STIP Managers Teleconference
November 8, 2006
12:00-1:00 pm ET
Participants: Mary Johnson (NSTec),
Jill Jacoby (NSTec), Bonna Savarise
(YMP), Nancy Doran (PNNL), Mary Donahue (NREL), Kate
Sordelet (AMES), Alison Easter (AMES), Dave
Hamrin (ORNL), Cathy Wright (NETL-Albany), Dennis Gound (ORNL Site Office), Kathy Macal (ANL),
Kim Johnson (ANL), Sharon West (SLAC), Stephanie Weitzenkamp (SLAC), Diane
Quenell (ORD), Catherine Crawley (ORISE), Jessica Shafer-Gant (SNL), Donna
Lawson (Y-12), Kevin Schmidt (SRS), Debbie Caver (SRO), Michelle Johnson
(INL-CWI), Kathryn Duerr (Fermilab), Gayla Bratton (HNF), Daphne Evans (OSTI-IIA), Patty Simmons
(OSTI), Judy Gilmore (OSTI), Jannean
Elliott (OSTI), Sharon Jordan
(OSTI), Dave Bellis (OSTI), Gary Robinson (OSTI), and Kathy
Waldrop (OSTI)
STIP Home Page (Jannean Elliott) – A
password-protected area is being added to the STIP website. Called STIPWorks, this page will provide a place where internal
communications can be posted without fear that the public will access
them. These communications might include draft documents, review
comments, presentations, papers, or notes of discussions about handling of
limited access records, etc. Both the username and the password will be
shared and used by the STIP group as a whole. They will be sent to the
names on the STI Managers list and those on the TIO Officers list. These
designated names may then share the username and password, using normal
precautions, with appropriate members of the STIP community at their
site.
Implementing DOE 241.1 at
Sub-Contractor Level (Nancy Doran and Judy Gilmore)
– DOE O 241.1A includes the Contractor Requirements Document (CRD) as an
attachment, and reads: "Site/facility management contractors much accomplish
the following:...#6. Apply the requirements of this Order to subcontracts
at any tier to the extent necessary to ensure the contractors' compliance with
the requirements." PNNL identified some related issues and was
interested in sites' approach to the the following
questions: 1. Do other DOE laboratories ask the subcontractors to
get the material to OSTI themselves, or do the labs/sites. handle it?; 2) Do
other DOE laboratories simply pass reports through, or do they add their own
report number as well. Some of the smaller companies that we do business
with probably don't have a report code prefix established. If they do, do
both numbers (sub's and Lab's) go on the report? Either?; 3) What
materials (or metadata) do other DOE laboratories send to OSTI? We're
assuming reports would need to go to OSTI but what about citations for journal
articles, conference papers, etc.; and 4) What kinds of reviews, if any, are
done on these materials? Do they simply accept the materials as is from
the subcontractor - no peer review, for example? Do they do ADC
reviews. In response to the discussion, Kevin
Schmidt agreed to send their contract language that specifically states the
sub-contractors responsibility as it relates to submitting STI. He was also
planning to check to see if they had additional contract language for work for
others (WFO).
Subject Category Update Project (Jannean Elliott) - Jannean
and Gary Robinson, the intern from University
of Tennessee’s School of Library
and Information Science, announced a project and solicited help from STIP
sites. The project’s goal is to update OSTI’s
Subject Category Authority so that it will reflect any new areas of DOE
research established since the last update several years ago. Jannean
explained the various approaches that will be used during the analysis to
determine what new categories may be needed or how existing categories may need
to be expanded. One approach involves taking subject categories used by
DOE sites for their STI database and mapping these to OSTI’s
list to identify gaps. Jannean and Gary asked that any site with a list
of site categories used in indexing STI records be sent to them at elliottj@osti.gov/
E-Link (Kathy
Waldrop)
-- Remarking
Previously Digitized STI Documents
A concern
that surfaces from time to time relates to revising access limitation markings
in E-Link, but not remarking STI documents that have already been digitized. We
know of cases where the document doesn’t reflect the OUO or other protected
marking when the E-Link record does. The
problem is that if a document is not properly marked then it is possible that a
downloaded and printed version of the document could be mishandled or shared
inappropriately. We have to consider
this as we change a marking in E-Link that we too need to edit or rescan the
document to reflect the new marking.
-- Secondary
Sensitivity Reviews (i.e., editing metadata)
Sites have
expressed that they would like for OSTI to reflect in a record when a document
has received a secondary sensitivity review that as a result led to the unhiding of a document or just an access limitation
revision. OSTI needs your help to do
this properly.
We believe for
things that were hidden and then unhidden after 9/11, OSTI can go back to the
history table and make a notation in the E-Link record to reflect that the
document has been re-reviewed using post 9/11 criteria. OSTI has recently begun asking sites to update
the “Other Information” data field (immediately following the access limitation
field on the Web form) to reflect that a secondary sensitivity review was
completed by (site name) on (date) and the access limitation
remains unclassified unlimited OR was changed as a result of the review. If the sites will edit the E-Link record to
reflect the re-review, this will be very helpful in the future when we either
receive a request for the document or if there is any question about whether or
not something should be hidden. We don’t
want to ask sites to re-review documents they have already re-reviewed since
9/11. We have asked that the “Other
Information” field be displayed in both the SRC meta record and the E-Link
summary.
Miscellaneous (All)
2007 STIP Meeting -- Kathy Waldrop shared the possible
tour itinerary with the group. Monday,
April 23, is the only date available for tours.
The group was presented with the option of going to Yucca Mountain
or the Nevada Test Site or going both places which would take approximately 11
hours. The individuals who were on the call who plan to arrive early enough for
a tour voted to tour Yucca
Mountain. Since all sites were not represented on the
call, the entire group will be polled again closer to STIP Meeting time when
individuals will need to commit to a tour so that all details associated with
the tour (i.e., transportation, lunch, security, etc.) can be completed well in
advance.
LOWG Discussions (Mary Petersen) –
DOE Consortium - Discussed the possibility of creating a template
license agreement with desirable standard language, which the consortium could
use to negotiate the terms of the license agreements with the publishers.
Marie Suhre provided draft suggested language.
It was suggested that the consortium consider using ICPT
(Integrated Contractor Purchasing Team) to assist in our site license
negotiations. Judy Gilmore will set up a call to discuss how ICPT may
assist the Consortium.
Mary noted during the call that she asked if Wiley would
consider offering a Science and Technology bundle to the DOE. Dennis St. Rose
said the fact that we have separate site licenses for each contractor would be
an obstacle. Perhaps this would be one that ICPT could assist with.
The issue is authorizing one individual to sign a single site license for the
consortium. We agreed that we would discuss the possibility at a meeting
of the Consortium.
Interest was expressed in pursuing the following
publishers/products.
1) SciFinder - if we can
persuade them to offer a true site license for access, which would include
ability to save search sessions, etc.
2) Revisit AIP
3) NewsBank
- obtain re-offer.
4) E-books - interested
in being able to select on a title by title basis (e.g. My Library).
5) ExPub
- for Chemical knowledge databases
6) Standards
7) An electronic
Document Delivery Service - if we could agree on a preferred vendor/service.
LOWG - STI Topics
- Enhance SRC to provide
increased flexibility for manipulating search results.
- Status of OSTI and NIH
streamlining/merging their document submission/harvesting processes so
that the scientists would only have to submit once? Sharon is working this issue.
- Is there anything the group can
do to “lobby” for funding to accelerate digitization of legacy
information?
- Several libraries would like a
supply of the OSTI bookmark to provide to their researchers.
- Some sites are planning to
proceed with digitization of legacy documents. OSTI contact that can
confirm documents that have already been digitized by OSTI is Patti
Simmons; simmonsp@osti.gov; 865-576-1290.
OSTI contact who will coordinate linking of data digitized
by sites is Jeff Given; givenj@osti.gov;
865-576-1146.
LOWG - Resource
Sharing
Discussed ways to exchange
information and increase the sharing with LOWG. Miriam Blake offered to
host an LOWG Wiki at LANL. Site reports from the
meeting were sent to her as a starting point.
2007 LOWG Meeting
- Sandia offered to
host next year’s LOWG Meeting.
CENDI Seminar - Judy
Gilmore of OSTI attended the recent CENDI seminar entitled: COPYRIGHT & MARKING GOVERNMENT WORKS: WHY KEEP THE PUBLIC GUESSING? It was hosted by the CENDI
Copyright Working Group, CENDI being the interagency group of Senior Federal
STI managers. This group is exploring
the feasibility of establishing a symbol, tag and metadata to mark and identify
government works. This is of interest
since a section in the Federal Research Public Access Bill (Cronyn-Lieberman)
has, as one of its provisions, the requirement that works by Federal employees
"be marked as being public domain material when published." Whether
the bill ever passes, agencies may chose to implement some or all of the
provisions. In addition, a government
mark would serve as Copyright Management Information (CMI), defined under the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) as identifying information about a
work, author, copyright owner (or not) as well as terms and conditions for use
of the work. Whether implemented
government-wide or on a department or agency basis, marking government works would
benefit both government and citizen users in identifying what is a government
work and free from copyright restrictions.
This approach is not specific to STI, but also images and other
types of products would be addressed. In
addition to Federal speakers, participants included speakers from Wikipedia and Creative
Commons. This group will continue to follow the
legislation and requirements, and to foster ongoing discussion and awareness of
related issues. Links to the
presentations are now available at: http://cendi.dtic.mil/activities/11_02_06_gov_info_mkng_wkshp.html In addition, Copyright FAQs
are available at http://cendi.dtic.mil/, link to the Copyright
and Intellectual Property Working Group.