>And to all this, I would ask if anyone can provide me with an example of
>someone wanting (or should I say, really needing) to examine raw data from
>even five years ago?  Perhaps some legal types can make a case for this
>"need" (i.e., my client gets off if they can't produce the original data),
>but I challange those from the ivory towers to document going back to data
>acquired more than five years ago and really making something out of a
>reanalysis.  My philosophy is that data is NOT like wine - you use it
>within a relatively short time frame or you forget about it.  It does not
>become better or more informative with age - in fact, just the opposite.  I
>don't save string or rubber bands either...
>Rob Palmer
>CEB/UT



Well, not being American, I don't get every bit of research I do published
the next day .... it's quite often that data acquired 5+ years ago ends
up in a published paper.  Then, later on, comes the possibility that one
might be asked to write a review paper.  And even later one might want to
use the same micrographs but presented quite differently in a textbook or
lecture notes.  Certainly after 'n' years (where n is a personal variable)
around 80-90% of the data will never be looked at again but the other 10-20%
can be very valuable.  Photographic negatives are cheap, durable, and take
very little space to store.  It doesn't seem too much to expect the same
qualities in a digital medium ....

                                                        Guy Cox

Dr. Guy Cox,   |                    ooOOOOOOoo
E.M. Unit, F09 |        #       oOOOO  |  |  OOOOo       #
Univ of Sydney |       ###    OOO|  |  |  |  |  |OOO    ###
NSW 2006,      |       ###  OOO  |  |  |  |  |  |  OOO  ###
Australia      |       ### OO |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | OO ###
Phone:         |      #####   |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   #####
+61 2 9351 3176| =====#####============================#####=====
Fax:           |      #####                            #####
+61 2 9351 7682|    ~~#####~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~#####~~