Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ath
... whose budget tends to move the money allocated to book preservation to 'information consoles'.[/url]
|
There's actually
some logic to that -- not irrefutable logic, but some logic nonetheless.
What I mean is that digitization of really old works (even something as simplistic making a digipix collection of the entire work) serves the twin purposes of making the work more widely available (to folks who need access the content, but not necessarily the original physical medium), while still protecting the original work from handling (making it last longer than it otherwise would for future scholars who need access to the original physical medium).
My wife is finishing her PhD in 19th century Brit. Lit., and I can't tell you how many books we have in the apartment that were printed before our grandparents were born -- quite a few of them before
their parents were born, actually. They've all been well cared for (Rice University has a
very good library), but even so, some are reaching the end of the usable lives of the physical medium they're printed on -- the paper is literally disintegrating. If these were digitized, she could still use them, and the original could be stored in a nitrogen atmosphere, that would stretch their lives. The longevity benefit from just not being handled as much would be significant.
And that doesn't even address microtext (microfilm/fiche) -- I don't know why that stuff hasn't been converted to digital storage long since -- some folks are still
making it for cryin' out loud! It boggles the mind.
@yvanleterrible: I
likes that idea, it could be an excellent way to bridge the gap.
