It seems we have begun a debate in which we are not thinking clearly
about the digital technology and its role.  Should we maintain
"permanent handwritten ledgers" if computer paper and inks are not
going to last forever?

A few observations:

1) physical items are not forever, regardless of the best efforts of
conservation science.

2) digital bits are forever.  You may have to transfer them from media
to media from time to time as storage technology eveolves, but if you
can create unlimited numbers of perfect, i.e. identical copies, of
files this is not an issue.

3) if you physical copy begins to degrade this is only a problem if it
is a contract or other legal document.  If it is a catalog card, dna
you have the data in digital format, just print another card.

4) All physical documentation which is not generated from digital
information should be treated as ARCHIVAL not as working documents.
They should be stored for maximum preservation.

5) losing a unique digital file (i.e., no back up) is the same as
burning a unique catalog card - both are gone (although you stand a
better chance of undeleting the file then unburning the card) with
their information.

We should be trying to supplant physical record keeping with digital
record keeping as an attempt to preserve information forever.  I agree
that there is important historiographical data tied to the old catalog
cards, so these should be preserved as archival collections, not
working information bases.  Capturing new information digitally is
these best way to make the data more accessible, uniform in scope and
content, and untimately preservie it longer than the bound ledger and
quill approach.

Richard Gerrard
Registrar, Toronto Historical Board

[log in to unmask]