Jim Heyworth worries whether the disks used for archiving paper
roll data will last any longer than the rolls themselves.
Conservationists have to start with the premise that no medium of
data recordation (whether paper, film, magnetic coating, or
stone) lasts forever, but some last longer than others. Even if
floppies ultimately prove to be relatively short-lived, they have
the advantage as a storage medium over paper rolls that they can
be faithfully and easily replicated, thereby giving them a whole
new lifespan.
The Conservation Laboratory here at the Library of Congress has
done much research on paper and film, the causes of their
deterioration, and their probable shelflife. I don't know how
far along they are in investigating the same questions for
magnetic or optical disks, which are the newest data storage
mediums to come along. A couple of my old reel-to-reel tapes
can't be played because the magnetic coating peels off as the
tape passes over the playback head, while others of the same age
are fine. Quality of manufacture is one big variable in
shelflife; but who can do quality control on the disks he buys?
Storage conditions (temperature, humidity, atmospheric
pollutants, lighting and radiation factors, packaging) also
affect shelflife. It may be simpler to re-copy the archive
periodically than to try to optimize these factors. What we need
advice from the conservators on is what the periodicityfor the
re-copying cycle should be. Does anyone on the list know?
It is amazing to me how well most music roll paper manufactured
this century has lasted. A lot of twentieth-century printing
paper self-destructs in a matter of years or decades because of
its high wood pulp and lignin content and its high acidity (due
to modern manufacturing techniques). Most paper of the 15th-18th
century is still in fine condition today, due to its high rag
content and low lignin and acidity quotient. I think we can count
ourselves lucky that music roll paper has lasted as long as it
has.
|
