 |
 |
I was planning on using archival foil backed labels. Opinions here? Marie On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Pekka Gronow <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Hi Marie, > > Your decision to use bar codes in this cases seems well founded. However, > my some types seem to fade spontaneously over a longer period, depending on > the type of paper and ink used. In your case, you don't want to replace > them every ten years. We learned this the hard way... > > Pekka > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marie O'Connell" <[log in to unmask]> > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 11:14 AM > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] RFID > > > > Thank you >> >> We are not a library, we are a broadcasting sound archive. Most, and I >> mean most, of our items may get pulled out once in 10 or 12 years, or >> never >> (depending on anniversaries, etc). My gut instinct is to use barcodes, >> because we can do that for virtually no investment and maintain our >> accession number, which has been the whole purpose of this exercise, >> re-numbering artifacts that have no meaningful number when we go to >> preserve >> it. Plus, the only people handling these are archivists, and not >> patrons/normal humans (hehe), so I would trust the barcode would remain >> intact for a long time. >> >> I looked at the Wiki page and found it kinda useful. >> >> Will keep you posted as to what we do. >> >> Cheers >> Marie >> >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Corey Bailey <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> Hi Marie >>> I'm not sure how much research you have put into RFID yet but Wikipedia >>> will at least give you some idea: >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-frequency_identification >>> >>> For archival storage you would have to consider passive RFID because the >>> active versions require a battery. To my knowledge, there is no evidence >>> of >>> RFID chips having any affect on nearby magnetic media. The chips are >>> being >>> implanted in credit cards and passports for example which have adjacent >>> magnetic stripes. The RF power generated by even the high output active >>> RFID >>> chips is so low that it's hard to imagine how they would affect the >>> coercivity of pre recorded audio tape. Video tape (I would think) with >>> it's >>> very high coercivity would be out of the question. >>> >>> You would be using passive RFID that would only be read (energized or >>> resonated if you will) once or twice a year for inventory purposes. I >>> can't >>> imagine their being a problem for long term storage. >>> >>> I suspect that your biggest consideration at this point would be cost. >>> The >>> technology may not be cost effective unless you have tens of thousands of >>> units to inventory. >>> >>> My greatest concern would be backwards compatibility. If you implement >>> RFID >>> 4.0 today will it be readable in 25 years by RFID 10.2.1? For the >>> present, I >>> wouldn't abandon your barcode system and look into the possible addition >>> of >>> RFID. >>> >>> I'm still a fan of the old fashioned printed label on the binder or >>> somewhere else in addition to whatever computerized system that's in >>> place. >>> It only takes one data entry error and then........ >>> >>> Keep us posted! >>> >>> Cheers! >>> >>> Corey Bailey >>> >>> >>> >>> At 07:37 PM 12/13/2009, you wrote: >>> >>> Hi all >>>> >>>> We need to renumber some of our older accessions and have been >>>> considering >>>> barcodes with the accession number included. It was suggested to me >>>> today >>>> that we could be using RFID (radio frequency ID). As I know virtually >>>> nothing about them I have an uneasy feeling about applying this >>>> technology >>>> to magnetic tape boxes and reels. >>>> >>>> Does any audio visual archive use this technology on its tape boxes >>>> and/or >>>> reels? >>>> Is there any danger to the magnetic tape itself, considering both the >>>> box >>>> and reel would need the same identifier? >>>> Can the actual accession number be put on these so as to be seen >>>> visibly? >>>> >>>> Any thoughts would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Marie >>>> >>>> >>> >>