[ Back to the Table of Contents ]
Cataloging and Locator Tools Proposals
Remarks by Laurie Beyer Hall
Supervisory Program Analyst
Before the Depository Library Council
April 11, 2000
Newport, RI
Good morning! I’m Laurie Hall, Supervisory Program Analyst in the Library Programs Service (LPS). For those of you who are somewhat unfamiliar with job titles in the Federal government, I head up the team of systems and project analysts responsible for developing new LPS products and services and maintaining many of the existing ones. That’s why I have been asked to brief you on the report "GPO’s Cataloging and Locator Services: Action in Progress and Proposals for Change" [see report, p. 41 and Council recommendation 7, p. 54].
In October 1999, the Depository Library Council recommended that GPO and LPS conduct a review of our online locator tools and services to "evaluate the need, redundancy and the organization of current tools." The discussion of this issue began in the 1999 Spring Council meeting and was continued by a number of LPS staff, including former Electronic Transition Specialist Judy Andrews and members of the Electronic Collections Team.
The current offering of tools and services evolved since the beginning of the electronic transition in the mid-1990’s, and some originated during the tenure of the first Electronic Transition Specialists. Products were enhanced when modifications were feasible and staff was available. Each tool was usually maintained by one staff member, independently from the other locator tools and services.
With the Council recommendation in hand and a deadline looming, staff got down to the business of gathering and analyzing data and crafting specific proposals.
For the purposes of this review, we focused our analysis on the six specific locator products that are primarily created and maintained by staff of the Library Programs Service. These are:
- The Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP) also known as MOCAT online
- Browse Electronic Titles
- Browse Topics
- GILS applications
- Federal Agency Internet Sites – the partnership with Louisiana State University
- Pathway Indexer
Knowing that our users are from the library community and the general public, we didn’t want to eliminate any tools because we felt there was utility in all of the services and tools we were offering. The browse tools served the users who like to browse and the search tools filled the need for those users who were more comfortable and experienced with searching. We also knew that the applications we created 3 years ago needed technological fixes. There was some redundancy among tools as well. When deciding what kind of changes we would propose, we identified several objectives that we hoped to meet: For the USER, these were to:
- Eliminate redundancy
- Make the services easier to use
- Provide more comprehensive coverage of electronic resources
- Continue to ensure that electronic resources in the FDLP/EC are authoritative.
Given our previous experience in maintaining the current tools, our goals for LPS were to:
- Create tools that incorporate electronic resources
- Better integrate electronic resources in the LPS workflow
- Simplify maintenance
- Make more effective use of staff resources
- Find better technological solutions to support LPS operations
Data Analysis
Before we came up with specific proposals, we gathered statistical data from various sources to assist in the analysis. We looked at 6 months worth of data that was gathered from GPO Access logs and data from Question 43 of the 1999 Biennial Survey. Question 43 asks "If you use the cataloging and locator tools and services and which ones." We also relied on feedback we received from the community via askLPS and input you have given us directly. (Some of the data are available in attachment 1 of the handout). These data helped us identify the tools and services that were used heavily and those that were used less frequently. The Catalog of Government Publications was the most heavily used. That was not a surprise to most of us. We were a little puzzled by what we thought were low hit counts for the Browsable services. After checking with a few libraries which maintain similar browsable services, we felt that our hit counts for Browse Topics and Titles were pretty consistent.
Based on this analysis, LPS crafted 6 proposals for your consideration. These are:
- Find a partner for Browse Topics
- GILS browse page consolidation
- Find a Pathway Indexer partner
- Refocus Browse Electronic Titles
- Phase out publication of the CD-ROM MOCAT
- Reconfigure the paper MOCAT
The first four proposals make changes and/or modifications to 4 of the existing Locator Tools and Services.
Browse Topics
A partnership to maintain the Browse Topics seems to us to be a great fit. Topics is by its nature user-driven, and you know what subjects and topics your patrons are asking for and can keep the existing topics more current. Currently, individual topics are created and maintained by volunteer librarian partners, with assistance of an LPS staff person. Based on the success of that model, we would like to have a partner assume overall coordination of the entire Topics resource. GPO would still have an oversight role, as we do with all of our partnerships. Many of you have expressed an interest in partnership opportunities and Steve and George may be contacting you in the near future.
GILS
Our second proposal is to simplify the GILS applications. The usage data indicates that the GILS applications are used heavily. We have heard from many of you who were confused by the three choices of types of GILS records and didn’t understand the subtle differences in record sets. We are proposing to combine the Browse GILS Records by Agency and the Browse GILS pointer records into a single browsable tool. The Browse Pathway GILS Records will be eliminated. These records were created by LPS staff and are not recognized as official and authoritative by publishing agencies according to the GILS mandate. This process will eliminate redundant records and the additional maintenance burden associated with offering similar sets of records.
Pathway Indexer
According to the statistical data that we analyzed, use of the Pathway Indexer was very low. The application has always been high-maintenance, and the technology is based on the Harvest freeware that is no longer supported. In cooperation with Office of Electronic Information Dissemination (EIDS), LPS is investigating newer technology solutions provided by an external partner like Google or GovBot.
Browse Titles
Our next proposal is to redesign the Browse Electronic Titles to improve the current awareness value of this tool. Over the years, as the list of titles continues to expand, the BET began to lose its browsability. With over 3000 entries, the current BET is very maintenance intensive. We are proposing that the BET organized by agency as it currently exists be eliminated. We will continue to offer the New Additions, now called the NET (New Electronic Titles) every week for four weeks, which is approximately 100 new titles offered per month. Our goal is to catalog all new electronic titles in NET before the weekly list is posted each Friday.
Additional Proposals
These are the 4 major proposals that directly impact the locator tools and services we provide. Two specific proposals in the report impact the publication of two tangible cataloging products. I’ll just go over what is being proposed.
- LPS is proposing to phase out the production of the CD-ROM version of the Monthly Catalog after all of the issues for the year 2000 are completed. It is expensive to produce and the publishing schedule is very slow. The cataloging records in the CD-ROM are more readily available in the CGP. An annual cumulation on CD may be an alternative.
- The 2nd proposal is to make the print Monthly Catalog and Periodicals Supplement current awareness lists of products arranged by classification number. The current MOCAT process, as many of you know, is based on early 1970’s technology that is very expensive and very difficult to maintain. By reconfiguring the paper MOCAT, we can migrate the publication to a desktop application that can be produced in LPS. This process will shorten the production time, increase accuracy and timeliness of the product and reduce costs while still meeting our statutory obligations. [See Council recommendation 7, p. 54.]
In Progress
By adopting these 6 product proposals, LPS can shift staff resources to work on projects that will enhance the complete suite of locator tools and services. As you consider these proposals, I would just like to highlight some projects that are currently underway in LPS that help us gather information to meet the goals and objectives that we have identified earlier.
- CGP maintenance
– Staff has begun a project to clean up many of the records in the CGP. Our proposal to reconfigure the BET will help us focus on the new additions while encouraging users to search the CGP as the most comprehensive resource for identifying, locating and accessing both tangible and online products.
- LPS/CORC Participation
– To gain experience with alternative bibliographic description methods, and to provide access to a more comprehensive range of electronic resources, we are currently exploring OCLC’s Cooperative Online Resource Catalog (CORC) project as the first tentative steps to integrating "cataloging" with "metadata." We are negotiating with the United States Institute of Peace to attempt a small pilot that will bring previously inaccessible resources with high research value created by the Institute into the FDLP/EC, with MARC records that derive from metadata tags. This will involve not just examination of our own cataloging processes, but close collaboration with United States Institute of Peace to provide useful metadata.
- CORC/OCLC archiving project –
As Gil Baldwin mentioned in his presentation yesterday, LPS continues to meet and work with OCLC to develop a business model for digital archiving, including defining the requirements and technical infrastructure for this potential joint project.
- The BET Retro Project
project is being coordinated by members of the Electronic Collection Team to ensure that all resources previously posted to the BET receive cataloging records in the CGP and if necessary, are archived.
- GILS work
- Staff in Office of Electronic Information Dissemination (EIDS) continues to perform on-going maintenance activities for existing GILS records.
- Technology Planning
–LPS staff are in the planning phase of a project to replace key systems in LPS to create better technological solutions that support LPS operations.
I want to thank you for allowing me to brief you on these proposals. We will take questions now and for those who haven’t had an opportunity to digest these proposals and need a good night’s sleep to think about it all, Tad and I will be available tomorrow morning for additional questions.
[ Back to the Table of Contents ]
Report on GPO’s Transition to a More Electronic FDLP
By Depository Library Council
Electronic Transition Committee
April, 2000
Newport, RI
The Electronic Transition Committee has analyzed the following GPO reports:
- Completing the Transition to a More Electronic FDLP, Council Discussion Draft, 4/21/99 [see p. 36]
- Progress Report on the Transition to a More Electronic FDLP, 1996-1999 [see Administrative Notes, v. 20, # 8, 5/1/99)
The Committee looked at the following issues:
- Are the assumptions stated valid?
- Are there additional assumptions which should be considered?
- What actions should GPO take to strengthen the FDLP in light of these assumptions?
- Are the current activities of GPO appropriate?
- What other activities should GPO undertake?
- Has GPO effectively met the milestones in the Progress Report?
- Are the reasons for activities deferred valid?
- What are the next steps of the transition and how should GPO be positioning itself for a more electronic FDLP?
Introduction
The Committee is pleased with the progress of the electronic transition and encourages GPO to continue its development of the electronic program. The Committee is concerned that outside influences may restrict GPO’s ability to accomplish all of its goals. For instance, GPO is dependent upon Congress for funding and if Congress does not approve additional funding, then certain projects may not be undertaken or some "traditional" services, including dissemination in multiple formats, may have to be curtailed. Also, the Committee understands that GPO is only one piece of the government information environment and while GPO may be successful in its transition, the entire Federal government may not. Developments in technology and librarianship/archives make it difficult to plan for the future. We do not know what standards will exist for tomorrow’s access.
Libraries are also struggling with managing all types of electronic information and lack a clear vision as to how information will be located and managed in the near future. Technology and Congressional politics will continue to shape GPO’s ability to make a successful transition to a more electronic FDLP. GPO must operate within its Congressional authority and funding. Within these restrictions it is critical that GPO adapt to the changing technical and political environment.
1. Are the assumptions stated valid?
The Electronic Transition Committee agrees with the assumptions as stated and that they are valid.
The Committee has the following comments and observations:
#3 The trend toward decentralized Federal printing, publishing, and dissemination will continue.
- The Committee suspects Federal agencies will not consider permanent public access (PPA) of much importance unless prodded by regulations, policies, and/or public demand. Many Federal agencies do not understand the concept of PPA and its relationship to NARA activities. PPA and archival activities should not be viewed as competitive but rather complementary practices to ensure access to government information.
- There is also a role for education, raising the level of awareness among agencies about PPA issues. Agencies will need to be educated as to the role of PPA in the life cycle of information. This education needs to be targeted to various levels of responsibility within an agency. GPO can provide leadership in PPA by providing information and/or demonstrations on best practices.
- Dissemination will vary from agency to agency dependent upon their philosophy of public access to Federal information and their statutory and regulatory requirements. Dissemination of information has always varied but many within government equate Internet publishing to dissemination. GPO assisted in the dissemination of tangible products by including publications within the Monthly Catalog and promoting access through depository libraries. Agencies who rely on the Internet for dissemination may miss the opportunity to promote their publications through the FDLP. GPO is trying to continue cataloging and locating services in an unstructured environment and faces unique challenges.
- Internet technology facilitates wide exposure to Federal information with the ultimate goal of providing access for many Americans without geographical restrictions. Not all Americans are connected to the Internet and those that are connected have varying levels of ability to access the information found there. Libraries play a critical role in providing equipment and networking to enable those without Internet capabilities to access government information. Decentralized agency Internet publishing will require new skills for librarians who must have in-depth knowledge of Internet sites and locating resources found there.
- Decentralization is not new to the Federal government, but Internet publishing, as compared with GPO publishing, compounds the problem of locating government information. Finding aids are more critical in the Internet environment, but they need to be easy to use and standardized across government Internet sites when possible. GPO, with other Federal agencies, needs to employ a distributed search technology that searches across a variety of sites, metadata and content resources. The search tools need to be integrated with each other. Technology should not be used to mimic the paper tools but rather to enhance access to information. The web makes it possible to merge resources and to make references to related databases or to search a variety of databases with one interface. GPO had a good start with the Pathway Indexer. However, this needs to be further developed, merged with existing government search engines such as GovBot, or eliminated, with GPO partnering with another entity to provide similar services.
#5 The number of depository libraries will stabilize around 1300 libraries; most of the losses will be among small public and Federal agency libraries; there will be limited offsetting new designations from the Congressional redistricting following the 2000 census.
The Committee sees implications to this assumption. The number of libraries will probably decrease, but the number of libraries who access Federal Internet sites will increase. Libraries will not need to be a depository library in order to locate and use Federal information. Some may view this development as negative but the implication that all libraries can benefit from the FDLP is significant and should be viewed as a positive development. GPO needs to develop resources with the idea that every library provides the public with government information.
2. Are there additional assumptions which should be considered?
- The trend to shift costs from agencies to the user or to libraries will continue to occur. While this may be the unintended consequence of technology, it is important to realize that libraries will struggle with different issues such as printing, formatting, archiving, and instruction on technology in addition to the required knowledge of the government information environment.
- Depository libraries will not be able to individually preserve (refresh and migrate, download from websites, etc.) electronic publications for PPA in the way that they have for print-based publications. GPO’s electronic archive, although valuable, falls short of capturing all of the publications that would have been preserved in the print environment. Likewise, NARA will continue to suffer from inadequate resources to keep up with the flow of publications in need of processing for PPA.
- Government agencies and the private sector will continue to independently develop tools and resources to locate government information. These development efforts will take different tacks, requiring knowledge of the methods employed by the most used tools if GPO Access is to be aligned to provide the most authoritative results for those users.
- Partnerships between the government and the private sector will continue to develop and increase. The partnership between NTIS and NorthernLights serves as an example. Internet competition is intense and government budgets are tight. When agencies and private companies have an opportunity to develop services that are beneficial to both, they will create partnerships. While partnerships may be beneficial in providing increased access to government information, they can be viewed negatively if restricted to a certain segment of the population or if citizens are charged twice - first for the creation and second for the access to government information. For partnerships to be successful, they must improve services or access, and must maintain free and unobstructed public access to government information.
- Intellectual property law will continue to be murky and unsettled and will complicate access to government information disseminated through public/private partnerships.
- GPO may at times compete with other government agencies for funding and authority yet also collaborate with other government agencies for the greater good of increased access to government information.
- GPO needs to promote its resources and tools outside of the FDLP. GPO should market itself to all libraries in order to build a broader base of support for its mission. Particularly, GPO should market electronic publications that are available on their server to libraries. Typically, librarians do not consider GPO as a key access point to Federal information. Librarians will use the White House or the Library of Congress web sites first. Building on the slogan "Official Federal Government Information At Your Fingertips," GPO should undertake a marketing project in order to sell itself to librarians as one of the first sites to consider when searching for government information.
3. What actions should GPO take to strengthen the FDLP in light of these assumptions?
- GPO needs to further develop marketing efforts. This may require additional travel and conference funding as well as increasing marketing skills of GPO staff. Marketing initiatives must be directed to the wider library community, not primarily to depository librarians. For instance, GPO should consider advertising in library journals.
- GPO and Congress should consider revising the definition of a depository library or perhaps adopt new language that includes all libraries. The definition is tied to Congressional directives and it may not be possible to expand Title 44. However, the opportunity for outreach may be possible.
- GPO needs to develop tools and resources with the needs of all libraries in mind. The current resources are developed specifically for FDLP or they assume a working knowledge of the depository library system and the Federal government. Libraries with new staff, and non-depository libraries, may not be familiar with such resources as BET or even the Monthly Catalog. Clearly, many of the resources on GPO Access and in the FDLP Electronic Collection benefit all types of libraries and enable disintermediated use by a growing segment of the public. The Committee recommends that GPO build upon the success of their relationship with depository libraries and expand their relationship to the greater library community.
- GPO needs to develop services which are beneficial for all citizens; not just depository librarians. Current finding aids and resources assume knowledge of the depository program and structure of the Federal government. A layperson accessing online services may not understand the legislative process, the Monthly Catalog, or BET, nor why they are organizationally separate pages and not easily found on GPO Access. Resources need to be clear as to their purpose and integrated into the GPO Access web pages. Involving citizens in the advisory process of development or in feedback groups may provide some insights into how tools are used.
- GPO needs to develop training activities that reach a wider audience than depository librarians. Training modules may include the fundamentals of government publishing, governmental and commercial finding aids, and how to use GPO online services. The training modules should be created so that they may be used at many points: training for depository librarians, training by depository librarians, and "point-of-need" instruction for the public or librarians. Modules and tutorials could be either interactive or easily downloadable so they could be integrated into local training programs or used for self-teaching. Depository librarians would likely serve as a resource for GPO in providing input to assist in developing resources for all libraries.
- To increase training opportunities for all libraries, the role of the inspectors could evolve to include that of trainers. Or, GPO may develop trainers specifically assigned with responsibilities to conduct training beyond GPO Access. Training which is now conducted for GPO Access could be integrated into a seminar for locating and using government information. Inspectors could provide training for the trainer for depository librarians that would assist depository librarians in their outreach efforts. GPO would need to develop a comprehensive plan to use GPO staff and depository librarians to conduct training throughout the U.S. The Depository Library Conference is an excellent example of GPO coordination and depository librarian expertise in providing training and examples of best practices.
- GPO needs to make PPA a constant drumbeat in their communication with, and education of, Federal agency publishers.
- GPO needs to be active in standards development in areas such as cataloging and digitizing in order to keep pace with technology and to have an influence over the development of those standards.
- GPO needs to develop a workforce that is technologically savvy and can adapt procedures as the environment changes. To accomplish this effort, recruitment standards may be altered to include technology skills. Some existing GPO staff may need retraining or additional training to enhance their existing skills.
- GPO needs to conduct a comprehensive review of their current finding aids/tools to see if they are relevant and meet the needs of the users. (Recommended by Council, fall 1999)
- GPO needs to develop finding tools including a search engine that will simultaneously search databases and websites. A comprehensive and easy to use search engine is critical in promoting access to government information and to the marketing efforts of GPO. Excellent and easy finding aids will promote GPO’s services and enhance GPO’s visibility.
- GPO’s internal structure is organized around the production of print. Providing printing and dissemination services to Congress and Federal agencies is still a fundamental mission of GPO. However, it is clear that new information dissemination patterns would benefit from new models of organization. The Committee recommends that GPO broaden its sights and begin to explore ways to focus the agency on managing the information product through its entire life cycle, whether it be in print or electronically disseminated.
4. Are the current activities of GPO appropriate?
- The Committee recommends that GPO define "superseded" under the scope of archiving.
- The Committee commends GPO for the positive development of GPO Access. However, it is not clear even to depository librarians the relationship between the GPO web site, GPO Access, and GPO LPS web pages. The Committee views the GPO page and the GPO Access/SuDocs pages as separate pages. The Committee recommends that GPO re-evaluate its website and try to simplify the organization and the language of the site.
5. What other activities should GPO undertake?
The Committee recommends that GPO take a strong training role. It is likely that there will be fewer depository libraries but an increased usage of government information. GPO needs to expand its focus beyond depository libraries to all librarians.
6. Has GPO effectively met the milestones in the Progress Report? (#1-24)
The Committee agrees that GPO has met the milestones.
#8 Continue to monitor the technological capabilities...
GPO needs to evaluate the readiness of depository libraries and continue to advise librarians on the appropriate equipment necessary for a depository library. (Council recommendation, fall 1999)
7. Are the reasons for activities deferred valid? (#25-28)
The Committee agrees that deferred activities are appropriate.
- The Committee recommends that GPO continue to press for appropriations to complete the electronic transition. Specifically, the Committee recommends that additional funding be secured for technology grants. The grants may be the initial step in developing partnerships for PPA activities.
- The Committee concurs with GPO to not monitor costs for online services. Most libraries assume these costs for all online services and it is recognized as overhead costs or costs paid for by the user.
- The Committee acknowledges scanning activities as cost prohibitive. However, this is an option which may be considered in the future. The Committee recommends that GPO continue to monitor this possibility.
8. What are the next steps of the transition and how should GPO be positioning itself for a more electronic FDLP?
The Committee has addressed this question under #3.
Conclusion
The Committee appreciates GPO’s commitment to an electronic transition. The dynamic, highly competitive nature of the electronic information environment will continue to challenge GPO and FDLP activities. Budget restraints, Congressional directives, and internal philosophical differences may prevent GPO from achieving all of desired results of the FDLP community. The Committee realizes that GPO is not able to undertake all the initiatives and suggestions stated in this report. GPO is not entirely in control of its own destiny. GPO must depend upon Congress for funding and legislative direction, and on agencies for cooperation. The Committee is willing to work with GPO in identifying the most critical needs and assisting in articulating these needs to Congress. The Committee believes that GPO has achieved significant results and is on the correct path to continued success. The Committee recommends that GPO continue to build upon its traditional roles and emerge in the electronic environment as a more proactive and technologically savvy information provider. The Committee is confident GPO will play a vital role in the dissemination of government information in the electronic information environment.
Electronic Transition Committee
|
Duncan Aldrich, Chair, 1998-1999
Maggie Farrell, Chair, 1999-2000 |
GPO Liaisons
Fran Buckley
Gil Baldwin
George Barnum
|
Locator Subcommittee
Paula Kaczmarek, Chair
Julie Wallace
Cathy Hartman
Diane Eidelman |
Access Subcommittee
Fred Wood, Chair
Linda Fredericks
Kathy Tezla
|
Permanent Public Access/Archives Subcommittee
Diane Garner, Chair
T.C. Evans
Bob Hinton
Andrea Sevetson
|
NCLIS
Mary Alice Baish
|
[ Back to the Table of Contents ]
Completing the Transition to a More Electronic FDLP
Council Discussion Draft 4/21/99
NOTE: This is a longer version of the discussion paper dated 3/24/99 that was given to Council at the Spring 1999 meeting. Each of the action areas has been expanded with potential action items or considerations. Council is invited to review and comment on this paper to facilitate the development of goals and milestones for the transition to a more electronic FDLP. Any actions and milestones developed should fit into a timeframe from now through the end of FY 2001.
According to the strategic plan in GPO’s 1996 Study, the FDLP electronic transition will be complete at the end of FY 2001. What should the FDLP look like in 3 years? What actions are necessary to attain this outcome?
A. Assumptions:
1) By FY 2002 we will have completed the major portion of the transition. After that the FDLP will continue to evolve in response to developments in information technology, agency publishing practices, and the legislative and information policy environment.
2) Continuing technological developments will drive publishing, information dissemination, and library services.
3) The trend toward decentralized Federal printing, publishing, and dissemination will continue.
4) The statutory basis for the program will not significantly change; there will still be unresolved issues of overall Government information policy.
5) The number of depository libraries will stabilize around 1300 libraries; most of the losses will be among small public and Federal agency libraries; there will be limited offsetting new designations from the Congressional redistricting following the 2000 census.
6) The allocation of GPO program resources will continue to shift from acquiring and disseminating tangible products to managing the FDLP electronic collection. There will be a parallel trend in depository library operations.
7) The mix of depository products will change in tandem with agency publishing practices. When agencies publish both print and electronic versions of a product GPO’s general approach will be to select the electronic version for the FDLP, especially for titles currently considered appropriate for conversion to microfiche. However, the FDLP will include paper for core products as long as agencies publish in paper.
8) Providing cataloging and locator services for Government information products will remain a critical and growing GPO role.
9) Demographic changes, advancing technology, and a population more comfortable with computer use will change the perception and expectations of the FDLP among both depository librarians and public users.
10) There will be increased demands upon the Government to provide training and user support for electronic products and services.
Discussion:
- Are these assumptions valid?
- Are there other relevant assumptions?
- What actions should GPO take to strengthen the FDLP in light of these assumptions?
B. Potential Action Items and (as yet undated) Milestones
The above assumptions will lead us to define management direction and major activity areas for GPO and other FDLP stakeholders. Most of these may impact GPO, depository libraries, and/or Federal publishing agencies. In your comments, please specify who the affected or responsible party might be and when, in your view, the action should happen.
1. Permanent Public Access, Storage, and Archiving
Develop a working prototype electronic archive and related procedures (GPO, 1999).
Archiving ("storage") - obtain publicly accessible server space for our experimental archives.
Examine and obtain appropriate hardware and software. Most immediate need is "grabbing" software. Potential copyright/intellectual property issues of web caching.
Establish the storage sites mix between:
- In-house
- Remote, but still GPO
- Partner sites
Define scope of archiving.
- Should "superseded" versions be retained?
- Which products or collections are already archived and which are endangered?
- Should databases be archived at specific intervals?
- Should only the latest version of a database be retained?
Migration/Transformations: We should guarantee authentic nature of the "data" not necessarily the search & retrieval software.
Significant steps toward permanent access:
(a) Dedicating sufficient resources (financial and staff) to archiving.
(b) Authentication. Evaluate options and implement a solution that will verify that documents are authentic, and will aid in persistence.
(c) Archiving (Establish criteria for inclusion, test, implement technology)
(d) Establish policies and procedures.
(e) Develop a model system for agency notification of changes and new products.
(f) Study + define a strategy for migration/refreshment of data.
2. Information Delivery, Format issues, Products in the FDLP