A GPO staffer has asked that I post the notice below about a pilot MARC record distribution project to "ensure the automatic dissemination of bibliographic records to FDLP libraries." I hope libraries will volunteer to help out with this project as it seems like a significant step for gpo to take. We've talked for a while about collaborative cataloging of govt information; while this is primarily a "push" project, perhaps it could be the first step toward GPO opening up the cataloging workflow to depository libraries (many hands make light work right?!) and lead to other data sharing opportunities (XML, OAI, RSS, APIs etc.) both within the FDLP and with the public. This could be a significant piece of the FDLP ecosystem.

Calling all depositories! FREE Records! FREE Records!

GPO is looking for libraries who wish to take part in the Cataloging Record Distribution Pilot. Applications are being accepted now through January 11, 2010.

Federal depository libraries will be chosen to participate in this pilot program in which GPO bibliographic records will be distributed from GPO’s Integrated Library System (ILS) to these libraries. GPO will be accepting a group of 30 – 35 FDLP libraries to participate.

GPO is looking for a mixture of different library sizes and types. Of that group, GPO would like some current MARCIVE subscribers, as well as some non-subscribers. GPO is also aiming to select a variety of libraries that use a diverse group of ILS vendors.

Visit the Cataloging Record Distribution Pilot Web page for more information on the project, including details on how to apply and an informational FAQ sheet on the details of the project.

We started the LostDocs blog back in September 2009 to collect e-mail receipts for items that were reported to GPO as "fugitive documents" -- agency documents that should have made it into the Federal Depository Library Program and/or the Catalog of Government Publications.

In the process of running this blog, we have identified 40 documents reported since April 2008 that were cataloged by GPO after being reported as "fugitive documents." These fall into the "found documents" category of our blog.

You can find our list of 40 (and counting) cataloged fugitives here. This spreadsheet will be updated whenever we identify new GPO cataloging for items that had been reported as fugitive documents.

The results are interesting and somewhat disturbing, but not definitive.

The 40 items were cataloged in times varying from three days to 524 days. The mean cataloging time was 213 days. The median cataloging time was 184 days or about six months.

If the cataloging times above were typical of all documents reported through the LostDocs process, we think this would be a major problem for GPO that would require some serious soul searching and dialog about how this result could be changed and what tradeoffs and/or extra community involvement would be required as a result.

We are NOT making the claim that these cataloging times are typical for reported fugitive documents. We honestly do not know what is typical. Jim Jacobs, FGI's resident data librarian, had this to say about our sample of cataloged documents:

As for sample size and relevance: the number of items in the sample can't tell us the significance or accuracy of the results. We'd have to know two other things: the size of the universe (of all reported lost docs), and the accuracy of the sample. Since the sample was self- selected (by those reporting) rather than random, and since we don't know if the sample is 1% or 85% of all submitted lostdocs, we can't claim that the findings necessarily reflect the status of the whole universe. (does that make sense? If only people w/ long waits reported to us, our sample does not accurately reflect all lostdocs.)

When we first thought about making lostdocs reports available to the community at large, we first approached GPO with a partnering opportunity. We would maintain the blog, and offer them the opportunity to comment on the blog whether something was out of scope for CGP or already in the catalog. In return, we asked them to modify their LostDocs form so that when they received a report, the blog would automatically get a copy. If this partnership had been accepted, then we would know the two facts Jim cited above that are needed to tell us whether we have typical results or not. GPO declined to accept our partnership agreement, citing their workload. We're not questioning that they are overworked.

We do feel that the results above deserve further investigation. Perhaps GPO could prepare a report on documents cataloged as a result of fugitive reports over the past few years. Unless they've discarded the e-mail receipts (which would be defensible), they have the dates of when documents were reported. The CGP lists when an item was first added to the CGP. They could have an intern make a semester project of putting the two together and then posting the results to fdlp.gov.

If they have tossed previous e-mail receipts, they could start saving them for a year starting in January 2010 and do the analysis we propose above in 2011. But in either case we feel the analysis should be done. If it confirms our results then it will be good ammunition in Congress to procure more cataloging staff or to start cataloging collaborations with FDLP members. If the GPO analysis concludes that items reported to lost docs are in fact cataloged in a timely manner, then that will help build trust with the documents community and motivate more people to report fugitive documents. Either way it is a win-win for GPO.

My apologies for anyone who relied on my post "Catloging Gets Results in Alaska." Revised data has forced me to retract my claim. Please see details at http://freegovinfo.info/node/1940.

But don't be afraid to share information and new ideas. Sometimes we're going to be wrong. That's just the nature of the game. But we as a community are stronger when we share information and admit our mistakes as well as celebrate our successes.

Library Services and Content Management is continually working to improve the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications and the services it provides. One of the upcoming services that we are excited about is the creation of a login page for depository libraries that will enable them to take advantage of a range of authenticated services not otherwise available. These include:

• Selective dissemination of information. This will give depositories the ability to direct the system to send emails when resources in a particular area of interest are cataloged. Depository libraries will be able to set up notifications by item number or by SuDocs stem, for example;
• “Save records to local pc”. Currently the options are to email records to a defined email address up to twenty at a time, or to search, retrieve, and download up to one thousand records from the CGP per session.
• RSS feeds;
• Retained preferences that will persist across sessions;
• Links to FDLP-related pages including the FDLP Desktop and the Federal Depository Library Directory.

We are anticipating a demonstration of the FDLP login page at the Fall Conference and a subsequent December release of this functionality.

Also on the agenda is an enhanced Federal Depository Library Directory. We would like to ask for input from users for improvements we could make to the FDLD to enhance the user experience. Please submit suggestions through AskGPO at http://gpo.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/gpo.cfg/php/enduser/ask.php. Use the category Federal Depository Libraries, subcategory Catalog of U.S. Government Publications, then CGP Enhancements/Suggestions.

Discovering the Library With Google Earth, by Michaela Brenner and Peter Klein, Information Technology & Libraries, Volume 27, Number 2 June 2008 (re-posted at redOrbit).

Libraries need to provide attractive and exciting discovery tools to draw patrons to the valuable resources in their catalogs. The authors conducted a pilot project to explore the free version of Google Earth as such a discover tool for Portland State Library's digital collection of urban planning documents. They created eye- catching placemarks with links to parts of this collection, as well as to other pertinent materials like books, images, and historical background information. The detailed how-to-do part of this article is preceded by a discussion about discovery of library materials and followed by possible applications of this Google Earth project. In Calhoun's report to the Library of Congress, it becomes clear that staff time and resources will need to move from cataloging traditional formats, like books, to cataloging unique primary sources, and then providing access to these sources from many different angles. "Organize, digitize, expose unique special collections" (Calhoun 2006).

My pal, Jenna Freedman, the Lower East Side Librarian started subscribing to the Library of Congress Subject Heading Weekly list (probably out of love for Libraries' great good friend and cataloger extraordinaire Sandy Berman!). This week she came across a strange one that I hope our readers can expound on in the comments, especially since I'm not a cataloger.

150 Electronic government information [May Subd Geog]
* 450 UF Electronic government publications [EARLIER FORM OF HEADING]
* 550 BT Government publications

Is this LC's documentation of a move away from government publications as the instantiation of our government's work toward e-government and government information as transaction? Should we be worried about this change in the heading? Is this just semantics? Is there a cataloger in the house?

The other one that I found strange was:

(C) 150 Global cooling [Not Subd Geog]
450 UF Cooling, Global
550 BT Global temperature changes

Is that some sort of Newspeak?!?!

Still No Directory of Federal Websites, E-Gov Act Ignored.   By Coby Logen, .gov Watch. November 05. 2007

How many government websites are there? How many HHS or DOJ sites are there? You and I have no way to know. American taxpayers cannot even know how many public websites their government is funding. By law, we should—but the system is broken.

The E-Government Act of 2002 set a deadline of two years to develop a "public domain directory of public Federal Government websites" (Section 207(f)(3)). But this directory still does not exist 5 years later.

We've created an Open WorldCat List for the available items on our Best. Titles. Ever. page at http://freegovinfo.info/best.

I say "available items" because not all government documents have been cataloged into OCLC WorldCat, the world's largest database of bibliographic records.

And because the WorldCat records have subject headings, you can jump from odd sounding titles to more sober sounding publications in many subjects. Something you won't be able to do in the future if the Government Printing Office ignores copy cataloging goes it alone with brief records.

Ever notice how bad news and ideas tend to get released on Fridays? Such is the case with GPO's Creation of Brief Bibliographic Records Overview, released in a Friday morning FDLP-L listserv announcement.

I've read through the five page briefing document twice and looked at the 12 bib records that GPO stated were typical of the 50 chosen for the pilot project. I believe that it is a flawed proposal that ignores the actual and potential contributions of the 1200+ depository library network. Despite its obvious good intentions of getting more information out the community, I don't think the current proposal would do this.

Here are some first thoughts on the paper and I hope that you will share others:

1) GPO seems to be ignoring existing cataloging to create their brief records. They took a sample of 50 records and cataloged them without looking outside GPO or possible copy cataloging in OCLC.

Of the 12 records the e-mail asks us to look at, I judge nine, or 75% of the records to already have adequate cataloging in WorldCat. Please see my Open WorldCat list at http://www.worldcat.org/profiles/dcornwall/lists/5666 for a demonstration of this fact. In a number of cases, GPO seems to have created separate records for paper and online formats. If they want to streamline their cataloging process, it seems to me that one record with a note of tangible and online availability would be a better start.

2) GPO must change its mind about not OCLC batch-loading materials not being distributed to depositories. There are many items which while not deposited to libraries are still of interest. Loading them into WorldCat will expose them to the open Web and allow for better visibility for government information.

3) Brief records without some kind of subject descriptors will be almost unfindable in the future unless one is lucky enough to remember the agency name or if the title accurately reflects the
subject one is interested in. Also, it makes it next to impossible to build good literature reviews of government research and/or activities. Full text searching has been shown to be inadequate in a number of ways. We need subject descriptors.

4) While GPO is stating that records for materials destined for deposit into the FDLP will be upgraded "later", there is nothing in the GPO's funding history to indicate that money for better cataloging will be available in the future. Or in the history of many libraries that created "temp bib records" to "find things now."

5) Related to ignoring copy cataloging is a missed opportunity by GPO - share the cataloging load with the depository community, at least in part. Not all depositories have a cataloger, but many
do. Many institutions, like universities and State Libraries, have an intense hunger for docs in their subject specialties or geographic areas. Let libraries sign up for an agency or State and start feeding them title pages or electronic versions if they're available. Or just tag gov web docs on del.icio.us or other social tagging services and let whatever libraries or people assign subject descriptors to them who feel led to. Together we could rid GPO of its backlog while providing enough metadata to ensure future findability.

Read the proposal. Look at the sample records, decide whether I'm overreacting. Or help construct a response to what seems like a bad idea that once again passes up an opportunity for real partnership in favor of a flawed go-it-alone "solution."

And if GPO staff think that I've mischaracterized the project, I'd encourage them to post an official response here where people can see what we both say side by side and make up their own minds. And in the likely event I haven't mischaracterized the project, I hope that GPO will come to the community and embrace the wealth of cataloging/metadata that already exists and plan with us how to take care of the materials not already found in WorldCat.