Conservation DistList Archives [Date] [Subject] [Author] [SEARCH]

Subject: Barrier board

Barrier board

From: Doug Nishimura <dwnpph>
Date: Thursday, June 8, 2000
Hilary A. Kaplan <hkaplan [at] sos__state__ga__us> writes

>Why not make this posting truly useful to the conservators on this
>list who might be potentially interested in such products by
>summarizing the results of IPI testing?  If for some reason that
>were not possible, letting us know if this product meets ANSI
>IT9.2-1998 (stability of storage enclosures) and passes ANSI
>IT9.16-1993 (photographic activity test) would also be helpful.
>Otherwise the posting might be readily confused with an

It seemed better for me (or at least someone from IPI) to address
Hilary Kaplan's concern rather than John Boral.

The data generated during a private research contract belongs to the
contractor so we really can't say anything about the results of a
private job. However, in order to maintain (external) impartiality
(of course we can't help forming personal opinions) we have strict
rules regarding how the data and report may be used. In particular
the results can't be used in any way that may imply endorsement from
IPI. Our reports may be edited, but not in any way that will distort
the results. This would prevent companies from taking out all of the
negative results. Reports also can't be freely distributed since
this, in effect, would be using the report as advertising. Companies
may provide a copy of the report (again with the proviso that any
editing done will not distort the results) if an individual requests
it. (Brand and manufacturers names other than those belonging to the
contractor must be excised and replaced by generic terms that can't
be traced back to a manufacturer. Therefore a company couldn't use
"Brand K", "Brand F", "Brand I", and "Brand A" in a test of
photographic materials.)

Ten years ago the policies were fairly easy to interpret, but we've
been finding more recently that computers and diverse, multi-uses
for the reports (internally and externally) have made the
contractual terms much more difficult to apply. As such we
appreciate that John leaned in the conservative direction to ensure
that he didn't break this contractual obligation. I suspect that our
board, RIT, and the lawyers would allow John to say more, but
possibly the wording of the contracts will need to be modified.  IPI
will be looking into conflicts between the spirit and the letter of
the contract to allow contractors maximum usage of data and reports
while still protecting our impartiality.

Research Scientist
Image Permanence Institute

                  Conservation DistList Instance 14:1
                   Distributed: Monday, June 19, 2000
                        Message Id: cdl-14-1-002
Received on Thursday, 8 June, 2000

[Search all CoOL documents]