ADAMS USER GROUP MEETING

August 6, 2003

1:00-3:00 p.m.

NRC Headquarters

Room T2 B1

Agenda for ADAMS User Group Meeting #7

Opening remarks - Tom Smith, Moderator (1:05-1:10 p.m.)

General announcements (1:10-1:20 p.m.)

How the meeting will be conducted for

Persons present

Persons on the telephone bridge

Introduction of Ellis Merschoff, NRC’s new CIO

Action items from the 4/02/03 meeting update (1:20-1:30 p.m.)

Does RetrievalWare index the OCR’d text of the FileNet document? Is the text file in

RetrievalWare the OCR’d text? 

After refining that search with another key word the user received 100 hits. The

refinement of the original search automatically defaults back to a 100-hit limit. Can this

100-hit limit default be overridden? 

Could a list of abbreviations used in BRS/NUDOCS titles be developed to aid searching

the Legacy Library? 

Could a table be created that would give a docket number and all forms of the names of

the licensee (utility) associated with that docket number?

Could a table be developed to show the NRC affiliation code from BRS/NUDOCS and

the decoded” affiliation used in PARS?

How is a document date determined on an undated document? 

Issues related to ADAMS (1:30-2:00 p.m.)

Will it be possible to allow ADAMS searches on both the PARS and Legacy databases?

Would it at least be possible to save the search box entries (i.e., docket number, date

range, keywords, etc.) to facilitate identical searches of both databases?

Currently when one accesses ADAMS to conduct a Legacy search, once you click on

the Legacy database, you're prompted to enter the "guest" password, when you go to

the "Find" option, the screen defaults to PARS; can this be changed?
Can a PDR staffer be present to give us searching tips on Web-based ADAMS? 

ADAMS has default headers not relevant to public users that should be deleted in favor

of the Date Added. (text source and document size). In the PDR’s BRS system

(Bibliographic Retrieval System) the first field (accession number) related more or less

to when the document was added to the system. This date, and the date of the

document, were two important dates and easy to sort using either one.

Authority Files: a problem with ADAMS is the apparent failure to maintain or a lack of

authority files for the author names. User reports issues in searching where a specific

author has records with disparity of name-forms, including one with a single initial and

one with two initials, also instances of misspellings. As an example, a single author with

the name Kinneman has 8 different spellings and initial variations.

Retrieval issues related to responses/comments to Federal Register Notices (FRNs) and

how they are entered into the ADAMS database. Responses/comments are not placed

under a single FRN number (example: 57FR202525) but include an additional number

after the FRN number (example: 57FR202525-1) for a specific response. All you can do

is bring up one record at a time in a search. Unlike BRS, it is very hard to bring up a

complete listing of responses/comments with other pertinent records associated with a

particular FRN. User would like the FRN to function similar to a docket number, not as

a way to identify only one record at a time. The NRC should fix ADAMS so users can

identify the FRN as a case or report a number and easily bring up a list of all the

relevant records associated with that FRN. In ADAMS, the NRC should place on the

docket of a facility a copy of any notice to be published in the Federal Register.

Include in the Reports Format a listing format equivalent to the old BRS "REG" format. 

This format was not carried over into ADAMS; the user found this format to be very

valuable and should be available to ADAMS users. A user would like ADAMS to allow

users to create their own format using specified fields rather than current format choices

presented to them.

Break (2:00-2:10 p.m.)

An AUG member requests NRC web site include listing of Part 40 dockets with the

name of the facility, licensee, and docket number, the same as they have for the Part 50

dockets/licensees. 

Licensing fee statements and related correspondence are not being placed in the

docket. FOIA requests must now be filed to view these records. The requestor wants

NRC to return to the old policy of including these documents in the docket files.

What is the status of fixing records in Web-based ADAMS that won’t hit on word

searching because the text got incorrectly spaced?

Will NRC make any effort to update packages if the missing ACN numbers are

identified? 

What effort will the NRC make to improve usefulness of titles? What priority would fixing

of existing titles receive ?
For PARS, describe any changes in processing of text words by ocr since the shift from

tif to pdf was made in May 2003, or can you say that text searching is better or same as

before.

Question on Training

Web-based ADAMS has been operational for eight months. Do you feel that the handson training, the online help screens and the help tips on the PDR Web page are

adequate to learn how to use the application? Is there a need for such a course? 

What would you like to see covered? Would it be used if it was available online?

New business (2:55-3:00 p.m.)

Plans for next meeting

Set a date (November 12, December 10 ???)

Adjournment (3:00 p.m.)

Meeting Minutes

The ADAMS User Group (AUG) met on August 6, 2003. The proposed agenda was noticed in

the Public Meeting Notice System, and the agenda was sent to members by e-mail.

Opening Remarks 

The seventh meeting of the AUG was held on Wednesday, August 6, 2003. Thomas Smith

called the meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Three AUG members were present along with special

guest Ellis Merschoff, CIO, Patricia Vacherlon, OCIO/ADD/IMT, Kathleen Ruhlman, PDR, and

Marsha Ward, PDR. At least six members participated via the phone bridge. Mr. Smith asked

the attendees present, then the members on the phone bridge, to introduce themselves. 

Mr. Smith introduced Mr. Merschoff to the group. Mr. Merschoff commented on the importance

of groups such as this, the importance and necessity of feedback, and assured the AUG of his

support. An AUG member asked for clarification of Mr. Merschoff’s relation to the NRC and

the PDR; Mr. Merschoff responded that OCIO has two main functions, Information Technology

(IT) and Information Management (IM), and the PDR fell under the IM function. As CIO he

manages the continuing operations and integration of both functions. Mr. Merschoff then

asked the AUG members concerning their “sense” of ADAMS usefulness to public users. 

There followed a short discussion between parties concerning the Citrix and Web-based

versions of ADAMS, access to the Legacy Library, and questions regarding access to the

Legacy Library through the Web-based ADAMS. Pat Vacherlon reported she was currently

working on the Statement of Work (SOW) for Web-based access to the Legacy Library. An

AUG member voiced concern that NRC would do away with Citrix-based ADAMS in favor of

Web-based ADAMS because the Citrix version could be manipulated to do things the Webbased version could not. This concern was seconded by other AUG members, both present

and via the phone bridge. Mr. Merschoff suggested the possibility of developing a Web-based

interactive tutorial for ADAMS users and asked the group about their thoughts on that option. 
Several members responded that the money should be spent to upgrade the system and fix

current issues. One AUG member uses Citrix exclusively and is still learning the system. He

finds that when he uses the Web version he loses formatting. Another member uses the Web

version because Citrix crashes his system.

General Announcements 

Mr. Smith detailed how the meeting would be conducted and procedures for use of the phone

bridge for offsite attendees so all could participate. Meeting minutes for this meeting will be

posted on the AUG page of the NRC Web site.

Members then joined in a round-table discussion of viewing-vs.-opening documents and 

clickables vs. dirty text, with additional discussion on Web-based search results. Pat Vacherlon

asked the group if they found it more confusing because clicking on the titles brings up the dirty

text. A member participating via the phone bridge said she found it necessary to open the

document to look at it, that the titles were not enough. Pat replied the titles were clickable to

dirty text to take into account the time element. The text pops up almost immediately, and

searchers can then review it and determine if it meets their needs. Pat asked the group if this

feature was valuable or just confusing. One member said she found it to be valuable. Some of

the group members on the phone bridge expressed confusion regarding the underlined titles,

since clicking on the titles only brought up the dirty text. This protocol differs from what they

expect from Web-based documents, the underlining normally indicates a link to an actual

document. A member on the phone bridge said that she continues to have problems when

opening or viewing the documents in the Web version, and that the actual display of the

documents continues to be an issue. Mr. Smith mentioned this may be a result of the customcoding that NRC was required to do. An AUG member on the phone bridge suggested users

click on the icon, not on the text or date, to open the official copy. Pat Vacherlon asked users if

it would be better for them to just open the image as opposed to opening the summary (open

vs. download). A general discussion followed.

A member present inquired when users could expect to have access to the Legacy Library

through Web-based ADAMS, and what costs were involved in making it available. Mr. Smith

replied that this item is on the agenda, but that he would be pleased to address it now. The

NRC is assessing what is required for releasing a Web-based version of the Legacy Library. 

The process is moving forward, although he cannot yet give members a specific date. Pat

Vacherlon reported that she was currently working on the Statement of Work (SOW). Mr.

Smith reminded the group that there were factors that needed to be reviewed and addressed,

especially the subject of bibliographic records versus full-text records, and that the search

statements may need to be modified for successful searching.

Action items from the 4/02/03 meeting update (1:20-1:30 p.m.)

The following action items from the last AUG meeting were presented and discussed with the

AUG members:

Does RetrievalWare index the OCR text of the FileNet document? Is the text file in

RetrievalWare the OCR’d text? 
Retrieval Ware creates its own OCR image and text. However, the image file is identical

because it comes from the FileNet repository.

After refining a search with another key word, the user received 100 hits. The refinement

of the original search automatically defaults back to a 100-hit limit. Can this 100-hit limit

default be overridden? 

The default was changed since the last meeting from 100 to 1000 hits when performing a

search in Web-based ADAMS. AUG members indicated they were pleased with the change.

Could a list of abbreviations used in BRS/NUDOCS titles be developed to aid Legacy

Library searching? 

A list of abbreviations does exist. It can be found in NUREG-0544. AUG members were also

referred to the two attached handouts from the Friday e-mail. These were prepared by the

PDR staff to assist users in searching the Legacy Library. Ms. Ruhlman and an AUG member

present discussed the NUREG report and the abbreviations used in the old NUDOCS system.

Could a table be created that would give a docket number and all forms of the names of

the licensee (utility) associated with that docket number?

There is now a link to Docket 50 reactor facilities on the ADAMS web page. This list was linked

to an existing listing from NRR. The link was added since the April meeting.

Could a table be developed to compare the NRC affiliation code from BRS/NUDOCS and

the “decoded” affiliation used in PARS?

There is no easy automated way to show this. Such a table would have to be developed

manually. It would be a very extensive table, and a major undertaking. The most efficient way

to find the author and addressee affiliation in ADAMS is to combine truncation with the words

that you believe will be there. 

How is a document date determined on an undated document?

Mr. Smith was able to obtain this answer from the NRC staff: Internally generated documents

are returned to the author for a date. Externally generated documents are referred to the

Project Officer to obtain a date.

Issues related to ADAMS (1:30-2:00 p.m.)

Will it be possible to allow concurrent ADAMS searches on both the PARS and Legacy

databases? 

Concurrent searches are not possible due to the way Citrix is constructed. In addition, the data

in the PARS and the Legacy Library are different. The searchable fields are distinct and may

require different search strategies, and/or statements. Mr. Smith mentioned again that the NRC

is planning to add the ADAMS Public Legacy Library to its new Web-based interface in the

future.
Would it at least be possible to save the search box entries (i.e., docket number, date

range, keywords, etc.) to facilitate identical searches of both databases?

The two databases are quite different. The Legacy Library is primarily a bibliographic database

with limited full text, while PARS contains full-text electronic files. The fields are in many cases

different (i.e., keywords in Legacy but not in PARS; text in PARS, but only in limited cases in

Legacy, such as LERS). The display is different, too.

Currently when accessing ADAMS to conduct a Legacy search, clicking on the Legacy

database prompts a user to enter a password again. When selecting the Find option,

the screen again defaults to PARS. Can this be changed?

The PDR staff could not answer this question, so Mr. Smith found a staffer knowledgeable

about FileNet to answer the question. FileNet modules look at the desktop configuration file for

a default library when they start up. For the public, this desktop is shared by many users on the

ADAMS Citrix server. Both the ADAMS Document Manager and the ADAMS Find are separate

FileNet modules. Thus, when either module starts up, it looks independently at the

configuration file, which defaults to the PARS Library. Because most people access the PARS

Library, we need to keep PARS as the default. This basic FileNet function cannot be changed.

Can a PDR staffer be present to give us searching tips on Web-based ADAMS?

Two PDR staffers are present to respond to questions related to searching. Kathleen Ruhlman

and Marsha Ward have both worked with many of the members in providing reference service

and training in the past. In addition, the PDR reference staff has devised a tip sheet. A copy

can be obtained here at the meeting or requested from the PDR later. If you contact the PDR

later, a PDR reference librarian will be available to answer any additional questions regarding

search strategies. 

Some default headers in the ADAMS results list are not relevant to public users (text

source and document size). These headers should be deleted in favor of Date Added. 

In the PDR’s Bibliographic Retrieval System (BRS), the accession number field 

revealed more or less when the document was added to the system. Date added and

document date are two important dates, and it is easy to sort using either one.

The accession number is constructed using the Julian date/calender. ML stands for Main

Library.

Headers that are useful or relevant to one user may not be useful or relevant to another user.

Date Added can easily be searched by using the Advance Find capability, or by using the

Folder feature in the Document Manager to view the most recent 3 months of documents.

Another problem is the apparent lack of authority files for author names. A user reports

problems because records for a specific author are indexed with a variety of name

forms, for example, one with a single initial and one with two initials. There are also

instances of misspellings. As an example, a single author with the name Kinneman has

8 different spellings and initial variations.

Mr. Smith acknowledged that there are profile consistency problems with author names in the

PARS Library. Advance Find has a wildcard feature that can be used to locate the author name

variants. The Legacy Library, as a carryover from NUDOCS/BRS, was cleaned-up prior to
deployment. Although the Legacy Library is essentially a static database, we do make an effort

to fix errors. It should be noted that some cleanup or QC work has been done on the author and

addressee name authority files in PARS. Since March 2003, some 11,000 plus names have

been investigated. For example, the name Virgilio M had six variant forms in the database. 

One of the six was selected and the other five variations were edited. We have defined a

format: last name, space, first name initial, space, and middle name initial. (There is a problem

if the name on the document has one or two initials.) NRC has adopted a day-forward

approach for this project, and the contractor is checking the profiles for author and addressee

names. 

Another retrieval issue is related to responses/comments to Federal Register notices

(FRNs) and how they are entered into the ADAMS database. The NRC should enter the

docket number in the profile of any notice about a licensee which is published in the

Federal Register. In addition, responses/comments are not placed under a single FRN

number (example: 57FR202525) but are assigned an additional number after the FRN

number (example: 57FR202525-001) to designate a specific comment. Using Simple

Find, only one record at a time can be located in a search. Unlike BRS, it is very hard to

locate a complete listing of responses/comments and other pertinent records associated

with a particular FRN. A user would like the FRN to be treated similar to a docket

number, not as a way to identify only one record at a time, so users can search the FRN

with one case or report number and easily bring up a list of all the relevant records

associated with that FRN. 

Ms. Ruhlman indicated this search can be easily performed in both Citrix and Web-based

ADAMS by selecting Advance Find and using the wildcard (*) search feature.

Add a Report format equivalent to the old BRS REG format. This format was not carried

over into ADAMS; the user found this format to be very valuable and it should be

available to ADAMS users. A user would like ADAMS to allow users to create their own

format using specified fields rather than current format choices presented to them.

The Custom format in ADAMS is similar to the Full format in the former BRS system and is the

closest match to the BRS REG format. The PDR staff will ask the ADAMS technical staff if it is

possible to create additional formats, similar to those in the old BRS system. Currently there is

no ad hoc report-generating software. Due to the nature of the system, it is not likely that public

users will be able to construct their own personalized formats.

An AUG member would like the NRC Web site to post a listing of Part 40 dockets with

the name of the facility, licensee, and docket number, the same as for the Part 50

dockets/licensees.

The PDR staff has a list of facility names and docket numbers and the will ask the web staff to

post it. There was a request from a member of the public on the phone bridge about Docket 72

licensees. Mr. Smith said the PDR would investigate this issue as well.

Licensing fee statements and related correspondence are not being placed in the docket. 

FOIA requests must now be filed to view these records. The requestor wants NRC to

return to the old policy of including these documents in the docket files.
Mr. Smith responded that a lot of this type of information is made publicly available. He would

need clarification as to exactly what types of documents the requestor is looking for in ADAMS

to help with a search strategy. One caller on the bridge phone indicated this information is not

available for Docket 50s but may have been available for Docket 40 licensees. 

What is the status of the Web-based ADAMS problem in which specific documents

cannot be located because the text was incorrectly spaced?

PDR reference librarians have reported this problem. Pat Vacherlon discussed the

conversations she has had with FileNet and Adobe concerning the text spacing issue. Currently

the two companies disagree on the root cause of the problem, who is responsible, and how to

correct it. A caller on the phone bridge mentioned that they had a similar problem in their

database which was determined to be an Adobe problem. Pat thanked the caller for the input

and made a note for her follow up calls with FileNet and Adobe. 

Will NRC make any effort to update packages if the missing ACN numbers are

identified? 

The package issue also was discussed at a recent public meeting. There are several issues

involved.

 

Packages with one item.

First are packages (containers) that have only one item. The packages may have only one item

because the office released the package early, or because the other item is nonpublic. As

always, the PDR staff will continue to check the package enclosures in the Main Library for

requesters. NRC staff has been encouraged to profile the package container as nonpublic if a

package has only one public document. Then the public document will be released as a standalone item. Staff training and awareness is one remedy for this problem.

Misleading package titles.

Another problem is that the descriptive title of the package may be confusing, for example a 

user may believe a package contains a meeting summary when in fact there is only a meeting

agenda. The indexing rules dictate the title of the package.

Older packages that contain just one item.

To go back and fix these packages would be a massive QC project. On a case-by-case basis,

we could do this; but the office responsible for the documents would have to be involved.

Newer packages.

Once a package is locked down, documents are rarely added to it. In the early days of ADAMS

this did happen, but not now. Currently, if a package was declared too soon and has already

been made publicly been available, then a new package will be created with the final list of

attachments. Sometimes the older package will be deleted. In most cases, an entry in the

comment field will then refer the user to the correct ML number. 

Question on Training

Mr. Smith asked the AUG members for their views about training for Web-based ADAMS users. 

A number of training tools are available on the NRC Web site, but are they enough? Webbased ADAMS has been operational for 8 months. Do AUG members feel that the hands-on
training, the online help screens, and the help tips on the PDR Web page are adequate for

learning how to use the application? Is there a need for an online interactive tutorial? What

would they like to see covered? Would it be used? 

Attendees and members participating via the phone bridge commented that the current

arrangement of help screens, tips, phone, and e-mail assistance from the PDR staff was

adequate, and the hands-on training (both the general overview training and more specific

training in advance searching when requested) was adequate to meet their needs. An

attendee on the phone bridge wanted NRC to spend any available resources on improving the

ADAMS system as opposed to developing more user guides.

An AUG member present at the table asked Mr. Smith a question regarding statistics on usage

of Citrix versus Web-based ADAMS. Mr. Smith replied that NRC is compiling statistics. He said

that the amount of activity in Citrix-based ADAMS had fallen by about 50%.

New business (2:50 p.m.)

Topics for next meeting:

What efforts will the NRC make to improve the usefulness of titles? What priority would fixing

existing titles receive?

For PARS, describe any changes in processing of text words since the shift from tif to pdf was

made in May 2003, or can you say that text searching is better or the same as before?

Mr. Smith asked the AUG members if a January meeting would be preferable to a late

December meeting, to accommodate members various holiday schedules and plans. The AUG

members decided a meeting in mid to late January would be acceptable. The PDR staff will

make arrangements for a meeting room, phone bridge, and special telephone, with the specific

date to be determined by room availability. AUG members will be notified and the information

posted on the NRC web site.

Adjournment (3:00 p.m.)