U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-32 

APPENDIX 17. AN INVITED RETROSPECTIVE APPRAISAL OF THE 1982 NCLIS 

PUBLIC SECTOR/PRIVATE SECTOR TASK FORCE REPORT 

Note: NCLIS invited Professor Emeritus Robert M. Hayes, who chaired the 1982 

NCLIS Public Sector/Private Sector Task Force, to look back at the findings, 

conclusions, and recommendations made by his Task Force in the light of very 

dramatic interim developments. Most importantly, the impacts of the World Wide 

Web and the Internet are widely acknowledged to be nothing less than revolutionary. 

He was asked to assess whether or not those interim events, and the increasingly Webbased information handling environment, change in any significant way, in his view, 

those 1982 findings and recommendations. This is his report. 

NCLIS is republishing the 1982 report because of its enduring and timely value, and a 

limited number of copies will be available to study participants. 

Written by Robert M. Hayes, Professor Emeritus, Department of Library and 

Information Science, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA); Chairperson of 

the NCLIS Public Sector/Private Sector Task Force; and Member, NCLIS Group of 

Experts for This Assessment 

THE PRIMARY ISSUES9

The Report of the NCLIS Public Sector/Private Sector Task Force identified two primary issues: 

1. The crucial importance of information resources, products, and services in our economy and 

society. 

2. The conflicting views concerning the proper role of government in providing those information 

resources, products, and services. 

Everything that has happened in the twenty years since that Report has, without question, confirmed 

the first issue. With respect to the second issue, probably there continue to be conflicting views 

concerning the "proper role of government", but I think the focus of that issue has shifted as the 

political context has shifted and repeatedly has done so. In that respect, the technological 

developments may affect the focus of attention but do not change the fundamental debate. 

THE PRINCIPLES 

The Report presented a set of seven principles: 

Principle 1. The Federal government should take a leadership role in creating a framework that 

would facilitate the development and foster the use of information products and services. 

 

9

 Available at http://www.nclis.gov/govt/assess/assess.appen17.pdf. This appendix was last revised on August 15, 2000. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-33 

The "leadership" is perhaps best represented by the development of the Internet. I think everyone will 

agree that it was a direct result of U.S. governmental investment in creating the basic structure, 

through ARPANET and the NSF super-computer network. It must be said that the pace in explosion of 

the Internet during the 90s, from the rather limited and essentially academic growth of the late 80s 

(which was exponential, yes, but nothing like we have experienced) to the current rate of commercial 

growth has been almost unbelievable. 

Among the important policy decisions by the federal government which clearly has fostered the 

development and use of electronic information products and services was the Telecommunications 

Act and its provisions to subsidize telecommunications access for the nation's libraries, educational 

institutions, and health delivery agencies. Equity of access, so that geographic location and economic 

status are not insurmountable barriers, has been made a matter of government policy 

But there has been another arena in which the U.S. government has taken a position of leadership that 

in some respects is of even more fundamental importance. It is in the replacement of the SIC code for 

classification of industry data to the NAICS at least in part in recognition of the growing importance 

of the "information sector" of the economy. By doing so, the federal government has provided real 

encouragement to investment because now the data will more clearly show the magnitude of that 

investment and the effect of it on the economy. 

In the same vein, though slightly different in the nature of its leadership role is the policy position of 

the federal government with respect to capitalizing information investments. In a Los Angeles Times 

article of Friday, October 29, 1999, it was reported that, "As part of its periodic update of its methods, 

the Commerce Department redefined software as an investment, something of value in its own right 

and thus counting toward economic output." It went on to say, "For last year alone, the refiguring 

added about $250 billion to estimates of total economic output. Fully two-thirds of that was due to the 

redefinition of software." Now, that is getting somewhere! Later, I will comment further on the 

broader implications of this kind of policy. My hope (as I will try to identify) is that this principle of 

support to investment will be extended to other than simply investment in software. 

Principle 2. The Federal government should establish and enforce policies and procedures that 

encourage, and do not discourage, investment by the private sector in the development and use 

of information products and services. 

This principle is certainly reflected in the example of federal policy with respect to information 

investment already alluded to above. By stating, as a policy, that investment in "information resources, 

products, and services" should be treated precisely that way, as an investment, the federal government, 

at least in principle, is encouraging and not discouraging such investment. It is certainly a most 

tangible means of doing so. 

Principle 3. The Federal government should not provide information products and services in 

commerce except when there are compelling reasons to do so, and then only when it protects 

the private sector's every opportunity to assume the function(s) commercially. 

The related recommendations are to be considered as integral parts of this principle, since they 

embody the procedures for determining that there indeed are "compelling reasons" for the 

government to provide services in commerce: 

In my view, this principle is among the most important contributions of the PS/PS Task Force Report. 

The federal government should not put itself in the position of commercial information distribution but 

should leave that to the private sector, "unless there are compelling reasons for it to do so". One clear 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-34 

example of a compelling reason is the nation's health, and the Congressional mandate that NLM 

should engage in active distribution of medical-related information is consistent with that principle. 

Furthermore, it in no way precludes the private sector from adding value to NLM information 

products, and I personally know of many companies that have done just that. 

 

Looking at that principle in the context of developments in the two decades since the PS/PS Task 

Force Report, one of the most remarkable things that happened during the 1980s was the President's 

Private Sector Survey on Cost Control (the "Grace Commission"). For some strange, unaccountable 

reason, it adopted the position that the federal government should actively get into commercial 

activities, in every area of government, as the means for funding government operations and with the 

identified objective to replace taxation as the source of funding, in fact. I cannot conceive of anything 

that would be more destructive of the private sector than for the government to "get into the business" 

of doing anything. 

Leaving that bit of history aside, though, have the technological developments of the past twenty years 

changed the first part of this principle in any way? Clearly not. If anything, they have made it easier 

for the government to conform to the intent of the principle. There are now many means, through the 

Internet especially, for the private sector to fill the needs in regions of the country and for groups of 

persons that might not in the past been well served without government intervention in the 

marketplace. 

In this respect, I return to the leadership of the federal government in the policy of equitable access to 

telecommunications, as embodied in the Telecommunications Act and its provisions to subsidize the 

nation's libraries, educational institutions, and health care delivery agencies in access to basic 

telecommunications services, the Internet being simply one example. Such subsidy clearly makes it 

feasible for the private sector to meet needs at prices that can be afforded. 

Having said all of that, I suspect that this principle may underlie some of the current concerns of 

NCLIS. The role of agencies such as NTIS become ambivalent when viewed in the context of this 

principle. Might not the activities of NTIS be better performed by private sector companies? The 

problem is that, without NTIS, the basis for private sector entry would become so marginal as to 

preclude investment by any company. It would simply be too difficult for any private sector company 

to perform the role of NTIS in assembly of the basic data. That role for NTIS is necessary for 

governmental management of the results of its programs and for distribution of them for governmental 

purposes. Therefore, in my view continuation of NTIS in that role is totally consistent with this 

principle. 

The ambivalence appears when the role of NTIS in distribution becomes important. Now, that 

ambivalence was present during the PS/PS Task Force discussions, with specific reference to NTIS, 

which were at a time when electronic distribution via the Internet was discussed as feasible but had not 

assumed the importance it now has. Assuming NTIS were to continue in its role as the central manager 

of access to governmental scientific and technical report, should it play a role in distribution? In my 

personal view, clearly YES, in the same way that the Department of Commerce distributes Statistical 

Abstract of the United States. But the objective in doing so should be to make the government 

information readily available to all who want access to it (such as individuals, like me). But beyond 

that, the objective is to encourage private sector companies to add value to those data, by repackaging, by producing products that are tailored to specific markets, etc. 

The point as far as the PS/PS Task Force was concerned, though, is that two groups of institutions 

(libraries and private sector information agencies), taken together, provide the best means for ensuring 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-35 

public access to government information. On the one hand, use of libraries, especially public and 

academic libraries, ensures that "ability to pay" does not raise barriers which effectively deny access to 

information. On the other hand, the use of private sector organizations, in the business of providing 

information services, ensures that individual freedom and initiative will be dedicated to developing 

and marketing a multiplicity of information services whose value is determined by the purchasers 

rather than by government. The principles and recommendations emphasize the importance of using 

this balance of means for access, in contrast to creating new agencies to do so. Everything that has 

happened for the past twenty years, with respect to technological developments in particular, confirms 

that this combination indeed is effective. 

Principle 4. The Federal government, when it uses, reproduces, or distributes information 

available from the private sector as part of an information resource, product, or service, must 

assure that the property rights of the private sector sources are adequately protected. 

The problem with which this principle was intended to deal was the potential that private sector data 

might, inadvertently or perhaps even by design, become incorporated into governmentally supplied 

information with the result that the property rights might be diluted. 

Among all of the principles (at least among those I've reviewed to this point), this may be the one that 

has been most affected by technological developments over the past twenty years. One need merely 

look at the controversy over Napster to see the problem. I don't think effects of technology change the 

intent of the principle, but they certainly complicate the reality. The potential for inadvertent inclusion 

of electronic material under copyright is very real. 

The problem, though, should not arise if we are dealing with deliberate use of copyrighted material. I 

know that in non-governmental contexts, responsible agencies, such as libraries, are very aware of the 

necessity of protecting private rights. As the nation's libraries advance in the development of "digital 

libraries", they are doing so with the utmost care with respect to private rights. I think the principle 

continues to be valid as a warning to federal agencies that they should operate with equal attention to 

individual rights. 

Principle 5. The Federal government should make governmentally distributable information 

openly available in readily reproducible form, without any constraints on subsequent use. 

With respect to Principle 5, the U.S. federal government is now actively distributing "information 

from government activities" through the Internet as well as through CD-ROMs. Census for the year 

2000, for example, may well be distributed primarily in electronic form, with print serving only 

archival purposes. (See "U.S. counting on Web to be census source; Bureau plans to post most of its 

2000 enumeration data on the Internet. Switch from paper to hypertext raises information issues", Los 

Angeles Times, Sunday, November 15, 1998, Home Edition, Section A.) The Library of Congress has 

launched an extensive means for access to its collections and activities. The ERIC system is now 

actively disseminating its materials through the Internet. The Department of Commerce distributes 

Statistical Abstract of the United States both online through the Internet and on CD-ROM. I could go 

on and on but the point is clear. This principle has been heartily endorsed by reality if not by policy. 

Principle 6. The Federal government should set pricing policies for distributing information 

products or services that reflect the true cost of access and/or reproduction, any specific prices 

to be subject to review by an independent authority. 

This principle is also of exceptional importance. To be specific, the intent was not only that the price 

should "reflect the true costs for access and/or reproduction" but more to the point that it should not be 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-36 

set to recover the costs in producing or assembling the information. Now, I must record that I am 

expressing my own understanding, my own interpretation, and my own views. There may well have 

been members of the PS/PS Task Force that were ready or even desired to have the price set at 

"market". But the wording was based on the view that the price should be set to cover only the costs of 

making the information available. 

Principle 7. The Federal government should actively use existing mechanisms, such as the 

libraries of the country, as primary channels for making governmentally distributable 

information available to the public. 

I suspect that this principle may be another part of the reason for the current concerns of the NCLIS. 

The particular example that the PS/PS Task Force had in mind was the Depository Library program, in 

fact. I think there have been attempts to eliminate that program, and to do so would be totally counter 

to the intent of this principle. 

THE RECOMMENDATIONS 

The Report presented a set of twenty-seven recommendations 

Recommendation #1. Provide an environment that will enhance the competitive forces of the 

private sector, so that the market mechanisms can be effective in allocating resources in the 

use of information and in directing innovation into market determined areas. 

Everything I have seen, at least for the decade of the 90s, confirm the picture of a thriving competitive, 

private, market-based sector for the information economy. Federal policies clearly have been effective 

in every respect, including increasing use of information and innovation in development of products. 

Recommendation #2. Affirm the applicability of the First Amendment to information products 

and services. 

Clearly, the Internet has raised many First Amendment issues. Congressional efforts to impose means 

for censorship were stopped by the courts based on First Amendment arguments. The view of the 

PS/PS Task Force was precisely that the First Amendment should not be limited to "the press" (taken 

in some limited sense) but should encompass other means for information distribution, such as the 

Internet (which was explicit in the discussions). As an ardent believer in the importance of First 

Amendment imperatives, I continue to endorse this principle. 

Recommendation #3. Encourage Congress to be consistent in the language used and in the 

application of principles relating to information products and services, such as those identified 

in this Report, when it formulates legislation and when it exercises its oversight role. 

Frankly, I do not recall the precise reasons that the PS/PS Task Force considered this to be worthy of 

recommendation. Looking at it now, it really is "preaching", and I would be inclined to eliminate it. 

Recommendation #4. Encourage government agencies to utilize the most efficient 

(information) technologies. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-37 

This too is "preaching", this time to the Executive Branch. I think that the PS/PS Task Force objective 

was to urge that those agencies should be in the forefront of use of the information technologies and 

not simply in the support to development of them. Again, I would be inclined to eliminate it. 

Recommendation #5. Encourage the setting and use of voluntary standards that will not inhibit 

the further development of innovative information products and services. 

The debate in the PS/PS Task Force on this topic was intense. Standards were viewed with great 

ambivalence. On the one hand, clearly they foster development by creating a framework on which 

products can be inter-related without concern about compatibility. On the other hand, they can also 

restrict creativity. The intent of this recommendation was to identify the balance between these two 

concerns but to do so in a way that, if anything, put greater emphasis on setting standards. Has this 

changed by the technological developments of the past twenty years? I think not. The balance still 

must be maintained but standards still are the means by which products can be inter-related. 

Recommendation #6. Encourage and support educational programs that provide the 

professional skills needed to further the development and use of information as an economic 

and social resource. 

It is clear that this recommendation continues to have dramatic importance. From all of the reports 

from the information industries, there is a shortage of qualified persons for employment. The recent 

expansion of the basis for hiring foreign workers with technological skills clearly is based on the 

perception that there are needs that are not being met. Beyond that, there are needs is preparing 

managers in the use of information resources. 

Recommendation #7. Encourage and support both basic and applied research in library and 

information science. 

I suppose that this recommendation were blatantly self-serving, but I think it is consistent with 

Recommendation #6. The facts are that financial support for research in the specific arena of "library 

and information science" has declined in the past two decades, and I think the loss is a serious 

problem. 

Recommendation #8. Encourage and support statistical programs and related research to 

provide the data needed to deal with information policy issues. 

I think that the shift from SIC to NAICS coding represents exactly what the PS/PS Task Force had in 

mind. Prior statistics have grievously under-estimated the magnitude of the information sector of the 

economy, and by doing so have meant that policy decisions in both the legislative and executive 

branches have been based on inaccurate picture of the effect of those policies. Now, while the current 

statistical programs have made some steps in the direction of improved reporting, there is still much 

that needs to be done. To me, this is therefore one of the most important recommendations. 

Recommendation #9. Conduct a periodic economic assessment of the impact of Federal 

government information products and services. 

Recommendation #10. Encourage Federal agencies to regard the dissemination of information, 

especially through the mechanisms of the private sector (both for profit and not for profit), as a 

high priority responsibility. 

I think that these recommendations are valid and even self-evident. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-38 

Recommendation #11. Identify and evaluate alternatives to existing Federal information 

dissemination mechanisms. 

Recommendation #12. Develop and support the use of libraries as active means for access to 

governmental information by the public. 

As are these. 

Recommendation #13. Identify and eliminate legal and regulatory barriers to the introduction 

of new information products and services. 

Frankly, I'm not sure what barriers the PS/PS Task Force had in mind in making this recommendation. 

But an example that comes to mind is the change in policy concerning capitalization of software. In 

my view that should be extended to other kinds of information investments (such as in databases). 

Now, these may not represent "barriers" so much as accounting policies that in the past treated 

investments in information as parts of "goodwill" in assessing the value of companies. By doing so, 

they in effect debased the currency for measuring the return on such investments. There may be other 

examples that can be brought to mind. But whether so or not, I think this recommendation still has 

value. In fact, I would put greater stress upon the issue of proper evaluation of investment in 

"intangibles" such as "information", as my illustration here are intended to highlight. 

In passing, I want to comment on one of the debates that occurred during the discussions of the PS/PS 

Task Force. It concerned whether "information" should be regarded as a "resource" and as a "capital 

investment". My view was that it clearly was a resource and an investment, at the least for companies 

in the information industries. But there were some on the Task Force who vociferously argued against 

that position, claiming that to do so would give it too much importance. They said, in so many words, 

"Information is a support to decision-making, not an investment." Certainly that position was correct if 

it was set in the context of management decision-making. But in the context of information product 

development, it is in my view totally incorrect. The database of an ISI or an OCLC is as much a 

capital investment, necessary for production of information products and services, as is a machine tool 

in Ford or General Motors, necessary for production of automobiles. Yet today, the information 

investment is always expensed but the machine tool investment is almost always capitalized. 

Recommendation #14. Encourage private enterprise to "add value" to government information 

(i.e., to re-package it, provide further processing services, and otherwise enhance the 

information so that it can be sold at a profit). 

Of all the recommendations, it seems to me that this one gets to the heart in resolution of the issues 

with which the PS/PS Task Force was concerned. Specifically, the distribution of government 

information by the government should not be considered as competition (assuming that the principles 

and recommendations in that respect are followed) but as opportunity. It provides the private sector 

with the opportunity to utilize that information, to develop their own products and services based on it 

and with the expectation that the government will continue to provide the information, not as a 

competitor but as a source. I continue heartily to endorse this principle. 

Recommendation #15. Provide incentives to existing organizations, such as libraries and 

bookstores that will encourage them to expand their activities in dissemination of 

governmentally distributable information. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-39 

The Depository Library program represented the precise case in point for this recommendation. The 

point is that libraries, in particular, provide the "safety-net" for those who do not have the economic 

resources to pay for what can be exceptionally expensive private sector added-value services. When 

the general public may not be able to afford those private sector services, they should still have access 

to the governmental data on which those value-added services are based. It is this objective to which 

this recommendation refers. Now, does the Internet reduce the importance of this recommendation? I 

think not. If anything, it enhances it, since the library again serves as the safety net both for access to 

the government information and, more importantly, for access to the professional assistance in support 

of evaluation and use of it. 

Recommendation #16. Establish procedures which will create a realistic opportunity for 

private sector involvement in the planning process for government information activities 

Recommendation #17. Involve the private sector in the process of formulating standards 

relating to Federal information activities. 

Recommendation #18. Create or improve mechanisms for ensuring that the actions of 

government agencies, in developing information resources, products, and services, are 

consistent with the policies, goals, and long range plans that are announced. 

Recommendation #19. Announce intentions sufficiently ahead of time to provide an 

opportunity for private sector involvement when a government agency, for reasons it regards 

as compelling, should plan to develop and/or to market an information product or service. 

Recommendation #20. Review and approve, before implementation, any plans for the 

government to develop and/or market an information product or service, the review to be 

carried out by an agency appropriate to the branch of government (such as OMB, GAO, 

CBO). 

Recommendation #21. Include an "information impact and cost analysis" as part of the 

process of review, evaluation, and approval of any plans for the government to develop and/or 

to market an information product or service, the analysis to cover economic and social effects, 

effects on existing products and services, effects on potential private sector products and 

services, and benefits to the public. 

Recommendation #22. Review periodically to evaluate the desirability of continuation of any 

information product or service as a governmental activity. 

Recommendation #23. Do not arbitrarily restrict the Federal government from enhancement of 

information products and services, even if solely to meet the needs of constituencies outside 

the government itself. 

Recommendation #24. Announce the availability of governmentally distributable information 

and maintain one or more registers to help the public determine what governmentally 

distributable information is available. 

Recommendation #25. Deposit governmentally distributable information, in whatever forms it 

may be available, at national and regional centers, including regional depository libraries, 

where it may be examined at no charge. 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-40 

Recommendation #26. Do not assert any Federal government copyrights on information the 

Federal government makes domestically available. 

Recommendation #27. Use the nation's libraries and non-governmental information centers as 

means for distribution of governmentally distributable information instead of creating new 

governmental units or expanding existing ones. 

All of these recommendations were focused not so much on the general objectives as on the specifics 

of means. The private sector representatives on the PS/PS Task Force wanted to assure that their 

interests would be heard and listened to. They wanted to assure that procedures in making policies and 

in implementing programs would be as open as possible so as to make it possible for them to 

participate in the process. I think those aspects continue to be necessary, not only to meet the needs of 

private sector entrepreneurs but as a general policy of good government. 

In parallel, the members of the PS/PS Task Force that represented the "public sector" in the debate 

wanted to assure that their interests were also recognized in areas such as equity in access, maintaining 

the role of libraries, assuring that the safety-nets for meeting needs continued to stay in place. In this 

respect, these recommendations tried to balance the two sets of interests. And I think that that too 

continues to be necessary. 

DEFINITIONS 

There were an untold number of definitions. 

In any area of controversy, the terms used in the discussion become not only means for 

expressing the ideas but the very focus of the conflicts themselves. It is thus necessary to 

develop specific definitions for the terms used, so as to assure common understanding and to 

clarify the conflicts. The definitions, as presented here, are not intended to be universally 

accepted, but the principles and recommendations must be read with them in mind. 

I won't here review the array of definitions, but I do want to highlight some of them that I think 

continue to be critical. 

A key issue, here, was the ambiguous position of the third sector organizations (universities, 

libraries, research institutes, professional societies). In some situations, they are public sector 

institutions (public libraries and public universities, for example, are clearly part of 

government, in the sense that they are governmentally funded and operated), but in other 

contexts they function as part of the private sector. The basis for resolution of this ambiguity 

was never clarified, so the third sector organizations—the not-for-profit institutions and 

comparable activities of government—were usually treated as part of their respective sectors 

rather than being identified as a group separate from the other two. The fact remains, though, 

that the very membership of the Task Force was chosen to represent three sectors, not two. 

I think that in public policy debates, certainly in the information field if not more generally, this group 

of institutions, which lie between the "public sector" and the "private sector" needs to be given more 

attention than it usually receives, as an independent set of participants and not buried in one or the 

other of the two. In the international arena, the NGOs (non-governmental organizations) are being 

explicitly recognized as necessary and independent participants, sitting between government and 

business. And that is precisely the group I am talking about here. 
A Comprehensive Assessment of Public Information Dissemination 

3-41 

The term "information" was repeatedly used in the Task Force discussions, but it vas 

impossible to arrive at an agreed upon definition. It appeared and was generally understood to 

refer to the content or symbolic substance of a communication, as separate from the physical 

form in which the communication occurred. But despite the appearance of a general 

understanding of the term, it simply eluded specific definition. 

The problem faced by the Task Force is exemplified by the definition of "information" given 

in the 9 June 1980 draft statement from the OMB, concerning "Improved Management and 

Dissemination of Federal Information: Request for Comment". In it, "information" is defined 

as "...publications and other documents, such as reports, studies, and brochures, which are 

available in a paper or microform media (sic)." That definition (in identifying "information" 

with the media that convey it, and with a limited set of such media at that) is irreconcilable 

with the usage in the Task Force. 

Although the Task Force did not define "information", at least characteristics of it as an "economic 

entity" were explicitly recognized. I won't here review what the PS/PS Task Force report said in this 

respect, but I think that what was said continues to be important. It has become especially so as the 

information economy and the information technologies continue to expand. The economic role of 

information needs to be identified, and not simply in the traditional way in which the economists have 

treated it (i.e., simply as part of the decision-making process). 

 

The differences between an information product and an information service were a matter of 

extensive debate and, in fact, seemed to exemplify rather fundamental issues in the discussion. 

This distinction or rather the blurring of this distinction has become increasingly important as a result 

of information technology developments in the past two decades. Indeed, online publication is both a 

product and a service. Now, it may be that a distinction does not need to be made, but the facts are that 

government policies seem to treat them as different. 

There was disagreement over whether the information industry should be limited to private 

sector organizations, thus excluding governmental agencies such as NTIS and the GPO. Those 

arguing that it should include government agencies and their contractors saw the term as 

representing a kind of function; those arguing against doing so, saw the term as representing 

the difference between public and private sectors, "industry" being confined to the private 

sector. 

My own view is that the term "information industry" should be treated as a function and that 

"industry" is not confined to the private sector. In saying that, I must reiterate that I am not suggesting 

that the government (i.e., the "public sector") should get into the business of marketing its products as 

a source of income and in competition with the private sector. But I strongly believe that governmental 

information activities, as functions, should be treated on a par with private sector function, certainly in 

statistical accounting. 

Most of the Task Force deliberations focused on the availability of "government information", 

but the definition of that term fluctuated widely during the discussion. At times, the term was 

taken very broadly, including all kinds of information generated by or collected by the 

government or by its contractors. At other times, the term was taken very narrowly, limited to 

the definition given by the OMB, in which it is restricted to mean "...for which the government 

is the primary user"; that usage contrasts "government information" with "public information", 

the latter being interpreted as '.... information to inform or educate the public". 
U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 

3-42 

There are many problems underlying the diversity of definitions. I won't here try to review them, as 

they are recounted in the PS/PS Task Force report, but each of the problems interacts with the others, 

and while there is some overlap among them, there are no easy ways of reducing them to a limited 

number of sub-categories of government information. This complicated the task of coming to 

agreement on several principles, since different categories of government information will almost 

certainly require different conditions for availability. I think that the problem in definition of the term 

"government information" continues.