----------------------------Original message----------------------------
THE FOLLOWING IS BEING POSTED ON GOVDOC-L, MAPS-L, AND LAW-LIB.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| T H E D U P O N T C I R C L E R E P O R T E R |
| |
| An Informal Newsletter for the Federal |
| Depository Library Community |
| May 6, 1993 No. 5 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS: * Discussion Draft: Governance Models for a
Federal Information Dissemination System
* Discussion Draft: Service Models for
Government Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This issue of the newsletter includes two "Discussion Draft"
documents written by the Dupont Circle Group. These documents
are presented as part of an effort to focus discussion on the
future of the Federal Depository Library Program. (Issue No. 4
of the newsletter presented additional draft documents, including
a mission statement and goals, benefits, and strengths of a
depository library program.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
* DUPONT CIRCLE DISCUSSION DRAFT *
GOVERNANCE MODELS FOR A FEDERAL INFORMATION DISSEMINATION SYSTEM
Governance Model 1: GPO as Primary Disseminator of Government
Information.
In this scenario the Government Printing Office continues as the
major administrator and supervisor of the Depository Library
Program, now renamed Federal Information Access Program (FIAP).
GPO would set the regulations, guidelines, and specifications for a
tiered organization of FIAP participating libraries. The GPO would
be responsible for moving with the FIAP libraries into an electronic
future while continuing to disseminate information in traditional
formats.
Governance Model 2: Federal Information Access Program in which
GPO continues to distribute print-based products; another agency
coordinates access to electronic information services.
While other agencies are rapidly moving into electronic publishing,
GPO is oriented toward print publishing and distribution. GPO is
unlikely to effectively and successfully manage the integration of
distribution of electronic services into the Federal Depository
Library Program. GPO has a long-established distribution system
for print based products--paper, fiche and tangible electronic
products such as CD-ROMS and diskettes. It will be more cost
effective to maintain one distribution system for tangible print and
electronic products. An agency which is an integral part of the
developing national information infrastructure should coordinate
access to electronic federal information. For Federal electronic
information in general, this agency would be responsible for
developing standards, archiving information, organizing data, and
creating a locator file. The agency would also manage a federal
electronic information access system, and provide product and
service support for electronic depositories. A number of existing
agencies--NTIS, NTIA, NSF could assume this responsibility. Our
greatest success would lie with a dynamic agency with a powerful
role.
Within this model, we need to determine responsibility for overall
management of the program, including identification and selection
of depositories, enforcement, communication, etc. It is important
not to have two separate systems; any federal depository should
be able to direct users to appropriate federal information regardless
of format.
Governance Model 3: New Disseminator of government information.
This agency is designed to address the problems that exist in the
present system of dissemination of federal government information,
improve public access to this information, and facilitate the
information access and dissemination functions of the federal
government. The lead agency could be an existing agency (NARA,
OMB, GPO, NTIA, NTIS) or a new independent agency. In either
case, it would be an executive agency subject to congressional
committee oversight and legislative authority, and would have the
sole mission of information access and dissemination. The
government wide responsibilities of this agency are:
regulations/standards/compliance; information locator/gateway;
distribution/access/libraries; archival function;
education/training; promotion/public relations. Dissemination of
information from this agency would be multi-faceted to include
federal agencies, depository libraries, public access networks, and
the private sector.
*******************************************************************
* DUPONT CIRCLE DISCUSSION DRAFT *
SERVICE MODELS FOR GOVERNMENT INFORMATION
Service Model 1: "Federal Information Service Centers"
BASIC SERVICE CENTERS
Must provide minimum service levels to support fundamental
information needs for users to operate in a democratic society.
Options for receipt of government information through the
Program:
1) Receive a pre-defined core collection of government
information not restricted by format.
2) Receive a small basic collection based on item number.
3) Receive a small basic collection based on a voucher or monetary
ceiling.
Questions:
1) What should the basic minimum technical and service
requirements be for a library to become a Basic Service Center?
2) Cost effectiveness of each of these options for both the
provider and recipient of government information?
3) What administrative/operations standards should be
applied to Basic Service Centers (retention, bibliographic
control, disposition lists, etc.)?
4) Should there be a minimum or maximum number Basic
Service Centers, or specific geographic dispersal?
5) Who decides what libraries should be Basic Service Centers?
6) What are other options for receiving a basic level of government
information?
7) What would be included in a core collection and who would
decide? How would it evolve and change?
INTERMEDIATE INFORMATION CENTERS
In addition to fulfilling the same obligations as a Basic Service
Centers, Intermediate Information Centers must also meet the
basic educational needs of all users in the congressional district as
well as the primary information needs of businesses, local
government, schools and other community institutions.
1) Must receive a higher percentage of documents than a Basic
Service Centers.
2) Higher level electronic connectivity.
3) Must invest in developing value added approaches to
government information.
4) Provide gateway for users.
5) Provide higher level of mediation and service than Basic Service
Centers.
Questions:
1) Impact of additional service requirements on public libraries and
other small depositories?
2) What administrative and service standards should be applied to
Intermediate Information Centers?
3) Should there be a minimum or maximum number of
Intermediate Information Centers?
4) Who decides what libraries should be Intermediate Information
Centers?
5) What should the basic minimum technical requirements
of a Intermediate Information Center (i.e., document delivery,
etc.)?
6) Should item selection capabilities of Intermediate
Information Centers be limited to differentiate them from
Full Service Centers?
7) What other criteria could be used to differentiate Intermediate
Information Centers from Full Service Centers?
8) What options exist for Intermediate Information Centers to
receive government information (i.e., item numbers, voucher,
etc.)?
9) Is there a need for Intermediate Information Centers vis-a-vis
Basic and Full Service Centers?
FULL SERVICE CENTERS
In addition to fulfilling the same obligations as an Intermediate
Information Center, Full Service Centers would provide research
level collections, access, and services to users, institutions of
higher education, high-tech firms, and the research & development
needs of business and industry.
1) Option to select all items and services available through the
Program.
2) Would supplement government supplied information with locally
developed software, programs, or databases.
3) Develop local network services for sharing government supplied
electronic information.
4) Develop locally mounted databases.
5) Provide document delivery and other research level services to
the public.
Questions:
1) Impact of additional technical requirements on Full Service
Centers?
2) What administrative and service standards should be applied to
Full Service Centers?
3) Should there be a minimum or maximum number Full Service
Centers?
4) Who decides what libraries should be Full Service Centers?
5) What should the basic minimum technical requirements
of a Full Service Centers ?
6) What are the benefits to libraries to become Full Service Centers
as opposed to Intermediate or Basic Service Centers?
7) Should administrative, archival, and education service
responsibilities be placed with Full Service Libraries? If not,
what resource sharing consortiums or other arrangements
might develop to fill these needs?
8) Does a need exist for the traditional concept of Regional
Libraries? What other models might exist to fulfill this role?
9) Should Full Service Libraries act as libraries of last resort?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Service Model 2: "Government Information Access Centers"
This scenario will provide a flexible, multi-faceted access system to
government information resources. By providing for the sharing of
electronic public information resources available through
participating libraries, this scenario has potential for access to a
wide spectrum of local, state, and federal information resources
through Government Information Access Centers (GIACs).
In this scenario all libraries participating in the Program are
selectives. Participating libraries may select one or more options
from the menu below, e.g., a library may choose Options A and C to
have a core collection as well as access to the gateway, or Options C
and D to have access to the gateway and to develop value added state
and federal economic databases for redistribution to other participating
libraries. Regional administrative functions currently associated
with Regional libraries would be assumed by the lead agency or by
a consortia of participating libraries, e.g., archival collections,
education, training, user/library support, etc.
This scenario is designed to allow for the migration of all existing
GPO depository libraries into the new library structure. The
proposed menu of options could include:
Option A) Predefined core collection (mixture of paper,
microfiche, and hard copy electronic formats)
Option B) Paper, microfiche, and hard copy electronic
formats (Current selection process)
Option C) Gateway -- Access to online electronic services
packaged and provided through Program providers and
participants. (Uses pre-packaged software)
Option D) Electronic services provider (packager of
customized electronic services for internal and
external use)
Questions:
1) What should the minimum technical and service
requirements be for a library to participate?
2) Should all administrative and service functions currently
performed by regionals be absorbed by a new lead agency, or a
consortium of existing GIACs?
3) What administrative/operations standards should be applied to
GIACs?
4) Is this a cost-effective alternative?
5) How is the core collection defined?
6) How should providers in "Option D" share products with the rest
of the system?
********************************************************************
The members of the Dupont Circle Group are:
Gary Cornwell, University of Florida, and Chair,
Depository Library Council
[log in to unmask]
Julia Wallace, University of Minnesota, and Chair,
ALA Government Documents Roundtable (GODORT)
[log in to unmask]
Duncan Aldrich, University of Nevada, Reno
[log in to unmask]
Tom Andersen, California State Library
[log in to unmask]
Diane Garner, Harvard University
[log in to unmask]
Carol Gordon, Milwaukee Public Library
[log in to unmask]
Steve Hayes, Notre Dame University
[log in to unmask]
Sally Holterhoff, Valparaiso University School of Law
[log in to unmask]
Linda Kennedy, University of California, Davis
[log in to unmask]
Ridley Kessler, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
[log in to unmask]
Melissa Lamont, University of Connecticut
[log in to unmask]
Sandee McAninch, University of Kentucky
[log in to unmask]
Kay Melvin, Patent and Trademark Office
703-308-4472
Daniel O'Mahony, Brown University
[log in to unmask]
John Shuler, Colgate University
[log in to unmask]
Jack Sulzer, Pennsylvania State University
[log in to unmask]
Susan Tulis, American Association of Law Libraries
[log in to unmask]
Carol Watts, NOAA/National Envir. Satellite & Data Info. Services
[log in to unmask]
Dupont Circle Reporter/Number 5/May 6, 1993
###################################################################
|
