Comment Details - National Information Standards Organization

#00129 Comment Details - RP-12-201x_Physical Delivery_draft_for_public_comment_final.pdf

Document Information
Title	NISO RP-12-201x, Physical Delivery of Library Resources (draft for public comment)
File Name	RP-12-201x_Physical Delivery_draft_for_public_comment_final.pdf	State	Final
Date Added	2011-07-07 13:54:17	Revision Number	0
Submitter Name	Cynthia Hodgson	Size	908K

Comment Information
Summary	Methods for Affixing Labels	State (Disposition)	New (Unresolved)
Date Added	2011-08-10 12:57:59	Last Updated	2011-08-10 12:57:59
Submitter Name	Ian Bogus	Assigned To	Unassigned
Company Name	University of Pennsylvania	Response	None
Interest Category		Category	N/A
Origin	Public Review	Section, Page, Line
Item		Item Description

Submitter Comment
Methods for Affixing Labels This section does a very nice job of describing the options along with advantages and disadvantages. A few notes from a preservation perspective: While overall damage from rubber bands may be rare, it is common for certain types of materials, especially when they are “sturdy” rubber bands. The rubber band method is particularly good for boxed items where there may not be an obvious way to attach a label. Paperback books, particularly thin ones, will commonly be damaged by rubber bands. The damage can be anywhere from minor edge tears to the bands folding the book in half. Please consider clearly stating what they may or may not be used for. Interestingly, under paper banding the document says “The paper-banding method is not recommended (emphasis added)…” Items that are not recommended should not be in this document. That being said, my experience with paper banding is that it does not require a large amount of work if materials are prepared in advance or made with large sheets of paper. We have also seen many more instances of damage by rubber bands than paper banding. Our experience is that they stay on much better than any other method. Adhesive labels and sticky notes tend to cause a variety of problems especially with older materials. It is good that the standard requires libraries to ask the owner before affixing adhesive labels, but removing them from recommendations all together should be considered. Adhesive labels are ranked lower than paper-banding, which is “not recommended” and thus should not be included in this standard. They are options, but should not be a recommended practice.

Submitter Comment

Methods for Affixing Labels

This section does a very nice job of describing the options along with advantages and disadvantages. A few notes from a preservation perspective:

While overall damage from rubber bands may be rare, it is common for certain types of materials, especially when they are “sturdy” rubber bands. The rubber band method is particularly good for boxed items where there may not be an obvious way to attach a label. Paperback books, particularly thin ones, will commonly be damaged by rubber bands. The damage can be anywhere from minor edge tears to the bands folding the book in half. Please consider clearly stating what they may or may not be used for.

Interestingly, under paper banding the document says “The paper-banding method is not recommended (emphasis added)…” Items that are not recommended should not be in this document. That being said, my experience with paper banding is that it does not require a large amount of work if materials are prepared in advance or made with large sheets of paper. We have also seen many more instances of damage by rubber bands than paper banding. Our experience is that they stay on much better than any other method.

Adhesive labels and sticky notes tend to cause a variety of problems especially with older materials. It is good that the standard requires libraries to ask the owner before affixing adhesive labels, but removing them from recommendations all together should be considered. Adhesive labels are ranked lower than paper-banding, which is “not recommended” and thus should not be included in this standard. They are options, but should not be a recommended practice.