay the use of new HTML tags

for six to twelve months so users can update

their equipment and Web browsers. Although Netscape 1 .22 supported tables, we delayed

our dependence on them until Netscape 3.0 was introduced. GPO's proposal to use frames seemed the most controversial issue at last year's Depository Library Council meeting. Frames

are used on our Web site as an index to large

clusters of pages, such as the Federal Government, Foreign Governments, or

Statistics. It helps us find where we actually put those mortgage calculators. Frames are an

option rather than a default because the coding

permits us to maintain one page of information

rather than two. A sample of optional frames coding appears in your handout on pp. 8-9.

E-Mail Reference Although we do not specifically advertise e- mail reference service, we receive about three

requests per day, a far more modest number

than John Shuler receives through DOSFAN.

Most questions originate from the East or West

coasts, but we've received questions from

every continent except Antarctica. Staff divide

the effort and average about 1 5 minutes per

question. We have no problem conducting a reference interview via e-mail. Sometimes we

can provide a Web source; sometimes we refer to a specific library in the user's area. The

questions are taken seriously because we

represent the University to the United States, and we represent the United States to the rest of the world.

For the most part users ask questions which

cannot be answered by the Web. There are an

extraordinary number of questions about Michigan law, which is only available through

LEXIS. One person needed help in locating his missing brother. Since his brother's name

didn't appear in the National Death Index, I referred him to a private detective agency. In February a journalist from Pakistan asked

about American public opinion toward bombing Iraq. Maintenance

Is this venture time-consuming? You bet! Over the past three years I have spent 2000

hours developing and maintaining the Web

site, at least half done from home on evenings and weekends (handout, p. 10). My excuse for gaining weight is not middle age but the

location of my home computer, wedged

between the basement stairwell and the

exercise bike. Until last November, I was

spending between eight and fifteen hours per week simply adding new links. The number of relevant new Web sites relevant seems to have

slowed in recent months so the pressure has

eased.

174
J 998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Those 2000 hours are my time only. So many

people have believed in the project and

contributed to it. John Downey maintains the

foreign country links. John Brandt created

several guides and transferred all of our

graphics to an image file. Three School of Information students used the Web site as an independent study project. Barbara Perles scanned our first 22 graphics. Maria Schieda

spent 400 hours scanning the JFK Executive Orders. Mike Seadle created the Legislative Histories Tutorial. Impact of the Web Site Has it been worth the effort? Absolutely! The most tangible impact of our Web site and

the Internet at-large has been the dramatic change in how our unit is used. The statistics we maintain may verify the changes you are seeing in your own libraries. Between FY 1996 and FY 1997, use of our Web site increased from 2.2 million to 12.8

million hits or 500% (handout, p. 1 1 ). I should quickly add that "hits" includes

graphics, and we have a heavily graphic Web

site. However, the percentage increase reflects the use of the Internet as a whole. Although

Web hits are still increasing, the pace has slowed a little. Comparing the last six months

of 1996 to 1997, the increase was only 250%

rather than 500%.

While Internet use was increasing. Documents

Center in-person, telephone, and e-mail reference dropped 25% (handout, p. 11). Comparing the last six months of 1 996 to 1997, reference use dropped another 15%, so

the pace of decline is slowing as well. Although the reference numbers have

declined, the length of time spent on questions

has increased (handout, p. 12). Extended

reference questions, those requiring over five minutes, only rose from 23% to 26%) of the

total between FY 1996 and FY 1997, but they

have comprised a consistent 38% of the total every month since July. The statistics lead to a remarkable conclusion: people who have access to the Internet are

using the Internet for an initial information

search but coming to the library for more

complex research. The data is verified by staff anecdotes, the seriousness with which students

are now using their class assignment pages, and the e-mail reference questions we receive.

Implications

This is fantastic news for all of us. It disproves

the soothsayers who relegated libraries to archaeology and librarians over 40 to Dr. Jack. Libraries are here to stay! We simply need to repackage what we do in libraries and market

it. Here are some ideas:

1 . People who have access to the Internet are

clearly going to use it. That's okay. Decide what is unique about your own

unit and promote it, whether it is Internet access and training, e-mail reference,

historical material, one-to-one research

consultations, or tax forms. Be confident

that you are important to your community.

2. For those of you just developing a departmental Web page, give yourself time

but learn at least the basic maintenance

skills, whether or not you use outside help. Knowledge is empowering.

3. For senior Webmasters, consider adding

something special that no one else has done. There are wonderful document Web sites that receive extra funding, but many others are the work of individual

librarians with a crazy idea: Berkeley, Denver, Idaho, Kansas, LSU, Memphis,

Michigan State, Northwestern, Penn State, Yale, and too many others to count.

4. Grab the credit for what you are already

doing. Count it, whatever it may be, and

regardless of whether NCES or ARL ever

175
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

revise their statistical measures. Let me

give you an example. The Documents Center's reference statistics dropped 25% in one year to a mere 8000. On

the surface the data looks gruesome. But what

about the Web hits? One day I cleared the cache on my computer and pretended I was a

user. I immediately got lost in my own Web

site and didn't find my answer until the seventh page. The items in my cache

suggested a mere 1-1/2% equation between Web hits and reference questions. However,

using that equation in FY 1997, the Documents Center answered 1 92,000

questions remotely, 2400% higher than the in- person questions (handout, p. 13). The

department's overall productivity has risen 2000% since the advent of the Internet (handout, p. 14). That's just the data for one

library unit. Can you imagine the impact of an

entire library's statistics on an academic

administration or a public library's governing

board? Use it! You know, we Government documents

librarians sometimes quote James Madison to excess, but the truth is that we also live it. We

go through extraordinary measures to serve the

public, and, by some miracle, the public

appreciates it. So, after this meeting

concludes, go back home, be proud of your

profession, and keep climbing those stairs!

176
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Contributors

Kathleen Chambers

Product Manager

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific & Technical Information P.O. Box 62 Oak Ridge TN 37831

(423) 576-0487 kathy_chambers@ccmai I .osti .gov John M. Ellis Senior Database Analyst Wichita State University National Institute for Aviation Research 318 NIAR, Box 93

Wichita, KS 67260-0093

(316) 978-3873

ellis@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu

Elizabeth A. Estes Government Information Librarian Valparaiso University Moellering Memorial Library Union Street Valparaiso, IN 46383-6493

(219) 464-5693

elizabeth.estes@valpo.edu

Daniel C. Barkley Government Information Librarian University of New Mexico Zimmerman General Library Albuquerque, NM 87131-1466

(505) 277-7180 barkley@umn.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

Kathie Brin kerb off Documents Librarian University of Nevada, Reno

Getchell Library 1664 North Virginia Street Reno, NV 89557-0044

(702) 784-6500, ext. 258

kbrink@admin.unr.edu

Jonda C. Byrd

National Library Network Program Manager

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

26 West Martin Luther King Drive

Cincinnati, OH 45268

(513) 569-7183

byrd.jonda@epamail.epa.gov

Chris M. Casey

Technology Advisor

United States Senate Democratic Technology & Communications

61 9 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

(202) 224-3570

chris_casey@dpc.senate.gov

Thomas Freebairn

Director Communications Catalyst

1 742 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20009

(202) 234-9494

freebai r@comcat.org

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

177
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

Catrena L. Hairston Management Analyst

U.S. Government Printing Office Office of Electronic information Dissemination

Service 732 North Capitol Street, NW

Washington, DC 20401

(202) 512-1607

chairston@gpo.gov Maureen Harris Head, Public Documents Unit Clemson University Robert Muldrow Cooper Library - •, • " Palmetto Boulevard ' rC Clemson, SC 29634-3001 i

' (864) 656-5174 maureen@clemson.edu

Cathy N. Hartman Documents Librarian '

' University of North Texas

Libraries ' P.O. Box 305190

Denton ,TX 76203-5190 -

• (940) 565-3269 -" of chartman@library.unt.edu Robin Haun-Mohamed

Chief, Depository Administration Branch

U.S. Government Printing Office

Library Programs Service (SLLA) ^ -

' 732 North Capitol Street, NW ' " Washington, DC 20401

(202) 512-1071 rhaun-mohamed@gpo.gov '

John A. Hearty : ^ij Director, Business Development Division OCLC

OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. 6565 Frantz Road

Dublin, OH 43017-3395

(800) 848-5878

john_hearty@oclc.org

Stephen Henson Documents Librarian Louisiana Tech University

Prescott Memorial Library Ruston, LA 71272-0046

(318) 257-4989

sdhenson@latech.edu

Virginia W. Hopcroft Government Documents Librarian Bowdoin College Library 3003 College Station Brunswick, ME 04011-8421

(207) 725-3298 ghopcrof@bowdoin.edu

Woody Horton

Consultant

National Commission on Libraries and

Information Science 1110 Vermont Avenue, N W, Suite 820

Washington, DC 20005

(202) 606-9200

wh-nclis@inet.ed.gov

Lorrie Johnson

Technical Information Specialist U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific & Technical Information P.O. Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831

(423) 576-1157

lorrie.johnson@ccmail.osti.gov

Paula Kaczmarek

Manager, Government Documents

Detroit Public Library 5201 Woodward Avenue

Detroit, Ml 48202-4007

(313) 833-1025

pkaczma@detroit.lib.mi.us

Linda M. Kennedy

Head, Government Information & Maps

University of California, Davis

Shields Library Davis, CA 95616

(530) 752-1656 lmkennedy@ucdavis.edu

178
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Ridley R. Kessler, Jr. Documents Librarian University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Davis Library CB #3912

Chapel Hill, NC 27514-8890

(919) 962-1151

kessler.clavis@mhs.unc.edu Deborah P. Klein

Asst. Commissioner, Office of Publications Bureau of Labor Statistics U.S. Department of Labor

2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Room 41 10 Washington, DC 20212

(202) 606-5900

klein_d@bls.gov Donna P. Koepp

Head, Government Documents Library University of Kansas Government Documents Library 6001 Malott Hall Lawrence, KS 66045-2800

(785) 864-4660 dkoepp@ukans.edu

Barbara Levergood

Electronic Documents Librarian University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Davis Library CB #3912

Chapel Hill, NC 27514-8890

(919) 962-1151

leverg.davis@mhs.unc.edu

Teresa Marquez

Head, Government Information Department

University of New Mexico

Zimmerman General Library Albuquerque, NM 87131-1466

(505) 277-5441 tmarquez@unm.edu Ann E. Maso

Writer/Editor Office of the Federal Register National Archives & Records Administration Washington, DC 20408

(202) 523-3187 amaso@gpo.gov

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

John A. McGeachy

Documents Librarian North Carolina State University D.H. Hill Library 2205 Hillsborough Street Raleigh, NC 27695-71 11 (919) 515-2936

jack_mcgeachy@library.lib.ncsu.edu

Nancy Mulhern

Head, Documents, Patents & Periodicals University of North Dakota

Chester Fritz Library Centennial & University Avenue

Grand Forks, ND 58202-9000

(701) 777-3316

mulhern@plains.nodak.edu 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

Brand L. Niemann

Digital Librarian and Computer Scientist Center for Environmental Information and

Statistics U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(MS-2164) 401 M Street, SW

Washington, DC 20460

(202) 260-2510 niemann.brand@epa.gov

179
Proceedings - 1998 Federal Depository Library Conference

Coleen Parmer

Head, Government Documents

Bowling Green State University Jerome Library Ridge Street Bowling Green, OH 43403

(419) 372-7826

parmer@bgnet.bgsu.edu

Stephen A. Patrick ^

Head, Documents, Law & Maps

East Tennessee State University Sherrod Library , Pedestrian Mall, Main Campus

Johnson City, TN 37614

(423) 439-6994

patricks@sherserv.etsu.edu

Ruth S. Pitt Computer Specialist, Web Support

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

Office of Information Technology, Operations Center 6432 General Green Way

Alexandria, VA 22312

(202) 942-8612 , ^,

. pittr@sec.gov Ann Marie Sanders

Depository Librarian Library of Michigan , , P.O. Box 30007 :

' 717 West Allegan Street Lansing, Ml 48909-7507

(517)373-9489 , ,

'

: v ! asanders@libofmich.lib.mi.us

Virginia F. Saunders

Congressional Documents Specialist U.S. Government Printing Office Congressional Printing Management Division (CSC) 732 North Capitol Street, NW

Washington, DC 20401

(202) 512-0290

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

Cynthia M. Teague

Federal Documents Librarian Michigan State University Main Library West Circle Drive

East Lansing, Ml 48824-1048

(517) 432-1749

teaguec@pilot.msu.edu

Cheryl B. Truesdell Government Documents Librarian Indiana University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne

Helmke Library 2101 East Coliseum Boulevard

Fort Wayne IN 46805-1499

(219) 481-6506

truesdel@ipfw.indiana.edu

Sandy Schwalb Management Analyst

U.S. Government Printing Office

Library Programs Service (SL) 732 North Capitol Street NW

Washington, DC 20401

(202) 512-1114

smorton-schwalb@gpo.gov

180
1998 Federal Depository Library Conference - Proceedings

Kristin M. Vajs

Director, Office of Database Programs

National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

(703) 605-6574

kvajs@ntis.fedworld.gov John S. Walters Head, Government Documents

Utah State University

Merrill Library University Hill Logan, UT 84322-3000

(801) 797-2684

johwal@ngw.lib.usu.edu

Walter L. Warnick

Director

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific & Technical Information 19901 Germantown Road, MS F-240 Germantown, MD 20874

(202) 586-8842

walter.warnick@oer.doe.gov Grace A. York

Coordinator, Documents Center

University of Michigan

Hatcher Graduate Library Ann Arbor, Ml 48109-1205

(734) 936-2378

graceyor@umich.edu

AU.S. GOXTERNMENT PRINTING OFnCE:1998-»33-10J/97210

181