John,
Yes, it is complex in that there are many things to take into
consideration. I think that most here would agree that digitization relys on
technology, ie. hardware,software and the ability of these to read/produce the
information in it's original form. Microforms rely on a visual reader/printer
as well as the fact that microfilm/com has been around for many years and
is still readable. So the dilemma we as records managers have is what is the
long term need/value of the information on the documents or the
visual/reproduction of the documents at a future time.
I have not done a cost analysis in sometime but filming is still relatively
inexpensive versus the hardware/software to read/store/migrate digital
images for future retrieveal.
Personally, I am very concerned with Clouds for storage and retrieval, but
that is another topic.
I feel certain that many of my esteemed associates will have comments to
offer to this discussion as well.
Trudy M. Phillips
Business Consultant
"Bringing Order Out of Chaos"
205-699-8571 Fax 205-699-3278
In a message dated 11/16/2010 9:14:19 P.M. Central Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
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]
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]
|
