Hello Toby:
I would suggest that "optical disk" would be too limiting. New
Jersey's public law enabling the image processing of public records states:
"...as well as the record and index of any such papers, documents or
instruments in writing, which may be recopied, rerecorded, or
transcribed pursuant to any law of this State, may be recopied,
rerecorded, reindexed or transcribed in such offices by means of
photography, data processing or image processing, and such rerecord
or transcribing, made by means of photography, data processing or
image processing, shall have the same legal force, meaning and effect
as if made in handwriting or in typewriting..."
(http://njarchives.org/links/pdf/pl1994-c140.pdf).
It built upon the 1953 Destruction of Public Records Act that enabled
the State Records Committee and the legitimacy of microfilmed records.
Another issue with optical disk is that it is only an appropriate
solution for short term records For long term and permanent records
one would want something more stable and eye readable (original paper
or archival microfilm) in addition to digitized image for
preservation purposes; regardless of the claims of media longevity,
usability may not exist in 15 to 20 years (think 5.25" diskettes,
etc.) Server storage is a more stable environment that optical disk.
Hope this helps -- Dan
At 3/28/2007 11:22 PM Wednesday, you wrote:
>Hello Records Gurus!
>As a longtime lurker, I have posted only occasionally. Now the need
>arises again and I am looking for some consideration of an issue all of
>us are dealing with. Scanning, and the law. We are considering a change
>to our municipal code which will allow for the storage of scanned copies
>of original paper.
>Our current code reads,
> " records that are worn or damaged, may be copied by photostatic,
>photographic, microphotographic, microfilm or other mechanical process
>which produces a clear, accurate and permanent copy."
>We are thinking of adding "or optical disk imaging system process" in
>order to capture documents scanned into electronic records. Is it too
>narrow a descriptor?
>Any suggestions on simple, elegant wording for this?
>
>Carpe Records from sunny Alaska,
>Toby
>
>
>Toby Allen
>Records Management Supervisor
>Municipality of Anchorage
>[log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
>Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
>
>
>--
>BEGIN-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
>------------------------------------------------------
>
>Teach CanIt if this mail (ID 259716596) is spam:
>Spam: https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?c=s&i=259716596&m=610eb138df95
>Not spam: https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?c=n&i=259716596&m=610eb138df95
>Forget vote: https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?c=f&i=259716596&m=610eb138df95
>------------------------------------------------------
>END-ANTISPAM-VOTING-LINKS
Daniel W. Noonan, MLS, CDIA+
Electronic Records Manager/Archivist
University Archives
The Ohio State University
600 Ackerman Road, Room 5822
Columbus, OH 43202
614.247.2425
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
http://library.osu.edu/sites/archives/
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
|
