Subject: Digital storage material and time capsules
Deborah Woodyard <dwoodyar [at] nla__gov__au> writes >I must admit I agree with this statement. The CDs are likely to last >in your time capsule, but trying to find the right hardware and >especially the right software to read them as well as to render the >digital data will be tough. If you "encapsulate" (no, not in Mylar!) >all the information required to interpret the digital information >you might have a chance, but this is more complicated than it >sounds. See the PADI web page on Encapsulation for more up to date >information <URL:http://www.nla.gov.au/padi/topics/20.html>. I started this string more than a month ago. At first there were very few responses, so I asked again. Since then I've had about four or five excellent comments, and all of them said the same thing: it's not the physical record itself, it is the ability to read it that is ephemeral. Deborah suggested a very interesting page above... Clearly this is still a discipline in its infancy. Now my question is: If there isn't anything accepted as a standard yet, does anyone have any sense of where this will go? What family is likely to prevail? Will it be the digital Rosetta stone?, UPF? Are there any considered opinions about which storage format is most likely to be readable in twenty-five years. (Note that I am proposing a time limit for our Time Frame time capsules <URL:http://www.timekit.com>. I know things will change dramatically, become "magical" in fact, the farther in time we go. I also know it is probably premature to ask this, but I have a real project, now, and want to provide the best answer I can.) Take off your conservation hat for a minute and imagine you're in Vegas: What's your best bet? Thanks again, further opinions would be appreciated, Jerry Shiner Keepsafe Systems 800-683-4696 Fax: 416-703-5991 *** Conservation DistList Instance 13:47 Distributed: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 Message Id: cdl-13-47-017 ***Received on Wednesday, 8 March, 2000