CA Online, humans act both as universal everymen and as community members with their own cultural assumptions. When people transact business online, the legal and social relationships engendered place on each participant "a range of rights and responsibilities that underpin the regulation of the net as a community." (p.104) So while the interrelations may seem more complex in cyberspace, in the end establishing the relationships between key parties is still crucial to ascertaining their legal obligations, whether they are online or offline. (p.120)
Conclusions
RQ In order to ensure that evidential requirements are extended to net transactions, we must address the following questions: Are we revisiting the problems of electronic information systems without recordkeeping functionality in the cyberspace environment? Can intranet systems linked to the Net retrieve transactions with all their context intact?
CA Discusses the ways traditional archival science can inform IT, and the ways IT can help the goals of archival science be achieved more easily and efficiently.
Conclusions
<RQ> "When archivists work with information technologies or electronic archiving specialists, they have a lot to offer. They are the ones who have the conceptual key to the analysis and design of the new archiving systems." (p. 174)
Type
Journal
Title
Strategies for managing electronic records: A new archival paradigm? An affirmation of our archival traditions?
CA It is still too early to tell which models (like Pitt or UBC) actually work until we have had time to evaluate them. Archivists need to learn new skills in order to be effective in the electronic environment, and cannot wait for an out-of-the-box solution. Most likely, any solution will require a combination of strategies. Most of all, one must remain flexible and open to new ways of doing things.
Phrases
<P1> Unlike paper documents where context and physical form are united in a medium that provides the record of the transaction, and where relationships among documents can be observed, electronic records are not physical but are logically constructed and often "virtual" entities. Therefore, it is argued, efforts to document business transactions based on the examination of "views" or of automated forms will fail to reveal the nature of the business transactions. Consequently, methods other than direct observation and review must be employed to properly document automated systems. (p.25) <P2> System metadata typically do not contain all the information archivists need to describe electronic records, in particular, all the necessary contextual data required to understand the context of the transaction are not present. Therefore it is suggested that archivists will need to know which metadata elements are required to fully describe these records and must be in a position to add these descriptive elements to the system, preferably at the design stage. (p.26)
Conclusions
RQ What is involved in effecting a major shift from creating descriptive data to capturing, managing and adding value to system metadata?
CA Makes a distinction between archival description of the record at hand and documentation of the context of its creation. Argues the importance of the latter in establishing the evidentiary value of records, and criticizes ISAD(G) for its failure to account for context. "(1) The subject of documentation is, first and foremost, the activity that generated the records, the organizations and individuals who used the records, and the purposes to which the records were put. (2). The content of the documentation must support requirements for the archival management of records, and the representations of data should support life cycle management of records. (3) The requirements of users of archives, especially their personal methods of inquiry, should determine the data values in documentation systems and guide archivists in presenting abstract models of their systems to users." (p. 45-46)
Phrases
<P1> [T]he ICA Principles rationalize existing practice -- which the author believes as a practical matter we cannot afford; which fail to provide direct access for most archives users; and which do not support the day-to-day information requirements of archivists themselves. These alternatives are also advanced because of three, more theoretical, differences with the ICA Principles: (1) In focusing on description rather than documentation, they overlook the most salient characteristic of archival records: their status as evidence. (2) In proposing specific content, they are informed by the bibliographic tradition rather than by concrete analysis of the way in which information is used in archives. (3) In promoting data value standardization without identifying criteria or principles by which to identify appropriate language or structural links between the objects represented by such terms, they fail adequately to recognize that the data representation rules they propose reflect only one particular, and a limiting, implementation. (p. 33-34) <P2> Archives are themselves documentation; hence I speak here of "documenting documentation" as a process the objective of which is to construct a value-added representation of archives, by means of strategic information capture and recording into carefully structured data and information access systems, as a mechanism to satisfy the information needs of users including archivists. Documentation principles lead to methods and practices which involve archivists at the point, and often at the time, of records creation. In contrast, archival description, as described in the ICA Principles[,] is "concerned with the formal process of description after the archival material has been arranged and the units or entities to be described have been determined." (1.7) I believe documentation principles will be more effective, more efficient and provide archivists with a higher stature in their organizations than the post accessioning description principles proposed by the ICA. <warrant> (p. 34) <P3> In the United States, in any case, there is still no truly theoretical formulation of archival description principles that enjoys a widespread adherence, in spite of the acceptance of rules for description in certain concrete application contexts. (p. 37) <P4> [T]he MARC-AMC format and library bibliographic practices did not adequately reflect the importance of information concerning the people, corporate bodies and functions that generated records, and the MARC Authority format did not support appropriate recording of such contexts and relations. <warrant> (p. 37) <P5> The United States National Archives, even though it had contributed to the data dictionary which led to the MARC content designation, all the data which it believed in 1983 that it would want to interchange, rejected the use of MARC two years later because it did not contain elements of information required by NARA for interchange within its own information systems. <warrant> (p. 37) <P6> [A]rchivists failed to understand then, just as the ISAD(G) standard fails to do now, that rules for content and data representation make sense in the context of the purposes of actual exchanges or implementation, not in the abstract, and that different rules or standards for end-products may derive from the same principles. (p. 38) <P7> After the Committee on Archival Information Exchange of the Society of American Archivists was confronted with proposals to adopt many different vocabularies for a variety of different data elements, a group of archivists who were deeply involved in standards and description efforts within the SAA formed an Ad Hoc Working Group on Standards for Archival Description (WGSAD) to identify what types of standards were needed in order to promote better description practices.  WSAD concluded that existing standards were especially inadequate to guide practice in documenting contexts of creation.  Since then, considerable progress has been made in developing frameworks for documentation, archival information systems architecture and user requirements analysis, which have been identified as the three legs on which the documenting documentation platform rests. <warrant> (p. 38) <P8> Documentation of organizational activity ought to begin long before records are transferred to archives, and may take place even before any records are created -- at the time records are created -- at the time when new functions are assigned to an organization. (p. 39) <P9> It is possible to identify records which will be created and their retention requirements before they are created, because their evidential value and informational content are essentially predetermined. (p. 39) <P10> Archivists can actively intervene through regulation and guidance to ensure that the data content and values depicting activities and functions are represented in such a way that will make them useful for subsequent management and retrieval of the records resulting from these activities. This information, together with systems documentation, defines the immediate information system context out of which the records were generated, in which they are stored, and from which they were retrieved during their active life. (p. 39) <P11> Documentation of the link between data content and the context of creation and use of the records is essential if records (archives or manuscripts) are to have value as evidence. (p. 39) <P12> [C]ontextual documentation capabilities can be dramatically improved by having records managers actively intervene in systems design and implementation.  The benefits of proactive documentation of the context of records creation, however, are not limited to electronic records; the National Archives of Canada has recently revised its methods of scheduling to ensure that such information about important records systems and contexts of records creation will be documented earlier. <warrant> (p. 39) <P13> Documentation of functions and of information systems can be conducted using information created by the organization in the course of its own activity, and can be used to ensure the transfer of records to archives and/or their destruction at appropriate times. It ensures that data about records which were destroyed as well as those which were preserved will be kept, and it takes advantage of the greater knowledge of records and the purposes and methods of day-to-day activity that exist closer to the events. (p. 40) <P14> The facts of processing, exhibiting, citing, publishing and otherwise managing records becomes significant for their meaning as records, which is not true of library materials. (p. 41) <P15> [C]ontent and data representation requirements ought to be derived from analysis of the uses to which such systems must be put, and should satisfy the day to day information requirements of archivists who are the primary users of archives, and of researchers using archives for primary evidential purposes. (p. 41) <P16> The ICA Commission proposes a principle by which archivists would select data content for archival descriptions, which is that "the structure and content of representations of archival material should facilitate information retrieval." (5.1) Unfortunately, it does not help us to understand how the Commission selected the twenty-five elements of information identified as its standard, or how we could apply the principle to the selection of additional data content. It does, however, serve as a prelude to the question of which principles should guide archivists in choosing data values in their representations. (p. 42) <P17> Libraries have found that subject access based on titles, tables of contents, abstracts, indexes and similar formal subject analysis by-products of publishing can support most bibliographic research, but the perspectives brought to materials by archival researchers are both more varied and likely to differ from those of the records creators. (p. 43) <P18> The user should not only be able to employ a terminology and a perspective which are natural, but also should be able to enter the system with a knowledge of the world being documented, without knowing about the world of documentation. (p. 44) <P19> Users need to be able to enter the system through the historical context of activity, construct relations in that context, and then seek avenues down into the documentation. This frees them from trying to imagine what records might have survived -- documentation assists the user to establish the non-existence of records as well as their existence -- or to fathom how archivists might have described records which did survive. (p. 44) <P20> When they departed from the practices of Brooks and Schellenberg in order to develop means for the construction of union catalogues of archival holdings, American archivists were not defining new principles, but inventing a simple experiment. After several years of experience with the new system, serious criticisms of it were being leveled by the very people who had first devised it. (p. 45)
Conclusions
RQ "In short, documentation of the three aspects of records creation contexts (activities, organizations and their functions, and information systems), together with representation of their relations, is essential to the concept of archives as evidence and is therefore a fundamental theoretical principle for documenting documentation. Documentation is a process that captures information about an activity which is relevant to locating evidence of that activity, and captures information about records that are useful to their ongoing management by the archival repository. The primary source of information is the functions and information systems giving rise to the records, and the principal activity of the archivist is the manipulation of data for reference files that create richly-linked structures among attributes of the records-generating context, and which point to the underlying evidence or record." (p. 46)
Type
Journal
Title
The Management of Digital Data: A metadata approach
CA "Super-metadata may well play a crucial role both in facilitating access to DDOs and in providing a means of selecting and managing the maintenance of these DDOs over time."
Phrases
<P1> The preservation of the intellectual content of DDOs brings into focus a major issue: "the integrity and authenticity of the information as originally recorded" (Graham, 1997). (p.365). <P2> The emergence of dynamic and living DDOs is presenting challenges to the conventional understanding of the preservation of digital resources and is forcing many organizations to reevaluate their strategies in the light of these rapid advances in information sources. The use of appropriate metadata is recognized to be essential in ensuring continued access to dynamic and living DDOs, but the standards for such metadata are not yet fully understood or developed. (p.369)
Conclusions
RQ How can we decide what to preserve ? How can we assure long-term access? What will be the cost of electronic archiving? Which metadata schema will be in use 10 years from now, and how will migration be achieved?
Over the last decade a number of writers have encouraged archivists to develop strategies and tactics to redefine their role and to insert themselves into the process of designing recordkeeping systems. This paper urges archivists to exploit the authority inherent in the laws, regulations, standards, and professional best practices that dictate recordkeeping specifications to gain great acceptance for the requirements for electronic evidence. Furthermore, it postulates that this proactive approach could assist in gaining greater respect for the archival profession.
Critical Arguements
CA The use of authoritative sources of warrant would improve acceptance of electronic records as evidence and create greater respect for the archival profession.
Phrases
<P1> The legal, administrative, fiscal, or information value of records is dependent upon the degree of trust society places in records as reliable testimony or evidence of the acts they purport to document. In turn, this trust is dependent on society's faith in the procedures that control the creation and maintenance of the record. <P2> [S]ociety bestows some methods of recordkeeping and record creating with an authority or 'warrant' for generating reliable records. <P3> David Bearman first proposed the idea of "literary warrant." <P4> [S]tatements of warrant provide clear instructions on how records should be kept and delineate elements needed for the records to be complete. <P5> The information technology field promulgates standards, but in North America adherence to them is voluntary rather than obligatory. <P6> The University of Pittsburgh Electronic Recordkeeping Project suggested that requirements for electronic recordkeeping should derive from authoritative sources, such as the law, customs, standards, and professional best practices accepted by society and codified in the literature of different professions concerned with records and recordkeeping rather than developed in isolation. <P7> On their own, archival requirements for recordkeeping have very little authority as no authoritative agencies such as standards boards or professional associations have yet to endorse them [sic] and few archivists have the authority to insist that their organizations follow them. <P8> An NHPRC study suggested that archivists have not been involved in the process of meeting the challenges of electronic records because they are undervalued by their colleagues, or, in other words, are not viewed as a credible source.
Conclusions
RQ "By highlighting the similarity between recordkeeping requirements and the requirements delineated in authoritative statements in the law, auditing standards, and professional best practices, archivists will increase the power of their message. ... If archivists are to take their rightful place as regulators of an organization's documentary requirements, they will have to reach beyond their own professional literature and understand the requirements for recordkeeping imposed by other professions and society in general. Furthermore, they will have to study methods of increasing the accpetance of their message and the impact and power of warrant."
Type
Journal
Title
Will Metadata Replace Archival Description: A Commentary
CA Before archival description can be replaced by metadata, "archivists must first study their user needs, identify processes that protect the integrity and impartiality of records, and ensure the capture of important contextual information." (p.38)
Phrases
<P1> Unfortunately, information systems often do not create records, concentrating instead on the preservation of information to the detriment of recordkeeping. Concern over this issue has lead Wallace to promote a new role for archivists, one that places them at the conception of the life cycle, establishing standards for record preservation and management as well as dictating record creation. Demarcation between archivists and records managers disappears in this new paradigm, and a new role as auditor, system designer, and regulator begins to emerge. (p.34) <P2> "Metadata are essential if archivists are to maintain the integrity and authenticity of evidence of actions. McNeil likens metadata systems to protocol registers and sees metadata itself as evidence, as well as a means of preserving evidence." (p.35)
Conclusions
RQ Will metadata replace archival description? Will metadata requirements fulfill the needs of secondary users? Will metadata require secondary descriptions?
Type
Journal
Title
Defintions of electronic records: The European method
CA The consistent use of well-defined, agreed-upon terminology is a powerful tool for archivists. The point of view of diplomatics may be useful.
Phrases
<P1> It is very difficult for a European archivist or records manager to understand why it is necessary to use new terms to express old things. Literary warrant is one of these terms. If literary warrant simply means "best practice and professional culture" in recordkeeping, we only need to know what creators did for centuries and still do today (and probably will do also do in the future) in this area. (p. 220) <P2> Personally I am absolutely sure that without an effort at clarifying definitions in the recordkeeping environment, there is no way to obtain significant results in the field of electronic records. As the first, theoretical step, clarifying definitions will verify principles, from the juridical and technological point of view, which will be the basis of systems and particular applications. (p.220)
SOW
RQ What is the intrinsic nature of a record? How does the international community understand the concept of archival bond? Do they see it as something positive or a hindrance?
Type
Journal
Title
Law, evidence and electronic records: A strategic perspective from the global periphery
CA A recordkeeping paradigm set up around the records continuum will take us into the future, because it sees opportunities, not problems, in e-environments. It fosters accountability through evidence-generating recordkeeping practices.
Phrases
<P1> This challenge is being addressed by what Chris Hurley has called second-generation archival law, which stretches the reach of archival jurisdictions into the domain of the record-creator. A good example of such archival law is South Africa's National Archives Act of 1996, which gives the National Archives regulatory authority over all public records from the moment of their creation. The Act provides a separate definition of "electronic records systems" and accords the National Archives specific powers in relation to their management. Also significant is that the Act brings within the National Archives' jurisdiction those categories of record-creators commonly allowed exclusion -- the security establishment, public services outside formal structures of government, and "privatized" public service agencies. (p.34) <P2> A characteristic (if an absence can be a characteristic) of most archival laws, first and second generation, is a failure to define either the conditions/processes requiring "recording" or the generic attributes of a "record." (p.34) <P3> Archival law, narrowly defined, is not at the cutting edge and is an increasingly small component of broader recordkeeping regimes. This is one of the many signs of an emerging post-custodial era, which Chris Hurley speculates will be informed by a third generation of archival law. Here, the boundaries between recordkeeping domains dissolve, with all of them being controlled by universal rules. (p.34)
Conclusions
RQ What is the relationship between the event and the record? Is the idea of evidence pivotal to the concept of "recordness"? Should evidence be privileged above all else in defining a record? What about remembering, forgetting, imagining?
Type
Journal
Title
Metadata Strategies and Archival Description: Comparing Apples to Oranges
Advocates of a "metadata systems approach" to the description of electronic records argue that metadata's capacity to provide descriptive information about the context of electronic records creation will obviate, or reduce significantly, the need for traditional archival description. This article examines the assumptions about the nature of archival description and of metadata on which metadata strategies are grounded, for the purposes of ascertaining the following: whether the skepticism concerning the capacity of traditional description to meet the challenges posed by the so-called "second generation" of electronic records is justified; whether the use of metadata as archival description is consistent with their nature and purpose; and whether metadata are capable of servinng archival descriptive purposes.
Critical Arguements
CA "Before the archival profession assigns to traditional archival description the diminished role of "added value" (i.e. accessory) or abandons it altogether, the assumptions about the nature of archival description and of metadata on which metadata strategies are grounded ought to be carefully examined. Such an examination is necessary to ascertain the following: whether the skepticism concerning the capacity of traditional description to meet the challenges posed by the so-called "second generation" of electronic records is justified, whether the use of metadata as archival description is consistent with their nature and purpose, and whether metadata are acapable of serving archival purposes."
Phrases
<P1> In an article published in Archivaria, David Wallace summarized recent writing on the subject of metadata and concluded that "[d]ata dictionaries and the types of metadata that they house and can be built to house should be seriously evaluated by archivists" because of their potential to signficantly improve and ultimately transform traditional archival practice in the areas of appraisal, arrangement, description, reference, and access. <warrant> <P2> In the area of description, specifically, advocates of "metadata management" or a "metadata systems approach" believe that metadata's capacity to provide descriptive information about the context of electronic records creation will obviate, or reduce significantly, the need for traditional description. <P3> Charles Dollar maintains that archival participation in the IRDS standard is essential to ensure that archival requirements, including descriptive requirements, are understood and adopted within it. <warrant> <P4> According to David Wallace, "archivists will need to concentrate their efforts on metadata systems creation rather than informational content descriptions, since in the electronic realm, archivists' concern for informational value will be eclipsed by concern for the evidential value of the system." <warrant> <P5> Charles Dollar, for his part, predicts that, rather than emphasize "the products of an information system," a metadata systems approach to description will focus on "an understanding of the information system context that supports organization-wide information sharing." <P6> Because their scope and context are comparitively narrow, metadata circumscribe and atomize these various contexts of records creation. Archival description, on the other hand, enlarges and integrates them. In so doing it reveals continuities and discontinuities in the matrix of function, structure, and record-keeping over time. <P7> Metadata are part of this broader context, since they constitute a series within the creator's fonds. The partial context provided by metadata should not, however, be mistaken for the whole context. <P8> Metadata, for example, may be capable of explaining contextual attributes of the data within an electronic records system, but they are incapable of describing themselves -- i.e., their own context of creation and use -- because they cannot be detached from themselves. For this reason, it is necessary to describe the context in which the metadata are created so that their meaning also will be preserved over time. <P9> A metadata system is like a diary that, in telegraphic style, records the daily events that take place in the life of an individual as they occur and from the individual's perspective. <P10> Archival description, it could be said, is the view from the plane; metadata, the view from the field as it is plowed. <P11> While a close-up shot-- such as the capture of a database view -- may be necessary for the purposes of preserving record context and system functionality, it does not follow that such a snapshot is necessary or even desirable for the purposes of description. <P12> Because the context revealed by metadata systems is so detailed, and the volume of transactions they capture is so enormous, metadata may in fact obscure, rather than illuminate, the broader administrative context and thereby bias the users' understanding of the records' meaning. In fact, parts of actions and transactions may develop entirely outside of the electronic system and never be included in the metadata. <P13> If the metadata are kept in their entirety, users searching for documents will have to wade through a great deal of irrelevant data to find what they need. If the metadata are chopped up into bits corresponding to what has been kept, how comprehensible will they be to the uesr? <P14> The tendency to describe metadata in metaphorical terms, e.g., in relation to archival inventories, has distracted attention from consideration of what metadata are in substantial, concrete terms. They are, in fact, records created and used in the conduct of affairs of which they form a part. <P15> The transactions captured by metadata systems may be at a more microscopic level than those captured in registers and the context may be more detailed, given the technological complexity of electronic record-keeping environments. Nevertheless, their function remains the same. <P16> And, like protocol registers, whose permanent retention is legislated, metadata need to be preserved in perpetuity because they are concrete evidence of what documents were made and received, who handled them, with what results, and the transactions to which they relate. <warrant> <P17> While it is true that metadata systems show or reveal the context in which transactions occur in an electronic system and therefore constitute a kind of description of it -- Jenkinson made the same observation about registers -- their real object is to record the fact of these transactions; they should be, like registers, "preserved as a [record] of the proceedings in that connection." <P18> Viewing metadata systems as tools for achieving archival purposes, rather than as tools for achieving the creators' purposes is dangerous because it encourages us to, in effect, privilege potential secondary uses of metadata over their actual primary use; in so doing, we could reshape such use for purposes other than the conduct of affairs of which they are a part. <P19> Metadata strategies risk compromising, specifically, the impartiality of the records' creation. <P20> For archivists to introduce in the formation of metadata records requirements directed toward the future needs of archivists and researchers rather than toward the current needs of the creator would contribute an element of self-consciousness into the records creation process that is inconsistent with the preservation of the records' impartiality. <P21> If the impartiality of the metadata is compromised, their value as evidence will be compromised, which means, ultimately, that the underlying objective of metadata strategies -- the preservation of evidence -- will be defeated. <P22> None of these objections should be taken to suggest that archivists do not have a role to play in the design and maintenance of metadata systems. It is, rather, to suggest that that role must be driven by our primary obligation to protect and preserve, to the extent possible, the essential characterisitcis of the archives. <P23> The proper role of an archivist in the design of a metadata system, then, is to assist the organization in identifying its own descriptive needs as well as to ensure that the identification process is driven, not by narrowly defined system requirements, but by the organization's overarching need and obligation to create and maintain complete, reliable, and authentic records. <P24> That is why it is essential that information holdings are identified and described in a meaningful way, organized in a logical manner that fascilitates their access, and preserved in a manner that permits their continuing use. <P25> Record-keeing requirements for electronic records must address the need to render documentary relationships wisible and to build in procedures for authentication and preservation; such measures will ensure that record-keeping systems meet the criteris of "intergrity, currency an relevancy" necessary to the records creator. <P26> In other words, effective description is a consequence of effective records management and intelligent appraisal, not their purpose. If the primary objectives of metadata are met, description will be fascilitated and the need for description at lower levels (e.g., below the series level) may even be obviated. <P27> Metadata systems cannot and should not replace archival description. To meet the challenges posed by electronic records, it is more important than ever that we follow the dictates of archival science, which begin from a consideration of the nature of archives. <P28> Archival participation in the design and maintenance of metadata systems must be driven by the need to preserve them as archival documents, that is, as evidence of actions and transactions, not as descriptive tools. Our role is not to promote our own intersts, but to deepen the creator's understanding of its interests in preserving the evidence of its own actions and transactions. We can contribute to that understanding because we have a broader view of the creator's needs over time. In supporting these interests, we indirectly promote our own. <P29> To ensure that our descriptive infrastructure is sound -- that is to say, comprehensible, flexible, efficient, and effective -- we need equally to analyze our own information management methods and, out of that analysis, to develop complementary systems of administrative and intellectual control that will build upon each other. By these means we will be able to accomodate the diversity and complexity of the record-keeping environments with which we must deal.
Conclusions
RQ "Since 'current metadata systems do not account for the provenancial and contextual information needed to manage archival records,' archivists are exhorted [by Margaret Hedstrom] to direct their research efforts (and research dollars) toward the identification of the types of metadata that ought to be captured and created to meet archival descriptive requirements. "
SOW
DC Dr. Heather MacNeil is an Assistant Professor at the School of Library, Archival, and Information Studies at the University of British Columbia. Dr. MacNeilÔÇÖs major areas of interests include: trends and themes in archival research & scholarship; arrangement and description of archival documents; management of current records; trustworthiness of records as evidence; protection of personal privacy; interdisciplinary perspectives on record trustworthiness; and archival preservation of authentic electronic records
This article provides an overview of evolving Australian records continuum theory and the records continuum model, which is interpreted as both a metaphor and a new worldview, representing a paradigm shift in Kuhn's sense. It is based on a distillation of research findings drawn from discourse, literary warrant and historical analysis, as well as case studies, participant observation and reflection. The article traces the emergence in Australia in the 1990s of a community of practice which has taken continuum rather than life cycle based perspectives, and adopted postcustodial approaches to recordkeeping and archiving. It "places" the evolution of records continuum theory and practice in Australia in the context of a larger international discourse that was reconceptualizing traditional theory, and "reinventing" records and archives practice.
Publisher
Kluwer Academic Publishers
Publication Location
The Netherlands
Critical Arguements
CA Looks at the development of the Australian community of practice that led to records continuum theory: an approach that, in contrast to the North American life cycle approach, sees recordkeeping and archival practices as part of the same continuum of activities. Since the 1990s, there has been a lively debate between proponents of these two different ways of thinking. The second part of the article is highly theoretical, situating records continuum theory in the larger intellectual trend toward postmodernism and postpositivism.
Phrases
<P1> The model was built on a unifying concept of records inclusive of archives, which are defined as records of continuing value. It also drew on ideas about the "fixed" and "mutable" nature of records, the notion that records are ÔÇ£always in a process of becoming." (p. 334). <P2> Continuum ideas about the nature of records and archives challenge traditional understandings which differentiate "archives" from "records" on the basis of selection for permanent preservation in archival custody, and which focus on their fixed nature. Adopting a pluralist view of recorded information, continuum thinking characterises records as a special genre of documents in terms of their intent and functionality. It emphasises their evidentiary, transactional and contextual nature, rejecting approaches to the definition of records which focus on their subject content and informational value. (p. 335) <P3> [R]ecordkeeping and archiving processes ... help to assure the accessibility of meaningful records for as long as they are of value to people, organisations, and societies ÔÇô whether that be for a nanosecond or millennia. (p. 336) <P4> [I]f North American understandings of the term record keeping, based on life cycle concepts of records management, are used to interpret the writings of members of the Australian recordkeeping community, there is considerable potential for misunderstanding. <P5> Members of the recordkeeping and archiving community have worked together, often in partnership with members of other records and archives communities, on a range of national policy and standards initiatives, particularly in response to the challenge of electronic recordkeeping. These collaborative efforts resulted in AS 4390, the Australian Standard: Records Management (1996), the Australian Council of Archives' Common Framework for Electronic Recordkeeping (1996), and the Australian Records and Archives Competency Standards (1997). In a parallel and interconnected development, individual archival organisations have been developing electronic recordkeeping policies, standards, system design methodologies, and implementation strategies for their jurisdictions, including the National Archives of Australia's suite of standards, policies, and guidelines under the e-permanence initiative launched in early 2000. These developments have been deliberately set within the broader context of national standards and policy development frameworks. Two of the lead institutions in these initiatives are the National Archives of Australia and the State Records Authority of New South Wales, which have based their work in this area on exploration of fundamental questions about the nature of records and archives, and the role of recordkeeping and archiving in society. <warrant> (p. 339) <P6> In adopting a continuum-based worldview and defining its "place" in the world, the Australian recordkeeping and archiving community consciously rejected the life cycle worldview that had dominated records management and archives practice in the latter half of the 20th century in North America. ... They were also strong advocates of the nexus between accountable recordkeeping and accountability in a democratic society, and supporters of the dual role of an archival authority as both a regulator of current recordkeeping, and preserver of the collective memory of the state/nation. (p. 343-344) <P7> [P]ost-modern ideas about records view them as dynamic objects that are fixed in terms of content and meaningful elements of their structure, but linked to ever-broadening layers of contextual metadata that manages their meanings, and enables their accessibility and useability as they move through "spacetime." (p. 349) <P8> In exploring the role of recordkeeping and archiving professionals within a postcustodial frame of reference, archival theorists such as Brothman, Brown, Cook, Harris, Hedstrom, Hurley, Nesmith, and Upward have concluded that they are an integral part of the record and archive making and keeping process, involved in society's remembering and forgetting. (p. 355) <P9> Writings on the societal context of functional appraisal have gone some way to translate into appraisal policies and strategies the implications of the shifts in perception away from seeing records managers as passive keepers of documentary detritus ... and archivists as Jenkinson's neutral, impartial custodians of inherited records. (p. 355-356)
Conclusions
RQ "By attempting to define, to categorise, pin down, and represent records and their contexts of creation, management, and use, descriptive standards and metadata schema can only ever represent a partial view of the dynamic, complex, and multi-dimensional nature of records, and their rich webs of contextual and documentary relationships. Within these limitations, what recordkeeping metadata research is reaching towards are ways to represent records and their contexts as richly and extensively as possible, to develop frameworks that recognise their mutable and contingent nature, as well as the role of recordkeeping and archiving professionals (records managers and archivists) in their creation and evolution, and to attempt to address issues relating to time and space." (p. 354)
CA The want for hard unassailable recordkeeping rules ignores the fact that recordkeeping is contingent upon unique needs of each organization as far as acceptable risks and context. Reed argues that aiming to achieve basic agreement on a minimal set of metadata attributes is an important start.
Phrases
<P1> Recordkeeping must be tailored to the requirements of specific business functions and activities linked to related social and legal requirements, incorporated into particular business processes, and maintained through each change to those processes. (p. 222) <P2> A record core or metadata set which lacks such specificity, detailing only requirements for a unique identifier, will not support interpretation of the record outside the creating domain. To enable that, we need more detailed specification of the domain itself, data which is redundant when you know where you are, but essential to understanding and interpreting records where the domain is not explicit. (p. 229)
Conclusions
RQ To establish requirements for viable core elements, the big challenge is the issue of time and that data will change over time ÔÇöespecially as far as individual competence, business function and language.
One such expedient could be more structured and more integrated use of formal and institutional data on records and archives. I cannot offer any completed model of this enhanced perspective, and as far as I know, one does not exist. However, it is a new way of thinking and looking at the problems we encounter. What I would like to do is draw attention to some of the approaches now being developed in The Netherlands. In a way, this presentation will therefore be a report on the Dutch arvhival situation.
Critical Arguements
CA "In a world defined by the enormous size of archives, where the multiplicity of records is in turn driven by the growing complexity of society and its administration, and by the proliferation of types of 'information carriers', it is becoming increasingly difficult fpr archivists to fulfill their primary tasks. It is therefore necessary to study carefully the development of maintenance and control mechanisms for archives. We cannot afford waste or overlook any possibility. It is also necessary to look around us, to discover what other archivists in other countries are doing, and what others in related fields, such as libraries and museums, have accomplished. Essentially, we all deal with the same problems and must try to find new solutions to master these problems."
Phrases
<P1> Document forms can be regarded as forms of objects. We probably need to gain more experience in recognizing different forms of documents and interpreting them, but once we have this knowledge, we can use it in the same way as we now use 'form' in its archival sense: to distinguish one object from another. <P2> In fact, by extension, one can even construct and defend the thesis that all decisions in an administration are reached using standard procedures and forms. Once this is realized, one can ask: what use to archivists make of this knowledge in their daily work? What are the possibilities? <P3> Often the forms of materials created prove to be of a more consistent nature than the offices that use them. If an office ceases its activity, another will take over its tasks and for the most part will use the same or almost the same forms of material. <P4> Understanding the functions of the organization will provide archivists not only with information about the material involved, but also with knowledge of the procedures, which in turn provides information about the records and their different forms. This kind of sympathetic understanding enables archivists to make all kinds of decisions, and it is important to note that at least part of this knowledge should be provided to the users, so that they can decide which records might be of interest to them. <warrant> <P5> We are increasingly aware that we must distinguish between processing an archive (i.e. organizing records according to archival principles after appraisal) and making the contents available for users through finding aids, indexes and other means. <P6> With respect to the latter, it is clear that archivists should make use of both context- and provenance-based indexing. They should take advantage of the possiblities offered by the structures and forms of material -- something which the librarian cannot do. Furthermore, they should also use content indexing in a selective way, only when they think it necessary [to] better serve researchers. <warrant> <P7> The National Archives in The Hague has responded to these new perspectives by developing a computer programme called MAIS (Micro Archives Inventory System), which is a formal way of processing archives based on provenance. <P8> The object of this presentation has been to show that use of structure, forms of material and functions, can aid the archivist in his/her work.
Conclusions
RQ "While these initial Dutch efforts have been produced in a rather unorganized way, it should nevertheless be possible to approach the work more systematically in [the] future, building up a body of knowledge of forms for users of archives. David Bearman has offered some preliminary suggestions in this direction, in the article cited above; it is now a matter of more research required to realize something positive in this field."
SOW
DC J. Peter Sigmond is Director of Collections at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Type
Journal
Title
Structuring the Records Continuum Part Two: Structuration Theory and Recordkeeping
In the previous issue of Archives and Manuscripts I presented the first part of this two part exploration. It dealt with some possible meanings for 'post' in the term postcustodial. For archivists, considerations of custody are becoming more complex because of changing social, technical and legal considerations. These changes include those occurring in relation to access and the need to document electronic business communications reliably. Our actions, as archivists, in turn become more complex as we attempt to establish continuity of custody in electronic recordkeeping environments. In this part, I continue the case for emphasising the processes of archiving in both our theory and practice. The archives as a functional structure has dominated twentieth century archival discourse and institutional ordering, but we are going through a period of transformation. The structuration theory of Anthony Giddens is used to show that there are very different ways of theorising about our professional activities than have so far been attempted within the archival profession. Giddens' theory, at the very least, provides a useful device for gaining insights into the nature of theory and its relationship with practice. The most effective use of theory is as a way of seeing issues. When seen through the prism of structuration theory, the forming processes of the virtual archives are made apparent.
Critical Arguements
CA "This part of my exploration of the continuum will continue the case for understanding 'postcustodial' as a bookmark term for a major transition in archival practice. That transition involves leaving a long tradition in which continuity was a matter of sequential control. Electronic recordkeeping processes need to incorporate continuity into the essence of recordkeeping systems and into the lifespan of documents within those systems. In addressing this issue I will present a structurationist reading of the model set out in Part 1, using the sophisticated theory contained in the work of Anthony Giddens. Structuration theory deals with process, and illustrates why we must constantly re-assess and adjust the patterns for ordering our activities. It gives some leads on how to go about re-institutionalising these new patterns. When used in conjunction with continuum thinking, Giddens' meta-theory and its many pieces can help us to understand the complexities of the virtual archives, and to work our way towards the establishment of suitable routines for the control of document management, records capture, corporate memory, and collective memory."
Phrases
<P1> Broadly the debate has started to form itself as one between those who represent the structures and functions of an archival institution in an idealised form, and those who increasingly concentrate on the actions and processes which give rise to the record and its carriage through time and space. In one case the record needs to be stored, recalled and disseminated within our institutional frameworks; in the other case it is the processes for storing, recalling, and disseminating the record which need to be placed into a suitable framework. <P2> Structure, for Giddens, is not something separate from human action. It exists as memory, including the memory contained within the way we represent, recall, and disseminate resources including recorded information. <P3> Currently in electronic systems there is an absence of recordkeeping structures and disconnected dimensions. The action part of the duality has raced ahead of the structural one; the structuration process has only just begun. <P4> The continuum model's breadth and richness as a conceptual tool is expanded when it is seen that it can encompass action-structure issues in at least three specialisations within recordkeeping: contemporary recordkeeping - current recordkeeping actions and the structures in which they take place; regulatory recordkeeping - the processes of regulation and the enabling and controlling structures for action such as policies, standards, codes, legislation, and promulgation of best practices; historical recordkeeping - explorations of provenance in which action and structure are examined forensically as part of the data sought about records for their storage, recall and dissemination. <P5> The capacity to imbibe information about recordkeeping practices in agencies will be crucial to the effectiveness of the way archival 'organisations' set up their postcustodial programs. They will have to monitor the distribution and exercise of custodial responsibilities for electronic records from before the time of their creation. <warrant> <P6> As John McDonald has pointed out, recordkeeping activities need to occur at desktop level within systems that are not dependent upon the person at the desktop understanding all of the details of the operation of that system. <P7> Giddens' more recent work on reflexivity has many parallels with metadata approaches to recordkeeping. What if the records, as David Bearman predicts, can be self-managing? Will they be able to monitor themselves? <P8> He rejects the life cycle model in sociology, based on ritualised passages through life, and writes of 'open experience thresholds'. Once societies, for example, had rites for coming of age. Coming of age in a high modern society is now a complex process involving a host of experiences and risks which are very different to that of any previous generation. Open experience threshholds replace the life cycle thresholds, and as the term infers, are much less controlled or predictable. <P9> There is a clear parallel with recordkeeping in a high modern environment. The custodial thresholds can no longer be understood in terms of the spatial limits between a creating agency and an archives. The externalities of the archives as place will decline in significance as a means of directly asserting the authenticity and reliability of records. The complexities of modern recordkeeping involve many more contextual relationships and an ever increasing network of relationships between records and the actions that take place in relation to them. We have no need for a life cycle concept based on the premise of generational repetition of stages through which a record can be expected to pass. We have entered an age of more recordkeeping choices and of open experience thresholds. <P10> It is the increase in transactionality, and the technologies being used for those transactions, which are different. The solution, easier to write about than implement, is for records to parallel Giddens' high modern individual and make reflexive use of the broader social environment in which they exist. They can reflexively monitor their own action and, with encoding help from archivists and records managers, resolve their own crises as they arise. <warrant> <P11> David Bearman's argument that records can be self-managing goes well beyond the easy stage. It is supported by the Pittsburgh project's preliminary set of metadata specifications. The seeds of self-management can be found in object oriented programming, java, applets, and the growing understanding of the importance and nature of metadata. <P12> Continuum models further assist us to conceive of how records, as metadata encapsulated objects, can resolve many of their own life crises as they thread their way through time and across space. <P13> To be effective monitors of action, archival institutions will need to be recognised by others as the institutions most capable of providing guidance and control in relation to the integration of the archiving processes involved in document management, records capture, the organisation of corporate memory and the networking of archival systems. <warrant> <P14> Signification, in the theoretical domain, refers to our interpretative schemes and the way we encode and communicate our activities. At a macro level this includes language itself; at a micro level it can include our schemes for classification and ordering. <P15> The Pittsburgh project addressed the three major strands of Giddens' theoretical domain. It explored and set out functional requirements for evidence - signification. It sought literary warrants for archival tasks - legitimation. It reviewed the acceptability of the requirements for evidence within organisational cultures - domination. <P16> In Giddens' dimensional approach, the theoretical domain is re-defined to be about coding, organising our resources, and developing norms and standards. In this area the thinking has already begun to produce results, which leads this article in to a discussion of structural properties. <P17> Archivists deal with structural properties when, for example, they analyse the characteristics of recorded information such as the document, the record, the archive and the archives. The archives as a fortress is an observable structural property, as is the archives as a physical accumulation of records. Within Giddens' structuration theory, when archivists write about their favourite features, be they records or the archives as a place, they are discussing structural properties. <P18> Postcustodial practice in Australia is already beginning to put together a substantial array of structural properties. These developments are canvassed in the article by O'Shea and Roberts in the previous issue of Archives and Manuscripts. They include policies and strategies, standards, recordkeeping regimes, and what has come to be termed distributed custody. <P19> As [Terry] Eastwood comments in the same article, we do not have adequate electronic recordkeeping systems. Without them there can be no record in time-space to serve any form of accountability. <warrant> <P20> In the Pittsburgh project, for example, the transformation of recordkeeping processes is directed towards the creation and management of evidence, and possible elements of a valid rule-resource set have emerged. Elements can include the control of recordkeeping actions, accountability, the management of risk, the development of recordkeeping regimes, the establishment of recordkeeping requirements, and the specification of metadata. <P21> In a postcustodial approach it is the role of archival institutions to foster better recordkeeping practices within all the dimensions of recordkeeping. <warrant>
Conclusions
RQ "Best practice in the defence of the authoritative qualities of records can no longer be viewed as a linear chain, and the challenge is to establish new ways of legitimating responsibilities for records storage and custody which recognise the shifts which have occurred." ... "The recordkeeping profession should seek to establish itself as ground cover, working across terrains rather than existing tree-like in one spot. Beneath the ground cover there are shafts of specialisation running both laterally and vertically. Perhaps we can, as archivists, rediscover something that a sociologist like Giddens has never forgotten. Societies, including their composite parts, are the ultimate containers of recorded information. As a place in society, as Terry Cook argues, the archives is a multiple reality. We can set in train policies and strategies that can help generate multiplicity without losing respect for particular mine shafts. Archivists have an opportunity to pursue policies which encourage the responsible exercising of a custodial role throughout society, including the professions involved in current, regulatory and historical recordkeeping. If we take up that opportunity, our many goals can be better met and our concerns will be addressed more effectively."
SOW
DC "Frank Upward is a senior lecturer in the Department of Librarianship, Archives and Records at Monash University. He is an historian of the ideas contained in the Australian records continuum approach, and an ex- practitioner within that approach." ... "These two articles, and an earlier one on Ian Maclean and the origins of Australian continuum thinking, have not, so far, contained appropriate acknowledgements. David Bearman provided the necessary detonation of certain archival practices, and much more. Richard Brown and Terry Cook drew my attention to Anthony Giddens' work and their own work has helped shape my views. I have many colleagues at Monash who encourage my eccentricities. Sue McKemmish has helped shape my ideas and my final drafts and Barbara Reed has commented wisely on my outrageous earlier drafts. Livia Iacovino has made me stop and think more about the juridical tradition in recordkeeping. Chris Hurley produced many perspectives on the continuum during the 1996 seminars which have helped me see the model more fully. Don Schauder raised a number of key questions about Giddens as a theorist. Bruce Wearne of the Sociology Department at Monash helped me lift the clarity of my sociological explanations and made me realise how obsessed Giddens is with gerunds. The structural-functionalism of Luciana Duranti and Terry Eastwood provided me with a counterpoint to many of my arguments, but I also owe them debts for their respective explorations of recordkeeping processes and the intellectual milieu of archival ideas, and for their work on the administrative-juridical tradition of recordkeeping. Glenda Acland has provided perceptive comments on my articles - and supportive ones, for which I am most grateful given how different the articles are from conventional archival theorising. Australian Archives, and its many past and present staff members, has been important to me."
Type
Journal
Title
Structuring the Records Continuum Part One: Post-custodial principles and properties
The records continuum is becoming a much used term, but has seldom been defined in ways which show it is a time/space model not a life of the records model. Dictionary definitions of a continuum describe such features as its continuity, the indescernibility of its parts, and the way its elements pass into each other. Precise definitions, accordingly, have to discern the indiscernible, identify points that are not distinct, and do so in ways which accomodate the continuity of change. This article, and a second part to be published in the next volume, will explore the continuum in time/space terms supported by a theoretical mix of archival science, postmodernity and the 'structuration theory' of Anthony Giddens. In this part the main objectives are to give greater conceptual firmness to the continuum; to clear the way for broader considerations of the nature of the continuum by freeing archivists from the need to debate custody; to show how the structural principles for archival practice are capable of different expression without losing contact with something deeper that can outlive the manner of expression.
Critical Arguements
CA "This is the first instalment of a two part article exploring the records continuum. Together the articles will build into a theory about the constitution of the virtual archives. In this part I will examine what it can mean to be 'postcustodial', outline some possible structural principles for the virtual archives, and present a logical model for the records continuum." ... "In what follows in the remainder of this article (and all of the next) , I will explore the relevance of [Anthony] Giddens' theory to the structuring of the records continuum."
Phrases
<P1> If the archival profession is to avoid a fracture along the lines of paper and electronic media, it has to be able to develop ways of expressing its ideas in models of relevance to all ages of recordkeeping, but do so in ways which are contemporaneous with our own society. <warrant> <P2> We need more of the type of construct provided by the Pittsburgh Project's functional requirements for evidence which are 'high modern' but can apply to recordkeeping over time. <P3> What is essential is for electronic records to be identified, controlled and accessible for as long as they have value to Government and the Community. <warrant> <P4> We have to face up to the complexification of ownership, possession, guardianship and control within our legal system. Even possession can be broken down into into physical possession and constructed possession. We also have to face the potential within our technology for ownership, possession, custody or control to be exercised jointly by the archives, the organisation creating the records, and auditing agencies. The complexity requires a new look at our way of allocating authorities and responsibilities. <P5> In what has come to be known as the continuum approach Maclean argued that archivists should base their profession upon studies of the characteristics of recorded information, recordkeeping systems, and classification (the way the records were ordered within recordkeeping systems and the way these were ordered through time). <P6> A significant role for today's archival institution is to help to identify and establish functional requirements for recordkeeping that enable a more systematic approach to authentication than that provided by physical custody. <warrant> <P7> In an electronic work environment it means, in part, that the objectivity, understandability, availability, and usability of records need to be inherent in the way that the record is captured. In turn the documents need to be captured in the context of the actions of which they are part, and are recursively involved. <warrant> <P8>A dimensional analysis can be constructed from the model and explained in a number of ways including a recordkeeping system reading. When the co-ordinates of the continuum model are connected, the different dimensions of a recordkeeping system are revealed. The dimensions are not boundaries, the co-ordinates are not invariably present, and things may happen simultaneously across dimensions, but no matter how a recordkeeping system is set up it can be analysed in terms such as: first dimensional analysis: a pre- communication system for document creation within electronic systems [creating the trace]; second dimensional analysis: a post- communication system, for example traditional registry functionality which includes registration, the value adding of data for linking documents and disseminating them, and the maintenance of the record including disposition data [capturing trace as record]; third dimensional analysis: a system involving building, recalling and disseminating corporate memory [organising the record as memory]; fourth dimensional analysis: a system for building, recalling and disseminating collective memory (social, cultural or historical) including information of the type required for an archival information system [pluralizing the memory]. <P9> In the high modern recordkeeping environment of the 1990's a continuum has to take into account a different array of recordkeeping tools. These tools, plucking a few out at random but ordering the list dimensionally, include: document management software, Australian records system software, the intranet and the internet. <P10> In terms of a records continuum which supports an evidence based recordkeeping approach, the second dimension is crucial. This is where the document is disembedded from the immediate contexts of the first dimension. It is this disembedding process that gives the record its value as a 'symbolic token'. A document is embedded in an act, but the document as a record needs to be validatable using external reference points. These points include the operation of the recordkeeping system into which it was received, and information pertaining to the technical, social (including business) and communication processes of which the document was part.
Conclusions
RQ "Postcustodial approaches to archives and records cannot be understood if they are treated as a dualism. They are not the opposite of custody. They are a response to opportunities for asserting the role of an archives - and not just its authentication role - in many re-invigorating ways, a theme which I will explore further in the next edition of Archives and Manuscripts."
SOW
DC "Frank Upward is a senior lecturer in the Department of Librarianship, Archives and Records at Monash University. He is an historian of the ideas contained in the Australian records continuum approach, and an ex-practitioner within that approach."
Type
Electronic Journal
Title
Metadata Corner: Working Meeting on Electronic Records Research
CA Just as the digital library has forced librarians to rethink their profession, so has the electronic record done the same for archivists and recordkeepers. Much of the debate centers around what e-records are and how to deal with them.
Phrases
<P1> Their presentations at the Working Meeting elaborated on the concept of "literary warrant," which can be defined as the mandate from outside the archives profession -- from law, professional best practices and other special sources -- which requires the creation and maintenance of records. (p.1) <P2> Systems that records professionals devise to maintain these concepts over time, may, therefore, be of interest to information professionals interested in digital preservation. Authenticity, indeed, is a key component of Peter Graham's description of "intellectual preservation." (p.3)
Conclusions
RQ How can metadata be linked to its record over time? How can we ensure the "least-loss" migration of metadata over time? Collaboration with warrant creators from other fields such as lawyers and auditors is desirable.
Type
Electronic Journal
Title
The Warwick Framework: A container architecture for diverse sets of metadata
This paper is a abbreviated version of The Warwick Framework: A Container Architecture for Aggregating Sets of Metadata. It describes a container architecture for aggregating logically, and perhaps physically, distinct packages of metadata. This "Warwick Framework" is the result of the April 1996 Metadata II Workshop in Warwick U.K.
ISBN
1082-9873
Critical Arguements
CA Describes the Warwick Framework, a proposal for linking together the various metadata schemes that may be attached to a given information object by using a system of "packages" and "containers." "[Warwick Workshop] attendees concluded that ... the route to progress on the metadata issue lay in the formulation a higher-level context for the Dublin Core. This context should define how the Core can be combined with other sets of metadata in a manner that addresses the individual integrity, distinct audiences, and separate realms of responsibility of these distinct metadata sets. The result of the Warwick Workshop is a container architecture, known as the Warwick Framework. The framework is a mechanism for aggregating logically, and perhaps physically, distinct packages of metadata. This is a modularization of the metadata issue with a number of notable characteristics. It allows the designers of individual metadata sets to focus on their specific requirements, without concerns for generalization to ultimately unbounded scope. It allows the syntax of metadata sets to vary in conformance with semantic requirements, community practices, and functional (processing) requirements for the kind of metadata in question. It separates management of and responsibility for specific metadata sets among their respective "communities of expertise." It promotes interoperability by allowing tools and agents to selectively access and manipulate individual packages and ignore others. It permits access to the different metadata sets that are related to the same object to be separately controlled. It flexibly accommodates future metadata sets by not requiring changes to existing sets or the programs that make use of them."
Phrases
<P1> The range of metadata needed to describe and manage objects is likely to continue to expand as we become more sophisticated in the ways in which we characterize and retrieve objects and also more demanding in our requirements to control the use of networked information objects. The architecture must be sufficiently flexible to incorporate new semantics without requiring a rewrite of existing metadata sets. <warrant> <P2> Each logically distinct metadata set may represent the interests of and domain of expertise of a specific community. <P3> Just as there are disparate sources of metadata, different metadata sets are used by and may be restricted to distinct communities of users and agents. <P4> Strictly partitioning the information universe into data and metadata is misleading. <P5> If we allow for the fact that metadata for an object consists of logically distinct and separately administered components, then we should also provide for the distribution of these components among several servers or repositories. The references to distributed components should be via a reliable persistent name scheme, such as that proposed for Universal Resources Names (URNs) and Handles. <P6> [W]e emphasize that the existence of a reliable URN implementation is a necessary to avoid the problems of dangling references that plague the Web. <warrant> <P7> Anyone can, in fact, create descriptive data for a networked resource, without permission or knowledge of the owner or manager of that resource. This metadata is fundamentally different from that metadata that the owner of a resource chooses to link or embed with the resource. We, therefore, informally distinguish between two categories of metadata containers, which both have the same implementation [internally referenced and externally referenced metadata containers].
Conclusions
RQ "We run the danger, with the full expressiveness of the Warwick Framework, of creating such complexity that the metadata is effectively useless. Finding the appropriate balance is a central design problem. ... Definers of specific metadata sets should ensure that the set of operations and semantics of those operations will be strictly defined for a package of a given type. We expect that a limited set of metadata types will be widely used and 'understood' by browsers and agents. However, the type system must be extensible, and some method that allows existing clients and agents to process new types must be a part of a full implementation of the Framework. ... There is a need to agree on one or more syntaxes for the various metadata sets. Even in the context of the relatively simple World Wide Web, the Internet is often unbearably slow and unreliable. Connections often fail or time out due to high load, server failure, and the like. In a full implementation of the Warwick Framework, access to a "document" might require negotiation across distributed repositories. The performance of this distributed architecture is difficult to predict and is prone to multiple points of failure. ... It is clear that some protocol work will need to be done to support container and package interchange and retrieval. ... Some examination of the relationship between the Warwick Framework and ongoing work in repository architectures would likely be fruitful.
Type
Web Page
Title
An Assessment of Options for Creating Enhanced Access to Canada's Audio-Visual Heritage
CA "This project was conducted by Paul Audley & Associates to investigate the feasibility of single window access to information about Canada's audio-visual heritage. The project follows on the recommendations of Fading Away, the 1995 report of the Task Force on the Preservation and Enhanced Use of Canada's Audio-Visual Heritage, and the subsequent 1997 report Search + Replay. Specific objectives of this project were to create a profile of selected major databases of audio-visual materials, identify information required to meet user needs, and suggest models for single-window access to audio-visual databases. Documentary research, some 35 interviews, and site visits to organizations in Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal provided the basis upon which the recommendations of this report were developed."
Type
Web Page
Title
JISC/NPO studies on the preservation of electronic materials: A framework of data types and formats, and issues affecting the long term preservation of digital material
CA Proposes a framework for preserving digital objects and discusses steps in the preservation process. Addresses a series of four questions: Why preserve? How much? How? And Where? Proposes a "Preservation Complexity Scorecard" to help identify the complexity of preservation needs and the appropriate preservation approach for a given object. "Although a great deal has been discussed and written about digital material preservation, there would appear to be no overall structure which brings together the findings of the numerous contributors to the debate, and allows them to be compared. This Report attempts to provide such a structure, whereby it should be possible to identify the essential elements of the preservation debate and to determine objectively the criticality of the other unresolved issues. This Report attempts to identify the most critical issues and employ them in order to determine their affect [sic] on preservation practice." (p. 5)
Conclusions
RQ "The study concludes that the overall management task in long term preservation is to moderate the pressure to preserve (Step 1) with the constraints dictated by a cost-effective archive (Step 3). This continuing process of moderation is documented through the Scorecard." (p. 6) "The Study overall recommends that a work programme should be started to: (a) Establish a Scorecard approach (to measure preservation complexity), (b) Establish an inventory of archive items (with complexity ratings) and (c) Establish a Technology Watch (to monitor shifts in technology), in order to be able to manage technological change. And in support of this, (a) establish a programme of work to explore the interaction of stakeholders and a four level contextual mode in the preservation process." (p. 6) A four level contextual approach, with data dictionary entry definitions, should be built in order to provide an information structure that will permit the successful retrieval and interpretation of an object in 50 years time. A study should be established to explore the principle of encapsulating documentsusing the four levels of context, stored in a format, possibly encrypted, that can be transferred across technologies and over time. <warrant> (p. 31) A more detailed study should be made of the inter-relationships of the ten stakeholders, and how they can be made to support the long term preservation of digital material. This will be linked to the economics of archive management (the cost model), changes in legislation (Legal Deposit, etc.), the risks of relying on links between National Libraries to maintain collections (threats of wholesale destruction of collections), and loss through viruses (technological turbulence). (p. 36) A technology management trail (within the Scorecard -- see Step 2 of the Framework) should be established before the more complex digital material is stored. This is to ensure that, for an item of digital material, the full extent of the internal interrelationships are understood, and the implications for long term preservation in a variety of successive environments are documented. (p. 37)
SOW
DC "The study is part of a wider programme of studies, funded by the Joint Information Systems Committee ("JISC"). The programme was initiated as a consequence of a two day workshop at Warwick University, in late November 1995. The workshop addressed the Long Term Preservation of Electronic Materials. The attendees represented an important cross-section of academic, librarian, curatorial, managerial and technological interests. 18 potential action points emerged, and these were seen as a basis for initiating further activity. After consultation, JISC agreed to fund a programme of studies." (p. 7) "The programme of studies is guided by the Digital Archive Working Group, which reports to the Management Committee of the National Preservation Office. The programme is administered by the British Library Research and Innovation Centre." (p. 2)
The creation and use of metadata is likely to become an important part of all digital preservation strategies whether they are based on hardware and software conservation, emulation or migration. The UK Cedars project aims to promote awareness of the importance of digital preservation, to produce strategic frameworks for digital collection management policies and to promote methods appropriate for long-term preservation - including the creation of appropriate metadata. Preservation metadata is a specialised form of administrative metadata that can be used as a means of storing the technical information that supports the preservation of digital objects. In addition, it can be used to record migration and emulation strategies, to help ensure authenticity, to note rights management and collection management data and also will need to interact with resource discovery metadata. The Cedars project is attempting to investigate some of these issues and will provide some demonstrator systems to test them.
Notes
This article was presented at the Joint RLG and NPO Preservation Conference: Guidelines for Digital Imaging, held September 28-30, 1998.
Critical Arguements
CA "Cedars is a project that aims to address strategic, methodological and practical issues relating to digital preservation (Day 1998a). A key outcome of the project will be to improve awareness of digital preservation issues, especially within the UK higher education sector. Attempts will be made to identify and disseminate: Strategies for collection management ; Strategies for long-term preservation. These strategies will need to be appropriate to a variety of resources in library collections. The project will also include the development of demonstrators to test the technical and organisational feasibility of the chosen preservation strategies. One strand of this work relates to the identification of preservation metadata and a metadata implementation that can be tested in the demonstrators." ... "The Cedars Access Issues Working Group has produced a preliminary study of preservation metadata and the issues that surround it (Day 1998b). This study describes some digital preservation initiatives and models with relation to the Cedars project and will be used as a basis for the development of a preservation metadata implementation in the project. The remainder of this paper will describe some of the metadata approaches found in these initiatives."
Conclusions
RQ "The Cedars project is interested in helping to develop suitable collection management policies for research libraries." ... "The definition and implementation of preservation metadata systems is going to be an important part of the work of custodial organisations in the digital environment."
SOW
DC "The Cedars (CURL exemplars in digital archives) project is funded by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) of the UK higher education funding councils under Phase III of its Electronic Libraries (eLib) Programme. The project is administered through the Consortium of University Research Libraries (CURL) with lead sites based at the Universities of Cambridge, Leeds and Oxford."
Type
Web Page
Title
The Making and the Keeping of Records: (2) The Tyranny of Listing
CA Listing is tantamount to traditional recordkeeping methodology. This paradigm needs to be reconsidered to allow for better-designed archival systems.
Conclusions
RQ Can we ultimately abandon the traditional concern of ensuring records' persistence and still keep records?
CA The role of archives and archivists is being fundamentally redefined in consideration of postcustodial theories and practice.
Conclusions
RQ Who is accountable? How explicit should the "imprint" of the archivist be in the shaping of the record? Who decides (and how) what we remember and what we keep?
