1. Creating The Oregon State Electronic Documents Repository
Robert Hulshof-Schmidt
State Library
April 2006

2. OVERVIEW Intent of the Repository What Makes the Repository Feasible
Impact of the Repository
Technology Needs
Planned Workflow
Challenges
Current Progress
Next Steps

3. Intent of the Repository
Collaboration between State Library and state agencies
Provide ongoing access to state documents
Recognize increasing shift to electronic publishing
Simplify documents requirements for agencies
Increase access to state documents
Utilize existing technology

4. What Makes the Repository Feasible
Most agencies already publish electronically
Content management system for agency websites (TeamSite software)
Legislative mandate

5. Legislative Mandate
“Relating to public documents made available to State Library.”
Introduced by the Governor on behalf of the State Library Board of Trustees
Reduces required number of print documents
Requires agencies to provide State Library with an electronic copy of documents
Effective date Jan. 1, 2006

6. Implementing the Mandate
Oregon Administrative Rules
Change print depository language and participating libraries
Create definition of “document”
Create list of exempted materials
Set up process for negotiation

7. What is a Document?
An issuing agency must provide to the State Library electronic versions of any public document produced by the issuing agency if the public document:
is required by law as a public report;
is required by law to be sent to the Governor, President of the Senate, or Speaker of the House;
is intended to educate the public about the work of the issuing agency;
describe the issuing agency’s programs, overall activities, or policies;
is an annual report of the issuing agency’s activities; or
reports the results of a formal study or investigation conducted by or on behalf of the issuing agency.

8. What isn’t a Document?
An issuing agency need not provide the Library with copies, including electronic versions, of the following types of documents:
those public documents specifically exempted by statute;
the text of speeches, press releases, or written testimony, including testimony to Legislative committees;
documents produced under contract that includes a limited duration distribution clause;
documents that describe only the internal operations of the issuing agency, the internal policies of the issuing agency, or both;
documents produced for rulemaking, such as those described in ORS or ORS ;
documents created for and filed with a court in a matter pending before the court, including motions and briefs; and
materials of a dynamic or ephemeral nature offered as part of an online service or website.

9. And, When in Doubt…
Questions regarding the need to deposit specific documents not clearly addressed by this policy will be resolved by a joint decision of the State Library, the State Archives and the issuing agency.

10. Impact on Citizens & Libraries
Fewer libraries will act as print depositories
Increases public access to documents over time
Ensures permanent access to documents
State Library will provide catalog records
All libraries with Internet access will be able to provide access to electronic documents

11. Impact on State Agencies
Reduces printing burden
Makes use of technology already in place
Relies on trained State Library staff for maintenance and access
Requires up-front agreement on process

12. Technology Needs Process for flagging new documents
Temporary storage for documents in process
Permanent repository storage space
Ongoing secure archive

13. Planned Workflow Agency mounts document to its website
Agency indicates that a document is mounted
- or –
System rule indicates that a document is mounted
State Library internal workflow:
Process documents
Catalog documents
Mount documents to repository server
Documents accessible through library catalog(s)

14. Challenges What is a document? How do we identify documents?
Many public documents are multipart or serial
Updated / changing versions
Document format
Content management “wrappers”
Creating effective links

15. Sample Catalog Record

16. Current Progress Met with advisory committees Implemented new rules
Planned basic workflow
Set up initial technology
Begun staff training
Begun workflow testing

17. Next Steps Complete workflow for “easy” documents
Begin investigating multipart and serial workflow(s)
Begin populating repository
“Go Live” July 1

18. Questions? Robert Hulshof-Schmidt
Government Research & Electronic Services
Oregon State Library
Updated info on the project