Re: [rfc-i] Paper as an archival format for RFCs

Hi Joe:

Keep in mind that I do communicate occasionally with professional
archivists.  They remain torn between the need to try to find a way to
save digital artifacts and a strong sense that their solutions are likely to
fail.

I agree that asking a professional librarian is a fine solution.  But I
would
ask them the question in the form: would you prefer printed copies on
archival paper or digital copy? (As opposed to the -- "can you archive
digital material?" -- to which they feel obliged to try to say yes, but may
prefer to say no).

Craig

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:

>
>
> On 2/16/2017 2:12 PM, Craig Partridge wrote:
> > I'm with John.  There are many good reasons to use paper (such as
> > we've successfully used it as
> > an archival technology for roughly 2000 years -- show me a digital
> > system with a similar track record).
>
> That's going to be hard to *prove* for another 2000 years.
>
> I see the point about full archival technology, but I don't think we
> should be second-guessing professional librarians. A box of wood pulp,
> even on acid-free paper, also has the potential for being destroyed by
> fire, water, bugs, etc.
>
> IMO, the proposed approach of offloading this issue to professional
> librarians seems more than sufficient. If THEY decide that printing out
> reams of pulp and boxing it up is the way to go, then they can make that
> decision. I don't think we need to second guess them.
>
> Joe
>

-- 
*****
Craig Partridge's email account for professional society activities and
mailing lists.
For Raytheon business, please email: craig. <craig@bbn.com>
partridge@raytheon.com