In your post, you raise the very real issue of technological obsolescence,
and its implications for long-term preservation of and access to digital
records, in your musings about the paperless office question. This is an
issue that has exercised the minds of information professionals for at
least the last decade, if not longer. Software and hardware have changed
so rapidly in that time that we must all have personal examples of
electronic files created in long-dead programs that can no longer be read,
and therefore are effectively lost.
However, I think that the work that has been done over the past years on
this question has begun to find possible models or solutions for long-term
digital preservation. System emulation, which you mention in your post, is
only one solution method that has been explored, and a contentious one at
that (to see the different viewpoints at a glance, refer to the contents of
Jeff Rothenberg's book, "Avoiding the Technological Quicksand",
http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/rothenberg/contents.html, and David
Bearman's response to it, "Reality and Chimeras in the Preservation of
Electronic Records",
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/april99/bearman/04bearman.html).
Other work in the area has focused on migration solutions (translating the
data to new systems, rather than sustaining aged technology or emulating
it) and the development of standard electronic preservation formats. The
use of standard formats for long-term preservation, if successful,
addresses some of the concerns you raise - you will be able to view the
record long-term, and it will look the same as the original object, because
it will BE the original object. Most standards in this area have tended to
focus on open-source, robust file formats that could be replicated from
publicly available data in the event of software-makers ceasing to support
them. The project on which I work, the Victorian Electronic Records
Strategy, uses Adobe's PDF format as our long-term document format for that
reason, but several other file formats (such as the image format, TIFF)
serve the same purpose.
Of course, time alone will tell how stable any long-term formats really
are, but there is good reason to suppose that a self-contained record,
which possesses its own metadata (for example, in a standard language such
as XML) and renders documents in open-source formats, will be accessible,
readable and "sensible" well into the future. Certainly, it will outlast
short-lived proprietary formats.
While I agree that the paperless office has not arrived, and is unlikely to
arrive anytime soon, I do not see that as a reason to shy away from the
questions posed by electronic records. It is not a viable solution to just
keep printing everything to paper, ad infinitum - electronic records need
to be given their own durability and integrity, and treated as the
"originals" that they are.
Regards
Kathy Sinclair
Victorian Electronic Records Strategy Project Manager
Public Record Office Victoria
www.prov.vic.gov.au/vers/
"Wick, Charles Harrison" <[log in to unmask]>@[log in to unmask]> on 05/02/2002
07:55:03 AM
Please respond to Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
Sent by: Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
cc: (bcc: Kathy Sinclair/DPC)
Subject: Re: Paperless office is now reality
I hate to be the one to bring up this old debate again. It is fascinating
to think the paperless office is becoming a reality. Two years, I attended
a conference in Edinburgh where the paperwork was completely automated,
everything was handled via email or online applications. But you know its
great that we no longer have to print everything out on paper, but there is
a lingering sense that someday when a record manager goes back to does some
research and can't find any paper-based documents that are still readable.
I guess my big concern is whose going to be the one to either simulate an
antiquated Windows-based PC system to keep our records accessible, or
encapsulate a Pentium 4 so we can read documents as they would have
appeared
in their original state? I guess I'm just saying I think to see a 'paper
trail' of activity, and would hate to see all of our information be lost in
time.
Just my $.02,
C. Harrison Wick
NEH Supervisor
Indiana University
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Medina [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 4:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Paperless office is now reality
A very interesting study and equally interesting situation presented by
Roger on behalf of the King County Court System. A few questions about how
certain aspects of this are being dealt with, seeing as this is actually in
practice now and no longer in theory.
Please understand that this is NOT an attempt to throw water on a system
that seems to be working, but rather a request for some additional
information to clarify how this is being done.
>I was asked to find ways to use technology to deal with
>the irresistible force of a growing mass of paper case filings and the
>immovable object of finite storage space.
I'd have to assume from your description of this process that no backfile
conversion is taking place, you elected to institute a "day forward"
solution from the point the system was instituted. What is the retention
requirement for these documents that were previously (or still, in some
cases) maintained in hard copy format? And is any consideration being
given to backfile conversion for the balance of the documents that exist in
paper format only?
>I advocated imaging (something we
>now have) and, from the mid-90s, I have advocated electronic documents as
>better than images, which remain but pictures of hard copy.
So I understand your description of this, you're saying that a scanned
image (either TIFF or PDF format?) is what represents the paper documents
generated in the filing and proceedings related to superior court matters
for the county now (with the exception of specific types of cases).
What DPI level are these scanned at and are the original documents analyzed
prior to scanning to determine if differing thresholds need to be
established for documents within a case file to ensure all images are
equally as legible?
What is the process for ensuring the legibility and accuracy of the
images? Is there a fixed sampling rate?
How is indexing of the images accomplished, and what is done for indexing
when multiple copies of documents exist in a case file that are basically
identical, but may carry some minute marginalia that makes them unique
documents to ensure all of the contents are captured and one image doesn't
overwrite the other because of the indexing being basically identical?
>We have an
>electronic filing project in development; I am helping build standards for
>XML for court filings.
Will citizens file electronically, or will there still be a paper process
that is the lead-in to a case being filed?
If you're capturing in XML, are there any concerns for loss of the context
of documents?
How are you dealing with authentication issues related to the signatures on
documents, and if the process IS fully electronic, how will signatures
and/or seals be addressed?
You mentioned you're developing standards, can you tell me what XML
standard you're using as your basis?
>We have imaged all incoming filings in all cases opened since January 3,
>2000. Images are accessed through a Web application using Internet
Explorer
>or other browsers. Access is restricted to be inside the King County
>network; public users come to the Clerk's Office reading rooms. (External
>public access to case records is under study here, as leaders weigh
privacy
>and access issues; once resolved for our state, we would presumably open
our
>system.)
So there seems to be a network of dedicated servers and machines authorized
to access this information currently. Are all of the images housed on one
system and if so, is access to the images serial or random?
How often are the servers backed up and in the event of a power or
communications failure, how would the images be retrieved?
How large is the digital repository for 1/3/2000 to present?
What about ongoing cases... I'd assume the attorneys/prosecutors/public
defenders are keeping paper copies of ongoing work, and until a matter is
closed, they are remaining in paper form and then are subsequently
imaged. What happens in a case where a matter is transferred from one
attorney to another prior to it being resolved?
How are the electronic records (the filings) modified without destroying
the integrity of the initial filing? What if a case related to a filing is
changed from one crime to another, say from "possession with intent to
sell" to "use of a controlled substance"? Do you re-image the new filing
and how is it referenced to the original documents?
>We have also been imaging archived case files since 1997. We have
>over 25 million images in our system today, adding up to 48,000 new pages
>daily. We use ID and password access for sealed records and our system is
>well protected against invasion.
What types of procedures are in place to ensure when individuals leave the
service of the county their access is no longer valid? How is the court
notified for example when an investigator, a prosecutor or public defender
leaves and joins the private sector?
How do you address a case that has been transferred to another attorney
after the records have been sealed? If they're tied to an ID and password,
how do you subsequently grant access (or permissions) to another user?
>Users cannot not access the library of
>records directly; they cannot alter nor damage the system or the records.
>Duplicate images are made and the duplicate disks go to a different
location
>as a security backup.
So based on this description, it sounds as though the images are being
captured on some type of optical media, either a CD ROM or DVD ROM. What
is the program for migration of images and how is that budgeted for within
a county court structure?
What is being done to capture documents of "like retention periods" on the
same platter/disk to ensure retention and disposition of records is
properly addressed?
Given the images cannot be altered, what happens if a matter is reopened
and additional records are generated? How are they tied together for
someone attempting to access all records related to a case?
What happens to the images of records when a matter transfers from county
superior court to a State court? What if this takes place outside the 30
day window and the paper records have been destroyed?
>A learned lesson: The "record" is paperless, but the "office" doesn't have
>to be, and that's okay!
Sounds as though the hybrid system you describe below doesn't support this
statement.
>For a year and a half, we kept the case files in image and paper systems
>while we worked with the court to settle on how the files would be managed
>long term. There was concern by those who assumed we were trying to force
>them to work with files paperlessly. We agreed early on that certain
papers
>should be retained in hard copy, as exceptions (aggravated murder cases,
>wills, negotiable instruments are examples). It took longer to get
agreement
>to let go of paper file folders in addition to images. The burden on staff
>in the interim was awful.
Is anything imaged to provide reference back to these cases where the
records are kept in paper form? For example, if a matter is filed
electronically, but the records are maintained in paper, is there some
"pointer" telling someone where to gain access to the records?
>We came to recognize that the judicial officers wanted to be able to work
>with hard copy whenever they wished. They really didn't care that the
>official files would be electronic; they understood the advantages. We
>agreed that any judicial officer could ask us for a hard copy printout of
>anything, even a whole case file. The cost to provide printouts on demand
is
>so much less than it costs to keep all of the case files in hard copy. We
>learned that copiers could be outfitted so they would serve as image
>printers, producing copies from TIFF at photocopier speed! We finally
>agreed, and now the hard copy after imaging goes out for destruction 30
days
>or so later.
Is there any concern that generating hard copy of the electronic records on
demand will result in new records being produced? Once a copy has been
marked, it's no longer a copy, but instead, it becomes a new and different
record that has it's own need to be captured and retained in accordance
with some retention schedule. And it need to be tied back to the original
records, as it's related to them... it can't just be "inserted into the
file folder" any longer.
>The "record" is electronic, the images. The chain of custody, their being
in
>the clerk's predictable and protected system, makes them so, not the media
>on which they are stored. Most of us wouldn't want to do all of our work
>with documents from the screen. Willingness to provide hard copy copies on
>demand recognizes it is very reasonable to want to have paper to work
with.
>The copies contain the same information as the record.
Okay, I follow you UP TO THIS POINT....
>However, the judicial
>officer can now do what was forbidden when the paper file was the record,
>they can mark and write on the papers as they please.
Which is exactly where the additional exposure comes into play... the
RECORD is electronic, but once the copy has been printed and "they mark and
write on the papers as they please", NEW RECORDS are generated which differ
from the records they were printed from.
>The answer was a win-win-win-win... solution, the only kind worth
pursuing.
I look forward to your response Roger, as I'm curious how some of these
items are dealt with.
Larry
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
|
