Stephan Beal <sgb...@googlemail.com> writes: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 6:53 PM, C. Thomas Stover > <c...@thomasstover.com>wrote: > >> both images and text can be stored, the scanner software/firmware will >> OCR what it can and then mix that with little cropped images. This of >> course leads to the "your mileage may very" file sizes. >> > > FWIW: if the documents are having to be archived "for legal reasons" then > the OCR versions are essentially only useful for convenience in searching, > and not for legal purposes. Because OCR is an imperfect conversion, and a > particularly bad conversion can literally change the semantics of the text, > the OCR version of a document is certainly not as legally valid as the > original. i.e. the originals will need to be archived alongside any OCR'd > versions.
A good point--and we do have procedures in place already to archive those paper copies. But these are not "legal" documents in the sense I think you mean--contracts, etc. Our lawyer keeps those. Our use case is more of a question of one of our staff being able to find something that documents that previously we did x in case y, so if we get case z we should also do x if y = z, in order to (amongst other things) avoid potential legal liability. Also things like training documents for staff: "Handy Checklist for Complying With Applicable Law." Etc. I was simply trying to be brief by lumping everything under "legal." I apologize for being unclear. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
