|
CENDI PRINCIPALS AND ALTERNATES MEETING |
Defense Technical Information Center
Ft. Belvoir, VA
November 24, 2003
WELCOME
Kent Smith, Chair of CENDI, opened the meeting at 9:15 am. He thanked DTIC for hosting the meeting. Kurt Molholm, Administrator of DTIC, welcomed CENDI to the McNamara Building. It has current capacity for 4000 employees and is being expanded to double that capacity. This expansion will make it one of the largest facilities within the DoD.
"E-Government: Status and Opportunities”The E-Government Office has undergone significant change over the last several months. The Office now employs about 40 people, plus contractors, who are involved in developing the Federal Enterprise Architecture and moving e-government forward. On December 12, 2003, Dan Chenok will be leaving; the job vacancy has been posted internally. Karen Evans replaced Mark Forman as the E-government Administrator in mid-October. New initiatives are likely from Ms. Evans in 2004.
However, the goal of E-government remains the same – to make high-quality interactions with the government easier for citizens and less expensive for the government. In order to do this, it is necessary to re-think why and how certain processes are performed. Key areas that are being analyzed and for which “owners” are being identified include security, capital planning, privacy, collaboration, and data standardization. Owning or being in charge of a line of business simply means that the agency has the leadership role. For example, it is obvious that the Department of Justice would have the lead in the area of criminal justice, but there are many agencies involved in this type of work.
The Administration is seeking performance improvements through improved IT management. This requires thinking on an enterprise level, particularly about IT investments. An understanding of knowledge assets and improved interoperability are needed to get these improvements. It also requires identification of the performance problems. E-government succeeds when it improves a program’s performance. They do not think of e-government performance but, rather, that of programs.
The Federal Enterprise Architecture is a tool for driving consolidation and pointing out areas where transformation may occur. Mapping out what the government does is in itself a very valuable activity. It can be used to analyze lines of business to identify where integration can occur that might lead to changes that positively impact performance. For example, the Justice lawyers currently receive reports from various programs and agencies. These reports are all different. Analysis identified the need for a consistent federal investigatory records management form that would allow the Justice lawyers to perform their jobs more efficiently.
When E-government first began, a group of senior government executives led by OMB and the General Services Administration (GSA) identified 24 high-impact E-government projects. The Government-to-Citizen portfolio includes GovBenefits.gov, a central source about government-provided benefits including eligibility tools. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) income tax filings were a major e-government initiative and, last year, about 3 million people filed electronically. Over 750,000 site visits were made per month to Recreation.gov, a site that brings together information from 1900 government parks and recreation sites. Regulations.gov allows small businesses and citizens to find regulations and participate in the comment process. (Currently, the majority of the comments are from interest groups rather than from private citizens.) Mr. Womer formerly managed the Government-to-Citizen area. Grants.gov, in the Government-to-Business portfolio, provides a single place for information. Forms completion and submission, which would be the next logical step, requires agencies to change back-office procedures. Disasterhelp.gov has been used to provide information from government to government for about 30 disasters since it was developed. For Government to Employees, there are two major business line sites. GoLearn.gov has approximately 3000 courses online. Payroll.gov provides a single source for online employee payroll information.
The issue of the role of the private sector versus the government in providing these services has arisen. Different approaches have been taken. The IRS portal was developed through a partnership with the private sector. Recreation.gov was not. A recent lawsuit on anti-competitiveness regarding Recreation.gov was thrown out.
The E-Government Act of 2002 supports all these efforts by codifying in law much of what the Office has done and is doing. The Interagency Committee identified in the law was created by NARA and OMB in June. The first meeting involved a small group, which reviewed the nominations for membership on the committee. There were eight high-level activities and over 150 people were likely to be involved. Therefore, they decided to organize differently. The committee will include five people (two of whom will serve as co-chairs). The two chairs are Dan Chenok from OMB and Karen Hogan, the Deputy Chief Information Officer (CIO) at Commerce (she is a link to the CIO Council). The three remaining members will be in charge of working groups. There may be one or two large meetings at some point.
Three major topic areas have been identified: records management, web content, and data and information standards. Records Management will be chaired by NARA (probably Lew Bellardo). Web Content will be led by GSA, probably Bev Godwin or Casey Coleman. The Data and Information Standards group will be led by Bob Haycock of OMB. Federal R&D is not a central focus, but it might best fall under Web Content since it is primarily an issue of dissemination. OMB requirements and procedures with regard to web surveys are of interest to the CENDI agencies. Womer indicated that if the Committee wanted to look into that, he would support it. In dealing with satisfaction with Web sites, OMB desk officers look favorably on efforts to enhance customer satisfaction. If CENDI has an issue, he would be happy to expedite. Web usability and metrics could be addressed under the Web Content group.
All the nominations for staffing the groups have been provided to the topical leaders. It is expected that the individual groups will convene after the holidays. The scope for each group, based on the deliverables originally identified in the E-government Act, will be expanded or contracted as the work groups get organized.
The E-Government Office received $3 million in its FY04 budget for IT grants. Once the procedures are set for applying for this money, CENDI could make a follow-on proposal. Procedures for initiatives to apply for this money are likely to be established, but it isn’t clear whether the goal will be a large number of smaller projects or a few large projects.
In addition to the E-government work, they are guided by the Government Paper
Elimination Act (GPEA), Clinger-Cohen Act, Government Information Security
Reformation Act, Privacy Act, and Sec. 508. Mr. Womer reported that OIRA is
working on guidance regarding reporting and e-authentication. The Sunset Clause
in A-130 is set to expire.
"WSIS: The Role of Science and Scientific
and Technical Information”
Anita Eisenstadt, Assistant General Counsel, National
Science Foundation
The goal of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) is to discuss the information society and its impact on the international community. The action involves the development of a statement of political will (a declaration of principles) and a plan for action.
Ms. Eisenstadt got involved with the WSIS during the summer. The team was originally heavily composed of representatives from the State Department in the international and economic areas. However, since that time, the scope has shifted away from commercial telecommunications to a broader human rights agenda. The goal remains a Declaration of Principles and a Plan for Action. WSIS documents now have a heavy emphasis on the right to develop and participate in the information society. It is bridging North/South and digital divide issues.
The first meeting will take place on December 10, 2003, in Geneva, followed by another meeting in Tunis in 2005. Much of the work takes place in advance of these formal meetings. In September, the delegates met in Geneva at Prepcom III. There were 1100 delegates, which made progress difficult. They reconvened in November and drafts of the Principles and the Plan were created.
The European Union (EU) was the most difficult group to deal with, not only because of the strongly divisive issues but because of their organization. Individual countries must coordinate among themselves before anyone can speak for the whole. This holds up progress on any agreements.
Most of the science language was not controversial. Ms. Eisenstadt gave examples of what she believes are strong statements regarding the role of science in society and economic development, including the recognition that science has a central role in the development of the Information Society because many of the building blocks for such a society rely on scientific and technical advances made possible through the sharing of research results. The U.S., Romania, and others were instrumental in adding language regarding science.
The key science language revolves around the importance of science and scientific communication for development and human well being. Open access initiatives were added along with wording on public domain based on the UNESCO statement. There are also statements about the importance of affordable and reliable high-speed Internet connections for work in e-science, the use of peer-to-peer technology to share scientific knowledge, the importance of long-term systematic and efficient collection, dissemination and preservation of essential scientific digital data, and the need to promote principles and metadata standards to facilitate cooperation in the conduct of research. Commercial publishers have not been significantly involved. There was a flurry of letters expressing concern over the public domain language. However, for the U.S., Ms. Eisenstadt believes that the current language is in line with U.S. policy.
The EU had wanted some database protection statements in the document but these were taken out with pressure from the U.S. and India. “Protected from misappropriation” was included with regard to intellectual property. This was not the U.S. delegation’s idea but some countries wanted it. Ms. Eisenstadt believes that, from the U.S. point of view, this can be interpreted as non-plagiarism rather than database protection.
There are several outstanding issues to be worked out before the December meeting centering on the role of the media, human rights, Internet governance, security, intellectual property, and traditional knowledge. Internet governance is a key issue, with the U.S. supporting ICAAN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) and developing countries wanting an international organization such as UNESCO to be the governing body. Article 19 includes human rights language that China wants eliminated or modified. Russia and China want to include language that allows them to constrain what can be put on the Internet. The U.S. wants to ensure that the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) language here does not change what has been agreed to at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), because it believes that WIPO is the appropriate body to deal with IPR, not WSIS. The compromise on patent protection language is being led by Brazil. Mexico is trying to include language regarding traditional knowledge and the U.S. delegation is concerned that, while this language sounds good in concept, the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) found that it is difficult to put into practice. Such restrictions hinder researchers, because they can’t figure out whom to ask for permission to use traditional knowledge, and prior informed consent to display traditional information is a problem for museums. The Digital Solidarity Fund, to assist in supporting developing countries, also needs additional discussion. In particular, there is the question of who pays for it and how much.
Looking ahead to Tunis in 2005, Tunisia has proposed a Charter of digital solidarity, which is a more formal document and legally binding. Until now, documents have not been legally binding. Some countries are opposed to this. There is a question whether the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) will continue to sponsor the WSIS since it has taken on a difficult scope. It might instead be a UN body that would coordinate across UN organizations. Should there be an international forum instead or is there a benefit to continuing the direct connection with WSIS? Some of the follow-on items include what the role of science should be. Some are questioning whether there is a better forum for this discussion. CERN is hosting a side conference to discuss the role of science in Phase II.
What impact will WSIS have? The Principles and Plans of Action are not legally binding. However, these documents will influence individual country and regional policies and actions. It never looks good to be inconsistent after having signed such an international document.
In response to the question of whether commercial publishers have had any input, Ms. Eisenstadt indicated that the Department of Commerce (DoC) and the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) looked out for their interests. Some are weighing in through letters but they are not strongly inputting through science, which is her area. She stated that the State Department feels what she is doing in science is consistent and defensible, so has been given the “go ahead” to proceed.
In response to a question about database protection, Ms. Eisenstadt said that since the language was taken out in a working group, it was easier than dealing with it in plenary. The PTO view was different from the NSF view but NSF was most fortunate to have strong input. Since the U.S. position paper lined up with the science point of view, she had freedom to speak.
Ms. Eisenstadt noted that government delegations are key and the scientific community must be involved at that level. Even though other groups, such as the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU), have been active, as non-delegates, they can’t be directly involved in the negotiations and the language building. The CENDI members thanked Ms. Eisenstadt for her involvement on the part of science and the science agencies. They acknowledged that this is a very labor-intensive effort, but one that is worthwhile for the entire community.
"DTIC Showcase: Current Activities, Directions"
Kurt Molholm, Director
Mr. Molholm described the current DTIC activities. DTIC reports to the Principal Director of GIG (Global Information Grid) Combat Support, providing horizontal integration of information. DTIC has been level-funded over the last several years. In its biennial customer survey, there was a decline in user satisfaction by 3 percent, attributable to budget issues. Users want DTIC to implement technology advances, which the budget does not allow.
DTIC is moving to a gateway concept rather than a central database. Earlier this year, a letter was sent to the Services to remind them to send DTIC their technical reports, preferably in electronic format. DTIC also is considering the use of, for example, BrightPlanet to harvest documents from the Services and DoD programs.
Despite these funding issues, DTIC is modernizing its infrastructure. The Registration System modernization has been divided into 13 workable pieces in order to accommodate the budget situation. The STINT-TR is being redesigned to include secure transmission and authoring and peer review. The Electronic Document Management System (EDMS) was originally designed in 1994. In its redesign, a Technical Report Submission Toolkit was added, which includes an electronic SF298. The Total Electronic Migration System (TEMS) is a digital library for the IACs (Information Analysis Centers). This might serve as a model for other communities within DoD. Password management is more automated using LDAP (Lightweight Directory Access Protocol). DTIC is planning to expand the distribution codes to include first responders. A new system for the thesaurus and Machine Aided Indexing (MAI) is being reviewed. They looked at Semio but it wasn’t adequate.
On the bandwidth front, DTIC had 20 million page downloads during the first week of the invasion of Iraq. Akamai is now handling the accesses and bandwidth and uses mirror sites to disperse the traffic. This approach is good for static web pages but doesn’t accommodate more fluid information. The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) has recognized this approach as being secure, beneficial in managing resources, a way to remove the single point of failure, and helpful in avoiding denial of service attempts. Other agencies including GPO Access are using Akamai. The question arose as to whether it can provide statistics that can be aggregated with the agency’s local statistics. This will be investigated.
Additional technical enhancements include the replacement of DROLS Classified with SIPRNet STINET. DTIC’s Multisearch capabilities include Google for searching the open web. XML is being used in the DDR and E/NASA project to exchanging information on emerging technologies. DTIC is also experimenting with next generation search engines. They are looking at such things as Convera (RetrievalWare), Endeca, a guided navigation tool, and Cognos. DTIC is spending $50,000 on a contract with ODU to develop a system to OCR and convert to an XML format, old technical reports.
Jim Erwin described DTIC’s work on the Defense Virtual Information Architecture (DVIA). This is a distributed object repository that includes assets, lessons, courses, etc. It adds a fourth layer, the virtual layer, to a previously developed architecture that separated databases, applications and clients into three separate layers. The premise was to separate the data and its management from the presentation of the data, optimizing the data storage aspects. The recently added virtual layer includes Handles, repositories and digital objects. In this layer, the logical content relationships are defined. It allows individual objects to be collected in a virtual way from either a central or distributed source, and then to appear as an understandable collection to a particular community.
The Digital Objects include information but they may also invoke “programs” outside. They are self-contained within an XML skeleton. An alternative to having the object in the repository is to have the instruction set in the repository. For example, the Naval Postgraduate School is using DTIC’s content and metadata, but the content and metadata are displayed from within an interface geared to the audience of the Naval Postgraduate School. The architecture allows an organization to package content so that value can be added to it and it can be referenced from outside DTIC.
Examples of how this architecture can be used to create on-the-fly collections are found both with conference proceedings and with e-learning courses. In the case of conference proceedings, it is possible to build the table of contents itself. This capability is also advantageous when making changes and additions to conference proceedings, because the collection isn’t set. The repositories themselves are special types of digital virtual objects.
The Coalition for National Research Initiatives (CNRI) has developed a loader for DTIC’s digital objects. Another component of the architecture is the OAI (Open Archival Information) Server. It exposes content and metadata to other systems. An index can be built based on the OAI and, subject to authorization restrictions; you can find the object in the DTIC collection.
Phase 1 of the system development is to move the Digital Virtual Library, containing about 9000 objects, from CNRI to the DTIC operation. Non-text objects will be added, and DTIC will implement an OAI-compliant server. This phase has been funded and was recently begun. Phase 2, which involves the automatic conversion of PDF image documents into tagged XML, is only partially funded. The research for this is being conducted at Old Dominion University.
DVIA maximizes content functionality by exploiting content relationships,
providing a methodology for managing and disseminating complex information,
and providing a means for integrating all DTIC content into one virtual repository
for access by multiple systems. It will allow DTIC and its partners to get
control of the content by centralizing content access and access control, discouraging
the creation of multiple copies, and providing a basis for developing an enterprise
preservation strategy.
The observers from particular organizations were invited to give brief updates on the work and interests of their organizations. The Coalition for National Research Initiatives (CNRI) represented by Larry Lannom, is currently involved with Micro and Electromechanical Exchange, Homeland Security, and refining the Digital Object Architecture. Three Requests For Comment (RFC) (RFCs 3650, 51 and 52) related to the Handle system for persistent digital object identification were issued a few weeks ago by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). CNRI is also working on an National Science Foundation (NSF) grant to look at the internationalization of DNS, with particular emphasis on character set issues. The Grid developers at NSF are also interested in a flexible identifier architecture.
Joyce Ray reported that the Institute for Museum and Library Services (IMLS) has received funds to implement GILS (Government Information Locator Service) at state libraries. IMLS is also funding digitization projects, some of which involve government information. A grant was awarded in September to Dr. Jose Marie Griffith at the University of Pittsburgh for a national survey of online information use.
According to Patrice McDermott, the American Library Association (ALA) continues to be concerned about information that is being removed from government web sites, some in the interest of ideological purity. They see issues of politics in science, particularly with regard to the Health and Human Services web sites. The reorganization of government web sites is also an issue, because it makes it difficult to find older material. ALA is working with GPO on this issue. Other areas of interest include peer review and the USA Patriot Act (Section 215 on Business Records and Section 505 on Administrative Subpoena). ALA continues to follow Database Protection legislation to ensure fair use principles and free access to government information.
Eliot Christian is involved with the Earth Observation (EO) Summit, an ad hoc international group developing a ten-year plan to establish a comprehensive earth observation system. There are 34 countries involved along with EU participation. The initiative will be developed in two phases – the plan and a framework document. The Plan will be presented in Tokyo in November 2004. Five groups have been identified – user requirements and outreach, architecture, capacity building, data utilization, and international coordination and governance. The goal is to drive the EO development by societal benefits rather than by technology. Disaster preparedness is a key focus. Such a comprehensive system will require interoperability through standards setting and adoption.
Susan Tarr reported that the Federal Library and Information Center Committee
(FLICC) is involved with the Working Group on GPO, including the interaction
with the external communities and the federal libraries. FLICC is also developing
resources for federal librarians on Competitive Sourcing. Another major activity
is addressing the lack of library support for the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). Only eight of the programs that were incorporated into DHS have libraries
and 80 percent of the employees who were moved to DHS did not have a library
that moved with them. The FLICC group has recommended a central library or
a department librarian. Currently, FLICC is working to provide access to electronic
resources. A subgroup, chaired by Jean Conrad of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), is investigating Virtual Reference. The main point of
contact is Kathy Schultz, the department records manager. Other key contacts
may be Janet Hale, Undersecretary for Management, and Deborah Diaz, who is
involved with Science and Technology in DHS.