At Kentucky, we (graduate school and/or library - not sure) are printing the
paper copy, so that the students are not burdened with producing 2 final
products.  This is a pilot phase, and we don't expect a crush of documents.

Students should be able to focus on producing the document that expresses
the information as completely as they want to, keeping in mind warnings
about the reality of migration.  Tell them that if they choose formats from
Column A, their files should be migrated.  Column B might make it.  Maybe
even offer Column C and tell students that these files will be readable now,
but we can not commit to making them available in the years to come.  Leave
it to the authors to decide and to provide alternate text if they choose
risky formats.  I think the unfair option is to tell students they can
produce whatever they want digitally if the institution has not thoroughly
investigated the migratability of the format (e.g., let's use PDF because
all these other places are).  Giving students the illusion that the
electronic document will be retained as long as a paper document and then
not being able to do that (without warning) doesn't seem fair to the
student, to the university, or to (drum roll!) history.  (Sorry, got carried
away...)  -Beth Kraemer

 -----Original Message-----
From:   Jim Beaven [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent:   Monday, January 22, 2001 7:04 PM
To:     [log in to unmask]
Subject:        Re: ETDs are we rushing?

>
> From: "H.M. Gladney" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: FW: ETDs are we rushing?
>
> >The question on my mind is how thorough the reply should be.  The
> >underlying question is how quickly institutions and individuals might
> >prudently move to "mainly digital", and I hope to have a careful
> >assessment for that when I finish work in progress--perhaps in six
> >months.
>
> >A good answer is complicated by the fact that Mr. Beaven makes what
> >seem to me several mistakes in his note, e.g., if people use Web
> >references in theses, that the theses are printed on paper will not
> >overcome the "404" errors.

 Ok, I guess I did merge two issues together.  I believe they should be
 included in the appendices and I believe we should get an electronic
 copy for access and a paper copy for the archives.

 The 404 error dealt more with the Universities archiving their web sites.

 While a problem that I have dealt on several different list/web servers,
 it is  clearly not one solved by simply printing the reference.  But the
main
 issue here is not the 404 problem.  It is instead the problem of
 maintaining the ETDs through the coming decades.

 Without an archival paper, we must either commit ourselves to migrating
 all the  electronic the information we have with every quantum
technological
 advancement or resigning ourselves to the eventual loss of the vast
 majority T/Ds.

> >For the moment, the simplest answer for Purdue might be go to ETDs and
> >have the library print an archival copy.  By copy of this note, I

 Note that the student will do the work here so that the library is not
 stuck footing the bill for a copy of every T/D deposited.

 Yes, I believe the best answer is to have all students submit both an
 electronic copy of their thesis/dissertation and a traditional a paper
 copy for archiving.

 This will allow us quick, immediate, and convenient access electronically
 while allowing us a standard format for future conversions to electronic
 access as technology advances.

> >remind Mr. Beaven that already today, the original form of almost all
> >documents is digital--something neither he nor anyone else has much
> >influence on.  The only question he really has is whether or not a
> >paper copy is saved.
>
> >But this much is simplistic.  I'll consider a more careful answer for
> >the listserv.
>
> >Cheerio,  Henry
>

Jim Beaven
Library Assistant Level V
Special Collections, Archives and Thesis Deposit
Purdue University