Thanks so much for bringing to my attention the "Shifting Gears" essay. It was indeed provocative--it opened my mind to new ways of thinking. I'm listening to Sam Quigley's presentation as I write and I look forward to hearing the other presentations from the Digitization Matters conference. I appreciate OCLC making them available for those who didn't attend.
Regards, Linda M. Wagner http://www.linkedin.com/in/lmwagner On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Waibel,Guenter wrote: > Hi Perian, > > A lot of the responses you've received so far have advised you to go for > higher resolution. I belief that this advice may make sense in certain > circumstances (for example, original art, fragile materials or small > high-value collections), but the situation you're describing is different > ("the documents aren't "precious"). I'd encourage you to weigh the intended > use of the material in making your decision. The advice you received was > accurate if your main goal is preservation, but that's not what your post led > me to believe. If your main goal is increased access to as many items in your > collection as fast as possible, I think a different approach may be more > suitable. > > For those of you who will be surprised to hear me say this... Sam Quigley > gave an inspiring talk at an SAA preconference RLG Programs organized in > Chicago '07, during which he began to question the time-honored advice of "do > it once for all time," and argued that a model of rapid digitization for > access may be just as valid to make museum collections available as quickly > as possible. It made me (and some of my colleagues) refine our positions when > it comes to digitization. Since I don't want to put words in Sam's mouth any > more than I've already done (I suspect he's reading this!), you can listen to > his talk at http://www.oclc.org/programs/events/2007-08-29.htm. > > Some of my colleagues who were involved in organizing this event put together > a provocative essay called "Shifting Gears," summarizing some of the > forward-looking ideas discussed during the event Sam spoke at - the end > result is very much aimed at the archival community, but worth considering in > this context as well. You'll find it at > http://www.oclc.org/programs/publications/reports/2007-02.pdf. Here's a > pertinent excerpt: > > "Many of our digital initiatives have stressed the importance of > preservation, leaving access as an afterthought (the idea being if you > capture preservation-quality; you can always derive an access copy). In > reality, due to the very special nature of these often unique materials, we > will always preserve the originals to the best of our ability. In light of > recent programs for the mass digitization of books, if special collections > and their funding continue to be marginalized, our administrations may not > keep us around to attend to the originals. > > In the past, we've soothed our doubts by repeating the mantra, "we'll only > get one chance to do it, so it's got to be done right." Experience has shown > that that is not in fact the case. Often we do go back when the technology > improves or when we better understand our users' needs. We need to put on our > helmets now and go for the biggest bang for the buck in terms of access." > > Cheers, > G?nter > > *** > > G?nter Waibel > RLG Programs, OCLC > voice: +1-650-287-2144 > G?nter blogs at ... http://www.hangingtogether.org
