UNCLASSIFIED
Trudy, Larry

One thing I have observed over the years, is that in Australia, there
does not seem to be the same use of microform for long term preservation
as there appears to be in the USA. 

Maybe it is that cultural difference that has coloured my comments?

Sure, we do have our fair share of micrographics experts etc, but I have
not seen any significant push to microfilm documents on any large scale.
As far as I am aware, the National Archives has not recently undertaken
any filming of documents as an accessibility measure - we tend to scan
them instead and make them available via our website. In my 30-odd years
of experience, I have only used microfiche (COM) in one place - for
metadata reference purposes, not for the actual records themselves. This
was introduced as an 'interim' measure - between card based indexes and
a 'proper' computerised records management system (which were in their
embryonic phase back them).

Also, my experience is currently in 'born-digital' records, so
converting them to film (or even paper) seems very 'old-fashioned'.

Also in my defence, I was trying to be as concise as possible. Obviously
issues surrounding the long term preservation of, and access to, any
type of record is a complex beast.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Trudy M Phillips
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 1:54 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [RM] PDF/A: A Viable Addition to the Preservation Toolkit
[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

I agree with Larry's comment's. Microform is proven to be long lasting
and 
makes an excellent long term backup for information that is needed  
permanently over many decades.  For short term retention and by that I
mean no 
longer than 5-7 years or even 10, then digitalization is, in my opinion,
a 
preferred method. But as long as it is converted over to new  
technolgy/hardware,e tc.
 
Trudy M.  Phillips
Business Consultant
"Bringing Order Out of Chaos"
205-699-8571  Fax 205-699-3278



In a message dated 11/16/2010 8:00:09 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
[log in to unmask] writes:

On Tue,  Nov 16, 2010 John Lovejoy <[log in to unmask]>  opined:

>
> In response to some of the replies about  converting everything to
> microform. It does not seem logical (to me,  at least)  to convert
> digital documents to another format, only  to have to convert it back
to
> digital to distribute it to users (or to  encourage further use of the
> information).
>


Actually  John-

No one suggested converting EVERYTHING or to 'convert digital  documents
...
only to have to convert it back...'

The comment I made  was:

Decisions made are based on the frequency and patterns of access,  the
value
of the information contained in the objects, and the length of  time it
is
required to be accessed.  There are still plenty of  situations where
hard
copy or microfilm stored properly and protected  against damage and
hazards,
including environmental concerns, serve as an  excellent alternative for
the
deep stored and persistently protected format  for information assets.

Certain information that is infrequently  accessed but must be retained
for
lengthy periods of time may be candidates  for either conversion to or
capture on microfilm as ONE FORM of a 'deep  stored and persistently
protected format' for preservation that could be  used as part of a 
strategy.



UNCLASSIFIED

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]