Digitization is a way to preserve the original. Technically, it isn't preservation. It keeps the original from deteriorating through repeated handling, thereby preserving it. The digital (or surrogate) is a "use" copy. 

While a digital version of a document can replace a physical document, I would not consider it a preservation strategy but more of an access or use strategy. As Dean brought up, there are a plethora of technical issues with digital objects that further hinders digitization as a preservation option.

Stephen Cohen, CRM
MetLife | Legal Affairs | 212-578-2373

-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of charlene martin
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 1:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: request for opinions on this thread/discussion

I am hoping to hear from the experts :)

First, I should clarify my question. I am a recent graduate (3 yrs ago) from an archival program, so I wonder if I am "showing my green" in adhering to what my professors taught me, that digitization does not equal preservation (i.e., keep the originals in addition to the digitized version). Also, my primary training is in archives (manuscripts), although I am currently working with record collections too. I wouldn't toss permanent retention originals, and why digitize those on retention periods, only to dispose of them at the end of their period?
All the more reason for me to learn from all of this.

Here is the thread:

*From:* [log in to unmask] [[log in to unmask]]
*Sent:* Monday, May 04, 2015 12:42 PM
Although microfilm is durable, it has endured obsolescence, and in my experience in academic libraries, it was difficult in the early 2000's to find film readers or contract repair service for existing readers (maybe my library just didn't place a $ priority on them). In fact, there was talk of establishing a program to digitize the microfilm.

 Microfilm cannot capture evidential value such as the type of paper/parchment, color of ink used, stains, etc. - a digital scan can, although to a limited extent when capturing vellum or parchment with a watermark, etc. I am more an archivist than records manager, but I have processed religious records that have these qualities.

 I would love to hear from others on this list. Maybe this thread is asking whether we should retain paper copies of more mundane (informational not evidential value) records? Maybe the "digitization does not equal preservation" caveat I was taught is not realistic when there are $pace considerations, and some records are born digital?
The information contained in this message may be CONFIDENTIAL and is for the intended addressee only.  Any unauthorized use, dissemination of the information, or copying of this message is prohibited.  If you are not the intended addressee, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message.

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]