ADMINISTRATIVE NOTES NEWSLETTER OF THE FEDERAL DEPOSITORY LIBRARY PROGRAM Vol. 20, no. 04 GP 3.16/3-2:20/04 February 15, 1999 MIGRATION OF PHYSICAL FORMAT PRODUCTS TO ONLINE DISTRIBUTION [HANDOUT ( ALA ( 1/30/99] Discontinuing physical distribution of print products when reliable electronic alternatives are available is one of the transition actions identified in GPO's 1996 Study to Identify Measures Necessary for a Successful Transition to a More Electronic Federal Depository Library Program. The Library Programs Service is making significant progress in its efforts to incorporate electronic Federal Government information products into the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP). These efforts reflect LPS' initial realization of the policies and plans for the FDLP Electronic Collection. Candidates for delivery solely in electronic online format have to meet several specific criteria: * The title must be available on a Government web site that has a significant amount of content, including both current and back issues. * For those materials available only via an online application, LPS will either archive the material or otherwise provide for permanent public access via an agreement with the issuing agency or another partner such as a depository library. * The product cannot be a reference aid. * In evaluating titles for online electronic delivery only, we consider the number of selecting libraries before eliminating the physical versions. Generally, only titles selected by 500 or fewer libraries are considered. Following these criteria, LPS will identify titles for online electronic delivery only, but delivery of the physical products will not be discontinued until the volume year is complete. If the title lacks volume numbers, the change will only be made at the beginning of the calendar year. LPS is now notifying libraries in the Administrative Notes Technical Supplement when a title is available online. LPS is also beginning to implement the policy of disseminating new Government document periodical titles only in electronic format. When we determine that a new periodical title is available on a web site and meets the criteria listed above, we are not obtaining the duplicative tangible products, but are pointing libraries directly to the newly discovered online site. Only when the material is of exceptional value as a reference resource will LPS obtain tangible copies for distribution to the libraries. In addition to the product migration criteria presented above, LPS is now guided by Appendix II of Managing the FDLP Electronic Collection: A Policy and Planning Document (October 1998), reproduced below. A copy of Managing the FDLP Electronic Collection has been sent to all depository libraries, and is available at . The Plan is shaping how we in LPS think about our role in developing the FDLP Electronic Collection, the relationship between the Electronic Collection and our cataloging and locator services, and our role in ensuring current and permanent public access to information provided through the FDLP. LPS staff are reviewing and applying the information in this Plan when making decisions concerning online resources. Appendix II Evaluation of Products for the Collection [Note: The following is a sample worksheet for collecting the basic information necessary to evaluate products for consideration for the Collection. It is intended to be illustrative of a flexible outline of questions, the answers to which will provide the basis of any proposal for inclusion of a particular product in the Collection.] I. Does the product meet the criteria of 44 U.S.C. ^U1901-1902? A. Is the product a work of the U.S. Government, compiled or created in whole or in part or at government expense, or as required by law? B. Is the product excluded from consideration because it is: 1. Required for official use only? 2. For strictly operational or administrative purposes, having no public interest or educational value? 3. Classified for reasons of national security? 4. A cooperative product, as defined in 44 U.S.C. ^U1903 which must be sold in order to be self-sustaining? II. What is the importance and usability of the product for the FDLP user community? A. What is the product? B. What is the issuing agency? C. Is the product available in other formats or media? 1. Are those alternatives currently included in the FDLP? D. What is the scope of the product? 1. Is its purpose clearly defined? 2. Is its intended audience stated? E. Authoritative nature of the product 1. Is the issuing agency clearly discernible? 2. Is there any endorsement (or disclaimer) of the authenticity of the information? (e.g., an electronic watermark, or other authentication device; a statement of authenticity or waiver of responsibility) 3. Is the product being provided by the originating agency or by some intermediary? F. Currency/Periodicity 1. What is the date or range of the information? 2. Is the information time sensitive? 3. Is the product serial? a. What is the publication or update schedule? 4. Does the information replace older information? a. What happens to superseded information? 5. Are links within the site current and reliable? G. Presentation/Utility 1. Is navigating the site intuitive? 2. Is software employed that is in use for other products in the FDLP? 3. Is use of the product bound by proprietary software? a. Are there copyright or copyright-like restrictions? b. Is there licensing in effect to provide for FDLP access? (1) Who holds the license? (2) Who pays for the FDLP license(s)? 4. If there are high-end features, such as audio, motion video, etc., are they essential to the use of the product? III. What priority does the product have in relation to other products in the FDLP? A. Would costs be incurred by GPO in adding the product to the FDLP Electronic Collection? 1. Licensing of access software 2. Other production costs 3. Special hardware or software requirements B. How does the product relate to other media/formats? 1. Is there a paper or microfiche equivalent? 2. Is there an electronic equivalent? 3. Is the equivalent product identical in content? 4. Is there a clear preference discernible for one format or medium among potential users? 5. If an equivalent is included in the FDLP, how heavily is it selected by depositories?