I think it is useful and important, especially in this age of volatile digital records, to
recognize two distinct types of permanence: physical permanence and
cultural permanence.  Physical permanence simply refers to how long a
record can physically be preserved such that it is still in useable
condition. Cultural permanence refers to how long a record is culturally
"useful," with the exact meaning of useful depending on the context (e.g.,
for active records, useful is defined in reference to the creator's needs,
legal obligations, mandate, mission, etc., for inactive records, it is
defined in reference to the repository's mandate appraisal,
accessioning/deaccessioning and preservation policies, all of which are,
in large part, determined by and responsive to, society's archival
preservation needs writ large -- or, in the case of a specialized
repository, the needs of the subset of society for whom the repository is
preserving the records).

As for setting preservation policies, the organization should of course
use the cultural permanence as the guidepost in their policy document.  In
reality, however, the actual permanence will ultimately be determined by
which ever ends up being the shorter of the two.  For digital records,
this means that physical permanence is likely to be the de facto
determiner in many, if not most, cases.  But one of the key advantages of
using cultural permanence as the guidepost in the policy document is that
it emphasizes the fact that it makes little sense to try to preserve
something "permanently" in the "forever" sense of the word "just because,"
even if it were somehow physically possible, if there is not cultural need
to do so in the first place.  In other words, it helps emphasize the point
that 'permanence' is (or should be) contingent on and measured in relation
to cultural need, rather than some culturally-irrelevant time scale.

Catherine Yasui, M.A.
University of British Columbia


On 8 Nov 2006 at 11:27, Ronald W. Frazier wrote:

For what it's worth.  After seeing a link to the retention
requirements for the state of GA on one of these lists, I found out
that the GA Archives is not too far from me.  I set up an appointment
with the Assistant Director to see the facility and learn about how
they handle electronic records.  It should be quite interesting.  I
had noticed that some of the statements in the retention schedule said
"permanent".  I asked him about that.  He said that while they may
debate about what should be permanent, permanent means forever.  He
was very definitive about it.  I thought that was interesting.  I'm
not sure anyone quite knows how to store records forever, particularly
electronically.

Sincerely,

Ron

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance