ARCHIVED – Minutes of the [2006 Meeting of the] Depository Services Program Library Advisory Committee (DSP-LAC)

Archived Content

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact the authoring department to request a format other than those available.

Meeting Dates and Location

August 30-31, 2006
350 Albert St.
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Table of contents

Day 1

Introductions

Facilitation consultant David McCallum introduced himself and welcomed members to the meeting. Ms. Christine Leduc, Director, Publishing & Depository Services, Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) and M. Marc Saint-Pierre, Director General, Communication Services, PWGSC introduced themselves.

Mr. McCallum reviewed the agenda, and outlined his role as group facilitator.

A. Facilitated Session (1 of 3)

Members were asked to introduce themselves, to make very brief presentations on their activities and workplaces in the context of the DSP, and to identify any topics of interest and/or concern to them regarding DSP services. The members had been asked to prepare these topics in advance, up to a suggested maximum of three.

Using flipcharts, the facilitator took notes on the topics as they were presented, after which a number of topical groupings or “themes” was developed. Each topic was then reviewed and linked to one or more themes.

Note: A transcript of all flip charts from the meeting is attached as Appendix 2. A list of immediate and short-medium term action items arising from the meeting, with persons responsible and time frames, is attached as Appendix 1.

B. Presentations and Updates Session (1 of 2)

Public Works and Government Services Canada (LAC)

Christine Leduc
Director, Publishing & Depository Services

Highlights:

  • A roundtable discussion was held with the Directors General (DGs) of the Communications Branches of 10 federal departments to review the challenges of meeting the DSP requirements as stated in the federal Communications Policy. The DGs were privately provided with “score cards” estimating how well their departments complied with these requirements, based on a comparison of the ISBNs of those publications already provided by the DSP, and those actually delivered. This exercise raised awareness, and promoted “buy in” to the Program. Contacts were strengthened, and more productive working relationships were established. More federal departments will be approached over time.
  • The volume of materials made available to depositories has risen, and there has been a significant increase in the listing of back listed monographs in the Weekly Checklist. Three full-time DSP staff have been permanently assigned to the Acquisitions area.
  • Acquisition and cataloguing of older electronic publications has increased; bibliographic information for “backlist” electronic publications (e-pubs.) will be published in a series of supplements to the Weekly Checklist.
  • Restrictions on access to the e-collection have been lifted, and will be publicized in due time.
  • The DSPLAC Weblink Project was implemented successfully as a pilot project.
  • The DSP Web site will be revised to comply with Government-wide Common Look and Feel requirements and to improve functionality.
  • A Client Care Package will be launched in the Fall of 2006, providing libraries and the general public with access to their account information and transactions through a secure on-line channel.
  • Reviews will be conducted of the current Terms of Agreement with Full and Selective depository libraries, and of the current Retention Guidelines. A survey on the use of e-publications will be conducted, and a mechanism to collect statistical information on the use of Government of Canada publications will be established.
  • Negotiations to review Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with partner departments for priced publications are underway.
  • Responsibility for the provision of ISBNs will move to Library and Archives Canada (LAC) early in 2007.
  • Client satisfaction surveys will be issued electronically to all depository libraries in the near future. Library associations will be advised of the survey, and notices posted on Infodep and other listservs. Some libraries will be interviewed based on a random sampling. All of those contacted directly are urged to participate. The final report will be made available to all depository libraries.
  • Comments were requested on the draft DSP Guide / Information Kit, contained in the meeting binder.
  • The Program was presente at recent ASTED and CLA conferences, and site visits were made to several areas of the country.
  • Members were urged to provide continuous input to the DSP on challenges such as fugitive materials, operational limitations, etc., as well as testimonials and success stories, and to promote use of the Infodep listserv.
  • DSP services are constrained by available resources; requests for increased resources required for the preparation and submission of “business cases” which must clearly demonstrate problem areas, and how any new resources would be applied to produce significant value added services addressing specific needs of client / partner organizations.

(A PowerPoint “deck” was distributed with the meeting binders, and will also be distributed electronically)

Library and Archives Canada (LAC)

Sharon Reeves
Director, Resource Description Division, Published Heritage Branch

Highlights:

  • In light of changes to legal deposit regulations coming into effect in 2007, LAC will be approaching federal departments to obtain blanket permissions for acquiring their electronic publications.
  • A Digital Content Management System (DCMS) is under development; persistent URLs and metadata for various purposes (including preservation data) will be system capabilities.
  • A Web Resources Discovery Policy has been developed to define the appropriate levels of access (from basic text searching to full cataloguing) for various types of Web content.

(No PowerPoint deck)

C. Facilitated Session (2 of 3)

Further facilitated discussions were held in light of information from the presentation and update. The themes were further refined, and priorities assigned. Concerns surrounding “Access / Discovery”, “Partnerships” and “Promotion / Marketing” emerged as the highest priority areas.

The activities of the day were reviewed, with members indicating what they felt went well, and identifying any concerns.

[Close of Day 1]

Day 2

The facilitator reviewed the previous day’s work, and outlined the activities for the day.

D. Business Arising from the Previous Meeting (Aug. 29-30, 2005)

  1. Regarding the concerns identified by the Provincial and Territorial Library Directors (PTLDC) about the difficulties faced by public libraries due to the trend towards electronic publishing (English minutes p. 6, 4th para.), including finding information, and the added costs of printing, Sylvie Nadeau will locate and communicate PTLDC discussions on this topic as recorded in the minutes of their meetings.
  2. Some members reported not having received the final report and supporting documentation regarding the extensive discussions regarding DSP / LAC cooperation, including the possible merger that ultimately did not go forward (English minutes, page 12, last para. under “Recommendations for Encouraging Compliance”). Director General Marc Saint-Pierre electronically re-issued all relevant documentation on this matter to all members later that day.
  3. Louise Carpentier asked for an update on backlogged material and the timing for its appearance in the Checklist, or in a Supplement to the Checklist. Christine Leduc will investigate and report on progress. It was noted that the Library of Parliament was posting PRB (Parliamentary Research Branch) publications on its Web site, and that while subject categories has been eliminated, legislative summaries were still listed separately.
  4. Sylvie Nadeau noted that the issue of doing more to promote the development of government documents specialists (English minutes, p. 7, fourth para. from top of page) remains to be addressed. This has been raised at previous DSP-LAC meetings.

E. Facilitated Session (3 of 3)

For each theme, members were led in a series of brainstorming sessions on how to address the challenges identified. A list of immediate and short-medium term activities was developed, indicating responsibility for action and time frames for each (see Appendix 1).

F. Presentations and Updates Session (2 of 2)

Treasury Board of Canada (TB)

Brian Biggar
Communications Policy and Federal Identity Program

Highlights:

  • All TB policies, including the Communications Policy which outlines departmental requirements with regard to the DSP, are currently under a periodic review. The intent is to rationalize these policies, improve their overall clarity, and promote departmental compliance. “Procedures” will be recast as “Directives”.
  • The review will not change current DSP requirements. TB continues to view libraries as an essential partner in providing federal government information to Canadians.
  • Publishing is a function that has been delegated to many sectors within federal departments. As a result, departmental Communications Branches do not even know what publishing activities are taking place in their own organizations, both centrally and in the various regional offices, which makes it extremely challenging to ensure compliance with the Communications Policy Requirements for the DSP.
  • Although TB has no responsibilities for enforcing policy directives, it will endeavour to reinforce awareness on the part of Deputy Ministers – and through them, to their managers – as to their collective responsibilities regarding compliance. There is an overall drive within the federal government to improve the auditing and reporting functions, and to clarify the consequences of non-compliance.

(No PowerPoint deck)

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AFC)

Jean-François Fleury
Director, Operations Communications and Consultations

Highlights:

  • A report was presented on a pilot project that applies tracking codes to internal publishing projects in order to identify and follow the life cycle of AFC publications. If successful, the project has the potential to significantly increase departmental control of its publishing output, improve compliance with DSP requirements, and possibly serve as a model for other federal departments.
  • The project currently focuses on bilingual publications. With limited exceptions, the Official Languages Act will not allow material to be published unless English and French versions are available, however, a great deal of the department’s output is scientific and specialized in nature, and is not normally translated. As a result, much material will remain untracked for the time being. The question of whether or not the act of mounting information on the Web constitutes an act of publishing remains open to interpretation.
  • A priority for the Department is the development of a Web index.
  • Members welcomed this initiative, and wished it well.

(No PowerPoint deck)

Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)

Yvan Desy
A/Director, Centre for Information on Topography, NRCan

Highlights:

  • NRCan is committed to continue providing geospatial data to DSP libraries.
  • NRCan plans a phased approach in responding to geospatial industry trends away from printed to digital processing and display capabilities.
  • In the first phase (2006-2007), the National Air Photo Library (NAPL) holdings will become available on-line, and the National Topographic Series (NTS) of printed maps will be converted to digital form (PDF and TIFF formats). If approved, the target date for making the digital topographic maps available to the public at no charge is April of 2007.
  • In the second phase (2006-2009), the emphasis will be on developing tools to allow the generation of digital displays on demand using various layers of data, and to convert existing data to a form that may be used by the emerging tools.
  • NRCan staff will recommend to its senior management and to the Minister for the department that as many on-line data products as possible be made available free of charge; members expressed satisfaction with this proposed direction.

(PowerPoint deck will be distributed electronically)

Statistics Canada

Bernie Gloyn
Assistant Director, Communication & Library Services Division

Highlights:

  • E-pubs. on the STC Web site became available free of charge in April.
  • The STC Web site has been redesigned; bookmarks will not change.
  • STC Library has unveiled a revised version of its Web library catalogue (BiblioCat).
  • The 2006 Canada Year Book is now available in a new reference book format, and has secured funding for the next three years.
  • The release date for Population and Dwelling counts from the 2006 Census will be delayed from February to March 2007.
  • Depending on funding from the department of Canadian Heritage, the Decades Project is targeted for completion by March 2007.

(PowerPoint deck [on paper] handed out at the meeting; will also be distributed electronically)

G. Conclusion

A review of the day’s activities was held, with members indicating what they felt went well, and what concerns they might have. Director Leduc thanked all participants for their input.

The next meeting of the DSP-LAC was scheduled for Aug. 27-28, 2007 with a preliminary “meet and greet” session on Aug. 26.

[Close of Day 2]

Appendix 1

Action Items (in chronological order)

Action:
Alert appropriate staff to use Infodep for reporting “fugitive” material (i.e. Government of Canada publications that should have been provided to the DSP, but were not). DSP to place a notice on pink sheet and/or Infodep
Responsibility:
All members, DSP staff
Deadline:
Ongoing
Action:
Posting to Infodep on status of lifting restricted access to e-collection
Responsibility:
DSP – Christine Leduc
Deadline:
Sept. 15, 2006 – sent to DSP-LAC members on September 18, 2006 
Action:
URLs for the Government of Canada Metadata Implementation Guide, and for the Information Management Resource Centre of the Treasury Board Secretariat (to DSP for distribution to all DSP-LAC members)
Responsibility:
David McCallum
Deadline:
Sept. 15, 2006 – sent to DSP-LAC members on September 6, 2006.
Action:
Comments on draft DSP Guide (included in meeting binder) to DSP
Responsibility:
All members
Deadline:
Sept. 22, 2006
Action:
Send e-versions of the presentations to DSP-LAC Members
Responsibility:
Christine Leduc
Deadline:
Sent to DSP-LAC members on September 11, 2006
Action:
Comments on draft minutes of this DSP-LAC meeting
Responsibility:
All members
Deadline:
Two weeks after distribution to members (Consultant must deliver final English draft to DSP no later that Sept. 22, 2006)
Action:
Status report on the development by CARL/ABRC of a position paper – to be endorsed eventually by other associations – on the importance of the DSP to depository libraries
Responsibility:
Gwendolyn Ebbett
Deadline:
Sept. 22, 2006
Action:
Suggested topics for the next and future meetings of the DSP-LAC communicated to DSP
Responsibility:
All members
Deadline:
Sept. 22, 2006 (and ongoing)
Action:
Discussions between IT staff of Memorial and Windsor Universities with the DSP on options for creating persistent URLs
Responsibility:
Gwendolyn Ebbett / DSP staff – Christine Leduc
Deadline:
Early October, 2006
Action:
Distribution of DSP promotional materials for display in depository libraries
Responsibility:
DSP staff
Deadline:
Mid-October, 2006
Action:
Comments on Retention Guidelines
Responsibility:
All members
Deadline:
Oct. 27, 2006
Action:
Ideas / suggestions on gathering statistics on the usage of Canadian Government publications in DSP libraries
Responsibility:
All members
Deadline:
Oct. 27, 2006
Action:
Distribution to all members of a draft “stamp” to identify DSP materials (Louise Carpentier will seek out the design used at Concordia University Library and forward it to DSP staff)
Responsibility:
DSP staff
Deadline:
October, 2006
Action:
Distribution of final “stamps” to all members
Responsibility:
DSP staff
Deadline:
Christmas, 2006
Action:
Next meeting
Responsibility:
DSP / all members
Deadline:
The next meeting will be held on the following dates:
  • Sunday Aug. 26, 2007 (Meet and Greet)
  • Monday, Aug. 27, 2007 (Day 1 of 2)
  • Monday, Aug. 27, 2007 (Tour of the Library of Parliament, to be organized by Cynthia Hubbertz)
  • Tuesday, Aug. 28, 2007 (Day 2 of 2)

Appendix 2

Transcripts of Facilitated Sessions – Day 1 (of 2)

Topics of Interest to DSP-LAC Members

  1. Gaps in DSP “radar” – especially digital “grey literature”
  2. Marketing / promotion of DSP libraries – demonstrating value of services to clients (e.g. authoritative, consistent responses to reference inquiries, etc.)
  3. Government of Canada policy (if any) for capturing metadata for digital government publications
  4. Archiving of digital government and parliamentary publications to ensure permanent accessibility
  5. Retention guidelines – should allow weeding of magazines under certain conditions (e.g. if there are major gaps in a given run)
  6. Promotion of DSP – need to boost awareness by increasing advertising of the availability of government information via posters, notices on federal Web sites, etc.. New Brunswick Public Library System produces relevant handouts.
  7. If there are no paper copies of digital government publications, the New Brunswick Public Library System does not catalogue them – need for official printed versions from federal departments
  8. Absence of compliance data from Other Government Departments (OGDs), e.g. percentage of federal publications actually provided to the DSP
  9. Absence of data on percentage of DSP libraries using LAC cataloguing of federal publications
    1. Need for a stable, continuing DSP
    2. DSP needs to increase percentage of paper and digital publications captured
  10. DSP must target services to different kinds of libraries and their needs – members of the CREPUQ Group on Government Libraries have various requirements)
  11. Library of Parliament publications of great interest (e.g. Backgrounders, Current Issues, other research material)
  12. Retention guidelines should be more detailed to address situations such as collection amalgamation, when a selective depository library ceases to be a depository, etc.
  13. Convincing NRCan (Natural Resources Canada) to maintain paper maps, or at least to maintain appropriate GIS data layers at a sufficiently high level to allow print-outs of adequate quality to be produced
  14. “One of” NRCan maps (e.g. thematic maps) are not always provided to DSP or even LAC
  15. Need to develop digital GIS agreements for various series not currently captured by DSP (e.g. the Canadian Hydrographic Service) – GIS files from Environment Canada too expensive for libraries to purchase
  16. Need to clarify roles of DSP, LAC, Library of Parliament to strengthen coordination among and relations between those organizations
    1. Ensuring ongoing preservation of digital government publications
    2. Need to digitize print-only government publications (e.g. parliamentary debates), especially for academic libraries
  17. Need for persistent URLs for digital publications – Memorial and Windsor IT staff could advise
  18. Overall issue of digital and printed maps – who puts out what? Need to address access, awareness, preservation, retention, etc.
  19. NRC (National Research Council) Journals – need to maintain access, and to renew / revamp existing agreements
  20. “Discovery” – Finding out what is being published on-line by the Government of Canada is a major problem
  21. Compliance (i.e. federal departments not always complying with DSP requirements)
  22. Retention guidelines not always understood, especially by newer, smaller, depositories in distant / smaller communities
  23. Preference on the part of the public for print versus digital publications
  24. Public libraries in particular not as electronically advanced as others; awareness of digital publications lacking
  25. Preservation of digital publications (both actual content and access data)
  26. Need to improve cataloguing metadata
  27. Compliance – need to brainstorm on ways to increase
  28. Need to explore more partnerships – e.g. successful agreements w. NRCan for maps
  29. The current Federal Communications Policy favours HTML over the PDF format – limits printing options
  30. Need for continuing the DSP and ensuring on-going evaluation, review of roles of related organizations, etc.
  31. Need to promote compliance on the part of federal departments – capturing data not currently provided to the DSP
  32. Need for more marketing – the public is less “passionate” about government publications than other materials
  33. Preservation of print and non-print materials
  34. Need to assist smaller (e.g. branch) libraries with Web access, navigating federal Web sites, training, URL persistence, etc.
  35. A Parliamentary Committee is currently developing an action plan addressing the impact of the new Federal Accountability Act vis-à-vis other legislation (e.g. Access to Information Act) – how to meet “duty to document” requirements; line between federal government records and publications becoming blurred
  36. Review and revision of Treasury Board policies underway with a view to reduction, simplification and clarification of Deputy Minister responsibilities, developing new or revised guidelines, etc.
  37. New policy on service (linked to the federal Communications Policy) emerging requiring the measurement of client satisfaction with federal government programs; a common measurement tool under development (could be adopted by provincial governments as well)
  38. Suggestions for improvements to metadata standards for federal Web sites welcomed; guidelines for GIS metadata guidelines under development
  39. Need for government-wide clarification on the definition of a “publication” (i.e. versus data or other kinds of federal government information) – the DSP's current definition distributed later in the meeting
  40. DSP lacks data on usage of information it provides to depositories – this makes it difficult for the program to make business cases (e.g. for increased funding)

Follow-up Discussions in Light of Presentations and Draft Themes

  1. For technical reasons, the DSP must revise the URLs for it’s collections of digital publications – will consult the IT, cataloguing and collections staff in depository libraries
  2. Upcoming changes to legal deposit requirements will include Web sites – should DSP continue to collect and catalogue digital publications? Is this an area for possible DSP – LAC collaboration? DSP has a publication announcement service. Some find the AMICUS interface difficult to use for discovery / access
  3. Question: why is the creation of cataloguing information a problem? All publications received by the DSP are catalogued (see 5)
  4. Linkage to AMICUS from the new DSP system to be maintained and improved
  5. Many published items don’t make it to the DSP Checklist
  6. Insufficient human resources on DSP side to ensure maximum degree of compliance
  7. Full LC and other subject headings not always available
  8. Question: Compliance for legal deposit of digital publications? Difficult to determine due to explosion in number of sources
  9. Web site URLs will be provided to LAC by 2007. Unsure whether URLs serials will be provided by title alone or for each issue
  10. How to improve linkages between the library community and DSP / LAC re: tracking fugitive materials, pooling information, etc.; much duplication of work and services at present. Need for a working group? Demonstrating the existence of fugitive materials provides useful proof of non-compliance. In private industry, books don’t get to store shelves without an ISBN, but Government of Canada publications are not subject to this constraint
  11. DSP currently provides ISBNs for digital publications
  12. Question: Why wouldn’t federal departments want the DSP to know about their publications? Some departments claim certain material is too technical, therefore of interest only to a very limited audience
  13. Question: How to inform DSP of publication gaps? Through Infodep, and possibly other channels as well. Reminders to use Infodep for this purpose could appear in the DSP Guide, FAQs, etc.
  14. Question: Who subscribes, and who should subscribe, to Infodep? Information on this topic appears on the DSP Web site
    1. Need for an updated list of Infodep subscribers
    2. Question: Who to contact at DSP, e.g. for promotional materials? This information is contained in the draft DSP Guide – comments requested from members by Sept. 22
  15. Suggestion: When requesting input from DSP-LAC members, it would be helpful if the requests were as specific as possible (i.e. reaction to one or more areas of concern by “date”, versus a general request for “feedback”)
  16. Possible e-mail delivery problem – some members report not always receiving messages
  17. DSP scans for unreported publications in multiple ways
  18. Need for better ways of communicating projects and changes at DSP and LAC to the library community – shared information on developments is beneficial for all
  19. How to best address priority areas – working groups? As many areas as possible will be addressed at this session, and by other means over time. Focus on what depository libraries and the DSP can manage themselves
  20. Promotion and marketing are key areas – need to articulate best ways of targeting DSP libraries, their users, the public, federal departments. Ideas: links to DSP Web site from the Web sites of DSP libraries, and vice versa. DSP considering the development of a graphic or icon compliant with FIP (Federal Identity Program)
  21. Need for testimonials – would be helpful if each DSP libraries could provide a monthly report
  22. DSP's need for statistics on usage – Mississauga Public Library has a well established data gathering initiative that could serve as a model

Review of the Day's Activities – What Went Well, and What Concerns (See End of this Document)

[End of Day One]

Facilitated Sessions – Day 2 (of 2)

Third Draft of Themes and Priorities:

Themes and priorities from the meeting
Priority Theme and Sub-themes
A1 Access / Discovery
  • Metadata
  • LAC Cataloguing
  • Print / Non-print Concerns
  • Compliance
  • Preservation
A1 Partnerships
  • Within Government
  • Outside of Government
  • Example: Acquiring Data Sets (e.g. GIS)
A Promotion / Marketing
B DSP Mission

Notes:
A1 = Top Priority
A = Priority
B = Important, but not a priority at this time

The themes of “Partnerships” and “DSP Mission” were eventually seen to apply to all of the others, and were not ultimately addressed as separate themes in themselves.

Review of Action Items for Each Theme

Access / Discovery
  1. Could the creation of a Wiki (on-line information sharing system) be a partial solution to the problem of sharing fugitive publications with the DSP? Much overlap activity when chasing the same government publications: “You don’t know when it’s not there”
  2. The persistent URL problem. Could there be a single URL that both the DSP and LAC could agree on? Creation of an overall federal policy on consistent URLs unlikely in the short term, and in any case might not always be followed
  3. Preservation: Need for cooperative capturing of electronic-only content before it disappears (i.e. useful material that is removed from a departmental Web site without prior notice)
  4. Metadata and SGML/XML developments – need for more information on nature, impact, guidance, etc. Facilitator David McCallum will provide members with URLs for the latest Government of Canada Metadata Implementation Guide, and for Treasury Board’s Information Management Resource Centre. It was also noted that the newly created AlouetteCanada Open Digitization Initiative (www.alouttecanada.ca) Project, which aims to create a national digitization strategy, has established a working group on technical matters
  5. In the context of long term access, the preservation of materials in paper form should not be ignored
  6. How can the DSP address the problem of disappearing publications (see 5, directly above)? Departments don’t always appreciate the impact of removing their older electronic materials from the Web. The DSP provides a safety net if it has collected the material, but if it has not, depository and other libraries must take the lead. There is a need to communicate this problem to higher levels than libraries alone – the more letters and other communications from senior officials in the library community, its associations, and other groups the better. Neither DSP nor Treasury Board have “enforcement power”.
  7. Development of a Position Paper endorsed by various library associations could address the seriousness of this information loss problem for libraries, and highlight other depository issues as well. Could feed in to the DSP's relations with federal departments and the Treasury Board, especially at a time when the latter’s Communication Policy is under review, and whose revised guidelines could have more “clout” than existing procedures
  8. Re: 11), the political climate is conductive to such action at the present time, given the drive to ensure that Canadian citizens are better informed about the federal government and its activities
  9. The Librarian of Parliament might be interested in being involved in framing the recommendations in the Position Paper
  10. The DSP cannot be involved in preparing the Position Paper, but could certainly make use of it when it appears
  11. The non-federal members of the DSP-LAC itself could endorse the Paper
  12. How would the development of such a paper be financed? Shouldn’t be costly to develop a short paper with key (2-3) recommendations. Gwendolyn Ebbett will consult with CARL/ABRC Executive Director Tim Mark on developing a joint Position Paper, and on cost sharing if funding issues arise
  13. Re: 5), members were asked to use Infodep for the time being, and to share information on “fugitive” digital Canadian Government publications, as well as the names of useful contacts in federal departments
  14. The Weekly Checklist could be used to promote Infodep, and for issuing important information in tandem with Infodep postings
  15. Need to promote Infodep itself
  16. List of Infodep subscribers and their e-mails being updated
  17. Information on who to contact for what at the DSP is contained in draft DSP Guide (aka Program “Bible”)
  18. Comments on draft DSP Guide requested from DSP-LAC members by Sept. 22, 2006
  19. Could there be a “fugitive documents” sub-site on the DSP Web site? Christine Leduc will follow up on this with the DSP IT Group, and on the idea of creating a specialized Wiki
  20. CARL/ABRC has a Wiki capability
Promotion / Marketing
  1. Action needed at local and provincial levels as well – important to provide more information to the general public
  2. Training – Need to help libraries provide better government information services, through such means as providing tips on Infodep. Jeff Moon (Queen’s University) has developed an on-line course (see the Partnerships Web site at http://www.thepartnership.ca/cgi-bin/site/printPage.cgi?page=education/ei05/moon_govt.html)
  3. The problem of usage statistics. For various reasons (separate housing of collections, separate cataloguing systems, etc), it is difficult to measure the use of Canadian government publications in DSP libraries. However, federal departments and the Treasury Board are more likely to take “hard data” more seriously as proof of Program value. DLI (Data Liberation Initiative) tracks what it called “Metrics” using the “Sherlock” system).
  4. Question: Could ISBNs be tracked in depository libraries?
  5. Statistics could be collected on the number of students taking courses that require access to Canadian government documents
  6. Some universities do not circulate their Canadian government publications – therefore, no circulation statistics even if ISBNs could be tracked
  7. Libraries could agree to track indicators such as reference questions, reshelved materials for a given period of time (e.g. a day, a week) to generate at least some data – in New Brunswick, a similar study suggested in-house use was roughly 50% that of circulated documents. A common measurement period could also be part of a much wider awareness-raising exercise
  8. Regarding the use of digital maps, licensing agreement can include requirements that allow measurement of use
  9. Concordia University tracks usage of paper maps
  10. For those depositories that can track usage by ISBN:
    • 0-660 is the code for priced Government of Canada publications
    • 0-662 is the code for free Government of Canada publications
  11. MARC (Machine-Readable Cataloging standard) has a fixed field for government publications, but it is difficult or impossible to “extract” information for tracking. Some libraries identity government documents in the “notes” field
  12. Concordia University and the University of Ottawa developed a “stamp” to identify Canadian government publications. DSP could create such a stamp with a Program logo for all depository libraries. Problem of weeding Canadian government documents that have been integrated with the general collection (may contravene retention guidelines)
  13. DSP-LAC members will submit ideas on gathering usage data for Canadian government publications to the DSP by the end of October 2006
  14. Members were impressed with the folded paper (“tent”) notices drafted by the DSP to promote DSP libraries and the Program itself via placement on work desks in user areas (drafts distributed in meeting binders), and urged the DSP to distribute the final version, which will be done
  15. Cynthia Hubbertz agreed to seek out data on the value of DSP collections contained in the annual reports of her predecessor at the Library of Parliament. This information may include the opportunity cost of not receiving free shipments via the DSP (i.e. how much it would cost to obtain the material if the DSP did not provide them). Gay Lepkey noted that information on the shipping costs of free materials is available in addition to the value of priced materials
  16. Full depository libraries must also absorb the cost of permanently retaining the publications they receive through the Program (a hidden cost)
  17. The Weldon Library at the University of Western Ontario issues “Pathfinder” guides pointing its users to appropriate Canadian Government publications for reference by discipline – another potential indicator of value
  18. Another indicator – use of Canadian government publications in information literacy / library use training classes. Association interest groups could be approached to provide more detailed information
  19. Libraries should be urged to obtain and use the Government of Canada “client satisfaction” measurement tool being developed by Treasury Board (see point 39 from previous day)
  20. How to capture data on when the public is directed to the departmental libraries of federal departments if depository libraries cannot provide the appropriate information? Could the Council of Federal Libraries assist?
  21. LAC will develop a Web site listing surveys commissioned by the federal government. The new Accountability Act will require these surveys to be made available 6 months after completion
  22. Could federal departments place information about the DSP on their own publications? On their Web sites?
  23. Links to Depository Library Web sites could be added to the DSP Web site (the appropriate URLs would have to be provided to the Program). The Service Canada Web site could also be approached to accept links.
  24. How to advise DSP on the availability of geospatial data sets? DSP suggests using Infodep to publicize free products, but to contact it directly when new priced products are identified.

What Went Well (WWW) / What Concerns (W/C) – For Each Day

Aug. 30, 2006 – What Went Well (WWW)

  • Timing of segments appropriate
  • Good idea to request and identify
  • Some unexpected and interesting input
  • Segments were structured, but also flexible
  • Member contributions captured in writing on flip charts
  • “Meet and Greet” session
    • Efforts of DSP staff appreciated
    • Good transition to meetings
  • Useful information for those who don’t work in government documents
  • Sessions didn’t get bogged down in “practical” details – “big picture” focus vs. “nitty gritty” (past meetings had too much detail)
  • Participation by all members
  • Presentation by DSP Director Christine Leduc
  • Passion of members for what they do
  • “I learned so much” – DSP Director Christine Leduc

Aug. 30, 2006 – What Concerns (W/C)

  • Some “stand alone” agenda topics were dropped, but were addressed in the context of others

Aug. 31, 2006 – What Went Well (WWW)

  • Members appreciated being able to meet and talk with DSP staff about operations and projects
  • Solid presentations from departments (copies not already distributed will be)
  • Content and organization of meeting binder
  • Very good food
  • Pleasant room temperature
  • Comfortable meeting room – lots of space to move around
  • Hotel accommodation
  • Facilitation and note taking helpful

[End of Day 2]

Originally published: December 5, 2006
Re-published: August 25, 2011