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.

-- 
*Larry Medina
Danville, CA
RIM Professional since 1972*

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]