Report of the Workshop

Strengthening the Public Information Infrastructure for Science

April 18-19, 2001

Federal agencies, academic experts, and other information professionalsgathered for a Workshop April 18 and 19, 2001, at the National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST) to examine how the public infrastructure forscience information could be improved and how public access to science

information of the Federal agencies could be enhanced. Over 60 participantsfrom 35 organizations participated in the Workshop organized by the CENDI

Information Managers Group, the University of Maryland Center forInformation Policy, the Department of Energy (DOE), NIST, and the National

Science Foundation and sponsored by DOE. This is a report of the Workshop.

Acknowledgment

The Science.gov Alliance gratefully acknowledges the foundation provided by this workshop through theenthusiastic participation and contributions of the Workshop organizers. The Alliance and the workshoporganizers extend their appreciation to the speakers, panelists, and other participants who made thisworkshop an interesting and productive experience.

Workshop Organizers:CENDI* Information Managers Group Center for Information Policy, University of Maryland Department of EnergyNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyNational Science Foundation

Science.gov Alliance:Department of Agriculture

National Agricultural LibraryDepartment of Commerce

National Institute of Standards and TechnologyNational Technical Information Service

Department of DefenseDefense Technical Information CenterNational Air Intelligence Center

Department of EducationNational Library of Education

Department of EnergyEnergy LibraryOffice of ScienceOffice of Scientific and Technical Information

Department of Health and Human ServicesNational Institutes of HealthNational Library of Medicine

Department of InteriorUnited States Geological SurveyNational Biological Information Infrastructure

Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Research and Development

National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationScientific and Technical Information Program

National Science Foundation

*CENDI is an interagency working group of senior Scientific and Technical Information Managers from ten major programsin nine U.S. Federal Agencies: Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, NationalAeronautics and Space Administration, National Libraries of Agriculture, Education and Medicine, Department of Defense,and Department of the Interior.

1

Executive Summary

The Internet and World Wide Web have had aprofound effect on the conduct and communicationof science and on expectations of the science-attentive citizen. The role of Federal agencies isextremely important because they are significantsources of science information and are importantsources of science information for education andresearch. Thus they have real resources of interestto the scientific community and useful to researchuniversities, for example, as well as other audiencesof government science information.

The Federal agencies, academic experts, and otherinformation professionals who gathered April 18-19, 2001, at the National Institute of Standards andTechnology examined the current environment andexplored the means for improving public access toscience information of the Federal agencies. Pursuant to the visions expressed at the May 2000workshop on “Future Information Infrastructure forthe Physical Sciences” and numerous recentinitiatives (such as the February 2001 PITACreport, “Digital Libraries: Universal Access toHuman Knowledge”), this Workshop wasconvened to examine the emerging new conceptsfor providing access to science information.

The context for science information is changing. Developments include the National Science,Mathematics, Engineering, and TechnologyEducation (SMETE) Digital Library (NSDL)Program at the National Science Foundation, theorganization of private-sector resources aroundSMETE.ORG, the new administration’s policies one-government, the success of FirstGov, the growthof open archives within the academic researchcommunity, and the emergence of technologies forimproving access to materials on the Web. Thetransformation of the science information

infrastructure is still in an early stage, but a rich,distributed network of science resources is alreadycoalescing around the World Wide Web.

Federal agencies at the workshop recognized thatthe building blocks are available, and now the timeis right for an interagency science informationinfrastructure. Agencies can make digital informationaccessible no matter where the information residesphysically, so that no classroom, group or person isever isolated from the world’s greatest knowledgeresources and researchers will have enhancedaccess to data and scientific information. Alsoagencies can take full advantage of the Internet andother technologies to overcome arbitraryboundaries between agencies, so that thegovernment can provide the public with seamless,dependable online services.

Agency representatives at the Workshop agreed towork together on an interagency science informationinitiative, called “Science.gov.” This science portalwould strengthen the science informationinfrastructure and integrate various agencies’information content, tools, and technologies into aborderless digital resource available to researchers,teachers, and learners wherever they are located.

To that end, twelve agencies formed a “Science.govAlliance” to work on the interagency science portalas a unified navigation path to science conducted bythe government.

As a result of this workshop, the formation of theScience.gov Alliance is the first step towardachieving these goals for science information ofgovernment agencies.

An organized, comprehensive gateway to scienceinformation would provide a coherent government

2

R&D presence on the web and streamline theprocess of identifying and accessing governmentscience information. In particular, a sciencegateway would provide these additional benefits:

• Foster greater and more accurate publicunderstanding of the government’s science andtechnology contribution to the U.S. taxpayer.

• Help users navigate through Federal sciencecollections and resources, quickly andaccurately.

• Provide the public with well-organizedinformation, from practical information for theconsumer to highly technical scientific data forthe bench scientist.

• Support future scientists and engineers withinformation and science education resources.

• Raise scientific and technical literacy.

• Ensure use of scientific research as a foundationfor future discoveries.

3

THE VISION

The improvement of understanding is for two ends: first, our own increase of knowledge;secondly, to enable us to deliver that knowledge to others.

-- John Locke

Over the years, the United States hasdeveloped a tradition of leadership in scienceand technology that has made it a model fornations throughout the world. Much of thefundamental scientific research in the U.S. isfunded by the U.S. government, which is aninvestment of about $80 billion annually. TheFederal government’s research has made andcontinues to make a significant difference inthe lives of all Americans. In recognition ofthis tremendous investment and resource,Federal agencies, academic experts, and otherinformation professionals gathered April 18and 19, 2001, at the National Institute ofStandards and Technology, for a workshop toexamine how the public infrastructure forscience information could be improved andenhanced, the Workshop on “Strengtheningthe Public Information Infrastructure forScience.”

Clearly, the Internet, developed by U.S.research agencies, has had a profound effecton the conduct and communication of science,and on the expectations of the science-attentive citizen. The growing wealth ofinformation and related technology isimpacting lives and industry as never before, ata time when half of American adults use theInternet every month, and a tremendous 73%of U.S. children under the age of 18 are nowonline.1 Given these statistics, at any givenminute in a day, the need for scienceinformation is tremendous.

• Mark is a ninth-grade student and, like many young students,he is fascinated with space, the known and the unknown. When he was recently assigned to research Mars, many ofthe resources he was able to obtain in his school or locallibrary were several years old and he knew there had to beinformation on current research. But how could he find it?

• Dr. Hunter is a researcher at a National Laboratory. Recentresearch findings at her laboratory have given her newinsight into a key problem in her research area. How canshe find out about recent advances at other laboratories, andwhat opportunities for additional funding exist?

• Joe, an Idaho farmer, is asked to reduce the amount of landhe farms in order to cut back on electricity consumptionbecause Idaho’s electrical generation using hydropower hasbeen impacted by reduced snow pack. Where can he findinformation about renewable energy sources, such as windpower, to produce the power needed on his farmland?

• Jeff’s life has been turned upside-down in recent years as hehas faced numerous medical decisions regarding treatmentand options. One thing he and his family have learned is theneed to stay current on the latest research and theimportance of being informed when decisions must be madeand questions asked. But is he aware of the variousresources?

What is the common thread that is at the foundation of theseneeds? Science information

Who is sponsoring scientific research which impacts these areas? The Federal government

What is the source for ready access to information in these areas? The Internet

In fact, when you multiply these few examples by just a fractionof the millions of people that turn to the Internet each day forscience information, information that is available throughgovernment-sponsored web sites, the potential of an enhancedpublic information infrastructure for science comes into focus.

4

Impact of the Internet

Children today are growing up in the Internetage - soon many will never know what it islike not to have the Internet, just as most of ushave never lived without electricity and theassociated inconveniences. While a growingnumber of individuals turn to the Internet eachand every day as a way of life, few know thechronology of events which birthed theInternet as it is known today.

The Internet was initially conceived over 30years ago to support research. The Internetwas first conceptualized in the early 1960s bythe Department of Defense AdvancedResearch Project Agency (ARPA). The resultwas a small network called ARPANET,named after its Pentagon sponsor, intended toallow scientists and researchers to share dataand access remote computers in the UnitedStates.

In the early 1970s, the ARPANET became a“high-speed digital post office”2 as electronicmail was the most popular application forusers who collaborated on research projectsand discussed topics of various interests. Inthe late 1970s and early 1980s, thecommercial version of the ARPANET wentonline and the general public got its first insightinto the potential of networked computers.

Following the creation in the mid- to late-80sof TCP/IP, the common language of allInternet computers, the collection of networkswhich made up the ARPANET was seen asan “internet.” This came around the same timeas the boom in the personal computer andsuper-minicomputer industries, allowing manycompanies to join the Internet for the first time.

In 1984 the National Science Foundationplayed a key role in the Internet through its

Office of Advanced Scientific Computing. The newNSFNET set a new, faster pace for technicaladvancement, linking newer and fastersupercomputers, through faster links, links whichwere continually upgraded and expanded. Otheragencies followed suit and jumped in: the NationalAeronautics and Space Administration, the NationalInstitutes of Health, and the Department of Energy.

By 1987, the number of Internet hosts exceeded10,000; a number which would grow beyond300,000 in three short years by the time theARPANET was decommissioned, leaving thegrowing Internet - and the World Wide Web is born.

The nineties continued to bring major advancements,including the creation of Web browsers, Internetprogramming languages, electronic commerce, searchengines, and phenomenal growth of traffic on theInternet. Bruce Sterling wrote in his “Short Historyof the Internet,” published in 1993, “The Internet isespecially popular among scientists, and is probablythe most important scientific instrument of the latetwentieth century. The powerful, sophisticatedaccess that it provides to specialized data andpersonal communication has sped up the pace ofscientific research enormously.”3

Move ahead almost ten years later and this statementstill rings true now. What is still needed is to open upthe wealth of science information available on theInternet not just to the important research community,but to the “science-attentive citizen.”

The Workshop on “Strengthening the PublicInformation Infrastructure for Science” represents amajor step in achieving this goal.

5

PURPOSE OF THE WORKSHOP

Fulfilling the Call

Last year, the need for a comprehensive collectionof science information easily available toresearchers and students was recognized at theWorkshop on a Future Information Infrastructurefor the Physical Sciences4 in May 2000, chaired byDr. Alvin Trivelpiece, where views on thefeasibility were heard from experts in the physicalsciences and in science communication. In fact,the need has been well documented in a range ofstudies since the 1940s.

< 1945 Vannevar Bush Report to Roosevelt onscience accessibility

< 1958 Humphrey recognizes Information Age;Eisenhower issues plan

< 1960 COSATI established

< 1963 Weinberg Report: “Science, Gov’t, &

Information”

< 1965 Licklider forecasts electronic publishing

< 1976 NSF suggests Federal government ensurescientific communication

< 1983 John Creps, Jr., describes vision for library ofthe future

< 1989 NAS recommends an interconnected nationalinformation technology network

< 1991 Loken Report calls for development of aNational Physics Database

< 1994 AAU task force examines new options forcollection and dissemination of STI

< 1999 PITAC issues information technology reporton future directions

< 2000 Trivelpiece Report endorses PhysicalSciences Information Infrastructure (PSII)

One of the earliest studies was the 1945 report5

of Dr. Vannevar Bush, Director of the Office ofScientific Research and Development, toPresident Roosevelt, which called for scientiststo make the vast store of knowledge moreaccessible and thus extend man’s physical andmental power. Bush saw great potential forfocusing scientific knowledge in a new directionand developing instruments to give commandover information. He also noted that scientificprogress was essential for the good of thecountry and that science was a proper concernof government.

Today, information technology has raised theexpectations of researchers for immediate,online access to information in the physicalsciences. Panelists and participants of the May2000 workshop believed that the researchers’expectations could be met by deploying currenttechnology to provide an integrated network ofdispersed resources. The report from theworkshop, referred to as the “TrivelpieceReport,” gives a high-level vision for acomprehensive “Physical Sciences InformationInfrastructure.” The findings from thatworkshop set the foundation for “Strengtheningthe Public Information Infrastructure forScience.”

May 2000 Workshop Findings Support Need for:

< A common knowledge base - to provide integrated,comprehensive access and to facilitate reuse ofresources, regardless of where they reside.

< A point of convergence - to ensure awareness,availability, use, and development of informationtechnologies and tools.

<< An openly available source - to serve all users, fromstudents to scientists to concerned citizens, in a highlyefficient electronic environment.

6

Laying the Groundwork

The purpose of the “Strengthening the PublicInformation Infrastructure for Science”Workshop was to examine how the publicinfrastructure for science information could beimproved and enhanced. Those gathered atthe Workshop sought specifically to identifyways to improve public access to scienceinformation of the Federal agencies.

The first day of the workshop was an openmeeting that reviewed recent developments inthe changing context for science information. Developments include the National Science,Mathematics, Engineering, and TechnologyEducation (SMETE) Digital Library (NSDL)Program at the National Science Foundation,the organization of private-sector resourcesaround SMETE.ORG, the newAdministration’s policies on e-government, thesuccess of FirstGov, the growth of openarchives within the academic researchcommunity, and the emergence of technologiesfor improving access to materials on the Web.

On the second day of the workshop, federalagencies convened to identify and evaluatestrategies for strengthening the informationinfrastructure within and across existingscience agency programs. A significantgathering of over 20 government organizationsfrom 13 different agencies, all of which had astake in the public information infrastructurefor science, participated in the forum.Individual agencies have worked to respond tonew opportunities and constituency needs.

The agencies with science information areuniquely positioned to strengthen the publicinformation infrastructure for science. Thetime is right, the momentum is growing, and anadequate number of studies have been done. This realization along with the convergence of

the digital landscape, e-government initiatives, citizeninterests, and technological capabilities moved theagencies to work together on an action plan thatwould bring the vision to reality.

Defining the Science-Attentive Citizen

The prolific use of the Internet and current e-government initiatives have raised expectations by thepublic to have immediate access to full and openinformation. Web search services are the most widelyused information discovery tool in universities today. Users are becoming more familiar with searchterminology and more “savvy” on how to use theInternet.

The public is also becoming more attuned to theimpact of science on their everyday lives. Thus,citizens are more likely to look to the government foranswers to their science and technology questionsand to seek information from the government relatedto issues such as health, the human genome, space,defense, energy, food, the environment, and otherscience-related topics.

In addition to the researcher who needs access toscientific information and to the public seeker ofscience information described above, a range of other people require easy access too – includingstudents, teachers, engineers, entrepreneurs andproduct developers, policy makers, and others. Forthe purposes of science.gov, these all are included inthe definition of “science-attentive citizen.”

7

THE WORKSHOP

DAY 1: COLLABORATIVE FORUM -- Laying the Groundwork and Exploring the Changing Context forScience Information

The workshop was opened by Dr. John Rumble,who welcomed the participants and highlighted the100-year anniversary of NIST. He noted that, asagencies collectively look forward, there are manyopportunities to make a difference because theinformation revolution has far reaching impacts. Hepointed out NIST’s role in the critical evaluation ofdata, much of which is found in gray literature andabstracts, and there remains a key need to accessU.S. as well as worldwide information. A scientificand technical information (STI) infrastructure isimportant not only for NIST, but could open up anew era on how NIST approaches information in itssecond 100 years.

Following Dr. Rumble’s welcome, Brian Kahin ofthe University of Maryland’s Center for InformationPolicy provided an overview of the workshop andthe planned strategy. He highlighted three areas forthe participants’ consideration:

• The non-commercial infrastructure which is inplace and evolving.

• The user orientation approach, which impliesthat it is less about the collections but moreabout providing services to a community ofusers.

• The opportunities for leverage through an openvernacular infrastructure.

He noted that the role of Federal agencies isextremely important and they represent realresources, resources that are critical for universities.

Agencies have a key role in announcing universityresearch as well.

The first speaker, Dr. Bill Arms of CornellUniversity, presented an interesting depiction of thedigital library landscape and reviewed currenttrends.6 In regard to primary information, anunderlying trend is that every year sees an increasein the proportion of important information that isavailable with open access and there is an increasein the proportion of important information that isavailable online. He cited several examplesillustrating the changing landscape, including websites for approximately 1/3 of the courses taught atCornell and sites such as the Physics Preprint whichhas transformed research in physics. Within thegovernment there have been marked changes aswell. For example, the National Academies’ workis now widely known and even the Library ofCongress has reached new audiences. Indicative ofthe trend is the Public Library of Science initiative,which calls for the establishment of an online publiclibrary that would provide the full content of thepublished records of research and scholarlydiscourse in medicine and the life sciences in afreely accessible, full searchable, interlinked form. Clearly, the forces for open access are strong, andincreases in available information will continue toincrease. A key question now is, “How can wemake use of it?” Lending support for this importantquestion is a recent study by JSTOR that showedthere is wide use of the Internet not only in physicsand computer sciences as one might expect, butincreasingly the Internet is used to access

8

information pertaining to the humanities and socialstudies.

While access to primary information has increased,Dr. Arms also noted trends dealing with secondaryinformation. One trend dealing with the informationdiscovery process is that web search services arethe most widely used information discovery tools inuniversities today. Certainly one key reason for thisis the speed that is possible. Yet, while speed isindeed a factor, it is recognized that the openaccess information is sometimes a poor substitute. In addition, clearly much good information is notavailable with open access.

One dilemma that has emerged deals witheconomics and the overall ability to compete with afree good, which in turn may impact vulnerablelibrary budgets and publishers’ revenues. Dr.Arms presented four economic models which comeinto play, and he concluded that in regard toscholarly information, the dominant force is authorpressure, which emphasizes open access rather thanclosed access. As a result, a mixture of economicmodels will coexist, and eventually, there will beopen access to most scientific, government andprofessional information. The most commoneconomic model has information published bythe producing organization.

Dr. Arms concluded with the observation thatbefore the web, few people had access to scientific,medical, government and legal information; andnow, with the web, much high quality information isavailable with open access and low costs servicescan organize this information and provide openaccess to it.

Discussion at the Workshop then examined thecontext for infrastructure development. BrookeDickson, Information Policy and Technology,Office of Management and Budget (OMB),provided insight into current e-government initiativesand the new Administration’s commitment to e-

government7 and moving government online, asevidenced by the April 9th release of the U.S.budget. Specifically, there were four major e-government related areas in the budget:FirstGov.gov, the Government PaperworkElimination Act (GPEA), E-government Fund, andthe Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) Bridge. Ms. Dickson provided details on these four areas andthe current status of each. She concluded by statingthat while e-government may be the wave of thegovernment’s future, there remains the key areas ofsecurity, privacy and the Government’s informationpolicy as stated in OMB Circular A-130. Theseremain important in the electronic as well as thepaper world.

Tom Freebairn, General Services Administration(GSA), provided additional information andbackground on the establishment of FirstGov anddiscussed its role in providing an essentialgovernment service. FirstGov was funded in theyear 2000 by the Federal Chief InformationOfficers Council and 22 other federal agencies. President Bush's proposed 2002 Budget recognizesthe role of FirstGov in cross-agency electronicgovernment. The Budget Blueprint calls for the useof the Internet to create a citizen-centricgovernment and provides a fund that will grow to$100 million over 3 years to support electronicgovernment. FirstGov.gov is recognized as one ofthe “essential building blocks” for projects that willoperate across boundaries. Currently, the FirstGovinitiative is focused on the development of cross-agency portals that address specific user groupsand topics, such as seniors.gov and workers.gov.

With the current context of infrastructuredevelopment examined, several speakers then addressed institutional strategies. Lee Zia, NationalScience Foundation (NSF), provided an overviewof the National Science, Mathematics, Engineering,and Technology Education Digital Library (NSDL)program.8 To stimulate and sustain continual

9

improvements in the quality of science,mathematics, engineering, and technology education(SMETE), NSF launched NSDL. The resultingdigital library is intended to serve the needs oflearners belonging to a broad user audience. Discussion focused on LEARNS: a LearningEnvironment and Resources Network for SMETE. As the name implies, LEARNS is designed to meetthe needs of learners, in both individual andcollaborative settings. It is actively managed topromote reliable anytime, anywhere access toquality collections and services, available bothwithin and without the network, and is constructedto enable dynamic use of a broad array of materialsfor learning. LEARNS connects users, content andtools and thereby supports learning communities,customizable collections and application services. The various NSDL program tracks that acceptedproposals were reviewed. These are:

• Core Integration System Track - projects areexpected to focus on the coordination andmanagement of the library’s core collectionsand services and to develop the library’s centralportal;

• Collections Track - projects are expected toaggregate and manage a subset of the library'scontent within a coherent theme or specialty;

• Services Track - projects are expected todevelop services that support users, collectionproviders; and

• Targeted Research Track - projects areexpected to explore specific topics that haveimmediate applicability to one of the other threetracks.

Zia highlighted various issues and questions beingaddressed throughout the process.

Walt Warnick of DOE’s Office of Scientific andTechnical Information (OSTI) provided a concept for

achieving universal access to science information,9

thereby moving toward the science part of thePITAC (President’s Information TechnologyAdvisory Committee) vision of “universal access tohuman knowledge.”10 He began by confirming theshared mission among many of the participants todisseminate scientific and technical information. Henoted the shared premise that the web is today’stool of choice and that interagency collaboration isneeded. One underlying fact is that science is notbounded by organization or geography. Dr. Warnickreviewed the overwhelming support for aninteragency science portal, which is not onlyevidenced by the PITAC reports and theAdministration’s expectations for e-government, butalso by many of the ongoing initiatives beingdiscussed at this Workshop and other historicalstudies including the 2000 Trivelpiece Report. Examples of interagency collaborations that cameabout as a result of the Trivelpiece Workshop in2000 and broke new ground regarding interagencycollaborations were highlighted. Thesecollaborations, GrayLIT Network(http://www.osti.gov/graylit) and Federal R&DProject Summaries (http://www.osti.gov/fedrnd),provide improved access to scientific and technicalresearch information across several Federalagencies. A key benefit resulting from these tools isthe capability to search documents with a singlequery across databases of many Federal agenciesto find and combine information regardless of whereit happens to reside. Therefore, with these newtools, it is no longer necessary for a user to knowwhich agency is working in a particular area ordiscipline. GrayLIT Network provides a portalfor over 120,000 full-text technical reports locatedat the Department of Energy, Department ofDefense, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),and National Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA). Federal R&D Project Summariesincludes more than 300,000 research summaries forthree of the major sponsors of research in theFederal government. The Federal databases

10

available via this tool are the Department of EnergyR&D Project Summaries; the National Institutes ofHealth (NIH) CRISP (Computer Retrieval ofInformation on Scientific Projects) Current Awards;and the National Science Foundation (NSF) AwardData. Dr. Warnick introduced the DOE-developedmodel for science.gov through which universalaccess to science information could begin takingshape.

Building the SMETE.org Alliance was the topic ofthe next presentation.11 Brandon Muramatsu,SMETE.ORG/UC Berkeley, highlighted efforts tobuild a successful NSDL for deployment in Fall2002 to focus on science, mathematics, engineeringand technology, and most importantly education. Towards this end, a team has been developed tonot only overcome various challenges, but to covertarget audiences and disciplines and to share in thedevelopment efforts. The result is SMETE.ORG(http://www.smete.org/), an alliance of over 20partners - industry and other collaborators - whichprovides seamless access through a tightly coupledfederation of educational digital libraries. Designprinciples are in place to address informationorganization, labeling, navigation and searching; andvarious partnership models are at work inSMETE.ORG. The alliance works well together,but also activities do not detract from what partnershave done individually. In fact, the strengths of thepartners are a key to the success. The partnerswith existing collections each have a decade ofexperience providing digital SMETE resources totheir target audiences and disciplines, and mostpartners each have more than ten years ofexperience as organizations promoting SMETEreform, and organizations serve the full spectrum ofaudiences.

Prior to continuation of presentations focusing onspecific institutional strategies, Daniel Greenstein,Digital Library Federation, provided a perspectiveof “The Digital Library as a Community, not a

Repository.”12 He described the varied functionsof the digital library and provided perspective onkey challenges which he views as drivers. Keychallenges include technologies and their use, benchmarking, digital preservation, mobilizing expertise,institutional obstacles, and issues with collectionsand users. For each challenge, he highlighted thebasic problem area, and elaborated on promisingdirections and “logical trajectories” pertaining toeach. Examples were given for a number of currentDigital Library initiatives that are up and operating,representing various program models. It wasGreenstein’s opinion that assembling the variousagencies at the Workshop was promising, since it isimportant to mobilize the scarce capacity that mayexist individually. It was noted that it is important tounderstand how information is being used, and tonot operate in a vacuum.

A second panel of speakers from severalgovernment agencies then continued the focus oninstitutional strategies. Eleanor Frierson of theNational Agricultural Library (NAL) discussedInstitutional Strategies for Partnerships.13 NAL iscurrently involved in a variety of partnershiparrangements, including collaboration with landgrant universities, and projects and activities withother national libraries, other federal libraries, andinternational organizations. She shared with theworkshop participants lessons learned throughthese various partnerships and stressed theimportance of flexibility, noting that there are manysolutions to problems and challenges.

Successful partnerships - for any type of businessenterprise - require:

• “Wins” for all partners,

• A good fit between mandates and partnershipgoals,

• Energetic leadership and an honest broker toexecute activities,

11

• Open communication among all members,

• Stated objectives agreed upon by the partners, and

• Recognition of individual contributions.

These qualities are also key to forming asuccessful interagency alliance for scienceinformation. Interagency collaborations are amodel for interdisciplinary or cross-agencyresearch projects, and the lessons learned couldwell be applied to the development of a scienceinformation infrastructure. One successfulpartnership in place is AgNIC, a voluntary allianceof NAL, land-grant universities and otheragricultural organizations, in cooperation withcitizen groups and government agencies. AgNIC(http://www.agnic.org/) provides agriculturalinformation in electronic format. There arecurrently 40 partners, and member participantstake responsibility for small segments ofagricultural information (including basic, applied,and developmental research, extension, teachingactivities, etc.) and develop Web sites andreference services in specific subject areas.Members agree on stated benefits, and thecollective AgNIC Web resource benefits allmembers in ways that the individual memberscannot achieve alone, thus justifying the local costsof participation. Each official institutional memberof AgNIC commits to certain activities in supportof the Alliance and its work.

Gladys Cotter of the U.S. Geological Service alsoprovided useful information on a partnership modelin her discussion of the National BiologicalInformation Infrastructure (NBII).14 The NBII(http://www.nbii.gov) is a broad, collaborativeprogram to provide access to data and informationon the Nation’s biological resources and tools forintegration and analysis. It links biologicaldatabases, information products, and analyticaltools maintained by NBII partners and othercontributors in government agencies, academic

institutions, non-government organizations, andprivate industry. From the outset, the NBIIfocused on community building for collaborativedevelopment of standards, content andtechnologies. The coalition of partners was builtvia interagency collaboration, regional nodes,cross-disciplinary support, and involvement by arange of participants. The BioEco WorkingGroup provides a U.S. focal point forinteragency, intergovernmental and internationalcooperation and a forum for targeted activities.Through the NBII, not only is access providedto a great variety of biological data and toolsfrom multiple sources, but participants have astructured way to showcase, share andexchange the biological data and tools they areproducing - thereby benefitting both the usersand the providers.

“Toward an STI Network” was the title of apresentation given by Kurt Molholm,Administrator of the Defense TechnicalInformation Center (DTIC).15 DTIC providesscientific and technical (S&T) managementsupport and assists in collaboration, as well asproviding S&T results and points of contact toresearchers. Through DTIC,researcher efficiency is promoted as well asenterprise effectiveness, and the focus is ondelivery of information content. Molholmprovided examples of customer-orientedproducts that serve DTIC users, including thepublic and the secure STINET service. Othercustomer oriented tools include the S&TCollaboration Tool, which provides a paperlessworkflow management site fordocument creation, review and revision,allowing approximately 200 geographicallydispersed users to collaborate online; and theVirtual Technology Expo (VTE) whichprovides information on emerging technologiesand showcases research efforts to a broaderaudience. Molholm also provided information onthe Department of Defense (DoD) sponsoredInformation Analysis Centers

12

(IACs). There are currently 13 IACs covering allof the DoD critical technology areas, with thepurpose of collecting, analyzing, synthesizing, anddisseminating worldwide information in their definedfield or subject area. They also promotestandardization within their respective fields. Additional information is available athttp://iac.dtic.mil/. In closing, Molholm reviewedareas that require ongoing attention and necessitatea balancing act. These are: resource allocation, risktaking, the digital divide, risk management, andcitizens versus hackers.

Following presentations on some of the leadingscientific information programs in the Federalgovernment, Brain Kahin wrapped up the day’sdiscussion by summarizing some of theopportunities and issues of the day.

13

DAY 2: INTERAGENCY WORKING MEETING -- Developing an Interagency Strategy for Implementation:The Resources, Opportunities, and Challenges to Develop an Interagency Science Portal

The second day of the workshop was planned asan interagency meeting to identify potential ways tostrengthen the information infrastructure within andacross existing science agency programs. Certainlyscience mission agencies have been and continue tobe impacted by the quickly changing landscape. Having heard the landscape and issues describedby key experts on the preceding day, theinteragency meeting provided an opportunity toreflect on and discuss the concept of an nationalinfrastructure in the context of the newAdministration’s priorities and current calls to furtherthe e-government initiative.

The meeting was kicked off by Bonnie Carroll,Information International Associates, who reviewedthe reaction to day 1 and put the information incontext across agency lines.16 Each of the scienceagencies now offers information and services on theWeb. There is increasing pressure on governmentinstitutions to provide access through this medium.Most activities are agency-centric, which is properwhere organizations were created and funded firstand foremost to support an agency-specific mission.However, science is not bounded by organization. Thus the topic or thematic approach, providingborderless pathways to science informationwherever it resides without the consumer needing toknow where it resides, is a worthwhile pursuit forinteragency collaboration. Based on a review ofday 1, it was evident that the building blocks areavailable and the assets that could be rallied areenormous.

While individual agencies have worked together inrecent years on various initiatives and specificprojects, some under the auspices of CENDI, thisWorkshop was considered by many as a keyturning point in advancing a governmental

collaboration for an information infrastructure forthe sciences. It was noted by some attendees thatthis was the broadest recorded representationamong the science mission agencies regardingtechnical information issues.

Several agency representatives providedinformation on other agency-specific initiatives thatdemonstrate examples of capabilities to be broughtto the table. Each of these capabilities presented aunique area of accomplishment and were presentedas examples of agency contributions to aninteragency effort.

Karen Holland of NAIC provided an overview ofMachine Translations. As an organization withresponsibilities in intelligence, there has been a longstanding need for rapid post editing and translationin order to feed data to analysts. Focus areas haveshifted over the years, but a machine translationsprocess has been established to meet the needs ofthe NAIC community. There are clearly growingand universal applications for such a capability inthe science community.

Wally Finch, Associate Director for BusinessDevelopment at the National Technical InformationService (NTIS), provided information on the NTISScience Portal Initiative.17 NTIS, as part of theU.S. Department of Commerce's TechnologyAdministration, was established to collect andprovide permanent access to the Nation’s scientific,technical and engineering information (STEI). Aswith many Federal agencies, NTIS has faced thechallenges in the Internet era of ensuring permanentaccess and searching for and finding relevantinformation. NTIS is addressing these challenges. Consistent with recent advancements in its operatingsystems, NTIS has addressed the need for a

14

persistent digital identifier by implementing theHandle System, which assigns, manages, andresolves persistent identifiers for digital objects inmultiple locations. In the upcoming months, a newdatabase will also be launched, www.scitech.gov,which will provide a database of key STEIresources: expertise, facilities, R&D results,government inventions, and photos and images. This is envisioned as a primary contribution to across-agency science portal.

In follow-up to Dr. Warnick’s presentation on day 1,Karen Spence of DOE’s Office of Scientific andTechnical Information (OSTI) presented thescience.gov model.18 The model represents theculmination of progress since the Department ofEnergy hosted the May 2000 Workshop, whichendorsed the vision of a national infrastructure forthe sciences. Following that workshop, OSTIbegan a dialogue on the nature of a “science.gov”collaborative site and the potential forms it couldtake. In order to further the discussion at thisWorkshop and to offer a forum for feedback, OSTIestablished a shell site at www.science.gov, whichincludes a representative sampling of the types ofinformation that could be included. Spenceprovided a demonstration of the site, highlighting thepotential functionality. While the DOE site isconsidered a model, it integrates the distributedsearch tool used in other DOE products, which iseasy to use, utilizes parallel searching, and retrievesinformation from heterogeneous and geographicallydispersed databases and Web sites, therebyproviding a tremendous tool for cross-agencyinitiatives.

Following these presentations of examples ofagency contributions, two groups met in concurrentbreakout sessions: one addressing content sources,scope, and coverage with Lee Zia, NSF, serving asmoderator; and the second group charged withaddressing tools and technologies, and chaired byJohn Rumble of NIST. The first group was asked

to address audiences, technical disciplines andinterrelationships, and the types ofmaterial/information available. The second groupwas asked to consider the following topicspertaining to tools and technologies: archives,distributed search tools/deep web applications,intelligent agents, metadata management tools,special services (push technologies; alert services),and web mining. Presentations of the groupsdeliberations were then made to the larger group.

Throughout the discussions, agency representativesclearly recognized the tremendous value of makingscience information resources more accessible. When the question, “What if we don’t do this?,”was proposed to the group, the general consensuswas that doing nothing is not an option. The overallvalue of enhanced access was not disputed. Withthat question laid to rest, several key pointsemerged from the agencies’ deliberation.

EMERGING KEY POINTS

<< Integrate Science Assets

“Individual agencies have enormous informationassets”

Agencies individually bring enormous assets toserve as the building blocks for an integratedinformation infrastructure. In recent years, agencieshave and continue to utilize information agetechnologies and, in some cases have radicallychanged their information services to bring scienceinformation to the desktop. In addition, new toolsand capabilities have evolved to facilitate the use ofdigital information.

15

<< Serve Science-Attentive Citizen

“The ‘science-attentive citizen’ may be served”

A fundamental question was foremost in thediscussion, “Who are we working to serve?” Ofcourse, each agency operates under specificmandates and guidelines, and informationorganizations work to fulfill their respectiveagencies’ diverse missions. However, while theagencies’ missions may be diverse, science agenciesshare a specific responsibility for disseminatingscientific information; i.e., the result of Federallyfunded research, in easily accessible and usefulways that will benefits the users of the information.

Agencies currently serve the public through variousproducts and services dependent on their missionand guidelines. However, for a large segment ofthe public, access to much government scienceinformation available on the Web is something thatrequires effort and understanding of the variousagencies involved in order to access their sites orinformation outlets. As the public increasingly isattune to using the web, what is needed is an“intuitive” access point on the Web for governmentscience information. This approach is consistentwith the FirstGov approach to move toward subjectportals or gateways for information access. Byworking together under an overarching framework,agencies have an opportunity to effectivelyconceptualize government science information forthe public, and to provide information through ascience gateway based on topic areas rather thanhave information bounded by organizational lines. Simply put, this is an opportunity to say to thescience-attentive public, “Your government does alot of science!”

<< Increase Visibility

“Opportunity to increase visibility for agencyholdings and contributions to science”

Clearly, working toward a single gateway forgovernment science information presents atremendous opportunity to increase visibility foragency holdings, and thereby facilitate access totax-payer funded resources and information. Evenamong the attendees who were knowledgeable ofgovernment science resources, much was learnedabout several agencies’ current capabilities andinitiatives. This point alone underscores the value ofestablishing an infrastructure that will facilitateaccess and visibility, not only for the public butacross the Federal research base.

Thus, an important outcome of an informationinfrastructure for science is the increased awarenessacross the Federal government, thereby allowingresearchers to take advantage of what agenciesalready do for their own purposes.

<< Meet National Policy

“Responds to call for national policy”

Recent calls for increased collaboration and forfurthering access to government information directlycoincide with the objective of the Workshop. Forexample, the February 2001 report of the PITACDigital Libraries Panel stated, “the Federalgovernment can do much more by creating digitallibraries faster, improving the access to digitalcontent by the many people who today cannot availthemselves of it, and adopting the aggressive andvisionary goal of providing digital content to everycitizen.”10 PITAC has also called for transforminghow we conduct research, with scientific andtechnical information being an integrated part of theresearch process.19

16

<< Serve Agency Constituents

“Agencies will continue to serve their primaryaudience - their constituents”

The science mission agencies represented at theWorkshop encompassed the spectrum of science-related disciplines and are in the forefront of theworld’s research in areas as diverse as humangenome, physics, entomology, agriculturalengineering, and a range of other sciencedisciplines. Each organization is funded first andforemost to support their respective agency mission,and this was strongly confirmed among theparticipants. In addition, these organizations are theexperts on their information, with full knowledgeand experience on how to structure information fortheir own constituents. In whatever framework isestablished, there should not be an attempt to pre-determine for the agencies what information orinformation tools should be encompassed under asingle gateway. Rather the gateway concept willdepend on the expertise and the knowledge of theorganizations involved to make thosedeterminations. Thus, one of the main pointsclearly evident among the organizations is thatworking together to establish an informationstructure for science should in no way detract froman agencies’ primary constituents. Yet it wasrecognized that, in many instances, a scienceinfrastructure can significantly strengthen the base ofinformation available for their own constituents.

<< Deliver Science Resources

“Bring all government science resources to thebroader science community”

While it was recognized that an informationinfrastructure for science can strengthen the base ofinformation available for the constituents of thevarious agencies, it was also noted that a collectiveeffort can bring all government science resources tothe broader science community. This broaderscience community encompasses not onlyresearchers in the private sector, but universitiesand other educational institutions. This is especiallyneeded at a time when the boundaries betweenscientific disciplines are increasingly less defined, interms of advancing our understanding and solvingscientific problems. The potential for crossdisciplinary research and discovery is a key driverin supporting a cross-agency collaboration.

<< Broaden Science Community

“Use this meeting to build a broader communityof agency participants”

Attendees at this meeting represented over 20Federal information organizations, each tasked withspecific responsibilities as well as unique knowledgeand skills. Many of the organizations present wereactive participants in CENDI,20 which encompassesten organizations from nine U.S. Federal Agencies:Department of Commerce, Department of Energy,Environmental Protection Agency, NationalAeronautics and Space Administration, NationalLibraries of Agriculture, Education and Medicine,Department of Defense, and Department of theInterior. However, this meeting includedrepresentatives from additional organizations, andthe phrase “CENDI+” was used to characterize theorganizations represented. An important outcomeof the meeting was the opportunity to make new

17

contacts and foster new relationships to beginbuilding a broader community. Also, while therepresentation was significant, there are certainlyother organizations within the Government which aninformation infrastructure for science wouldencompass, but were unable to attend. ThisWorkshop was certainly an important step informalizing next steps, steps that can then becommunicated to other key organizations, which inturn will strengthen the power of this collaboration.

CONCLUSION AND FINDINGS

Following the deliberation which resulted in the keypoints noted above, it was evident that the buildingblocks exist to begin to form a public informationinfrastructure for science and that there are clearbenefits in this interagency collaboration. Thequestions which now presented themselves were,“What decisions should be reached at thisWorkshop,” and “What next steps should betaken?”

A principal representative from each agencyparticipated in a focused discussion to workthrough these key questions.

This focused discussion resulted in the followingfindings:

• The concept of an interagency science gatewaywhereby the agencies would collectively servethe science-attentive citizen was unanimouslyendorsed by each of the agencies present.

• This cross-agency science gateway will bereferred to as Science.gov.

• In the near-term, this gateway will begin withthe basics and facilitate links to currentresources.

• Mid-term goals include additional features andimprovements to more fully unify scienceinformation of each of the participatingagencies.

• Twelve agencies agreed to form theScience.gov Alliance.

• A Core Team of the Science.gov Allianceagreed to meet as soon as possible to outline anaction plan. The Core Team includes:Department of Agriculture/National AgriculturalLibrary, Department of Energy/Office ofScientific and Technical Information,Environmental Protection Agency/Office ofResearch and Development, Department ofCommerce/National Technical InformationService, National Institutes of Health/NationalLibrary of Medicine, and United StatesGeological Survey/Water Resource Division.

• An overview of the Workshop and the findingswill be presented at the next meeting of theFirstGov working group.

Post Note:

What was accomplished in the day and a halfWorkshop is considered a tremendous stepforward in interagency collaboration, and one withthe potential to dramatically change access togovernment science resources. The plannedScience.gov gateway has been described as aunified navigation path to science done by thegovernment, a type of electronic federacy ofscience mission agencies, responding to thePresident's Information Technology AdvisoryCommittee recommendations and e-governmentinitiatives. This Workshop, along with the May2000 workshop sponsored by the Department ofEnergy which resulted in the report “FutureInformation Infrastructure for the Physical Sciences”

18

(available at http://www.osti.gov/physicalsciences/)and future deliberations of the Science.gov Alliance,provide agencies with a practical road map andlong-term vision for advancing the scienceinfrastructure on pace with information technologyand the Internet.

Since the April Workshop, representatives of theScience.gov Alliance Core Team met twice (onMay 18 and June 4, 2001) and also haveparticipated in two meetings of FirstGov. At theMay meeting of FirstGov, Science.gov wasofficially designated as the “FirstGov for Science”web site. A Technical Team met June 7, 2001, tobegin the real work of web site design anddevelopment. Plans are under way to have a website ready for public announcement by late summer2001.

Additional updates from the Science.gov Alliancewill be posted at www.science.gov/workshop asthey become available.

19

References

1. Laura Rohde. “Internet Access Is Almost Everywhere.” IDG News Service. February 20, 2001.Available: http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,42063,00.asp.

2. “Life on the Internet: Net Timeline.” PBS Online. Cochran Interactive, 1997. Available:http://www.pbs.org/internet/timeline/index.html.

3. Bruce Sterling. “Short History of the Internet.” From Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction,February 1993. Available: http://www.forthnet.gr/forthnet/isoc/short.history.of.internet.

4. “Workshop Report on a Future Information Infrastructure for the Physical Sciences: The Facts of theMatter: Finding, understanding, and using information about our physical world.” Held at the NationalAcademy of Sciences, May 30-31, 2000, Dr. Alvin Trivelpiece, Chair. Department of Energy, July 2000.Available: http://www.osti.gov/physicalsciences/wkshprpt.pdf.

5. Vannevar Bush. “Science - The Endless Frontier.” U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1945.Available: http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm.

6. William Y. Arms. “The Digital Library Landscape: Looking for Trends.” Cornell University. Available:http://www.science.gov/workshop/barms.pdf.

7. Brooke Dickson. “Update on e-Government.” Office of Management and Budget. Available:http://www.science.gov/workshop/bdickson.pdf.

8. Lee Zia. “The National SMET Education Digital Library (NSDL) Program.” National ScienceFoundation. Available: http://www.science.gov/workshop/lzia.pdf.

9. Walter L. Warnick. “Universal Access to Science Information.” Department of Energy. Available:http://www.science.gov/workshop/Wwarnick.pdf.

10. “Digital Libraries: Universal Access to Human Knowledge,” Feb. 9, 2001, PITAC Digital LibrariesPanel. Available: http://www.itrd.gov/pubs/pitac/pitac-dl-9feb01.pdf.

11. Brandon Muramatsu. “Building the SMETE.ORG Alliance.” SMETE.ORG. Available:http://www.science.gov/workshop/bmuramatsu.pdf.

12. Daniel Greenstein. “Digital Library as Community not Repository.” Digital Library Federation. Available:http://www.science.gov/workshop/dgreenstein.pdf.

13. Eleanor Frierson. “Institutional Strategies for Partnerships.” National Agricultural Library. Available:http://www.science.gov/workshop/efrierson.pdf.

14. Gladys Cotter. “NBII: A Federation Approach.” U.S. Geological Service. Available:http://www.science.gov/workshop/gcotter.pdf.

20

15. Kurt Molholm. “Toward an STI Network.” Defense Technical Information Center. Available:http://www.science.gov/workshop/kmolholm.pdf.

16. Bonnie Carroll. “Public Information Infrastructure for Science.” Information International Associates.Available: http://www.science.gov/workshop/carroll-kahin.pdf.

17. Walter Finch. “National Technical Information Service (NTIS) Science Portal Initiatives.” NTIS.Available: http://www.science.gov/workshop/wfinch.pdf.

18. Karen Spence. “Science.gov Model.” Department of Energy Office of Scientific and TechnicalInformation. Available: http://www.science.gov/workshop/spence.html.

19. “Information Technology Research: Investing in Our Future,” February 1999, President's InformationTechnology Advisory Committee, http://www.ccic.gov/ac/report/.

20. “CENDI Federal STI Managers Group.” Available: http://131.84.1.34/cendi/cendi_home.html.

21

Attachment A

AGENDAApril 18-19, 2001

Day 1: Laying the GroundworkCollaborative Forum

8:30 am Welcome to NIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . John Rumble, NIST8:40 am Workshop Overview and Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . Brian Kahin, University of Maryland8:50 am The Digital Library Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bill Arms, Cornell University9:40 am Context for Infrastructure Development

e-Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brooke Dickson, OMBFirstGov . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tom Freebairn, GSA

10:15 am Break

10:30 a.m. Institutional Strategies I (Panel)The NSDL Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lee Zia, NSFUniversal Access to Science Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . Walt Warnick, DOESMETE.ORG . . . . . . . . . . Brandon Muramatsu, SMETE.ORG/UC Berkeley

12:15 noon Lunch on Your Own

1:45 pm The Digital Library as a Community, not a Repository . . . . . . . . . . . . Dan Greenstein,Digital Library Federation

2:30 pm Institutional Strategies II (Panel)Institutional Strategies for Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . Eleanor Frierson, NAL

3:00 pm Break

3:15 pm Institutional Strategies II (Panel Continued)NBII: A Federation Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gladys Cotter, USGSToward an STI Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kurt Molholm, DTIC

4:15 pm Opportunities and Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brian Kahin, University Of Maryland

5:15 - 7:00 pmNetworking and Partnering Reception at the Gaithersburg Hilton

22

Day 2: Developing an Interagency Strategy for Implementation(Federal Agencies Only)

The resources, opportunities, and challenges to develop an interagency science portal.

8:30 a.m. Plenary Discussion:Reaction to Day 1, Infrastructure Integration and Portal Design

Brian Kahin, University of MD/Bonnie Carroll, IIA9:00 am Making Partnerships Happen

Machine Translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Karen Holland, NAICNTIS Digital Object Identifier (DOI) Registry Initiative . . . . . . . . . Wally Finch, NTISscience.gov Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Karen Spence, DOE/OSTI

9:45 am Break

10:00 am Concurrent Breakout Sessions

I. Content Sources, Scope, and Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lee Zia, NSFAudiencesTechnical disciplines and interrelationships

Agricultural SciencesBiomedical SciencesEarth SciencesEngineeringEnvironmental/Ecological SciencesPhysical SciencesSpace Sciences

Types of material/information available

II. Tools/Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . John Rumble, NISTArchivesDistributed Search Tools/Deep Web ApplicationsIntelligent AgentsMetadata Management ToolsSpecial Services (push technologies; alert services)Web Mining

11:30 am Share Conclusions/Next Steps12:15 pm Principals Working Lunch (by Invitation Only): Forming Partnerships

- Identify projects and agency champions- Commit to contributions for: content, tools, technologies- Lay out time line and actions

2:00 pm Report Writing Team: Voluntary Team Begins Outlining Workshop Report

24

Attachment BWorkshop Participants

Name OrganizationAllen, Valerie DOE/Office of Scientific and Technical InformationAndre, Pamela Q.J National Agricultural LibraryArms, Caroline Library of CongressArms, William Cornell UniversityAstley, Allan Defense Technical Information CenterBauldock, Barbara U.S. Geological SurveyBlume, Martin The American Physical SocietyBold, Thomas National Technical Information ServiceBorchelt, Rick DOE Office of ScienceBrown, Angela Energy Information AdministrationBuffum, Elizabeth NASA CASIBurrows, Howard Raytheon ITSSCarroll, Bonnie CENDIChristian, Elliot U.S. Geological SurveyCotter, Gladys U.S. Geological SurveyDattoria, Vince DOE/Office of Scientific and Technical InformationDavis, Richard U.S. Government Printing OfficeDay, Maureen Environmental Protection AgencyDickson, Brooke Office of Management and BudgetDiggin, Denise DOE Energy LibraryDraggan, Sidney U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyErwin, James Defense Technical Information CenterFinch, Wally National Technical Information ServiceFratkin, Susan SURAFreebairn, Tom FirstGovFrierson, Eleanor G. National Agricultural LibraryGibson, Julie Defense Technical Information CenterGilmore, Judy DOE/Office of Scientific and Technical InformationGreenstein, Daniel Digital Library FederationGriffith, Jane Bortnick National Library of MedicineHellman, Eric Openly Informatics, Inc.Hodge, Gail CENDIHolland, Karen USAF/National Air Intelligence CenterHolland, Mike Office of Management and BudgetHunt, Stephen National Library of EducationJohnson, Richard SPARCJordan, Sharon DOE/Office of Scientific and Technical InformationKahin, Brian University of MarylandKase, Kate U.S. Geological SurveyLahr, Tom U.S. Geological SurveyLal, Nand NASALanfear, Kenneth U.S. Geological SurveyLehmann, Edward National Technical Information ServiceLesk, Michael National Science FoundationMcDermott, Patrice OMB WatchMcDonald, Jim IWA, Inc.Molholm, Kurt Defense Technical Information Center

25

Muramatsu, Brandon SMETE.ORG/UC BerkeleyNemeth, John C. Oak Ridge Associated UniversitiesRandall, Carl Defense Technical Information CenterRajan, Krishna Rensselaer Polytechnic InstituteRidgeway, Roland NASA HeadquartersRumble, John National Institute of Standards and TechnologyRyan, R. Paul Defense Technical Information CenterScott, RL DOE/Office of Scientific and Technical InformationShepanek, Robert Environmental Protection AgencySpence, Karen DOE/Office of Scientific and Technical InformationSturrock, Charles NIST Technology ServicesSuthard, Pete Defense Technical Information CenterWarnick, Walt DOE/Office of Scientific and Technical InformationWeingarten, Fred American Library AssociationWood, Fred National Library of MedicineZia, Lee National Science Foundation

26

Attachment C

Science.gov Alliance Participants

Department of AgricultureNational Agricultural Library

Department of CommerceNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyNational Technical Information Service

Department of DefenseDefense Technical Information CenterNational Air Intelligence Center

Department of EducationNational Library of Education

Department of EnergyEnergy LibraryOffice of ScienceOffice of Scientific and Technical Information

Department of Health and Human ServicesNational Institutes of HealthNational Library of Medicine

Department of the InteriorUnited States Geological SurveyNational Biological Information InfrastructureWater Resource Division

Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Research and Development

National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationScientific and Technical Information Program

National Science Foundation

Science.gov Core Team MembersEleanor Frierson, NAL, ChairJane Bortnick Griffith, NLM, Vice ChairWally Finch, NTISTom Lahr, USGSKen Lanfear, USGSBob Shepanek, EPARick Thoroughgood, DTICWalt Warnick, DOEBonnie Carroll and Gail Hodge, CENDI Secretariat