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.