Σχόλιο στη λίστα της EGAD
Στο πλαίσιο του σχολιασμού του προτύπου απέστειλα στη mailing list της EGAD το παρακάτω μήνυμα:
From charonitisg at gmail.com Sun Oct 2 09:00:25 2016
From: charonitisg at gmail.com (george charonitis)
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 16:00:25 +0300
Subject: [ICA-EGAD-RiC] RiC
Message-ID: <CAFJYXYQ4jUKAbkU-y+fLqDmiQxy7ThpeufuUBT5sjkMiNGun2g@mail.gmail.com>
Congratulations, a major step.
Here are some remarks:
1) Agree with Mr. Chris Hurley about conceptualization of relations. Glad
that EGAD is going to form a draft. Hope the task will be accomplished soon
in order to be incorporated into the final version of RiC, not afterwards.
2) Need definitions-clarification:
a) Context. "Records in Contexts", many "contexts" in the text, but there
is not a clear definition.
b) Provenance: Associated with Agent only? Does Function constitute an
element of provenance (as ISDF states?). If yes which one: Function,
Function (abstract), or both?
c) What is the relationship between context and provenance? Which of the
entities in RiC fall into context and which into provenance?
d) Creation, accumulation, selection: what do all these terms mean? What
are the relationships between them?
3) Function: Would it be better if stated as "business function"?
4) Date - Place: Having no records management experience, I cannot
understand why treat them as entities rather than shared properties of all
entities.
5) Arrangement vs Classification. When it comes to relationships among
record sets I think that classification is one of the possible ways of
arrangement. Record sets may be arranged according to a classification
scheme or not. After all, recordkeeping is contingent on circumstances of
creation and use. We also use the notion of archival arrangement. In other
words, the definition provided in P26 and P27 needs enrichment and
clarification of relationships and differences between the two properties.
6) P31 Scope and Content (property of record set): Scope is null. I think
that Scope of P9 (Scope and Content of Record (Entity)) can be copied here.
7) I think that ISDIAH is an unnecessary standard from a theoretical point
of view, because it documents the custody of records that is a
relationship. Furthermore, incorporating into RiC properties which are
considered to be associated with institutions with archival holdings (P38
Services to the public, P40 Operating hours, and P41 Facilities) could be
misleading because those are properties of every public agency, for
example. On the contrary, Contact Information is crucial in documenting a
trasferring agency for example or a donor.
Best regards,
George Charonitis
Archivist at General State Archives of Greece
From: charonitisg at gmail.com (george charonitis)
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2016 16:00:25 +0300
Subject: [ICA-EGAD-RiC] RiC
Message-ID: <CAFJYXYQ4jUKAbkU-y+fLqDmiQxy7ThpeufuUBT5sjkMiNGun2g@mail.gmail.com>
Congratulations, a major step.
Here are some remarks:
1) Agree with Mr. Chris Hurley about conceptualization of relations. Glad
that EGAD is going to form a draft. Hope the task will be accomplished soon
in order to be incorporated into the final version of RiC, not afterwards.
2) Need definitions-clarification:
a) Context. "Records in Contexts", many "contexts" in the text, but there
is not a clear definition.
b) Provenance: Associated with Agent only? Does Function constitute an
element of provenance (as ISDF states?). If yes which one: Function,
Function (abstract), or both?
c) What is the relationship between context and provenance? Which of the
entities in RiC fall into context and which into provenance?
d) Creation, accumulation, selection: what do all these terms mean? What
are the relationships between them?
3) Function: Would it be better if stated as "business function"?
4) Date - Place: Having no records management experience, I cannot
understand why treat them as entities rather than shared properties of all
entities.
5) Arrangement vs Classification. When it comes to relationships among
record sets I think that classification is one of the possible ways of
arrangement. Record sets may be arranged according to a classification
scheme or not. After all, recordkeeping is contingent on circumstances of
creation and use. We also use the notion of archival arrangement. In other
words, the definition provided in P26 and P27 needs enrichment and
clarification of relationships and differences between the two properties.
6) P31 Scope and Content (property of record set): Scope is null. I think
that Scope of P9 (Scope and Content of Record (Entity)) can be copied here.
7) I think that ISDIAH is an unnecessary standard from a theoretical point
of view, because it documents the custody of records that is a
relationship. Furthermore, incorporating into RiC properties which are
considered to be associated with institutions with archival holdings (P38
Services to the public, P40 Operating hours, and P41 Facilities) could be
misleading because those are properties of every public agency, for
example. On the contrary, Contact Information is crucial in documenting a
trasferring agency for example or a donor.
Best regards,
George Charonitis
Archivist at General State Archives of Greece
Η απάντηση που έλαβα από τον Bogdan Popovici ήταν η ακόλουθη:
Dear George,
[....]
Thank you for your remarks. We shall consider your observations during
revision, but, until then, just some short thoughts.
2) Need definitions-clarification:
a) Context. "Records in Contexts", many "contexts" in the text, but there is
not a clear definition.
[[BFP says:]] Indeed, there is no explicit definition of contexts. After
all, the title aims to be a metaphor, and, in this regard, metaphor is
everywhere in the text, outlining a definition:
- "management of records in the contexts in which they are created,
accumulated, and used" (p. 10)
- "Records emerge within a social and documentary context, and the immediate
context is itself within a broader spatial and temporal context" (p. 12)
- "that arrangement based on pertinence... de-contextualized records" (p.
12)
- "fonds does not exist in isolation, but within layers of interconnected
contexts, past, present, and future" (p. 13).
- "records are transferred from the context of creation and use to the
context of the archive". (p. 13)
- "Both the records kept and those lost or intentionally removed are part of
the story of the fonds, and thus an important facet of the context necessary
for evaluating and understanding records by users". (p. 14)
Context, as you may have noticed, is basically everything about a
record/record set, the "eco-system". Of course we can try to define or
enumerate all contexts, but it will be, fatally, incomplete. Anyway, your
suggestion is on the list, to be discussed.
b) Provenance: Associated with Agent only? Does Function constitute an
element of provenance (as ISDF states?). If yes which one: Function,
Function (abstract), or both?
[[BFP says:]] Provenance, as you know, has so many manifestations: a
custodial and an archival provenance (Duranti 1998) or diplomatic,
custodial, transmissive and archival provenance (Livelton 1996) or it may be
an institutional and a documentary provenance (Eastwood 2000), the threefold
provenance envisaged by Laura Millar (Millar 2002) (and we can find some
more, I am sure...). It may be connected with Agent, as it is in its
classical interpretation, but not necessarily. Provenance maybe connected
with Place, for instance ("all the records issued in 15 century on the paper
manufactured in the town X"). While in practice many archivists may--and
very likely will--keep to a sort of traditional approach over provenance
(for many practical reasons), the model we envisaged has the flexibility to
redefine and add new meanings to Provenance. So, the answer is yes, and not
only functions.
c) What is the relationship between context and provenance? Which of the
entities in RiC fall into context and which into provenance?
[[BFP says:]] Of course, provenance is one context, so the relation is
inclusive. As for the second part, if I understood correctly, I think there
is currently not a grouping of entities in Context entities and Provenance
Entities. In the end, being inclusive, all are part of the context.
d) Creation, accumulation, selection: what do all these terms mean? What are
the relationships between them?
[[BFP says:]] The unfair answer would be: "whatever the archivist-descriptor
would like" :-). We did not focus very hard, in this stage, in defining
recordkeeping action verbs and this may be a task for the future refinement.
For the time being, creation roughly includes both the authorship of records
and the organisational/functional production of record sets; accumulating
covers the development of record sets by "natural" growing (we avoided
purposely the verb "collect" since in some languages it has a specific
meaning, of "artificial" creation of record sets (archival collection as
opposed to archival fonds). Selection - it stays on its traditional meaning,
"picking" records for preservation. We did not intend an explicit relation
between these terms, they are mere stages in records existence, that might
be revealed through description.
3) Function: Would it be better if stated as "business function"?
[[BFP says:]] We discussed about this option, but for many people, the
English word "business" is connected with economic actions only (in fact,
the former version of ISO 15489 had a note in this regard; but it did not
stopped people of making assumptions...). In order to avoid this and
emphasizing the general character of the function, we decided to let it
without a qualifier.
4) Date - Place: Having no records management experience, I cannot
understand why treat them as entities rather than shared properties of all
entities.
[[BFP says:]] As it was said during the presentation in Seoul, in the end,
anything can be defined as entity. However, considering the intention of
compatibility with other conceptual models and ontologies in Libraries and
Museums Area (where these are entities, if I remember correctly), also due
to their complex nature (for Dates: various date system, various condition
methods etc. and Place: various names in time, various possibility of
geographical indication etc., ), we considered they can be better maintained
as entities of their own. It is not the first criticism on this, so we might
re-examine the issue anyway.
5) Arrangement vs Classification. When it comes to relationships among
record sets I think that classification is one of the possible ways of
arrangement. Record sets may be arranged according to a classification
scheme or not. After all, recordkeeping is contingent on circumstances of
creation and use. We also use the notion of archival arrangement. In other
words, the definition provided in P26 and P27 needs enrichment and
clarification of relationships and differences between the two properties.
[[BFP says:]] As you understood correctly, classification is one way of
arranging "stuff". Classification is mostly used in records management,
while in archives there is generally used "arrangement". Also,
classification points rather towards intellectual organisation, while
arrangement points to physical one. But this may also be a case for
improvement.
7) I think that ISDIAH is an unnecessary standard from a theoretical point
of view, because it documents the custody of records that is a relationship.
Furthermore, incorporating into RiC properties which are considered to be
associated with institutions with archival holdings (P38 Services to the
public, P40 Operating hours, and P41 Facilities) could be misleading because
those are properties of every public agency, for example. On the contrary,
Contact Information is crucial in documenting a transferring agency for
example or a donor.
[[BFP says:]] We noticed and discussed the topic. The current understanding
is that not all properties are valid for all cases; so, the list aims to be
exhaustive, while in practical implementation only some properties will be
used.
Kind regards,
Bogdan Popovici
National Archives of RomaniaΗ απάντηση που έλαβα από τον Bogdan Popovici ήταν η ακόλουθη
[....]
Thank you for your remarks. We shall consider your observations during
revision, but, until then, just some short thoughts.
2) Need definitions-clarification:
a) Context. "Records in Contexts", many "contexts" in the text, but there is
not a clear definition.
[[BFP says:]] Indeed, there is no explicit definition of contexts. After
all, the title aims to be a metaphor, and, in this regard, metaphor is
everywhere in the text, outlining a definition:
- "management of records in the contexts in which they are created,
accumulated, and used" (p. 10)
- "Records emerge within a social and documentary context, and the immediate
context is itself within a broader spatial and temporal context" (p. 12)
- "that arrangement based on pertinence... de-contextualized records" (p.
12)
- "fonds does not exist in isolation, but within layers of interconnected
contexts, past, present, and future" (p. 13).
- "records are transferred from the context of creation and use to the
context of the archive". (p. 13)
- "Both the records kept and those lost or intentionally removed are part of
the story of the fonds, and thus an important facet of the context necessary
for evaluating and understanding records by users". (p. 14)
Context, as you may have noticed, is basically everything about a
record/record set, the "eco-system". Of course we can try to define or
enumerate all contexts, but it will be, fatally, incomplete. Anyway, your
suggestion is on the list, to be discussed.
b) Provenance: Associated with Agent only? Does Function constitute an
element of provenance (as ISDF states?). If yes which one: Function,
Function (abstract), or both?
[[BFP says:]] Provenance, as you know, has so many manifestations: a
custodial and an archival provenance (Duranti 1998) or diplomatic,
custodial, transmissive and archival provenance (Livelton 1996) or it may be
an institutional and a documentary provenance (Eastwood 2000), the threefold
provenance envisaged by Laura Millar (Millar 2002) (and we can find some
more, I am sure...). It may be connected with Agent, as it is in its
classical interpretation, but not necessarily. Provenance maybe connected
with Place, for instance ("all the records issued in 15 century on the paper
manufactured in the town X"). While in practice many archivists may--and
very likely will--keep to a sort of traditional approach over provenance
(for many practical reasons), the model we envisaged has the flexibility to
redefine and add new meanings to Provenance. So, the answer is yes, and not
only functions.
c) What is the relationship between context and provenance? Which of the
entities in RiC fall into context and which into provenance?
[[BFP says:]] Of course, provenance is one context, so the relation is
inclusive. As for the second part, if I understood correctly, I think there
is currently not a grouping of entities in Context entities and Provenance
Entities. In the end, being inclusive, all are part of the context.
d) Creation, accumulation, selection: what do all these terms mean? What are
the relationships between them?
[[BFP says:]] The unfair answer would be: "whatever the archivist-descriptor
would like" :-). We did not focus very hard, in this stage, in defining
recordkeeping action verbs and this may be a task for the future refinement.
For the time being, creation roughly includes both the authorship of records
and the organisational/functional production of record sets; accumulating
covers the development of record sets by "natural" growing (we avoided
purposely the verb "collect" since in some languages it has a specific
meaning, of "artificial" creation of record sets (archival collection as
opposed to archival fonds). Selection - it stays on its traditional meaning,
"picking" records for preservation. We did not intend an explicit relation
between these terms, they are mere stages in records existence, that might
be revealed through description.
3) Function: Would it be better if stated as "business function"?
[[BFP says:]] We discussed about this option, but for many people, the
English word "business" is connected with economic actions only (in fact,
the former version of ISO 15489 had a note in this regard; but it did not
stopped people of making assumptions...). In order to avoid this and
emphasizing the general character of the function, we decided to let it
without a qualifier.
4) Date - Place: Having no records management experience, I cannot
understand why treat them as entities rather than shared properties of all
entities.
[[BFP says:]] As it was said during the presentation in Seoul, in the end,
anything can be defined as entity. However, considering the intention of
compatibility with other conceptual models and ontologies in Libraries and
Museums Area (where these are entities, if I remember correctly), also due
to their complex nature (for Dates: various date system, various condition
methods etc. and Place: various names in time, various possibility of
geographical indication etc., ), we considered they can be better maintained
as entities of their own. It is not the first criticism on this, so we might
re-examine the issue anyway.
5) Arrangement vs Classification. When it comes to relationships among
record sets I think that classification is one of the possible ways of
arrangement. Record sets may be arranged according to a classification
scheme or not. After all, recordkeeping is contingent on circumstances of
creation and use. We also use the notion of archival arrangement. In other
words, the definition provided in P26 and P27 needs enrichment and
clarification of relationships and differences between the two properties.
[[BFP says:]] As you understood correctly, classification is one way of
arranging "stuff". Classification is mostly used in records management,
while in archives there is generally used "arrangement". Also,
classification points rather towards intellectual organisation, while
arrangement points to physical one. But this may also be a case for
improvement.
7) I think that ISDIAH is an unnecessary standard from a theoretical point
of view, because it documents the custody of records that is a relationship.
Furthermore, incorporating into RiC properties which are considered to be
associated with institutions with archival holdings (P38 Services to the
public, P40 Operating hours, and P41 Facilities) could be misleading because
those are properties of every public agency, for example. On the contrary,
Contact Information is crucial in documenting a transferring agency for
example or a donor.
[[BFP says:]] We noticed and discussed the topic. The current understanding
is that not all properties are valid for all cases; so, the list aims to be
exhaustive, while in practical implementation only some properties will be
used.
Kind regards,
Bogdan Popovici
National Archives of RomaniaΗ απάντηση που έλαβα από τον Bogdan Popovici ήταν η ακόλουθη