THE GOVERNMENT INFORMATION LOCATOR SERVICE (GILS): EXPANDING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ON THE ANSI/NISO Z3950 INFORMATION RETRIEVAL STANDARD FINAL REPORT of the Cooperative Research Study between the School of Information Studies, Syracuse University and The United States Geological Survey funded by The Interagency Working Group on Data Management for Global Change William E. Moen Charles R. McClure Principal Investigators School of Information Studies 4-206 Center for Science and Technology Syracuse University Syracuse, NY 13244-4100 Telephone: (315) 443-2911 Fax: (315) 443-5806 September 7, 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements i Executive Summary iii 1. Introduction 1 2. ANSI/NISO Z39.50: A Standard for Information Retrieval 3 3. Articulating a Vision: The Design Document for GILS 3 4. Developing a Vision: Previous Research on Federal Information Locators 5 5. The Current Research Project 6 5.1. Goals and Objectives 7 5.2. Description of Activities 7 5.2.1. Initiation and Coordination 7 5.2.2. Developing the Profile 8 5.2.3. Consensus Building 8 5.2.4. Other Project Activities 9 5.3. Products Developed 10 6. Development of the GILS Profile 10 6.1. What is a Profile 11 6.2. The GILS Profile 11 6.3. Lessons Learned from Developing the Profile 12 6.4. Impact on Product Development 12 6.5. Open System Environment ImplementorsÕ Workshop 13 6.6. The GILS Profile as a Federal Information Processing Standard 13 7. Evaluation of Project 14 7.1. Consensus Among Stakeholders 14 7.2. Impact on Z39.50 Standards Development and USMARC Specifications 15 7.3. Opportunity for Generating Awareness and Stimulating Interest 16 8. Issues Remaining for Future GILS Activities 16 8.1. Implementing GILS 17 8.2. Bibliographic Control in the Networked Environment 18 8.3. Accommodating the Installed Base of Technology 19 8.4. Extensibility of GILS 20 8.5. Federal Information Policy Issues 21 8.5.1. OMBÕs Roles and Responsibility 21 8.5.2. GILS and IRM Roles and Responsibility 22 8.5.3. GILS and Federal Library Community Roles and Responsibility22 8.5.4. GILS and Archives and Record Managers Community Roles and Responsibility23 8.6. Policy and Technical Standards23 8.7. Evaluating the GILS Profiling Process and Products 24 9. Next Steps to Realize the Promise of GILS 25 9.1. A GILS Interoperability Testbed 25 9.2. Stimulating the Market 26 10. Final Recommendations 28 11. Moving Forward 31 Notes 32 References 33 Appendix A Project Team Members 36 Attachments Attachment A Expanding Research and Development on the NISO Z39.50 Search and Retrieval Standard, Project Abstract (October 1, 1993) Attachment B Application Profile for the Government Information Locator Service (GILS) (May 7, 1994) Attachment C Using Z39.50 in an Application of the Government Information Locator Service (GILS): A Background Paper (May 7, 1994) Attachment D Using the Z39.50 Information Retrieval Protocol in the Internet Environment (Lynch) Attachment E The Government Information Locator Service (GILS): Report to the Information Infrastructure Task Force (May 2, 1994) Attachment F Project Workstatement Attachment G Meetings of GILS Project Team Attachment H Stakeholder Contact List Attachment I Critical Review of WAIS as an Application Tool for GILS (FS Consulting) Attachment J Interoperability and Conformance Issues in the Development and Implementation of the Government Information Locator Service (GILS) (Preston & Lynch) Attachment K Requirements for Accommodating Information Systems Information and Records Management Needs within the Proposal for a Government Information Locator Service (GILS) and its Z39.50 Application (Bearman) Attachment L Working Implementation Agreements for Open Systems Environment: Part 31 Ñ Application Profile for the Government Information Locator Service (GILS) Ñ Library Applications Special Interest Group Attachment M Proposed Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) for Application Profile for the Government Information Locator Service (GILS): Request for Comment Attachment N Response to Stakeholder on Suitability of Z39.50 for GILS Attachment O USMARC Proposal 94-9: Changes to the USMARC Bibliographic Format to Accommodate Online Systems and Services Attachment P Building a Policy for Information Technology Standards (Moen) Attachment Q GILS Forum, An Electronic Discussion Group LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. GILS Design and Functional Characteristics 4 Figure 2. Key Areas of Consensus for Developing a GIILS 5 Figure 3. Next Steps for GILS: Recommendations 28 Figure 4. Key Factors Affecting GILS Implementation 31 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research project could not have been completed without the assistance and participation of a number of individuals and organizations. We especially acknowledge the support for this project from the Interagency Working Group on Data Management for Global Change. The project profited from the continuing interest and constructive suggestions and ideas offered by Eliot Christian, United States Geological Survey, who served as project liaison. The GILS Profile project team deserves credit for the successful completion of this project. Team members devoted time from their already full schedules to hammer out the details of the GILS Profile. The team members included: Kevin Gamiel, Clearinghouse for Network Information Discovery and Retrieval; Ralph LeVan, OCLC; Denis Lynch, ESL, Inc.; Margaret St. Pierre, WAIS, Inc.; Madeleine Stovel, Research Libraries Group, Inc.; Eliot Christian, United States Geological Survey; Tim Gauslin, United States Geological Survey; Sue Ruddle, Defense Technical Information Center; Yesha Yelena, National Institute of Standards and Technology; Ray Denenberg, Z39.50 Maintenance Agency, Library of Congress. Project consultants prepared important background papers that identified issues and solutions related to the GILS Profile and broader policy and technical considerations. The consultants were David Bearman, Cecilia Preston, and Francois Schiettecatte. Special appreciation and thanks go to Clifford Lynch who monitored and reviewed project activities and products as well as collaborating on one of the background papers. A number of organizations made important contributions to the project. The Coalition for Networked Information provided opportunities at their meetings for discussion of project activities. The Coalition, specifically through the efforts of Paul Peters and Craig Summerhill, is also hosting a newly established public electronic discussion group devoted to the GILS initiative. The Network Development and MARC Standards Office at the Library of Congress provided meeting space for the project team. In addition, Sally McCallum and Rebecca Guenther of that office supplied expertise in the mapping of GILS data elements to USMARC. The National Information Standards Organization and its executive director, Patricia Harris, supported the project by distributing GILS papers to a meeting of the Automation Vendor Information Advisory Committee as well as taking on the task of distributing this final report through the NISO Press. Members of the Z39.50 Implementors Group (ZIG) and the subscribers to the USMARC discussion list provided important expertise on specific technical issues of the GILS Profile. Many ZIG members were willing to critique the GILS Profile work, and their constructive comments were essential to producing an implementable profile. At the School of Information Studies, Kathleen Flynn was a graduate research assistant with many support responsibilities. She also provided editorial assistance in reviewing the final draft of this report. Beth Mahoney provided word processing and graphics support. Lori Brownell competently handled the many administrative activities related to the project. Rebecca Freeland helped coordinate travel, meetings, and timely reimbursements. The Principal Investigators also recognize the institutional support provided by Syracuse University that contributed to the completion of the study. We also want to thank the ERIC Clearinghouse and its AskERIC staff, particularly Michael Eisenberg and David Lankes for providing technology support for the electronic communication needs of the project team. Finally, we would like to thank the many people with whom we talked about this project and the GILS Profile. The consensus building aspect of this project brought us in contact with people who are concerned about and interested in seeing a new era in access and dissemination of government information. Although the authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance and contributions of all the people mentioned above, the opinions and recommendations expressed in this report are those of the Principal Investigators. These opinions and recommendations included here may not necessarily represent the views of the Interagency Working Group on Data Management for Global Change nor all members of the GILS project team. William E. Moen Charles R. McClure September 1994 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Government Information Locator Service (GILS) is a response to the need of users to be able to identify, locate, and access or acquire publicly available Federal information resources. GILS uses ANSI/NISO Z39.50, the American National Standard for information retrieval and other relevant standards to support the deployment of agency-based, network-accessible locators. This cooperative research project between the United States Geological Survey and Syracuse University developed an application profile for ANSI/NISO Z39.50 for use in GILS. The current project can be considered the third in a series of projects conducted by study teams at Syracuse University on Federal locator systems (see McClure, et al., 1990; McClure, Ryan & Moen, 1992). This project began in September 1993 and was completed in May 1994. Objectives of this project included: o Expand research and development on the American National Standard for information searching and retrieval (Z39.50) for its application in facilitating public access to Federal information resources and speeding the development of interoperable systems. This involved working within the voluntary standards system to investigate how Z39.50 and other standard could be used in GILS. o Build consensus of major stakeholders on the manner in which Z39.50 can be applied in GILS implementations. This involved ongoing and wide-ranging information dissemination concerning the work and direction of the project, and included targeted mailings and presentations to stakeholders to build consensus on the specifications of a system architecture for GILS and the specifications of Z39.50 and other standards for use in GILS. o Develop an application profile for networked-based GILS implementations that references Z39.50 and other standards for use in the Internet environment. This was a primary activity of the project and involved the work of a project team coordinated by the Principal Investigators to precisely identify and detail the specifications for Z39.50, data content standards, USMARC, and other standards. These specifications are included in the profile document, ÒApplication Profile for the Government Information Locator Service (GILS).Ó The GILS Profile is now being processed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology as a Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS), and it has been approved by the Open Systems Environment Implementors Workshop as ÒWorking Implementation Agreements for Open Systems Environment: Part 31 Ñ Application Profile for the Government Information Locator Service (GILS) Ñ Library Applications Special Interest Group.Ó o Support and encourage test implementations of the profile by interested parties to provide evaluations of the profile and for interoperability testing. This has included the identification of next steps for GILS implementation including an interoperability testbed and stimulating a market for GILS products and services. The current project produced (1) an application profile for the use of Z39.50 in GILS; (2) a background document describing design decisions and assumptions of the project team and used to inform stakeholders and build consensus; (3) three reports describing technical and policy issues of concern to the GILS initiative such as interoperability testing, extensibility of GILS, and the accommodation of the installed based of technology; and (4) this final report that details the projectÕs activities, identifies remaining issues for future GILS activities, and recommends a series of next steps. This report contains a series of attachments that include all relevant documents produced by the project or are otherwise pertinent to the GILS initiative. By including these attachments, this complete document serves as a comprehensive source of GILS-related information important to understanding the context and results of this research project. The successful completion of this project has laid the technical groundwork for GILS implementations. This project identified two important next steps to move the GILS initiative forward: establishing an interoperability testbed for demonstrating interoperable GILS products; and continuing to stimulate the market for GILS products and services and encouraging Federal agencies to implement GILS locators. The project also developed a list of recommendations that address both short-term requirements of GILS (e.g., developing guidelines for GILS record creation) and the long-term viability of GILS (e.g., strategically placing GILS as part of major Federal initiatives such as the National Information Infrastructure). Although the technical groundwork has been laid (i.e., the GILS Profile) and a government-wide policy framework is being developed (e.g., the Office of Management and Budget will soon release an OMB Bulletin on GILS), future emphasis on GILS development will need to shift to individual agencies. The Principal Investigators conclude that there are social, cultural, and organizational factors in Federal agencies that will affect the success of GILS development. Cultural and organizational changes need to be encouraged to realize the promise of GILS and its utility in Federal information resources management and as a vital mechanism providing access to government information. The Government Information Locator Service (GILS): Expanding Research and Development on the ANSI/NISO Z39.5 Information Retrieval Standard 1. Introduction The emerging National Information Infrastructure (NII) provides new opportunities for Federal agencies to disseminate publicly available government information and for the public to have the means for easy access to that information, especially when the information is held in electronic formats. Political leaders and policymakers recognize that access to government information is essential and have exhorted Federal agencies to improve such access. The recent Clinton Administration technology policy document, ÒTechnology for AmericaÕs Economic Growth: A New Direction to Build Economic StrengthÓ (Clinton & Gore, 1993, p. 17) states: Every year, the Federal Government spends billions of dollars collecting and processing information (e.g., economic data, environmental data, and technical information). Unfortunately, while much of this information is very valuable, many potential users either do not know that it exists or do not know how to access it. We are committed to using new computer and networking technology to make this information more accessible to the taxpayers who paid for it. As reflected in this statement, a major barrier to effective citizen access to public information is the lack of directories and other finding tools to identify and locate information resources that Federal agencies create, house, and disseminate. The Government Information Locator Service (GILS) is a response to the needs of users to be able to identify, locate, and access or acquire publicly available Federal information resources, including electronic information resources. GILS uses ANSI/NISO Z39.50, the American National Standard for information retrieval (National Information Standards Organization, 1992), and other relevant standards to support the deployment of agency-based, network-accessible locators. These locators provide users with descriptive, location, and access information for a wide range of Federal government information resources. Z39.50 defines a standard way for two computers to communicate for the purpose of information retrieval and facilitates the use of large information databases by standardizing the procedures and features for searching and retrieving information (for a general overview of Z39.50, see, The ANSI/NISO Z39.50 Protocol: Information Retrieval in the Information Infrastructure [Moen, 1994]). To advance the development of GILS, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) entered into a cooperative agreement with the Syracuse University to coordinate a research project focused on the use of open systems standards to improve the utility of information searching and retrieval via computer communications networks (Attachment A is a project abstract). This document is a report on that research project. The project began in September 1993 and was completed in May 1994. The current research builds upon a previous study, Identifying and Describing Federal Information Inventory/Locator Systems: Design for Networked- Based Locators (McClure, Ryan & Moen, 1992; McClure, Moen & Ryan, 1992). The Government Information Locator Service (GILS) (Christian, 1994) served as the defining vision for this project by describing and defining what GILS is, its objectives, and service requirements. The project had as its objectives to: oExpand research and development on the American National Standard for information searching and retrieval (Z39.50) for its application in facilitating public access to Federal information resources and speeding the development of interoperable systems oBuild consensus of major stakeholders on the manner in which Z39.50 can be applied in GILS implementations oDevelop an application profile for networked-based GILS implementations that references Z39.50 and other standards for use in the Internet environment oSupport and encourage test implementations of the profile by interested parties to provide evaluations of the profile and for interoperability testing. A primary focus of the project was the development of an application profile for using Z39.50 in GILS. Constructing a standards-based GILS, based on a widely accepted application profile, will increase the likelihood of interoperability and interworking among the agency implementations. Further, these implementations can provide linkage to the installed based of user-oriented, information-access tools available through public domain software on the Internet, library-based information services, and other networked-based information providers. Equally important, the standards-based GILS will ensure wider access to Federal information resources. This research project broke new ground for the Z39.50 community of developers and implementors. It resulted in first fully specified application profile for Z39.50 (Attachment B is the GILS application profile). In addition, it raised new Z39.50 implementation and standards- related issues such as the use of schemas, tag sets, and Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs).[1] In some cases the project provided potential solutions for these issues, while in other cases these issues have become part of the working agenda of the Z39.50 Implementors Group (ZIG), a Z39.50 implementors and users forum that is responsible for enhancing and extending the standard. The project also served to increase awareness of the GILS initiative through active dissemination of project documents, presentations at meetings, and other publicity efforts. These activities also served to build consensus on the manner in which Z39.50 would be used in the GILS (for example, Attachment C is a background document on the development of the GILS Profile used during the project to inform stakeholders and build consensus). Finally, the project has attempted to stimulate the development of off-the-shelf products that are compliant with the GILS Profile as well as stimulating a market for such products. Although there remain important questions and actions related to the use of Z39.50, the implementation of GILS, and the organization and creation of locator records for GILS, this project has successfully provided the foundation for a series of next steps. The purpose of this final report is to describe the activities of the research project, to propose a series of next steps, and to discuss the implementation and policy issues that remain. This report contains a number of attachments that were produced in the course of the study or are pertinent to the GILS initiative. By including these attachments, this complete document serves as a comprehensive source of GILS-related information relevant to understanding the context and results of this research project. 2.ANSI/NISO Z39.50: A Standard for Information Retrieval The information retrieval protocol, Z39.50, provides a common language for clients to select and retrieve records from a range of servers. The purpose of Z39.50 is to allow one computer operating in a client mode to perform information retrieval queries against another computer acting as an information server and to provide for the transfer of records or other information from the server to the client. Z39.50 does not prescribe how a particular system will execute the searching and retrieval on databases nor does it prescribe user interface requirements. Z39.50 is an applications-layer protocol originally modelled within the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) Basic Reference Model. The OSI Basic Reference Model (ISO 7498: 1984 Open Systems Interconnection-- Basic Reference Model) was developed at the international level by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Applications-layer protocols support the communications requirements of and interact directly with computer programs that reside on clients and servers and perform specific operations. The National Information Standards Organization (NISO), an American National Standards Institute (ANSI) accredited standards developer that serves the library, information, and publishing communities, developed Z39.50. This standard was first approved as an American National Standard in 1988. NISO balloted and approved a 1992 revision of the standard (Z39.50-1992, also referred to as Version 2). Since 1991, the ZIG has been preparing a new version of the standard, Z39.50- 199x (sometimes referred to as Version 3). NISO began the balloting process on this new version of Z39.50 on September 1, 1994.[2] Z39.50 is a compatible superset of two International Standards for information retrieval: ISO 10162, Search and Retrieve Application Service Definition and ISO 10163-1, Search and Retrieve Protocol Specification. In early 1994, international standards developers made a crucial decision to begin the process of converging the international standards with U.S. Z39.50 work. No longer will there be different national and international standards that must be harmonized. Rather, it is the intention of national and international standards developers to use the version of Z39.50 now being balloted as a basis for both the American and International Standards. A reflection of this intention has been the participation of international Z39.50 users at the April 1994 meeting of the ZIG; plans are underway to hold the Spring 1995 ZIG meeting in Europe. Although modelled as an OSI applications-layer protocol, Z39.50 is currently used by implementors in the Internet environment. The success of a Z39.50 interoperability testbed in 1992 showed that the transport service of the InternetÕs Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) can successfully support the Z39.50 protocol. Lynch (1994a) describes how Z39.50 can be implemented over TCP. Attachment D contains a draft Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request for Comment (RFC) by Lynch (1994b), ÒUsing the Z39.50 Information Retrieval Protocol in the Internet Environment.Ó Initial Z39.50 applications supported information retrieval of bibliographic data, but a growing number of implementations are expanding the range of Z39.50 applications. In addition, commercial, off- the-shelf Z39.50 products are becoming increasingly available (for a list of vendors providing Z39.50 products, see Moen, 1994). The ZIG, a group of active Z39.50 implementors, continues to enhance and refine the standard based on the requirements of implementors and other users. Z39.50 is stable, implementable, and is proving to be an important tool for information retrieval in the emerging information infrastructure. As a technical component of GILS, Z39.50 will assist in moving GILS from vision to concrete implementations. 3.Articulating a Vision: The Design Document for GILS The GILS initiative arises from the co-incidence of several forces including: oThe Clinton AdministrationÕs Strategic Technology policy statement (see Clinton & Gore, 1993) oThe AdministrationÕs commitment to the development of a National Information Infrastructure (see Information Infrastructure Task Force, 1993) oA strengthened Federal policy on information resources management (IRM) (see Office of Management and Budget, 1993a, 1994) oThe increasing role of networking technology available to increased numbers of users oFederal agencies becoming connected to and experienced with the Internet. Earlier research (see Section 4) provided a basis for a vision of a government-wide locator, and Christian (1994) articulated more explicitly a design for GILS. Government Information Locator Service (GILS): Report to the Information Infrastructure Task Force (Christian, 1994) describes the vision and function of GILS and outlines its objectives and service requirements (a copy of this document is included in Attachment E; throughout this report this item is referred to as the GILS document). Drafts of the GILS document circulated to Federal agencies, interested and potential stakeholders, and the public from Fall 1993 through Spring 1994. While the defining vision of GILS in that document remained relatively stable, the iterations of the drafts developed details on implementation and aided in the evolution of an understanding how GILS might be implemented. The implications for this research project of the evolving understanding of GILS are discussed below. GILS is a response to the need for users to be able to identify, locate, and access or acquire publicly available Federal information resources, including electronic information resources. It is a decentralized collection of locators and associated information services that includes information and technology components as well as policy, legal and regulatory mandates, and people. GILS is intended to help the public locate and access public information throughout the U.S. government. Based on the GILS document, GILS implementations are to exhibit design and functional characteristics. Figure 1 summarizes the characteristics (based on the GILS document) that were particularly relevant for the current research project. The GILS document addresses additional design, operational, and other criteria (e.g., intellectual property safeguards, privacy concerns). ____________________ Figure 1 GILS Design and Functional Characteristics o Comprehensive in its coverage of Federal information resources o User friendly o Answers specific questions o Allows scanning of a wide range of government information oResponds to needs and abilities of naive users as well as sophisticated researchers o Provides service directly to the public oDoes not undermine the diversity of existing information sources oCan be used either directly or through intermediaries oProvides information regarding request and delivery of referenced information resources oEquipment and software requirements, cost, and technical complexity must be minimized as barriers oUses network technology to connect distributed servers that are agency-based oConforms to national and international standards for information and data processing oSupports seamless access not only among locators but directly to the referenced information resources oDefines a subset of all GILS components and refers to this as the GILS Core; the GILS Core comprises those locator records maintained by the U.S. Federal government, all of which comply with the defined GILS Core Element standards; GILS Core Elements define the content of a finite number of data elements used in individual locator records to describe information resources oMust be accessible on interconnected electronic network facilities and must support the currently approved ANSI/NISO Z39.50 standard for information retrieval oMust conform to the GILS Profile to provide full functionality to GILS direct users ____________________ To move from a vision of the GILS to actual implementations, the design and high-level functional requirements outlined in the GILS document Ñ especially those related to the use of Z39.50 Ñ needed to be specified in more detail. The exact manner in which GILS would use Z39.50 and other related or emerging standards needed explicit definition to increase the likelihood of interoperability and to provide users the capability to search across the vast information space of Federal information resources. As context for this project, the next section summarizes previous research undertaken by Syracuse University related to Federal information locators. The research efforts over the past six years suggest that a user- based approach to designing a locator system, policy analysis and policy advocacy, and an awareness of technology trends and information technology standards can be particularly effective to connect the needs of information users and providers in achieving broader Federal information policy goals. 4.Developing a Vision: Previous Research on Federal Information Locators In 1990, Syracuse University researchers conducted the first of two studies related to improving the publicÕs knowledge and access to Federal information resources through the use of Federal information inventories and locators. The General Services Administration/Regulatory Information Service Center (GSA) and the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OMB-OIRA) funded the study (referred to as Phase I of the two-part research effort). Federal Information Inventory/Locator Systems: From Burden to Benefit (McClure et al., 1990), the final report from that study, included a policy analysis of locator-related legislation and related policy instruments, assessments from a number of key Federal officials, and an analysis of public comments on how a locator of Federal information resources might be developed. One of the findings from the research was the need to add a government-wide, electronically-based finding tool to the traditional finding aids currently available. The study also concluded that the Federal Information Inventory Locator System (FILS) mandated in 44 U.S.C. 3507- 3511 was ineffective and inadequately addressed access to and improved dissemination of government information. The study suggested that a new approach was needed as a means to identify, locate, and obtain government information. The approach recommended in the study was a government-wide information inventory/locator system (GIILS) that would address objectives such as access and dissemination, which were quite different than the objectives of the FILS.[3] The study also revealed that a range of stakeholder groups expressed widespread interest in the development of a GIILS. While there was not consensus on the technical design details of a GIILS, the stakeholders agreed that a GIILS should be designed in light of the basic principles listed in Figure 2 (McClure et al., 1990). ____________________ Figure 2 Key Areas of Consensus for Developing a GILS o The Government should be responsible for GIILS development oOMB should develop and enforce clear and consistent GIILS policy guidelines but should not be involved in the actual operation of a GIILS o The system must respond to user information needs oThe GIILS design and operation should be based on input from a range of stakeholders oStandards for operations and performance be identified and maintained o The agencies should be the locus of responsibility and control oAgencies should have incentives and receive rewards for participating in GIILS oAny GIILS should be integrated into agency information resources management (IRM) functions o Congress must provide support for a GIILS o Keep the GIILS simple and develop it incrementally o GIILS should provide multiple products in a range of formats ____________________ Several of the areas identified in the study as needing further investigation were of interest to OMB and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and included: 1) the identification of existing locator systems; 2) the creation of a machine-readable database housing descriptions of these locator systems; and 3) the identification and discussion of key issues related to the actual development of a government-wide locator system. GSA, NARA, and OMB/OIRA, jointly funded Phase II of the study to address these areas. Identifying and Describing Federal Information Inventory/Locator Systems: Design for Networked-Based Locators (McClure, Ryan & Moen, 1992) is the final report from Phase II. The Phase II study began in May 1991 and concluded in August 1992. It had the following specific objectives: oIdentify existing and planned Federal agency locators oIdentify critical success factors in the design, development, and maintenance of a Federal agency locator oIdentify and discuss key issues and policy recommendations related to the design and development of a government-wide locator system. The study recommended that OMB develop a policy framework requiring agencies to design and maintain machine-readable locators that would be accessible over the Internet and that would meet certain requirements and standards. The study developed a definition of a Òlocator,Ó based in part on the types of locators identified and assessed in the study and on the developments of network technologies including the rapid growth of the Internet and tools available for use in the networked environment. Minimally, a locator should meet certain criteria (McClure, Ryan, & Moen, 1992, p. 2): oThe locator is a point of entry for locating government information, regardless of the format and content of that information oThe content of the locator is not the actual information resource or service itself; rather it is a description of that information oThe locator tells the user (1) what information is available on a particular topic, (2) where that information is located, and (3) how the user would access that information o The locator is in machine-readable format oThe locator is publicly accessible and searchableÑpreferably through direct dial-up telephone lines and/or through the Internet/NREN. This definition informs the current GILS initiative. Acknowledging the decentralized nature of Federal information resources management (IRM), the study recommended a strategy that would build upon this decentralized management context by having the individual agencies be responsible for developing and implementing locators to their own information resources. Congressional mandate and Executive regulations (e.g., 44 U.S.C., Freedom of Information Act, OMB Circular A-130) already required agencies to establish and maintain a range of information inventories and locator systems. The locator system envisioned in Phase II would use computer and communications technologies to integrate these agency-based locators into a ÒvirtualÓ government-wide information locator system. The study identified client/server architecture and Z39.50 for networked information retrieval as key technology components for realizing a distributed, virtual locator system. By using Z39.50 when implementing their locators, agencies would lay the foundation for transparent navigation and access through the vast range of information housed on the individual agenciesÕ locators. Phase II did not detail the technical specifications for an agency- based, network-accessible government locator system. Instead, it painted a vision of what such a system might look like and some of the essential components. The study also addressed the importance of establishing a policy framework for the locator system. Although the technology had emerged or was emerging to support such a vision, technical solutions themselves needed to be guided by explicit and coordinating policy decisions. The discussion in Section 3 presented a further articulation of the vision from the Phase II study. The design document (Christian, 1994) for GILS provided the basis for the research project that is the focus of this report, a project that has moved the vision of GILS to actual technological implementations using Z39.50. 5. The Current Research Project To realize the vision of transparent network access to government information via a system of agency-based locators, there was a need for additional research on the development and implementation of Z39.50 for use in a locator application. The choice of Z39.50 as the appropriate national standard for use in GILS required additional specification of how GILS would work as well as which specific features of Z39.50 would support the functionality required in GILS. Computer communications protocols are complex technical specifications that often contain a variety of options and choices from which to make selections when developing an implementation (McCallum, 1994). To increase the likelihood of achieving the desired interoperability of independently developed Z39.50 GILS components, implementors must agree on which options, choices, and features from Z39.50 that GILS implementations would support. A profile is a mechanism for accomplishing this; a profile is a set of implementation agreements that guide implementors in applying one or more standards in a specific and limited context. Defining a GILS Profile would be an important contribution to Z39.50 use in GILS. In addition, some GILS requirements as described in the GILS document demanded Z39.50 implementations needing functionality not specifically addressed in the standard. Thus, there was a likelihood that GILS requirements related to Z39.50 would need to be addressed by the Z39.50 standards developers (i.e., the ZIG). Further, the GILS Profile would need to address concerns such a data content standards (e.g., the GILS Core Elements) that are beyond the scope of Z39.50 and conventional profiles. GILS Profile development, in effect, would redefine the currently accepted definition of what a profile addresses. The resulting GILS Profile is more of a ÒsystemÓ profile than a profile for a single standard. Syracuse University and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) entered into a cooperative agreement funded by the Interagency Working Group on Data Management for Global Change to conduct this research and development. The study began in September 1993 and concluded in May 1994. The primary focus of the project concerned the development of an application profile for the GILS. In addition, the project stressed the importance of outreach to interested and potential stakeholders through direct communication and dissemination of ongoing research results. Another aspect of this research and development effort was to promote wider acceptance of Z39.50, specifically, its use in GILS. Moreover, the project intended to increase awareness of the importance of Z39.50 as applied to the search and retrieval of locator and other information. The project successfully completed a stable draft of the GILS Profile, a document that fully specifies the use of Z39.50 in an application of the GILS. This section of the report describes in more detail the project, its activities, and its products. 5.1. Goals and Objectives For the current study, the Principal Investigators coordinated the work of a group comprising technical experts (e.g., in Z39.50 implementations, information systems implementations, and information organization) and representatives of Federal agencies. Guided by an overriding goal to advance the development of GILS, the research project focused on the use of open systems standards to improve the utility of information searching and retrieval on digital networks. More specifically, the project had as its objectives to: oExpand research and development on the American National Standard for information searching and retrieval (Z39.50) for its application in facilitating public access to Federal information resources and speeding the development of interoperable systems oBuild consensus of major stakeholders on the manner in which Z39.50 can be applied in GILS implementations oDevelop an application profile for networked-based GILS implementations that references Z39.50 and other standards for use in the Internet environment oSupport and encourage test implementations of the profile by interested parties to provide evaluations of the profile and for interoperability testing. The development of the GILS Profile and building consensus on the manner in which Z39.50 would be used were the necessary first steps in achieving any subsequent objectives. The project team focused its primary attention on these two activities. Given the length of the project, the concluding activities have attempted to stimulate interest (both user and vendor) in implementations that conform to the GILS profile. 5.2. Description of Activities The activities for the project can be grouped into the following categories: o Initiation and Coordination o Developing the Profile o Consensus Building The next sections briefly describe how the Principal Investigators carried out these activities. 5.2.1. Initiation and Coordination To initiate the research and development effort, project leaders from Syracuse University and USGS met and discussed the general direction, potential participants, and activities for the project. They concluded that a project team strategy would be most effective in accomplishing the work and objectives of the project. The projectÕs focus on developing the GILS Profile required the involvement of experts in Z39.50 and information systems. These experts would nominally represent the communities of interested or potentially interested technology providers and users. Representatives from Federal agencies were also needed to provide nominal representation from the perspective of GILS providers (i.e., the agencies that would be creating the locator records, implementing GILS locators, etc.). The project team included experts in Z39.50, information systems, organization and management of information resources, and representatives of Federal agencies. Appendix A lists the project team members. The project team, as nominal representatives of several communities of interest, also served as a basis for consensus building on GILS. Constraints of time and budget required a limited Ñ but representative and interested Ñ number of participants on the team. Syracuse project leaders developed a workstatement for the project team, and contracted with participants to perform the duties outlined in the workstatement (see Attachment F). These tasks reflected the overall objectives for the project. The project team primarily carried out its responsibilities in a series of working meetings. Attachment G lists the meetings of the project team and other meetings where a majority of the project team were present and discussions on the project occurred. Syracuse project leaders established a electronic discussion forum for the use of team members and other interested individuals. The electronic discussion group proved to be an essential component to the deliberations of the team. It was a closed discussion forum where ideas and criticisms could be exchanged in a constructive manner by those committed to seeing the project reach a successful conclusion. Project leaders and team members used this discussion group to circulate drafts of documents, gather comments for revisions, post summaries of the team meetings, etc. The collaborative work of the project was substantially enhanced through the use of electronic networks. Throughout the project, Syracuse project leaders communicated with team members, coordinated the arrangements of meetings, made travel arrangements and accommodations for the meetings, and carried out other project management activities. 5.2.2. Developing the Profile The development of the GILS Profile occurred over three GILS project team meetings. This activity became central to the entire research project, and because of the lessons to be learned from this activity, it receives a more complete description in a separate section of this report (Section 6). 5.2.3. Consensus Building A basic assumption governing the execution of the project was that widespread acceptance of a GILS Profile and its utility in implementations would be facilitated by building consensus among interested and potential stakeholders. Team members were nominal representatives of a number of potentially interested communities such as information services providers, libraries, technology and software developers and providers, the Z39.50 implementors community, and Federal agencies. Project leaders expected team members to use their connections with these various communities to gain input into the process of developing the GILS Profile. A number of outreach efforts occurred to reach a wider group of potentially interested individuals and communities. The following lists these activities: oPresentations at ZIG meetings (October 1993, Ottawa, Canada; January 1994, Gainesville, FL; April 1994, Washington, DC) to inform and update this primary stakeholder community on the work of the project team. Requests were made for input to the work of the project team. At the January 1994 meeting, a focus group discussion with Z39.50 implementors elicited concerns and issues based the January draft of the background document produced by the project team, ÒUsing Z39.50 in an Application of the Government Information Locator Service (GILS)Ó (Attachment C). oElectronic announcements began in January 1994 to a number of Internet electronic discussion groups which might include interested and potential stakeholder communities. These included: CNI-ANNOUNCE (an announcement service of the Coalition for Networked Information); GOVDOCS-L (listserv primarily serving government documents librarians); PACS-L (library and technology oriented listserv); USMARC (a listserv for discussions of the USMARC format); and Z3950IW (the listserv of the ZIG).[4] These included announcements of the availability of project documents and requests for comments on specific work areas of the project team. oDirect mailing of January draft, ÒUsing Z39.50 in an Application of the Government Information Locator Service (GILS),Ó to selected attendees at the Fall 1993 Meeting of the Coalition for Networked Information (November 19-20, 1993, Chantilly, VA). The mailing also included a solicitation for comment on the document. Project description, goals, and objectives distributed at that meeting. oDistribution of GILS material at the February 1994 meeting of the Automation Vendor Information Advisory Committee (AVIAC), Los Angeles, CA. oPresentation to the E-Media Conference (January 20, 1994, Washington, DC) for Federal agency representatives to inform, update, and request feedback on the work of the project team. ÒUsing Z39.50 in an Application of the Government Information Locator Service (GILS)Ó distributed at the meeting. oBriefing on GILS project at the Spring 1994 Meeting of the Coalition for Networked Information (April 5, 1994, Washington, DC) to inform, update, and request feedback from meeting attendees. Summary sheet on project with pointers to electronic versions of project documents distributed. Contact with potential stakeholders and interested parties via mail, telephone, personal conversation, and electronic mail served to inform and provided an opportunity to request input and comments on the project. Attachment H contains a list of contacts made in the course of the project. Since the research project focused on the use of Z39.50 in GILS and developing an application profile that would specify the use of Z39.50, much of the teamÕs work was technically oriented. This is reflected in the documents produced by the project team. These technical documents are not easily accessible to the uninitiated in Z39.50, and this could account for a relatively low response rate to the requests for comments and input into the project teamÕs work. Most productive to the teamÕs contact with potential stakeholder groups was the interaction with the Z39.50 implementors and the people involved in USMARC format development and use. Z39.50 implementors have substantially agreed with the approach and specifics of the teamÕs profile effort. This group was also most able to address the technical nature of the documentation. In the case of the USMARC community, USMARC experts were requested to address one particular area of concern to the project team (i.e., the mapping of GILS Core Elements to USMARC fields). Approximately 25 individuals reviewed the proposed mapping, and ten individuals from the USMARC community forwarded recommendations. The response rate from the USMARC community was high because of the interest and expertise of these people in dealing with these specific technical issues of the GILS Profile. Consensus building on the overall GILS design (as presented in the GILS document) was not the responsibility of the project team and project leaders at Syracuse. Eliot Christian, among others, played an important role in creating awareness of the GILS design and building consensus on that design. The project team and project leaders, however, received questions on certain design and policy issues presented in the GILS document. These policy and design issues (e.g., what information resources would be described in locators, who would make sure agencies implemented GILS locators, etc.) were beyond the scope of project team responsibilities. Some policy issues, however, are of concern to the successful implementation of GILS (e.g., bibliographic control, GILS flexibility and extensibility to accommodate new uses). These issues are detailed in Section 8 below. 5.2.4. Other Project Activities In addition to the documents produced by the project team, three other project activities produced written reports. These reports helped increase the overall understanding of the issues and implications of implementing the GILS. Contractors, in addition to the core project team members who were developing the profile, completed these activities. A technical report prepared by FS Consulting, ÒCritical Review of WAIS as an Application Tool for GILS,Ó (Attachment I) examined the use of Wide Area Information Server (WAIS) technology in GILS. WAIS implementations were originally based on Z39.50-1988 with extensions defined by RFC 1625, WAIS over Z39.50-1988 (St. Pierre, 1994). A WAIS application profile now specifies how WAIS will be implemented using Z39.50-1992. A number of Federal agencies have deployed or are deploying WAIS technology as part of their efforts in providing access to government information, and it was important to understand the extent to which WAIS might effectively support GILS specifications. A major objective of GILS is to provide for interoperability of separately developed components from various vendors and implementors using different platforms and architectures. Namely, GILS is to operate in an Open Systems Environment, which is a Òcomputing environment that supports portable, scalable, and interoperable applications through standard services, interfaces, data formats, and protocolsÓ (National Institute of Standards and Technology, 1994, p. E-1). A technical report by Cecilia Preston and Clifford Lynch, ÒInteroperability and Conformance Issues in the Development and Implementation of the Government Information Locator Service (GILS),Ó (Attachment J) examined the issues related to interoperability and conformance testing for GILS implementations. GILS flexibility and its ability to accommodate new requirements (i.e., be extensible) is also an important consideration. GILS will be an evolving system, and the design and specifications for using Z39.50 had to respond to uncertain evolution. One way in which this could be tested was to ask for input from a potential user community about its needs which, according to at least one spokesperson, were not being fully addressed in the initial design of the GILS. A technical report prepared by David Bearman, ÒRequirements for Accommodating Information Systems Information and Records Management Needs within the Proposal for a Government Information Locator Service (GILS) and its Z39.50 Application,Ó (Attachment K) examined the needs of the archives and records management communities to understand how GILS might be extended to address additional requirements. This report also provided a way to ensure that nothing in the specifications of the GILS Profile would preclude such extensions. These three activities, along with the documents produced by the project team, provide a sense of the scope of issues, concerns, and implications of GILS deployment. A final component of the project was the use of a outside reviewer to examine and comment on the process and products of the project team and project consultants. Clifford A. Lynch, a respected expert in Z39.50 standards development and implementation, information systems, and policy, critically reviewed and made suggestions throughout the project. 5.3. Products Developed The primary product of the project was the profile, ÒApplication Profile for the Government Information Locator Service (GILS).Ó This GILS Profile provides the complete specification for the use of Z39.50 in GILS. Another important product was a document, ÒUsing Z39.50 in an Application of the Government Information Locator Service (GILS),Ó that discussed the development of the GILS Profile and detailed the assumptions made by project team members about GILS, the system architecture model, and the resulting choices and determinations about Z39.50 features that would be used by GILS. The purpose of the background document was to provide stakeholders with adequate information so that they could understand the reasons why the project team made certain design and other choices for Z39.50 and GILS. These documents circulated among the project team members and were distributed, either electronically or in paper copy, to external stakeholders. Each document went through a number of revisions based on comments received. Attachment B and Attachment C include the final versions of these documents. 6. Development and Approval of the GILS Profile This section describes the development of the GILS Profile. For the Z39.50 community, profiling is a new activity.[5] In the OSI environment, ÒprofilesÓ developed as an auxiliary mechanism to assist implementors in using one or more standards in an application and because of the complexity in the standards themselves. OSI International Standardized Profiles (ISPs) included a Protocol Interoperability Conformance Statement (PICS) which required implementors to list the features, facilities, services, options, and parameters their implementations supported. The GILS project team, however, needed to address additional requirements in the GILS Profile and came to view a profile as a way to subset and simultaneously integrate various protocols as well as requirements such as data content standards for the GILS Core data elements. The ZIG had resisted the ISP and PICS orientation to static profiling for Z39.50. With Z39.50 increasingly incorporated into applications beyond the traditional library and bibliographic information environment for which it was initially developed, profiles for specific applications, however, are providing an acceptable mechanism to specify Z39.50 in these new uses (e.g., National Spatial Data Infrastructure, Museum Informatics). One of the contributions this project has made to research and development of the standard has been to identify and document the benefits of a profile, and more specifically, the issues and problems related to developing the GILS Profile (Moen and McClure, forthcoming). GILS profile development (along with the development of the WAIS Profile) was the catalyst for the Open Systems Environment Implementors Workshop Special Interest Group on Library Applications (OIW/SIGLA) to develop an understanding of what comprised a Z39.50 application profile.[6] This group, some of whom worked on the GILS project team, concluded that a profile should be based on actual customer or user requirements. These requirements would be brought to implementors, and together the implementors and customers would work to develop an understanding of the requirements that would be supported by a profile. 6.1. What is a Profile A profile is Òa set of one or more base standards, and where applicable, the identification of chosen classes, subsets, options and parameters of those base standards, necessary for accomplishing a particular function (International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission, 1992, p. 2). Profiles are also referred to as Òfunctional standards,Ó Òimplementation agreements,Ó or Òspecifications.Ó Since open systems standards often include choices and options, profiles specify the values and parameters of a standard for an application or implementation to increase the likelihood of interoperability and interworking. A profile, according to these definitions, is a set of implementation agreements that guide implementors in applying one or more standards in a specific and limited context. The research team broadened this definition for the GILS Profile to include not only the specifications for Z39.50 and other relevant standards in the application but also other aspects of a GILS conformant server that are beyond the scope of these standards. The GILS Profile provides the specifications for the overall GILS application relating to the GILS Core locator records (i.e., those resources maintained by the U.S. Federal government) and completely specifies the use of Z39.50 in this application. Using the GILS Profile in GILS implementations will facilitate interoperability of independently developed components of GILS. Further, in developing the GILS Profile, the project team was aware of the need to understand and address interoperability issues with the currently installed base of available implementation technology. 6.2. The GILS Profile The GILS Profile includes the complete specifications of a subset of Z39.50 for use in the GILS application. The GILS Profile, in addition, specifies necessary characteristics of the GILS application that are outside the scope of Z39.50 including reference to other emerging, existing, or ad hoc standards (e.g., URIs, record interchange formats, and mappings between formats, respectively). Separate implementations will have an improved likelihood of interoperability and interworking when they conform to a common profile. This first version of the GILS Profile focuses on the requirements for a GILS server operating in the Internet environment. Although the GILS Profile addresses GILS servers only, it is understood that clients have roles in the execution of information retrieval activities. GILS clients will be able to interconnect with any GILS server, and these clients will behave in a manner that allows interoperability with the GILS server. Clients that support Z39.50 but do not implement the GILS Profile should be able to access GILS records but with less than full GILS functionality. The GILS Profile addresses many aspects of GILS (e.g., intersystem interactions and information interchange) but does not specify user interface requirements, the internal structure of databases that contain GILS Locator Records, or search engine functionality. Z39.50 does not address these either. Yet, considerations such as database structure or type of search engine used in specific GILS implementations may determine how well such systems perform (e.g., user satisfaction in retrieval results, response time, and efficient use of resources). Implementors of locators, whether they are agencies or contractors, will be responsible for determining systems specifications in areas not addressed by the GILS Profile. 6.3. Lessons Learned from Developing the Profile The GILS document presented an overview of GILS, including its objectives, service requirements, and core requirements. These requirements, however, were often described in general terms rather than in terms of specific functional requirements. A prerequisite for profiling to occur is a clear understanding Ñ in as much detail as possible Ñ of the actual functional requirements. Therefore, the project team proceeded to develop an interpretation and understanding of the high-level requirements presented in the GILS document. As a result, the team delineated the functional requirements that could be addressed by the GILS Profile. To accomplish this, the project team agreed upon a model of the system architecture that adequately described the GILS operation and information flows. This activity is documented in ÒUsing Z39.50 in an Application for the Government Information Locator Service (GILS): A Background Paper.Ó Several lessons can be learned from the experience of developing the GILS Profile. First, since profiling was a new activity for the Z39.50 community, there were no clear precedents available to guide this work. The original project proposal called for a five month process during which the profile would be developed and implementations based on the profile would be developed. This schedule did not account for the time (given available resources) needed to develop consensus on the profile. A second lesson from the GILS Profile project is that profile development time can be shortened if the user or customer requirements brought to implementors are clearly defined at a relatively detailed level. In the case of GILS Profile development, the project team spent considerable time understanding, interpreting, and designing a model of the system architecture for GILS. This was necessary since, as was noted above, the document on which the GILS Profile work was based provided a set of high-level requirements, and these needed to be further delineated so that specific choices could be made about using Z39.50 and other relevant or emerging standards. Therefore, developing a good profile (i.e., in the way the project team had redefined the GILS Profile as a system profile) requires a system architecture model that guides the specific choices about the manner in which the various standards will be utilized in an application. While the general concept of GILS was relatively stable, some of the details shifted during the time of profile development. As an example, the number and extent of data elements to be used in locator records was in flux during the initial period of development work. Another lesson related to the one listed above is that the profiling process will proceed more rapidly if the specifications are stable and unchanging. However, this may be an unrealistic expectation, since following the model of software design where a customer and a software designer go through iterations of modelling, requirements delineation, etc., it is likely that any profiling process for a complex information system will need to be somewhat flexible and open to modification. As profile developers come to an understanding of what the requirements are, so also does the customer or user come to an understanding of the functionality the standard can support. In cases where certain requirements could not be met by the standard, requirements must be able to be modified. A responsibility of the project team was to document the work of the project team and disseminate or make that information available to potential implementors and other stakeholders. The public dissemination via the Internet of drafts of the profile and the background document was intended to keep the process open and interested parties informed of the work of the project team. Providing information about the projectÕs progress and requesting comments and responses made the process more open; participation was broadened since others external to the immediate project team could provide input into the decisions. Such public dissemination of information about the project also kept stakeholders who were not represented on the project team abreast of the directions in which the profile was moving. This meant that those who worked directly on the GILS Profile did not have an unfair advantage in developing implementations. 6.4. Impact on Product Development The intention of the project leaders was to develop the profile, encourage test implementations based on the profile, and then have those test implementations provide feedback on the profile. The project leaders also intended to set up a mechanism by which these prototype implementations of the GILS Profile could undergo interoperability testing. The testing would provide additional feedback to the project on the utility of the Profile, and if necessary, changes and/or expansions to the GILS Profile could be made. Time limitations precluded the development of test implementations, and therefore no interoperability testing occurred. Such testing, however, remains an essential component to profile development. Testing would provide information such as validating whether or not the profile is implementable. Project leaders intended that the GILS Profile should enable implementations that would build on existing code base of Z39.50 implementors. Including actual implementors on the project team helped to ensure that the resulting profile could be characterized as Òimplementable.Ó Discussions with Z39.50 implementors who reviewed drafts of the profile provided reassuring responses such as Òthis will require a low-level of effort to implement.Ó In addition, testing could help to identify and correct unintended ambiguity or lack of precision in the profile. Developing a profile that is relatively easy to implement should mean that off-the-shelf products can reach the market more quickly. This expands the choices to Federal agencies that will be implementing GILS servers. Client products supporting the GILS profile will be available and thus improve information retrieval for users. 6.5. Open Systems Environment ImplementorsÕ Workshop The Open Systems Environment ImplementorsÕ Workshop (OIW) is sponsored by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) in cooperation with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). It is one of three international open systems workshops where implementors and other interested parties discuss and develop profiles supporting an open systems environment. In 1993, a group of Z39.50 implementors and others interested in the use of open systems standards for library applications established the Special Interest Group on Library Applications (OIW/SIGLA) to develop profiles related to Z39.50 and the international interlibrary loan standard.[7] Project team members attended the quarterly OIW meetings (December 1993 and March 1994) and received continuing guidance on the development of the GILS Profile. Presenting drafts of the profile at the OIW meetings offered another opportunity for interested parties to comment and have input into the profileÕs direction and development. At an interim OIW meeting held in conjunction with the April 1994 meeting of the ZIG, OIW meeting participants approved the GILS Profile. The OIW Plenary accepted the GILS Profile at its regularly scheduled June 1994 meeting. Upon acceptance at the plenary, the GILS Profile had the status of a ÒWorking Implementation Agreement.Ó According to the chair of the OIW/SIGLA, a vote on the GILS Profile as a ÒStable Implementation AgreementÓ will be taken in September 1994. Attachment L is a copy of ÒWorking Implementation Agreements for Open Systems Environment: Part 31 Ñ Application Profile for the Government Information Locator Service (GILS) Ñ Library Applications Special Interest Group,Ó the official output from the June 1994 OIW as it relates to the GILS Profile. 6.6.The GILS Profile as a Federal Information Processing Standard One of the ultimate goals of the GILS initiative is to have the GILS Profile accepted as a Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS), which would then mandate its use across Federal agencies that are implementing locators. The GILS Profile, upon completion by the project team, was forwarded to NIST for preliminary processing as a FIPS. NIST placed a notice in the Federal Register on July 5, 1994 requesting comments on the proposed FIPS. This notice, ÒProposed Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) for Application Profile for the Government Information Locator Service (GILS)Ó is included as Attachment M. In summary, developing the GILS Profile provided an opportunity to explore new terrain of interest to the Z39.50 community. While learning specific lessons related to profiling needs and activities, the project has also contributed to the Z39.50 communityÕs understanding of the usefulness of profiles. In addition, GILS Profile development contributed to the work of the ZIG in preparing a revised version of Z39.50, which is now being balloted through NISO. These contributions are outlined below. 7. Evaluation of Project The plan for this project clearly identified a number of objectives. oExpand research and development on the American National Standard for information searching and retrieval (Z39.50) for its application in facilitating public access to Federal information resources and speeding the development of interoperable systems oBuild consensus of major stakeholders on the manner in which Z39.50 can be applied in GILS implementations oDevelop an application profile for networked-based GILS implementations that references Z39.50 and other standards for use in the Internet environment oSupport and encourage test implementations of the profile by interested parties to provide evaluations of the profile and for interoperability testing. This section reviews the extent to which the project achieved its objectives. 7.1. Consensus Among Stakeholders The project team members responsible for developing the GILS Profile served as nominal representatives of various stakeholder communities, and the consensus building among team members was essential. In the meetings and the electronic discussions, team members arrived at a series of agreements about the GILS Profile that are reflected in the final product. Contacting other potential stakeholders and interested parties for their response to the developing GILS Profile provided a means of establishing the validity of the project teamÕs assumptions and agreements. While it is safe to assume that hundreds of people were alerted to the work of the project team and to the publicly available draft documents produced by the project, the actual amount of direct feedback from potential stakeholders and interested parties was not extensive. One reason for this low response rate can be attributed to the very technical nature of this undertaking. Without some understanding of the Z39.50 standard and the technical language used in the GILS Profile, many people were likely to find the documents too detailed, technically oriented, and thus not readily accessible to those who were not familiar with Z39.50. One of the respondents who contacted the project leader commented on the very technical nature of the documents. More often than not, the comments received by project leaders and the project team, either in response to public presentations or to the documents, concerned issues raised by the GILS document rather than the use of Z39.50 within the GILS application. As an example, during a briefing on GILS conducted at the Coalition for Networked InformationÕs Spring 1994 Meeting, one person asked about the meaning of the term ÒpublicÓ when qualifying information that would be described by GILS records. Another person questioned the adequacy of the data elements to capture information about information systems of interest to the archival and records management communities. The project leader and project team made concerted efforts to remain in close contact with the ZIG, a primary stakeholder community. This group comprises technology providers, information services providers, university library systems and computing systems units, and others who are actually developing implementations using Z39.50. This group represents people who may develop GILS clients and servers, and thus it was essential that the members of this group support the work and results of the project team. At the Fall 1993, Winter 1994, and Spring 1994 meetings of the ZIG, the project leader provided updates on the work of the project, provided copies of the draft documents, and discussed with individual implementors their responses to the assumptions and agreements of the project team regarding the use of Z39.50. In addition, the electronic discussion list of the ZIG was used to announce available documents and request comments. While no comprehensive survey of the ZIG membership was undertaken, project leaders feel relatively confident that the responses received from ZIG members to the GILS Profile reflect a generally acceptable level of consensus. A second important community contacted directly was the USMARC community. This was accomplished by working with representatives of the Network Development and MARC Standards Office, Library of Congress, on the proposed mapping of GILS data elements to USMARC fields. In addition, the project leader posted notices on the USMARC electronic discussion list regarding the proposed mapping and requesting feedback from USMARC experts on the choices made by the project team for the mapping. That feedback was used to clarify the mapping and provided additional information regarding the use of MARC records in the GILS application. The project leaders received only one major objection to the choice of Z39.50 in the GILS application. The objection was based on a concern that Z39.50 would constrain the use of future technological innovations in information retrieval in GILS implementations. Since the GILS document served as the high-level requirements document for this project, and since it required the use of Z39.50 as the appropriate standard, this was not a decision that the project team could reverse. More importantly, it is not a decision that the project team would want to reverse. However, two project team members worked with the project leader to develop a response to this objection. Since it provides a good explanation why Z39.50 is an appropriate choice for GILS, it is included as Attachment N. In summary, the project successfully built consensus among key stakeholders on the manner in which Z39.50 and other relevant standards would be used in GILS. The specifications included in the GILS Profile reflect this consensus. It is important to note, however, that in a technical undertaking such as profiling for the GILS application, consensus building among the potential stakeholder communities is carried out most effectively out when the stakeholders are knowledgeable about the technical details of the use of Z39.50 or other technical aspects of the application (e.g., the use of MARC records). Comments, suggestions, and a general willingness to respond to the work of the project team by members of the ZIG and members of the USMARC community were an indication of their participation in consensus building as well as an important validation of the resulting consensus. 7.2.Impact on Z39.50 Standards Development and USMARC Specifications The GILS document directed that the participants in the development of GILS should work with the voluntary standards developers. The recently published OMB Circular A-119, ÒFederal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Standards,Ó (Office of Management and Budget, 1993b) directs agencies not only to use voluntary standards but also to work with standards groups in the development of standards. The GILS Profile project is an example of a productive collaboration where the government works within the voluntary standards development process. Recent policy statements concerning the NII also discuss the governmentÕs involvement in the standards development process. For example, the Federal Information Infrastructure Task ForceÕs Agenda for Action (p. 9) acknowledged the need for information technology standards to create an open and interoperable NII and suggested that the ÒGovernment can catalyze this industry-driven process by participating more actively in private-sector standards-writing bodies...Ó While there may be a number of leverage points the government can use to further the agenda of the NII (e.g., regulation, funding research and development projects), the GILS project serves as a good example in which the government, through a modest investment, supported and catalyzed standards activity to serve its own information technology standards requirements. Such targeted investment in standards development activities can have major pay-offs for the government and the NII initiative. At the outset of the project, project leaders and project team members were uncertain whether or not Z39.50 would support all functions envisaged for the GILS application. The project team generally agreed, however, that basic GILS functionality could be supported by Z39.50 and changes or enhancements to Z39.50 required by GILS would be brought to the Z39.50 standards process (i.e., the ZIG). In the end, however, the project team found no GILS requirements needing to be addressed by changes to the standard. Yet, the GILS profile development has had an impact on Z39.50 in other ways. As noted above, profiling Z39.50 for specific applications is a new activity within the Z39.50 community. This project has provided (along with the development of the WAIS Profile) a positive example of how profiling can be useful for applications using the standard. The GILS Profile will now serve as one model for future Z39.50 profiles in terms of both form and content. Second, this is the first public application using a specific feature of Z39.50, the Generic Record Syntax (GRS-1), and the work done in developing the GILS Schema has had a direct impact on proposed revisions to the standard. The issues raised in developing the GILS Schema provided the basis for clarifying what a schema is, the relationship of tagSets, tagTypes, and tagpaths for nested data elements. In addition, a number of elements defined for the GILS tagSet have been incorporated in tagSet-G (elements in tagSet-G can be used by many different schemas). Finally, GILS incorporates the use of Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) to improve interoperability and navigation in the Internet environment. URIs comprise a set of related standards for encoding resource location and identification information for electronic and other objects. Although not driving the creation of a Z39.50 Uniform Resource Locator (URL, which is a class of URIs), the use of URIs in the GILS Profile gave additional support for current efforts by a number of ZIG members to define a Z39.50 URL. Encoding resource locations and identification information in a Z39.50 URL will improve the seamless navigation among information objects and information servers envisioned for GILS. The GILS project team also worked closely with the maintenance agency for USMARC (i.e., the Library of Congress) in the preliminary and final mapping of GILS data elements to USMARC. USMARC is an implementation of ANSI Z39.2, the American National Standard for bibliographic information interchange (American National Standards Institute, 1985). More importantly, a discussion paper developed by the maintenance agency proposed changes to the USMARC bibliographic format to accommodate special needs of GILS application using MARC records. ÒProposal No. 94-9: Changes to the USMARC Bibliographic Format to Accommodate Online Systems and ServicesÓ is included in Attachment O. Specifically, the discussion paper proposed changes to USMARC that include: oA new code in the MARC field 042, Authentication Source, to identify these MARC records as GILS Locator Records oIncorporating fields from the Community Information Format into the Bibliographic Format to accommodate address and hours of service information of agencies, organizations, distributors, and points of contact for ordering and information about Federal information resources oChanges in the 008 field for identifying when these Federal information resources are online information systems and services as opposed to documents and files. By working within the standards development processes for Z39.50 and USMARC, the GILS project was able to address functional needs and specifications of the GILS application and maintain the standards-based orientation of the entire GILS initiative. 7.3.Opportunity for Generating Awareness and Stimulating Interest This project, through the outreach efforts of its project team members and the project leaders, successfully brought GILS to the attention of a wide range of people and organizations. While the projectÕs initial concern was to contact potential stakeholders and build consensus among them on the manner in which Z39.50 would be used in the GILS application, a valuable by-product of this activity was to generate increased interest in and awareness of the GILS initiative. Combined with the efforts by Eliot Christian in circulating the GILS document to generate awareness and understanding of the GILS initiative, the development of the GILS Profile helped people to understand that this Federal initiative would be brought into operation founded on a standards-based technology using Z39.50. Section 5.2.3 outlined the various presentations, meetings, and other outreach efforts of the project in its attempt to build consensus. Publicly available documents in electronic formats were available (as well as more limited distribution in paper format). These efforts will help to build Ñ in the longer term Ñ a critical mass of potential users of GILS, a critical mass that can encourage Federal agencies to speed up their efforts in deploying GILS locators. 8. Issues Remaining for Future GILS Activities This research project has laid the technical groundwork for the development of GILS servers and clients using Z39.50. The GILS Profile provides the necessary specifications for dealing with the technology. Yet, in the course of the research project, a number of issues arose regarding GILS. Although not necessarily specific to the scope and responsibilities of this research project, the Principal Investigators believe that they are important concerns that will need to be addressed as the GILS initiative progresses and, in fact, need to be addressed to ensure the viability and ultimate success of GILS. 8.1. Implementing GILS GILS will provide information about Federal information resources only to the extent that Federal agencies Ñ whether Cabinet-level, independent, or other agencies Ñ actively support and participate in it. Agencies will need to take the initiative to make the necessary organizational, policy, and technology decisions to deploy their locators. Two primary issues are involved here. Agency decision makers and appropriate staff must be informed and educated as to the need for and utility of agency locators, and the agencies must be motivated to participate in GILS. In addition, a major component Ñ in fact, the vital underpinning Ñ of GILS will be the creation of GILS records that describe Federal information resources. The quality of data available in GILS will be directly related to the way agencies decide to implement the record creation component. Compared with the situation at the time of the 1992 report (McClure, et al., 1992), Federal agency officials have become much more aware of the evolving networked environment and, specifically, the Internet. Numerous agencies now have direct Internet connections and are already using the network to provide access to agency information resources as well as disseminating information to the public. It is unclear, however, the extent to which agencies understand the GILS initiative and the specific details of the technology and standards that are the foundation of GILS. Until agency officials understand how GILS will operate and what GILS can deliver, they may be hesitant to move ahead expeditiously with deploying agency locators. An important step in realizing the promises of GILS is to develop a range of educational programs regarding how GILS may be implemented in each agency. Such a program is especially important for mid- and senior-level IRM staff, systems managers, librarians, and program officers. Policy directives, regulations, and laws may motivate agencies to deploy GILS locators. The 1993 revisions to OMB Circular A-130, particularly Sections 8a(5), ÒProviding Information to the Public,Ó and 8a(6), ÒInformation Dissemination Management SystemÓ (Office of Management and Budget, 1993a, p. 36072) provide the policy basis for agencies to develop information locators to assist the public in locating Ògovernment information maintained by or for the agency.Ó The Circular also directed agencies to Òestablish and maintain inventories of all agency information dissemination products,Ó as well as developing Òother aids to locating agency information dissemination products...Ó The additional revisions to the Circular published in July 1994 (Office of Management and Budget, 1994, p. 37912-7913) addressed the importance of deploying information technology to create an open systems environment and directed agencies to Develop information systems in a manner that facilitates necessary interoperability, application portability, and scalability of computerized applications across networks of heterogeneous hardware, software, and communications platforms. The Circular also reaffirms the policy of OMB Circular A-119 that directed agencies to use voluntary standards and Federal Information Processing Standards. The GILS initiative and the GILS Profile, which specifically details the use of voluntary standards to enable interoperable, networked- based information systems, support these policy objectives and provide agencies with a technical approach for implementing the policy. Important policy and implementation questions remain, however, regarding the coordination and oversight of GILS implementation and maintenance. The forthcoming OMB Bulletin on agency information locators, however, will be an important adjunct to A-130, since the Bulletin can be the basis for more detailed guidance on agency responsibilities for GILS implementation, the use of the GILS Profile when implementing agency locators, and OMBÕs compliance and enforcement expectations. The Bulletin can also address issues related to government- wide coordination of the GILS. Once OMB releases the Bulletin, additional analysis on the adequacy of the guidelines and requirements will be possible. Implementation of GILS needs to take account of other existing or emerging network-based information services under development by the Federal government. For example, the National Technical Information ServiceÕs (NTIS) Fedworld service and the electronic access service of the Government Printing Office (GPO) offer opportunities for cross-linkage with GILS implementations. There is a need to coordinate and articulate the relationships between GILS and other Federal information dissemination activities to avoid confusion and minimize redundancy. Although policy directives may be place (e.g., OMB Circular and Bulletin), agencies may be slow to implement GILS until they recognize the tangible benefits that GILS can offer. For example, the law that requires agencies to maintain inventories of their information resources has been less than effective. When agencies, however, understand that agency information locators can help them manage their information resources, they express more willingness to develop such mechanisms (McClure, Ryan, & Moen, 1992, McClure, et al. 1990). Agencies will be motivated to participate in GILS through an understanding of the tangible benefits that will likely result. These benefits may take the form of increased control of agency information resources, cost-savings based on better management of those resources, and finally, increased support from agency constituencies based on improved Òservice to the citizens.Ó Agency participation in GILS, then, will not automatically happen. A consciously developed program of education to help agencies understand what GILS is, as well as a combination of policy directives, budget review, and agency self-interest can be a basis for motivating agency participation. 8.2.Bibliographic Control in the Networked Environment A number of writers have commented on the need to ÒorganizeÓ information in the networked environment (see for example Lynch & Preston, 1992; Moen, 1992). Without such organization, users will continue to have difficulty in finding information at the time they need it. Instead, the operating metaphor on the Internet is ÒsurfingÓ rather than searching. In the paper-based environment of traditional libraries, librarians and other information professionals have developed principles and practices related to organizing information so that users can find that information. Broadly defined, bibliographic control is ÒThe skill or art ... of organizing knowledge (information) for retrievalÓ (Svenonius, 1988, p. 88). Further, Wilson suggests that ÒBibliographical control is a form of power, and if knowledge itself is a form of power, as the familiar slogan claims, bibliographical control is in a certain sense power over power, power to obtain the knowledge recorded in written formÓ (Wilson, 1968, p. 4). One aspect of bibliographic control is the description of the information resource. the GILS record contains data elements that a record source can use for descriptive purposes. Another aspect of bibliographic control concerns the determination of what the information resource is about. The GILS record contains data elements for controlled and uncontrolled index terms that can indicate the topic or topics to which the information resource pertains. A third aspect of bibliographic control, and one which GILS currently does not address is authority control. Authority control is the means to bring together all bibliographic records by a certain author (or in the case of GILS, agency or organization), with a certain title, or on a certain subject by establishing an authoritative ÒheadingÓ or ÒnameÓ that will be used consistently throughout an information system. For example, if a user was interested in finding all information resources by the Environmental Protection Agency listed in GILS servers, the user could search on Òenvironmental protection agency.Ó Yet, if some GILS records refer to the agency as ÒEPAÓ or ÒEnviron. Protec. Agen.,Ó these records may not be returned, and the user would not retrieve potentially relevant GILS records. The GILS Core Elements include instructions to record creators to use particular forms of agency names (i.e., those found in the U.S. Government Manual). Unless the record creators understand the need to use a consistent form of an entityÕs (e.g., person, agency, department, office, etc.) name, they may not give appropriate attention to this prescription. The information must be consistent in an agencyÕs GILS records, and there is a need for consistency across all GILS records. The library community has developed specific tools such as the National Name Authority File (maintained by the Library of Congress) to achieve consistency in the millions of bibliographic records used by libraries. Federal librarians Ñ professionals trained in the principles and practices of cataloging and bibliographic control Ñ may have an essential role to play in the creation of GILS records. Consistency of the information in GILS records (i.e., authority control) as well as appropriate index terms describing the information resources (i.e., subject analysis) are necessary components of a high quality and useful GILS. Federal librarians could assist in creating adequate and useful GILS records. The GILS record structure outlined in Christian (1994) and more fully described in the GILS Profile provides the name and semantics of the various data elements to be contained in the record. Lynch (1992) argues that information semantics in a distributed computing environment must be addressed if the promise of networked information is to be realized. The GILS ProfileÕs use of a common vocabulary for data elements and a common information structure of the records is an important step forward. Accuracy, completeness, currency, and consistency of data in the records, however, will be criteria by which the quality of the data can be evaluated. While the technology (i.e., Z39.50 clients and servers) may be able to process locator information, the end users will be badly served if the data is lacking in quality. 8.3.Accommodating the Installed Base of Technology One of the design considerations in the development of the GILS Profile was that GILS servers should be accessible via a variety of existing clients. These clients include currently installed Z39.50 clients, Wide-Area Information Server (WAIS) clients, gopher clients, and Mosaic clients. Accommodating this installed base of technology immediately widens the potential user base of GILS. Similarly, other computer-to-computer communication protocols and applications (e.g., telnet, file transfer protocol, electronic mail) might also provide paths to GILS information. The GILS Profile specifically addresses the use of Z39.50 and other standards for GILS servers. The Profile, however, goes beyond the specification of computer-to-computer protocols and also describes GILS record structure, semantics, and the content of locator databases. Based on an understanding of the semantics of the GILS records, a well-constructed GILS client, for example, may be able to interpret cross-references in GILS records to display browsable menus to users or it may use the unique record identification codes to compare various records and eliminate duplicates. A client that ÒunderstandsÓ the predictable behavior of a GILS server can take advantage of the numerous features and functionalities specified in the GILS Profile. Installed Z39.50 clients (i.e., those that have implemented Z39.50- 1992) should be able to interact with GILS servers. These clients, however, will likely not be able to function as effectively as Z39.50 clients built to support GILS data. Bibliographic Z39.50 clients, (i.e., those that support information retrieval of bibliographic data), however, comprise an important subset of Z39.50 clients for GILS since GILS records are an instance of bibliographic data. These bibliographic clients currently can process MARC records, and since the GILS Profile requires GILS servers to pass GILS records in USMARC record syntax, the bibliographic clients should be able to access, retrieve, and process GILS data. Another major group of installed clients are those implementing WAIS technology. Many of the installed WAIS clients are based on Z39.50-1988 with extensions specified in the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) RFC 1625, ÒWAIS over Z39.50-1988Ó (St. Pierre, et al., 1994; included in Attachment I). Implementors of WAIS are now moving toward compliance with Z39.50- 1992 based on the ÒWAIS Profile of Z39.50, Version 2Ó (also included in Attachment I). Because of the widespread implementation of WAIS clients (specifically WAIS clients based on Z39.50-1988), FS Consulting prepared a paper that analyzed the requirements of GILS (as they were being developed by the project team in January 1994) in terms of the ability of WAIS implementations to interact effectively with GILS. Specifically the paper addresses how well WAIS could serve as an application tool for GILS. This paper, ÒCritical Review of WAIS as an Application Tool for GILS,Ó is included as Attachment I. Based on the analysis, the paper concludes that while the GILS Profile could be implemented using WAIS based on Z39.50-1988 (Attachment I, p. 11): there would be a number of problems which would prevent the achievement of an ideal implementation. Notably the direct lack of support for Local Control Numbers, Control Identifiers and Availability Elements, more formalized support for hierarchical menu browsing (and Òwell-knownÓ searches) and the lack of support for structured records such as USMARC records and GRS records ... would make such an implementation technically feasible, but not ideal. WAIS implementations based on the ÒWAIS Profile of Z39.50, Version 2,Ó however, could ÒeasilyÓ implement the GILS Profile. However, a number of areas still need to be addressed including (Attachment I, p. 11): Availability Elements, more formalized support for hierarchical menu browsing (and Òwell-knownÓ searches) and the ÒGÓ element set, support for SUTRS records and USMARC records. If these areas are addressed, then the WAIS-92 profile would be a suitable candidate for a GILS implementation. Some providers of WAIS products (e.g., WAIS, Inc., and the Clearinghouse for Networked Information Discovery and Retrieval) have announced that they will support the GILS Profile in their products. Determining the robustness of the interoperability between GILS products and the installed base, or for that matter with new products, will be an important consideration. There will be a need for some method of demonstrating interoperability of GILS servers and various clients. This topic is addresses below in Section 9.1. 8.4. Extensibility of GILS The GILS, as it is described in the GILS document and specified in the GILS Profile, provides a baseline for initial implementations. In addition, the specification of GILS does not preclude the introduction of additional requirements that may enhance its utility and expand its usefulness. For example, current GILS data elements will accommodate the description of spatial data, and the addition of other data elements related to spatial data may increase the usefulness of GILS for locating spatial data resources. Another area in which GILS can contribute to the management of Federal information resources is that of records management and archival activities. This area serves as one example of how current GILS specifications might be extended; it also provides an example to examine what procedures and processes would be appropriate to manage extensions to GILS. As a basis for understanding an area in which GILS can be used, project leaders contracted with David Bearman to develop a paper discussing records management needs and how GILS might accommodate those requirements. His paper, ÒRequirements for Accommodating Information Systems Information and Records Management Needs within the Proposals for Government Information Locator Services (GILS) and its Z39.50 Application,Ó is included as Attachment K. The Federal Records Act requires agencies to make and keep records of the activity of the U. S. Federal Government for the period of the recordsÕ continuing value. The GSA and the NARA share with the creating agency the responsibility for maintaining these records. Agencies are mandated to submit all records created in the course of business for scheduling by the NARA. Bearman points out that this system of records management, reporting, and scheduling has a number of problems that are relevant to the GILS (Attachment K, p. 3): oAgencies have no simple way to report to the GSA and NARA when new recordkeeping systems are created in order to get a schedule and disposition authority. oCitizens have no comprehensive list of records created by the Federal government in the conduct of its business, despite the fact that all such records are required to be publicly accessible unless specifically exempted under limited clauses of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts. oGSA and NARA have no way of using agency directories to records in order to fulfill their statutory responsibilities related to records management. GILS could provide a means by which the operational requirements of records and archives management and the informational requirements of citizens are met. It is important to acknowledge again that while GILS serves the citizens as a locator service for Federal information resources, GILS can become an integral tool in the management of information resources. In this case, GILS can be an important addition to the tools available to GSA and NARA. According to Bearman, however, GILS can only fulfill its intended function if it is implemented with some modifications to the proposed scope, data content, and service definitions. He details these modifications in his paper. Neither the vision of GILS nor the system design as developed by the GILS Project Team precludes the technical modifications suggested by Bearman. Important new uses of GILS will likely emerge as people become more aware of GILS and as implementations of GILS appear. To provide for systematically extending the utility of GILS will require a: ostatement of need and the context for use (e.g., outlining how GILS could be used for records management and NARA reporting requirements as a way of eliminating redundant systems within the Federal government to which agencies must report records) ospecification of what changes are needed to accommodate the articulated need (e.g., proposing a new GILS data element that would contain data for ÒScheduled DispositionÓ). In addition, there is a need for a process by which the GILS Profile can be extended when changes and extensions to it are necessary. Although NIST will likely maintain the GILS Profile when it is adopted as a Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS), there may be a need for a more informal mechanism (such as a subcommittee of an interagency group) that could receive proposals for changes/extensions and act upon these requests for changes. Such a subcommittee would not necessarily do the work of revising the Profile, but could contract to have the revisions developed and then pass them on to NIST for inclusion in revised versions of the GILS Profile. The OIW/SIGLA will also be a mechanism for making changes to the GILS Profile. The project team envisioned GILS as a flexible service employing technology and standards that will accommodate new applications. Any extensions to the GILS Profile must account for an installed base of GILS implementations, and therefore controlled changes to the Profile are necessary. Arbitrary and unilateral changes in implementations of the Profile will be a disservice to the larger GILS effort since those changes may jeopardize interoperability and data sharing which are important goals of the technical specifications. 8.5. Federal Information Policy Issues Technologically, GILS is an implementable solution for agencies to improve IRM and for people trying to locate government information resources. Yet the technology will provide only one of the necessary conditions for GILS to be implemented. Federal policy must be developed that addresses the broader questions of GILS. OMB is currently drafting a Bulletin that addresses GILS and the use of the GILS Profile by agencies deploying locators (the draft Bulletin should be available in late Summer 1994). Legislation and previous regulations already speak to the need for locators to help people find and access government information. While policy instruments alone cannot and will not guarantee the success of GILS, the articulation of clear policy can provide another necessary condition for deploying GILS. The policy of OMB Circular A- 130 regarding agency information inventories and locators as well as the need to create open and interoperable systems through the use of standards, as noted above, provide an important policy basis for GILS. OMB, as stated in A-130, provides Òoverall leadership and coordination of Federal information resources management within the executive branchÓ (Office of Management and Budget, 1994, p. 37914) and therefore has a critical role in the execution of the GILS initiative. The forthcoming OMB Bulletin on agency locators will hopefully specify OMBÕs role in GILS oversight and coordination. Circular A-130 enumerates agency responsibilities in information resources management, and specific sections, such as 8a(5) and 8a(6), detail agency responsibilities regarding locator information for their information dissemination products, but more specific guidance is necessary regarding OMB expectations of agencies and their implementation of GILS. The locator Bulletin needs to address the general question of Òwho is in chargeÓ of GILS by detailing the specific responsibilities of OMB (e.g., enforcement) and individual agencies (e.g., compliance). Federal policy must address the issue of motivating agencies to participate in GILS. While a policy statement by itself will not make GILS a reality, a policy that clearly articulates agenciesÕ responsibilities and requirements regarding information locators is essential. Agencies must understand the benefits they will receive when they establish locators and must be willing to use the GILS Profile when they implement their locators. One might speak of enforcing compliance with the policy, but it may be more effective to identify incentives for agencies to participate in GILS. 8.5.1. OMBÕs Roles and Responsibility OMB has played a key role in the past year in developing the vision statement for GILS (i.e., the GILS document). This was done as part of OMBÕs involvement in the Information Infrastructure Task Force. In addition, OMBÕs revisions of Circular A-130 (Office of Management and Budget, 1993a, 1994) addressed Federal information access and dissemination concerns, and directed agencies to help the public locate government information they maintain through the development of information inventories and other aids to locating agency information. The development of the GILS vision and the policy that supports such an initiative are important contributions by OMB to improved Federal information resources management and the access to Federal information resources. The formulation of a specific GILS policy through the forthcoming OMB Bulletin will articulate agency responsibilities regarding their information locators. This combination of policy requirements (i.e., A-130, the Bulletin) and the development of the means to carry out the policy (i.e., the technical specifications in the GILS Profile) should be an effective basis for guiding agencies. The challenge to OMB, however, is to coordinate agency involvement in GILS and to ensure that the GILS initiative can truly be a government-wide system for locating Federal information resources. In addition, OMB has a range of techniques (described in the 1994 release of A-130 Section 10, ÒOversight,Ó p. 37914) to evaluate each agencyÕs information resources management and monitor agency compliance with the Circular. Therefore, OMB is in a position to address compliance of and participation by agencies in GILS. 8.5.2. GILS and IRM Roles and Responsibility Since GILS can be an important component of managing information resources, IRM units will be a focus for GILS implementations. IRM staff, however, may need additional education and training about the GILS initiative and specific implementation issues. The GILS education program (see Section 10) will need to address how IRM units can use GILS for internal IRM and also for providing public access to Federal information resources. Providing a broader context for GILS use will assist IRM units and their agencies in understanding the benefits of participating in GILS. Agency budgets for GILS implementations must include funds for training and education. IRM staff may need additional specific tutorials related to GILS. First, they may need training in Z39.50 and other standards (e.g., URIs, USMARC) used in GILS. They will also need guidance in identifying the information resources to be placed in GILS. Finally, they will need to understand the critical issues related to GILS record creation and data quality. Government-wide guidelines for creating GILS records can be the foundation for consistent and high quality GILS records. A partnership between agency IRM and library units could be the basis for successful GILS implementations. IRM staff would bring technical expertise about information systems, networking, database management, etc., and the library staff would bring the technical expertise regarding bibliographic description, record creation, authority control, etc. Such a partnership would draw on the strengths of both IRM and library staff. 8.5.3.GILS and Federal Library Community Roles and Responsibility GILS offers the Federal library community an opportunity to become participants in government information management, access, and dissemination activities. Additional efforts at policy and implementation levels, however, may be necessary to bring this important stakeholder group into the GILS initiative.[8] Many Federal libraries have a mission to serve the information needs of their agencies. Since GILS agency locators will assist agencies in their internal information management activities, libraries can benefit from successful GILS implementation. Librarians will be able to identify and locate not only their own agenciesÕ resources but resources held by other agencies throughout the government. Federal librarians are important stakeholders in GILS. Federal librarians can also bring specific technical expertise related to bibliographic control and cataloging to their agencyÕs GILS implementations. Consistency of the information in GILS records (i.e., authority control) as well as appropriate index terms describing the information resources (i.e., subject analysis) are necessary components of a high quality and useful GILS. LibrariansÕ experience in these bibliographic control activities will make them valuable participants in GILS implementations. Librarians can contribute to and benefit from a partnership with their agencyÕs IRM units. Federal librariansÕ participation and contribution will occur only if they take the initiative to become involved. This can be at the level of individual librarians making contacts with those involved in their agencyÕs GILS implementations (or better yet, helping to initiate and shape the agencyÕs GILS implementation). The Federal Library and Information Center Committee (FLICC) can also be an important stakeholder in GILS by organizing and educating the Federal library community in GILS activities. FLICC, as with the individual librarians, will need to respond to GILS, but more importantly, can help shape GILS implementations; to do so will require FLICC to make the GILS initiative a priority for action. One important area is in need of immediate attention and offers FLICC and the Federal library community an immediate opening for action. Government-wide guidelines for GILS record creation, especially related to important issues of bibliographic control, are needed. Drawing upon the expertise of Federal librarians, FLICC could assist in the development of these guidelines. This would also be an opportunity for forging partnerships between the Federal library community, the IRM community, and other parties interested in GILS implementation. 8.5.4.GILS and Archives and Records Management Community Roles and Responsibilities The 1992 study (McClure, Ryan & Moen, 1992) examined how a government-wide information locator could serve the records reporting requirements of NARA. GILS offers the potential to NARA and the agencies to reduce reporting redundancy. To ensure the potential is realized, GILS records will need to accommodate all essential NARA- required information. The Bearman paper (Attachment K) addresses a number of issues related to GILS and archival reporting requirements. An important consideration is what information resources GILS will include. GILS can be an important tool for managing information resources Ñ documents, databases, records systems, etc. GILS is also a tool identifying, describing, and locating these resources. Thus, the more comprehensively agency holdings are included in GILS, the more value GILS will have Ñ for internal information management purposes and for assisting people who are trying to locate government information. 8.6. Policy and Technical Standards An essential element of the GILS initiative is the focus on a standards-based application of information technology in the Federal government. Choosing appropriate standards, integrating them in an application, and then encouraging compliance with the standards-based solution becomes critical when the goal is to achieve interoperability across a wide variety of implementations using heterogenous hardware and software. Policy statements such as OMB Circulars A-130, ÒManagement of Federal Information ResourcesÓ (Office of Management and Budget, 19994), A-16, ÒCoordination of Surveying, Mapping, and Related Spatial Data ActivitiesÓ (Office of Management and Budget, 1990), and others call for the use of standards to promote an open systems environment, enable the transfer of data and resource sharing, and more generally indicate an increasing recognition of the role of standards in the use and flow of information. GILS provides a good example where standards serve as enabling tools for broader policy goals. In this case, the policy goals include providing citizens with access to Federal information resources and encouraging better information management by agencies. Moen (forthcoming) argues that there is a link between information technology standards and broader information policy goals. He suggests that the time may be appropriate to call for an information technology standards policy for the Federal government. Such a policy may help move the Federal government towards the interconnected and interoperable horizon of the evolving NII. Attachment P, ÒBuilding a Policy for Information Technology Standards,Ó outlines one approach to developing a policy. To summarize, there are three major components that must be addressed in building a standards policy: (1) a policy goal; (2) a framework for deploying standards; and (3) a management strategy. oDetermining a Policy Goal that Guides and Directs Standards Activities. The 1994 revisions to A-130 direct agencies to deploy information technology and build information systems in the context of or on a migration path to an open systems environment (Office of Management and Budget, 1994). The emerging NII is assumed to be built as an open environment, connecting a wide array of information appliances across a variety of network and telecommunications paths. The recently released Report of the Federal Internetworking Requirements Panel (Federal Internetworking Requirements Panel, 1994; referred to below as the FIRP report) discussed the need for a goal, if not a framework, to guide agencies in their choice of standards-based technologies. These three examples point to the need for an overarching policy goal that articulates how information technology standards will be used by the Federal government. A goal of ÒinteroperabilityÓ or Òopen systemsÓ addresses the technology. A broader goal that links interoperability, open systems, information management, and information policy objectives would be desirable. oAdopting a Framework for Selecting Appropriate Standards. An overarching policy goal of creating open systems may provide a baseline for standards choice, but if standards are to assist in achieving broader information policy goals, more specific guidance on selecting standards is required. One potential framework might be the information life cycle (Spring and Bearman, 1988). The information life cycle is a planning, evaluation, and oversight concept used in managing information resources (Hernon, 1994). This concept acknowledges that the stages of the life cycle are interrelated. A framework such as this could assist agencies to view their choice of particular standards to process or produce information as having potential impacts beyond the informationÕs immediate use. oDeveloping a Management Strategy that Assists Agencies and the Federal Government in its Standards Activities and Use. An overarching policy goal and a framework for identifying appropriate standards must be accompanied by a management and organizational response to standardization. Recent writers have discussed the need for organizations to establish mechanisms to carry out standards oversight and coordination (Ritterbusch, 1990; Betancourt, 1993). A government-wide management strategy will need to address: (1) mechanisms for sharing information about agency standards activities and for coordination among those who are actually deploying the technology (e.g., interagency groups); (2) guidance and oversight of agency standards programs (e.g., OMB budget review process); (3) coordination of standards implementation across Federal agencies (e.g., a single agency such as NIST or OMB or an interagency group such as the Interagency Committee on Standards Policy); (4) roles and responsibilities for specific agencies in standards education and training; and (5) a coherent and effective way to measure, evaluate, and achieve agency compliance with and use of standards. Finally, a realistic management strategy for standardization should acknowledge the time-frame appropriate to standards. While there may be short-term benefits, it is in the longer term that benefits accrue; as the director of NISO points out, Òstandards are a long- term investment Ñ both for development and implementation....We must not lose sight of the long-term benefits of standards, and we must make the long-term commitment to realize those benefitsÓ (Harris, 1994). The FIRP report acknowledges that an earlier policy for developing open systems in the Federal government (i.e., the Government Open Systems Interconnection Profile or GOSIP) has not been successful. TodayÕs environment for networking, however, is much different from those days in the 1980s when GOSIP was initially formulated; robust networks exist (e.g., the Internet), networked-based protocol products are available (e.g., Z39.50 products), and the networks support real applications. The FIRP report recognizes that standards are critical components in the networked environment and are a means for achieving goals for Federal internetworking such as: fulfilling Federal mission needs, enabling interoperability, providing for software and hardware portability, and lowering costs. A policy for information technology standards can guide future initiatives such as GILS. More importantly, such a policy can provide a context for agency participation in initiatives like GILS. Agencies will have a basis for understanding the need for standards-based solutions. 8.7.Evaluating the GILS Profiling Process and Products The project team and project leaders, based on the feedback from stakeholders and the consensus building that occurred in the process of developing the GILS Profile, have a high level of confidence in the specifications that are included in the Profile. Until implementations based on the GILS Profile are built and people gain experience by working with it, however, little evaluation of the Profile is possible. The broader context of this issue is evaluating the process used in developing the GILS Profile, the utility of the Profile, and the policy and implementation efforts related to GILS (e.g., acceptance and implementation of GILS by individual agencies). For example, while the project team thinks it has broken new ground in profiling the GILS application, the process needs to be evaluated to see if it is ground that others can productively retrace. An evaluation process is needed so that in 18-24 months the results of this project and the overall GILS initiative can be reconsidered and reevaluated. Such an evaluation can document the utility of GILS, the GILS Profile, and the process by which the Profile was developed. Any evaluation, however, will need to be preceded by addressing the other key issues identified above and giving attention to the Ònext stepsÓ proposed in this report. 9. Next Steps to Realize the Promise of GILS Assuming that the issues outlined in Section 8 are addressed and steps are taken to resolve the issues detailed there, there are, in addition, two important steps that should occur in order to move GILS from vision to reality. The GILS Profile is a vehicle by which the vision articulated by Christian (1994) has been made more technologically concrete, yet the following two inter-related steps can be catalysts for achieving widespread deployment of GILS. 9.1. A GILS Interoperability Testbed A fundamental tenet of the GILS vision is that a wide variety of independently developed software for clients and servers can be used in GILS as long as that software is based on standards described in the GILS Profile. This means that agencies and users alike will need some reasonable assurance that these independently developed GILS components will work together in an interoperable manner. Interoperability of clients and servers, (i.e., the implementations work together effectively) was an assumption in the development of the GILS Profile; seamless navigation among disparate servers using Z39.50 will occur only if there is functional interoperability. The GILS project team assumed interoperability as a design consideration, but in actual fact, separate implementations based on the GILS Profile cannot be assumed to be interoperable. Profiles, as noted previously, specify the values and parameters of a standard for an application or implementation to increase the likelihood of interoperability and interworking. As part of this research project, the paper prepared by Preston and Lynch addressed the issues involved in ensuring interoperability of GILS products and implementations (Attachment J). Preston and Lynch describe two approaches to testing implementations to ensure that they work together effectively: oConformance Testing Ñ a single implementation is compared to the standard to be sure that the implementation does what the standard specifies oInteroperability Testing Ñ two or more implementations are tested directly against each other, with the standard used primarily as a reference to adjudicate problems and incompatibilities, and secondarily as a guide to the functions to be tested and the general behavior to be expected. Based on the analysis offered by Preston and Lynch, the Principal Investigators concur with their recommendation that interoperability testing is the more appropriate path to take with GILS. This also follows the FIRP reportÕs endorsement of interoperability testing as a pragmatic way to deal with this question of demonstrating interoperability. Although a precise definition of interoperability may be hard to articulate, Preston and Lynch (Attachment J, p. 5) state that functionally, the meaning of interoperability is clear: components of a system such as GILS communicate with one another effectively, correctly, and provide the expected services to the user of a GILS client. In a very real sense, users donÕt care why components of a system like GILS fail to interoperate, or what component is at fault; while there can be many causes for failure, a successfully functioning operational system is clearly demonstrable to users. Further, users will view GILS as a totality; while there are a large number of standards and agreements involved in making the GILS work (each with its conformance and interoperability issues), users are only concerned that the entire constellation of standards, agreements and system components interoperate together effectively. They describe how interoperability testbeds have been used successfully to carry out interoperability testing. In an interoperability testbed (Attachment J, pp. 5-6): a focused effort is made over a fairly short period of time to develop a number of implementations based on a set of standards that define a distributed system, and to experiment with using these implementations to interoperate with each other. It is important to recognize that while one of the primary purposes of a testbed is to explore interoperability issues, a testbed typically takes on a broader role as a large scale experimental prototype for validating a system design. Continuing from their recommendation that interoperability testing Òshould be the keystone of any program to further the development of an interoperable base of GILS clients and serversÓ (Attachment J, p. 14), they state that Òinteroperability testbeds, in part as a way of developing a de facto core of well-known reference implementations and in part as a way of simply moving early implementations to a more mature state and ensuring their mutual interoperability, deserves careful considerationÓ (Attachment J, p. 15). Interoperability testbeds, in addition to providing an arena for testing implementations, can serve other purposes. A GILS interoperability testbed can help to identify problems that arise from the interaction between different standards as described in the GILS Profile. A testbed also can provide feedback about the profile and may lead to improvements and changes to the profile. As important as these technical concerns, a testbed can serve as public demonstrations of the viability of a suite of standards. User communities, as well as potential implementors, can see how a distributed information system such as GILS actually works. This can be one aspect of stimulating the market for GILS. 9.2. Stimulating the Market Throughout the development of the vision of GILS and in the development of the GILS Profile, there have been efforts to inform and create awareness of what GILS is and what GILS will enable. Now that the technical groundwork for GILS is laid and policy is being established, efforts should continue in the direction of stimulating a market for GILS. ÒStimulating the marketÓ includes developing demand by users for GILS services and developing a supply of products and implementations conforming to the GILS Profile that can be readily available to agencies to deploy agency-based GILS locators. The appropriate role of the Federal government in stimulating the market, however, will likely take the form of motivating (and requiring by policy directive) agencies to participate in GILS. This in turn may create the demand for GILS products and implementations that will spur private-sector commercial enterprises to deliver off-the-shelf products. Since there is a tight connection between the demand for GILS products and services and their availability from private-sector suppliers, a mechanism that supports ongoing interaction between the Federal agencies and GILS product and services developers could be constructive. One mechanism could be the interoperability testbed; another mechanism could be OIW/SIGLA; additional mechanisms are possible. There are several activities that can encourage a market of users of GILS. As noted above, an interoperability testbed can be an important public awareness tool. Preston and Lynch (Attachment J) point out the need to involve the user communities in a testbed project. These communities may include government documents librarians, Federal depository librarians, and others. Another important user community include the ÒintermediariesÓ described in the GILS document. These ÒusersÓ will serve other groups of users by adding value to basic GILS records through repackaging, filtering, organizing, and other activities. They in turn will be developing their own markets for their GILS products. Education and publicity about the GILS must continue. Agencies can play an important role in these activities. As they develop their GILS locators, they will want to alert their constituencies to the availability of their GILS service. The more proactive an agency is in promoting its GILS locators, the more likely it will create a demand not only for its GILS information but also for agency information resources to which GILS records points. One step that the project leaders took to continue discussions around the GILS initiative and to promote awareness and to stimulate the market was to establish a public electronic forum on GILS. The Coalition for Networked Information has agreed to house the GILS Forum listserv, and one of the Syracuse project leaders will serve as moderator. Information about subscribing to the GILS Forum is included in Attachment Q. Another activity that may be particularly useful will be to ÒshowcaseÓ particular agency efforts in developing GILS locators. Recognition and acknowledgement of agencies that offer well- implemented and comprehensive GILS locators can alert users to the service. Rewards and incentives available to agencies for participating may help broaden the scope of Federal information resources available in GILS and may also help to motivate some of the more hesitant agencies to get involved. The idea is to raise the expectations of users (and expand the numbers of users) of what GILS will be able to offer them; those users will then expect and demand that Federal agencies participate in GILS by implementing locators that support the GILS Profile. At the same time, agencies should receive recognition for taking leadership roles in GILS implementations. The other part of Òstimulating the marketÓ is to ensure that off-the- shelf GILS server and client products are available to agency implementors, as well as being available to the direct and intermediary users of GILS. Again, the testbed can be an important mechanism to get robust products developed. A GILS testbed can facilitate the overall development of a marketplace of GILS products. The knowledge gained by the testbed participants can be used by subsequent implementors to speed up development of products. Thus the benefits of a testbed goes beyond the important concerns of system validation and other technical, implementation problem-solving. Organizations and companies that would like to do business with Federal agencies involved in GILS must have a sense that there is really a business opportunity in GILS. Whether these organizations and companies supply the agencies with server or client software or whether they develop an entire GILS package (including record creation, database loading, network connection, interface design, etc.) will depend on three things: oAgenciesÕ understanding of the value of GILS oAgencies active participation in GILS oThe ability of the companies and organizations to identify the agencies that are ready to provide the market for these products and services, and to offer the agencies appropriate products and services. An interoperability testbed can offer benefits to the agencies who are considering procuring GILS products, since the vendors can be asked to show how their products interoperate with those implementations that have been proven out through testbed activities. Stimulating the market can lead to important Ònetwork externalitiesÓ for GILS participants, implementors and users alike. A network externality occurs when Òone consumerÕs value for a good increases when another consumer has a compatible good, as in the case of telephones or personal computer software (Farrell & Saloner, 1985, p. 70). Interoperable components the of the GILS provide the Òcompatible goods.Ó As additional participants are involved (particularly agency implementors), the reach and range of each new user is expanded. Direct federal funding of GILS-related activities is another mechanism that could be considered. In addition there are a range of funding sources that might be tapped. For example, the Library Services and Construction Act (LSCA) has in the past provided grants to state and local libraries to enhance their services. Similar grants could be solicited to encourage library automation vendors to provide linkages between existing online public access catalogs (OPACs) and GILS. NII-related project funding could also be tapped to support GILS education initiatives as well as GILS technology demonstration projects. Such funding might be a suitable source for sponsoring the GILS interoperability testbed. A final source of funding that could be used for GILS activities is the depository library program. Funding selected and high impact pilot, demonstration, and other implementation projects would be extremely helpful to show a wide range of users (both inside and outside the Federal government) what GILS can offer. A market for GILS will likely not to result simply from policy statements by OMB, GSA, or Congress. Those statements will be necessary, but not sufficient (as was demonstrated in the case of GOSIP). An interoperability testbed, the development of a market of users, and providing incentives and rewards to agencies, however, may all combine effectively to spark the market for GILS. 10. Final Recommendations As a way of summarizing and concluding this report, Figure 3 provides a set of recommendations to help move the GILS initiative forward. The technical underpinnings and the vision of the GILS are in place, but those alone will not bring GILS to life. The following recommendations are painted broadly since additional study and research may be necessary to carry out these recommendations. Where possible, the recommendations include specific research activities that can assist in carrying out the recommendation. ____________________ Figure 3 Next Steps for GILS: Recommendations oStrategically Place GILS as Part of Major Government-wide Initiatives: The National Information Infrastructure and the Re- inventing Government Initiatives o Develop a Program for Educating Federal Agencies about GILS oIdentify a Strategy for Stimulating a Market of GILS Products and Services oEstablish a GILS Interoperability Testbed oDevelop and Distribute GILS Record Creation Guidelines ____________________ oStrategically Place GILS as Part of Major Government-wide Initiatives: The National Information Infrastructure and the Re- inventing Government Initiatives: More important than any other recommendation is the need to promote GILS as a long-term solution to a variety of information-related problems facing the Federal government. GILS will be a component of the information infrastructure of the Federal government which is in turn a component of the National Information Infrastructure. GILS can be viewed as an enterprise-wide application (although deployed in a decentralized manner) addressing IRM, access, and dissemination responsibilities of individual agencies and the aggregate Federal government. GILS will use information technology to improve information management and contribute to more effective and efficient Federal government operations. OMBÕs forthcoming Bulletin on GILS is one opportunity for articulating a policy that recognizes this strategic role of GILS. As a component of the NII, GILS provides an opportunity to show how the Federal government can utilize the emerging NII to communicate with the public and enter a new era of access and dissemination of government information. GILS will be useful as a system for locating government information, but the vision of GILS (Christian, 1994) includes the use of GILS specifications for identifying and locating a wide range of network-based information held by the commercial sector as well as by the government. In addition, there is the intention for GILS to become a component of a Global Information Infrastructure (GII). The strategic use of GILS for identifying and locating information within the NII and GII should be acknowledged as a strength of the GILS initiative. Internally, GILS can assist Federal agencies in managing information resources by providing a unified and standardized mechanism to identify and describe information resources. GILS can also address mandatory reporting requirements of NARA. Agencies will have a robust vehicle for knowing what information resources are available to agency staff. Agency staff can use GILS to identify important information resources existing in other agencies, and thus it serves as a support mechanism for the affinity groups described in the National Performance Review (National Performance Review, 1993) and FIRP reports. GILS can be an important tool for managing information resources (by knowing what information resources exist) and can assist in the elimination of redundant reporting and tracking systems. These are long-range benefits that will accrue to agencies while at the same time providing overall benefits to the Federal government. GILS will also increase Federal agenciesÕ capability to serve citizens by reducing the level of effort required for citizens to identify and locate important government information resources. GILS will affect how government takes care of its information responsibilities Ñ from cost-effective information resources management to improved productivity to service to the citizen. Promoting the strategic role of GILS in a Federal government that is internetworked and interconnected with itself will likely run into familiar obstacles and barriers such as proprietary interests in agency information, a Òwe can do it ourselvesÓ attitude, and worries that increased citizen access to Federal information will mean more work for the agency. In addition, the power of the decentralized nature of the GILS may increase the difficulty of taking such a vision across the entire government. The tools may be conducive to decentralized deployment, but policy regarding how GILS will be deployed (e.g., requirements, data quality, utility) will be top-down. A strategic stance regarding GILS deployment, maintaining visibility of GILS through activities and policy, and the use of highly-placed supporters of the NII and the re-inventing government initiatives to exhort agencies about the merits of GILS will be necessary to set the broader context for the Federal governmentÕs use of GILS. oDevelop a Program for Educating Federal Agencies about GILS: At this point it is unclear the extent to which agencies understand what GILS is, how it can work, and the benefits that can accrue to agencies participating in GILS. Policy statements and directives are one method of creating awareness within the agencies. This recommendation, however, is intended to reach out to the agencies and move from awareness to understanding. It is necessary, however, to point out that there is a general problem with educational programs that support Federal IRM (McClure, forthcoming). Since GILS is likely to be executed as a component of Federal IRM, some of the same key issues for an IRM educational program identified by McClure will likely be issues for GILS-specific educational activities. These issues include: what are the educational and training needs; who is responsible for coordinating educational and training programs; determining adequate funding mechanisms and funding sources; and how can sharing of innovations and knowledge be rapidly diffused across government. For GILS, an educational program is needed that can address broad policy and implementation implications such as identifying how GILS fits into the larger context of the government component of a NII and how GILS can improve agency IRM. At another level, the educational program can provide agencies with hands-on tutorials and demonstrations of how GILS implementations work. An educational program should address the GILS concept, real-world applications and use of GILS, technical demonstrations, and tutorials on how to implement GILS, including the identification of information resources to describe, creation of GILS records, and maintenance of GILS services. Finally, agencies need to develop a positive attitude and the necessary skills in ÒmarketingÓ their information products and services. Thus, the educational program for GILS needs to be broad-based and cover a variety of training and education needs. Funding a GILS educational program must be addressed. Agencies must anticipate training and education expenses when developing their plans for agency locators. Government-wide and interagency training are possible, and possible government-wide funding should be explored (e.g., through NII-related programs and projects). Interagency groups such as the Federal Information Resources Management Policy Council (FIRMPoC) or the Interagency Working Group on Public Access (the ÒSolomonÕs GroupÓ) could coordinate a GILS education program. This could be done by drawing on the expertise and resources of agencies that are leaders in GILS implementations. Establishing partnership with private sector vendors who are developing and marketing GILS products and services is also possible. These vendors could be important sources of expertise on Z39.50 and GILS, and vendor-led GILS seminars and training could be cost-effective mechanisms for components of the GILS educational program. The primary point here, however, is that the work on GILS to date (i.e., vision statement, technical specifications, policy instruments) are not the final step; this work has only laid the groundwork. Additional steps will be necessary to assist agencies in developing their GILS locators. oIdentify a Strategy for Stimulating a Market of GILS Products and Services: As one part of a GILS educational program, efforts are needed to stimulate a marketplace for GILS products. The GILS vision includes a partnership with non-government organizations and businesses (e.g., value-added suppliers of government information, vendors of technology products). There is little reason for agencies to think that they need to build GILS implementations from scratch since commercial off-the-shelf products may well be available from vendors. Yet the agencies need to be convinced of the central role they play in seeing that GILS servers are deployed that identify and describe their information resources. The development of the GILS Profile brought together Z39.50 implementors who are interested in supporting the GILS Profile in their implementations. What is needed, however, is a strategy to motivate agencies to: 1) participate in GILS by deploying GILS servers, and 2) to encourage the agencies to procure off-the-shelf GILS products whenever possible. One of the motivations for a standards-based solution offered by the GILS is to rely on private sector vendors of robust Z39.50 GILS implementations Ñ clients and servers Ñ to provide the technological components of the agency GILS. The private sector will support GILS through the development of products and services only to the extent that businesses see a commercial opportunity. Vendors may incorporate support for the GILS Profile into their Z39.50 client implementations, but unless agencies deploy GILS servers those clients will serve little purpose. oEstablish a GILS Interoperability Testbed: An interoperability testbed can serve as an adjunct in stimulating the development of GILS products (e.g., GILS clients and GILS servers). Such a testbed is necessary also for identifying any shortcomings in the GILS Profile so that it may be corrected sooner rather than later. Even two or three participants in an early informal testing environment would be helpful to validate the overall GILS system design as well as the specifications in the Profile. The testbed would also provide implementors with experience in developing robust GILS products, and the testbed may reduce the time needed to move from the development of products to their availability in the market. Sharing the results of the testbed is essential, and to provide a suitable environment for information sharing, the testbed should likely be sponsored by a neutral third- party. For example, the Coalition for Networked Information sponsored the 1992 Z39.50 interoperability testbed. A GILS testbed, due to the nature of the GILS specifications as Preston and Lynch (Attachment J) point out, will likely be a more complex undertaking than other testbeds since such a testbed will be testing the whole system Ñ from server behavior to database semantics. Thus, preliminary to establishing a testbed, this recommendation suggests the need for a research project be conducted to examine issues that may be critical factors in the success and utility of the testbed. Preston and Lynch provide a beginning list of such issues. oDevelop and Distribute GILS Record Creation Guidelines: An important factor in the overall utility of the GILS will be the quality of the data in GILS records. Quality criteria will include accuracy, consistency, completeness, and currency. In order to encourage the creation of high quality information that will populate GILS servers, the development of written guidelines for creating GILS records is essential. The library community has a long history in identifying and describing information. Librarians have developed very specific principles and standards for creating bibliographic records. It is likely that the Federal library community can play an important role in the generation of GILS records. For example, the Library of Congress (LC) has coordinated cooperative name authority work for many years and maintains a national name authority file. The National Library of Medicine (NLM) and the National Agricultural Library (NAL), as well as LC, employ experts in cataloging and bibliographic control. This expertise at the Federal library level could be coordinated by FLICC for developing the GILS record creation guidelines. An important benefit of utilizing these experts is their familiarity with the problems of bibliographic control, the solutions to these problems, and the use of MARC in automated library systems. Any guidelines for GILS record creation should be developed incrementally so that it is clear that the guidelines are offered as a way of solving problems that arise in how to describe a Federal information resource. Such guidelines should not attempt to address all possible circumstances, but rather provide general guidance on how to solve these problems. These guidelines should be developed with the assistance and participation of creators of the records and the users of the records. This recommendation could be carried out in reasonably short- order through a small research project. Developing these guidelines needs to be done quickly. Agencies are beginning to create GILS locator records, and they will need guidance sooner rather than later on the data and their format that go into GILS records. 11. Moving Forward As described in this report, much progress has been made in translating the GILS concept into implementable products. This most recent effort undertaken by the Principal Investigators concentrated on standards development, consensus building among key stakeholder groups, and interoperability among GILS components that are likely to evolve from the Federal agencies. But our work in this area over the last six years suggests that there are a number of factors that must be kept in mind if additional progress is to be made on developing and implementing GILS in the Federal government. Figure 4 offers an overview of some of the key factors that will effect future development of the GILS. Some of these factors have been previously discussed in this report; others have been identified in previous studies by the authors (McClure et al., 1990; McClure, Ryan, and Moen, 1992). Receiving inadequate attention, thus far, is the social/cultural organizational factors in Federal agencies that prescribe a set of attitudes and behaviors that will either support or mitigate against GILS development. [FIGURE 4 Not Available in ASCII Format] To date, we have found a wide variance in the cultural context among the agencies as to their attitudes and behaviors regarding: oimportance of providing public access to government information oorganizing the agency to facilitate that access to government information oknowledge and implementation of laws and regulations related to managing information technology, standards, and public access oobtaining ongoing feedback and assessment from the agencyÕs primary customers regarding the agencyÕs information services and products. In short, strategies and policies from OMB-OIRA, for example, regarding GILS development will have to be tempered by different situational contexts among the agencies. Thus, flexibility in policy development will be essential. Some agencies are only just understanding the concept of a GILS while others are beginning to deploy them. An important lesson resulting from this most recent project is that consensus building among key stakeholders such as Federal agencies, information services and products developers, researchers, and users is essential. In this particular instance, stakeholders looked for solutions to solve interoperability issues and to define Z39.50 applications for GILS. This context of problem solving and moving forward is an important result of the project. We hope that such an approach will continue in the future as GILS become implemented and used. In 1988 when we began work in the area of a government-wide information inventory locator system, we received minimal interest from government agencies and information providers. The early support, first from OMB-OIRA and next from the Center for Electronic Information at NARA, was instrumental in moving from the concept of a GILS to real- time systems such as we have today. But while much progress has been made over recent years in implementing an interoperable GILS throughout the Federal government, much remains to be done. The recommendations offered earlier in this report suggest which next steps should be addressed. Improved public access to Federal information and improved management of that information by individual agencies has been a policy goal clearly articulated by the Clinton Administration. The efforts to develop and implement GILS are important means to accomplish this policy goal. As this report suggests, significant progress has been made, now, on the technical side for implementing and ensuring interoperability for GILS. Future emphasis on GILS development will need to shift to individual agencies and to focus on encouraging cultural and organizational changes needed to support GILS implementation and use. NOTES 1.Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) is a generic term referring to a set of related standards for encoding resource location and identification information for electronic and other objects. The URI Working Group of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) defines and specifies URIs. There are currently three objects within the URI set: the Uniform Resource Locator (URL); the Uniform Resource Name (URN); and Uniform Resource Characteristics (URC). The URI Working Group has approved URLs for experimental standardization, and it is expected to approve URNs in 1994. URCs are in the developmental stages. 2.Z39.50-1992 (also referred to as Version 2) was approved in 1992. Since that time, the Z39.50 Implementors Group (ZIG), which is a voluntary user group comprising implementors of Z39.50, has continued work to enhance the standard based on needs of information providers and users. Balloting on a new version of the standard, Z39.50-199x, began September 1, 1994. During the development of the new version, it was sometimes referred to as Version 3. According to Ray Denenberg, the editor of the standard and member of the Z39.50 Maintenance Agency at the Library of Congress, Òit is important to point out, however, that although these version designations do have specific protocol significance, they should not be used to refer to versions of the standard. Z39.50- 1992 specifies protocol version 2, and Z39.50-1994 specifies protocol versions 2 and 3.Ó A draft of Z39.50-199x can be retrieved from the Library of CongressÕs gopher. Connect to MARVEL.LOC.GOV and select #7. Services to Libraries and Publishers, and then select #8. Z39.50. Or via anonymous FTP at in the directory /pub/z3950. 3.The acronym GIILS refers to the Government Information/Inventory Locator System concept proposed in the 1990 and 1992 research projects (McClure, et al., 1990; McClure, Ryan, and Moen, 1992). While there are many similarities between the GIILS and the Government Information Locator Service or GILS, readers should note that these are not equivalent. References to GIILS reflect the understanding of the researchers in 1990 and 1992. Our understanding of such a locator system has evolved through the vision presented in the GILS document and the work on this research project. 4.To give some indication of the number of people reached through the postings to these electronic listservs, the following gives the approximate number of subscribers for each (as of August 1994): CNI-ANNOUNCE Ñ 915; GOVDOC-L Ñ 2,250; PACS-L Ñ 8,150; USMARC Ñ 670; Z3950IW Ñ 475. In some cases the individual ÒsubscriberÓ is mail reflector/exploder, electronic bulletin board, or Usenet reader, and thus the actual number of people who received or read these posting is likely much higher than the sum of the numbers listed. 5.Another profile was under development at the same time as the GILS Profile. Work on the WAIS Profile has been done by representatives of WAIS, Inc., Clearinghouse for Network Information Discovery and Retrieval, the Library of Congress, and members of the Open Systems Environment ImplementorsÕ Workshop Special Interest Group on Library Applications. 6.The OIW is the forum where implementors come together to develop implementation agreements. The Special Interest Group on Library Applications (OIW/SIGLA) was formed to develop profiles for Z39.50 and other open systems standards related to library applications (e.g., the international standard for interlibrary loan). 7.ÒWorkshop Policies and ProceduresÓ (available from NIST) provides information about the OIW and its procedures. A charter of the OIW/SIGLA is available from the chair of the SIG; contact Ralph LeVan, Senior Consulting Analyst, OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc., Mail Drop 432, 6565 Franz Road, Dublin, OH 43017; email: ; phone: 614-764-6115. 8.The project leaders contacted members of the Federal library community in the course of the study and requested input (in the form of a contributed paper to the study) on the roles and responsibilities of the Federal library community in GILS. Conversations with individual Federal librarians pointed out to the project leaders some of the concerns of the librarians. While these librarians expressed interest in participating in GILS and helping to shape and contribute to GILS, the project leaders received no formal response from the Federal library community regarding GILS. REFERENCES American National Standards Institute. (1985). American national standard Z39.2-1985: Bibliographic information interchange. New York: American National Standards Institute. Betancourt, Diego. (1993, November 19). Strategic standardization management: A strategic macroprocess approach to the new paradigm in the competitive business use of standardization. [Available from the author: Diego Betancourt, Manager, Office of Strategic Standardization, Polaroid Corporation, 656 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA 02139] Christian, Eliot. (1994, May 2). Government information locator service (GILS): Report to the Information Infrastructure Task Force. Available on the Fedworld electronic bulletin board (703-321-8020) or by anonymous FTP (File Transfer Protocol) via the Internet at <130.11.48.107> as /pub/gils.doc (Microsoft Word for Windows format) or /pub/gils.txt (ASCII text format). Clinton, William H. & Gore, Albert, Jr. (1993, February 22). Technology for AmericaÕs economic growth: A new direction to build economic strength. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Farrell, Joseph and Saloner, Garth. (1985, Spring). Standardization, compatibility, and innovation. Rand Journal of Economics 16(1): 70-83. Federal Internetworking Requirements Panel. (1994, May 31). Report of the Federal Internetworking Requirements Panel: Prepared for the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology. Available via anonymous FTP at in directory /pub/firp/ Harris, Patricia Harris. (1994). National standards development in the United States: Private sector interests in the public sector environment. In Scholarly Information and Standardization, edited by William E. Moen (Bethesda, MD: NISO Press, 1994), p 32. Hernon, Peter. (1994). Information life cycle: Its place in the management of U.S. government information resource. Government Information Quarterly, 11 (2): 143-170. Information Infrastructure Task Force. (1993, September 15). The national information infrastructure: Agenda for action. Washington, DC: NTIA NII Office, Department of Commerce. Available in ASCII text format, filename: niiagenda.asc on the NTIA Bulletin Board (202-482-1199) and the Fedworld bulletin board (703-321-8020); available by anonymous FTP from as /pub/niiagenda.asc; available by gopher at in the menu item DOC Documents. International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission. (1992). ISO/IEC TR10000-1 Information technology Ñ Framework and taxonomy of international standardized profiles Ñ Part 1: Framework. Geneva: ISO/IEC Copyright Office. Lynch, Clifford A. (1992). Online searching on the internet: The challenge of information semantics for networked information. In Proceedings of the 1992 National Online Meeting (pp. 203-210). Medford, NJ: Learned Information. Lynch, Clifford A. (1994a, April). Using the Z39.50 information retrieval protocol in the internet environment. Information Standards Quarterly 6(2), 1-5 Lynch, Clifford A. (1994b, August 23). Using the Z39.50 Information Retrieval Protocol in the Internet Environment [Draft RFC]. Available via anonymous FTP at as /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-iiir- z3950-00.txt Lynch, Clifford A. & Preston, Cecilia M. (1992, Spring). Describing and classifying networked information resources. Electronic Networking: Research, Applications and Policy 2(1): 13-23. McCallum, Sally H. (1994). Information technology standards: Implementation, maintenance, and coordination. In William E. Moen (Ed.), Scholarly Information and Standardization (pp. 13-20). Bethesda, MD: NISO Press. McClure, Charles R. (forthcoming). Promoting education for information resources management in the federal government. Government Information Quarterly. McClure, Charles R., Bishop, Ann, Doty, Philip, & Bergeron, Pierrette. (1990). Federal information inventory/locator systems: From burden to benefit: Final report. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, School of Information Studies. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 326-247) McClure, Charles R., Moen, William E. & Ryan, Joe. (Winter, 1992). Design for an internet-based government-wide information locator system. Electronic Networking: Research, Applications and Policy 2(4): 6- 37. McClure, Charles R., Ryan, Joe & Moen, William E. (1992). Identifying and describing federal information inventory/locator systems: Design for networked-based locators. Capitol Heights, MD: National Audio Visual Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 349-031) Moen, William E. (forthcoming). Information technology standards: A component of federal information policy. Government Information Quarterly [forthcoming]. Moen, William E. (1994). The Z39.50 protocol: Information retrieval in the information infrastructure. Bethesda, MD: NISO Press. Moen, William E. (1992). Organizing networked resources for effective use: Classification and other issues in developing navigational tools. In Networking, Telecommunications, and the Networked Information Revolution, Proceedings of the ASIS 1992 Mid-Year Meeting, Albuquerque, NM, May 28-30, 1992. Silver Spring, MD: American Society for Information Science, 1992. Moen, William E. and McClure, Charles R. (forthcoming). A profile for the government information locator service (GILS) using ANSI/NISO Z39.50: Implications for a user-based approach to standards development. StandardView. National Information Standards Organization. (1992). ANSI/NISO Z39.50- 1992, Information retrieval application service definition and protocol specification for open systems interconnection. Gaithersburg, MD: NISO Press. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Computer Systems Laboratory. (1994, July). Framework for national information infrastructure services [Draft]. Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Computer Systems Laboratory. National Performance Review. Office of the Vice President. (1993, September), Reenginering through information technology: Acccompanying report of the national performance review. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Office of Management and Budget. (1994, July 25). Management of federal information resources [Circular No. A-130]. Federal Register 59: 37906- 37928. Office of Management and Budget. (1993a, July 2). Management of federal information resources [Circular No. A-130]. Federal Register 58: 36038 - 36086. Office of Management and Budget. (1993b, October 26). Federal participation in the development and use of voluntary standards [Circular No. A-119]. Federal Register, 58: 57643-57648. Office of Management and Budget (1990). Coordination of surveying, mapping, and related spatial data activities [Circular No. A-16]. Ritterbusch, Gerald H. (1990). Functions of a standards program. In Standards Management: A Handbook for Profits, edited by Robert B. Toth (New York: American National Standards Institute, 1990), pp 19-34. Spring, Michael B. and Bearman, Toni Carbo. (1988). Information standards: Models for future development. Book Research Quarterly, 4: 38-47. St. Pierre, Margaret, et al. (1994, June). RFC 1625, WAIS over Z39.50-1988. Available from the InterNIC gopher. Connect to and select: 4. InterNIC Directory and Database Services/ 6. Internet Documentation (RFCÕs, FYIÕs, etc.)/ 7. RFCÕs (Request For Comments). Svenonius, Elaine. (1988, January/March). Directions for research in indexing, classification, and cataloging. Library Resources & Technical Services 25 (1): 88-103. Wilson, Patrick. (1968). Two kinds of power: An essay on bibliographical control. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. APPENDIX A Project Team Members The research project team consists of experts in Z39.50 and also representatives of Federal agencies. The following lists these members: Z39.50 Experts Kevin Gamiel Clearinghouse for Network Information Discovery and Retrieval Ralph LeVan OCLC Denis Lynch ESL, Inc. Margaret St. Pierre WAIS, Inc. Madeleine Stovel Research Libraries Group, Inc. Representatives from Federal Agencies Eliot Christian United States Geological Survey Tim Gauslin United States Geological Survey Sue Ruddle Defense Technical Information Center Yesha Yelena National Institute of Standards and Technology Representative of the Z39.50 Maintenance Agency Ray DenenbergZ39.50 Maintenance Agency, Library of Congress