--- Begin Forwarded Message ---
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 09:35:14 -0700
From: "Jones, Bill (MLIB)" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: RE: commercial repackaging <fwd>
Sender: "Jones, Bill (MLIB)" <[log in to unmask]>



Mapping is only but one of the problems publicly funded state universities
have with
vendors downloading electronic data and repackaging it for a higher price.
Recently the
NTIS (Commerce Department-National Technical Information Service) declared
they were not earning enough money from this service and proposed, among
other ideas, a commercial outfit take it over.  NTIS (a government
corporation) already overcharges for this material.  What would like
McGraw-Hill or Reed-Elsevier do? Would they "commercially repackage" the
material and sell it back to the taxpayers?  NTIS does not sell a lower
quality product, why should commercial vendors "repackage" and sell
something already useable?

Commercial mapping vendors are not freeloaders.  All of them recognize the
importance of the work
the old Army Map Service did, or the USGS is doing now along with it's
partners. Accountability
back to the taxpayers is missing. Why not "give something back" to those who
made it possible
(taxpayers) for the research and development of products.

If a product is "bad" then partner with the government mappers to make it
better.


-----Original Message-----
From: Johnnie Sutherland [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 9:06 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: commercial repackaging <fwd>


--- Begin Forwarded Message ---
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:58:30 EDT
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: commercial repackaging <fwd>
Sender: [log in to unmask]



" Should the taxpayers have to pay twice for federal or any other government
information? I say NO public accessible library should pay for information,
in any format, that has already been paid for in full."

Among other problems, this attitude assumes that government published
information is of the highest possible quality. That simply isn't so.
Government cartographers do their best, I'm sure, given their budgets and
their understanding of the market that they are working to serve. But many
"government" mapping products are of very low quality. As a prime example,
take a look at the nearly ubiquitous dataset known as ETOPO5. The fact that
this is a "digital" product released by US government agencies has lent it
credibility that it does not deserve. Doubt it's bad? Take a look at the
"Bahama Bank" in ETOPO5. This is a region that has been known and mapped for
nearly five centuries, yet the errors in ETOPO5's description of that area
are huge. Private cartographers almost invariably produce better map
products
because they have usually have a smaller set of customers to satisfy. These
private map products are almost always based on government originals, but
they are not merely cases of re-selling data and thus "cheating"
cartographic
consumers.

-Frank E. Reed
Chicago, IL
--- End Forwarded Message ---
--- End Forwarded Message ---