The reason I brought the hard copy angle is simply the following:
1. CD-ROMs are produced with an unavoidable fungus already in the embedded metals. Cheapers CDs will get eaten sooner (3-4 years) while quality ones can push 8-10 years.
2. Anything electronic is subject to solar flare CME's, cosmic ray events, etc. Nothing is safe that is dependent upon electronic storage. Flash is more
vulnerable that magnetic hard drives.
3. The best method of preservation is mutliple copies in all directions - using multiple media types. That means hard copies as well.
The archives are simply a book however you look at it. Right now it exists only in electronic form. Let's call it an "e-book". Welp, the "book" form is being begged in my opinion. A University press that provides pamphlets, packets and the like for the local professors coursework would be a low-cost avenue.
Of course a PDF can be made, but that is electronic. If it doesn't get printed
out, then we are still hard copy deficient.
=8-)
Robert Shackelford San Jose, CA USA
Quoting Carlos Ovalle <ovalle@charter.net>:
> Robert Shackelford wrote:
>
> "Bottom line is, I think what has been placed in the archives up until
> the
> cutoff should be put in print form. It is essentially a book begging
> for hard
> print. Even the Library of Congress might want a copy."
>
> Hilary Stone responded:
>
> "It would very difficult to find anything if it was in pamphlet form -
> it
> would be much better as PDF document as it would then be easily
> searcheable..."
>
> I am more or less in agreement with both Robert and Hilary. As the
> archives stand, assuming they continue to be hosted in the old digs
> indefinitely, one has to read through a lot of interesting but
> sometimes irrelevant and I might add copious information until the
> target is reached. My suggestion, brought up to Dale privately, is to
> take all the archives and compile them into a browser-friendly
> database a la VeloBase. To that effect I downloaded a group of
> messages, converted all to text, and started to develop a database
> based on FileMaker Pro software. It's an onerous task at every step of
> the way, but well worth it in my humble opinion.
>
> Based on my simple test I've come to the conclusion, as if it hadn't
> been obvious, that this undertaking is far too much for one person.
> One way to tackle this Magnum Opus is to divide it into small bite-
> size chunks that each one of us could manage, therefore making this
> truly a joint effort.
>
> Another way, perhaps in addition to volunteer work from each of us, is
> to throw money at the beast. Here is where we'd all have to pony up
> for a web-based database writer to do assemble the massive amounts of
> date provided by us. We could not simply dump the data into someone's
> lap unless we find a database writer that is also relatively
> knowledgeable about our hobby.
>
> Disclaimer: I have assembled large databases in the past but that is
> not my expertise.
>
> I will continue to do some research into this but all opinions are
> welcome.
>
> Carlos Ovalle
> Long Beach, California, USA
> http://www.ovallearchitects.com
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Classic Rendezvous lightweight vintage bicycles" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> classic-rendezvous-lightweight-vintage-bicycles@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> classic-rendezvous-lightweight-vintage-bicycles+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Classic Rendezvous lightweight vintage bicycles" group.
To post to this group, send email to classic-rendezvous-lightweight-vintage-bicycles@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to classic-rendezvous-lightweight-vintage-bicycles+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/