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?



 *From:* [log in to unmask] [[log in to unmask]]
I understand the reluctance to scan and destroy originals. Although it is
my understanding that it *should* be possible to do it, I have a *long*
list of questions to ask and issues to be settled before endorsing the
idea. If Diocesan archivists are reluctant to scan and destroy hardcopy
school records what about microfilming them?  Do any dioceses provide a
guidance or a program of microfilming school records (not sacramental
records which I am aware that a number of dioceses have programs for)?

*From:* [log in to unmask] [[log in to unmask]]
I second Lisa in saving paper versions of archival records, maybe for
Luddite reasons: obsolescence of operating systems and programs, failure of
storage devices, servers, and cloud storage. I was taught that digitized
copies do not replace the paper copy: they are kept in addition to it.


Besides manuscripts, I apply this to all records. Am I being too
unrealistic?


*From:* [log in to unmask] [[log in to unmask]]
We don't have a policy in place yet, but we do have a rule that schools
cannot scan and discard any records on permanent retention, such as the
student record cards or transcripts.


*Subject:* [dioarchives] Guidance for schools about scanning school records
What guidance, if any, do you give to active schools about digitizing their
school records? Do you have any policy and procedures for doing so? Do you
have any guidelines that you make available to them?

I have been asked to weigh in on a principal's question as to whether or
not he can digitize permanent school records and destroy the originals.  I
am well aware that although it is possible to do that, there are a *lot* of
caveats and that our schools would need a * lot* of guidance about what to
do, how to do it, what they need to do to make sure that digitized records
are backed up in case of disaster, what they would need to do to make sure
that the digitized records are migra ted every time hardware and software
are updated, etc., etc.

Any help you can provide will be appreciated.

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]