From ruthtillman at gmail.com Tue Jan 24 10:51:08 2017 From: ruthtillman at gmail.com (Ruth Kitchin Tillman) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 10:51:08 -0500 Subject: [ICA-EGAD-RiC] TS-EAS Comments on RiC Message-ID: Dear colleagues, While TS-EAS already submitted their comments to the RiC group offlist, in the interest of openness, we would like to share our comments with the entire listserv. Please find them in the linked Google document. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k0gGnvgtzbVDKOWHlme9V6N6QicOscW-IK9-CPvthrA/edit?usp=sharing In our process, we grouped some responses as coming from the entire RiC working group and attributed other responses to particular members. Attribution to individuals reflects the variety of viewpoints and individual expressions of response, but is not meant to detract from the entire team standing behind sharing the particular comment with RiC and the rest of the community. In a few cases, perspectives differed and we also felt expressing the differing viewpoints was important rather than forcing a consensus. Many thanks to Anila Angjeli for facilitating our discussions and handling the myriad responses and perspectives which came from TS-EAS members. Best, Ruth Kitchin Tillman -- http://eadiva.com | http://ruthtillman.com/ | @ruthbrarian From susanna.peruginelli at libero.it Tue Jan 24 14:44:00 2017 From: susanna.peruginelli at libero.it (Peruginelli Susanna) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:44:00 +0100 Subject: [ICA-EGAD-RiC] posting to the ica-egad list Message-ID: My email address: susanna.peruginelli at libero.it Susanna Peruginelli, librarian From dan at artefactual.com Wed Jan 25 15:59:10 2017 From: dan at artefactual.com (Dan Gillean) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 12:59:10 -0800 Subject: [ICA-EGAD-RiC] Artefactual response to RiC-CM Draft Message-ID: The following feedback has been collectively prepared by Artefactual staff in response to the Records in Context Conceptual Model (RiC-CM ) 0.1 Draft released by the ICA's Expert Group on Archival Description (EGAD ). ----- We would like to begin by thanking EGAD for all their work on RiC to date. We are grateful for all the efforts of EGAD, and have also enjoyed reading the excellent feedback from members of the archival community. We are excited that EGAD has chosen a linked data approach to modelling archival description to better represent the complex relationship between archival materials and the contexts in which they are created, managed and disseminated. We agree with much of the feedback that has already been shared publicly, and will try to avoid repetition here. As developers of open source archival management software, we wanted to share some of our internal discussions and questions that have arisen as we have reviewed the RiC-CM draft with an eye to systems implementation. As a model whose primary expression will be linked data, RiC is necessarily a standard that assumes implementation in some kind of networked descriptive system - this suggests to us several immediate considerations. General implementation challenges Through our experience with dozens of data migrations over many years, we are all too aware of how many institutions still rely on Word documents, XML authoring tools or bespoke databases as the basis of their finding aids - and how many have yet to adopt any content standard to guide their local descriptive practices. RiC will require even greater technical proficiency to implement properly, incorporating technologies still novel to the archival community (see also section 3.4 of the InterPARES Trust response ) which cannot be readily implemented outside of a software system. With this radical shift, many small and medium archives risk being left behind. How does the ICA intend to support adoption of the new standard? Will the ICA continue to maintain the existing four standards for those archives who may be unable or unwilling to make the move to linked data? The role of content standards, data interoperability and harmonization EGAD intends, in its final version of RiC, to create a ?two-part standard: a conceptual model for archival description (RiC-CM), and an ontology (RiC-O)? (RiC-CM Consultation Draft v.01, p. 1). The flexibility of the first draft of RiC-CM leaves much room for implementation - the same data could be modeled a number of different ways. For example, the draft?s own example diagram on page 93 does not make use of the top-level Date entity, instead using date attributes present in other entities or relations to bound time. A conceptual model and an ontology both fulfill very different roles from a content standard, which aims to facilitate consistency in descriptive fields and interoperability across space and time. In fact, section I.5 of ISAD(G)?s introduction emphasizes these points: This set of general rules for archival description is part of a process that will a. ensure the creation of consistent, appropriate, and self explanatory descriptions; b. facilitate the retrieval and exchange of information about archival material; c. enable the sharing of authority data; and d. make possible the integration of descriptions from different locations into a unified information system. While the ontology and conceptual model might provide enough of a framework for consistent modeling of descriptions across space and time, it does not seem to address the specific descriptive practices to be followed within free-text descriptive attributes such as a scope and content. What role do the ICA and EGAD see the existing ICA content standards playing in the future? Will subsequent versions of RiC provide further specificity to ensure consistent descriptive practices across domains and jurisdictions, as ISAD(G) previously sought to provide? Chris Hurley has pointed out the vast number of relationship types between entities - 792 in the current draft - and we agree that these should be constrained to better ensure consistent application. The InterPARES Trust response rightly points out how the list of relations might easily be simplified and halved by removing the confusing notion of past vs present tense from the relations, relying instead on the existing date attributes to bound time. On the other hand, we wonder whether it is necessary for EGAD to enumerate all possible combinations of subject, relationship and object, rather than simply providing the relationships as predicates and allowing users to determine what kinds of connections to make with them (using metadata application profiles - see below). For example, is it necessary for the model to list all the different entities that the relationship ?associated with? (in both present and past form) can be used to link together? We would be interested to hear other commenters? thoughts on this, since we are not certain whether others would agree that the detailed list is unnecessary. We also hope EGAD will consider the role that metadata application profiles will play in implementation and interoperability, and would like to know what guidance the ICA could provide on this. Two illustrative examples come to mind: METS and PCDM. The Metadata Exchange and Transmission Standard ( METS ) was developed to facilitate data exchange and transmission between repositories and tools. However, it is an extremely flexible and permissive standard, making data exchange without a shared application profile difficult, as the METS generated by one system can rarely be parsed by that of another without intervention. The Portland Common Data Model (PCDM ) was similarly developed to provide a common mechanism for data interoperability between Hydra implementers, though it has grown beyond a Hydra specific model. However, the community found in early versions that the model was so general and flexible that multiple interpretations of the same data, each valid within the model, prevented interoperability anyway. They have since set out more specific parameters and a formalized way of documenting a specific application profile (see PCDM Profile Template) . RiC might benefit from this lesson, and consider testing this kind of scenario in advance. In some cases, constraints will produce data that can be more readily combined and shared, giving it greater utility. Perhaps EGAD considers this to be the responsibility of implementers - however, if this is the case, then the role of the ICA in standards development should be interrogated: is it not still to ensure consistency across space and time, and to facilitate exchange and reuse? For developers to be able to implement the system while still supporting exchange and interoperability, we will need consistent implementation guidelines so that any systems implementation can be designed to be able to exchange data with other systems easily. Additionally, we are somewhat surprised by the response of M. Clavaud on the ICA-EGAD list-serv (2016-10-04) eschewing the reuse of existing ontologies. While there are certainly areas in which this may be appropriate, as a wholesale approach it strikes us contrary to the linked data best practice of reusing standard vocabularies when possible (see for example the W3C Best Practices ), and represents an enormous maintenance burden for the ICA. The W3C?s SKOS is a perfect example - is it truly necessary for RiC-O?s Concept/Thing entity to repeat this work so completely? We urge EGAD to consider a more balanced approach in what it chooses to reuse vs. what is designed anew. If the approach taken by RiC is informed by metadata application profiles, then RiC?s role becomes simpler - offering implementation guidelines for data consistency by reusing existing vocabularies and ontologies, as well as helpful extensions where existing ontologies do not meet the specific needs of archivists. Missing entities Since RiC-CM and RiC-O seem aimed at providing resources for the management of all archival functions and activities, we note several other possible entities that do not seem to be covered by the proposed model. Namely, we ask EGAD to consider the role that Rights, Accessions, and Physical storage play in the management of archival information. Greg Bak has previously pointed out that more might be needed to capture dependency information, and we note that EGAD itself has acknowledged that fields that capture the role of the archivist in shaping the record are still lacking. Rights are a crucial element if data are to be exchanged and reused. Conditions of access and conditions of use are listed as properties of record-related entities, but might it not be desirable to declare how the rights are related to an agent acting as the rights-holder of the records in question? Why reduce a complex entity with its own properties from a thing to a string, making it less machine-actionable in the future, and inconsistently implemented? Similarly, while different jurisdictions and institutions will handle accessions and physical storage information differently (or exclude them entirely), we still see them represented in archival data often enough to need a consistent method for expressing them within the RiC models. We would point out as well that some entities seem to be missing important properties - for example, we see no clear way to indicate that a Date might be approximate or uncertain, a key feature of archival description. We also strongly support the TS-DACS response on RiC-P36 gender, and on identity in general. Record vs Record-set While conceptually we understand why EGAD has proposed the concept of the record set, our experience suggests that implementing this distinction in practice in an archival management system will be a hindrance over time. Unexpected changes may bring a new record into a record set, thereby invalidating any shared properties of a record set (3.5 and 3.6 in RiC-CM). Further, granularity may grow over time - for example, a box that is described as a record (an item) may have its contents described at a later date - suddenly our item-level box record must become a record set. If a record set and record are fundamentally different entities in the data model, with different attributes and relationships, then switching between entities will be difficult to implement and may lead to the loss of data that is not valid for the new entity. In AtoM?s data model, all records are simply ?information objects? with the same available properties, some of which may be inherited automatically from higher levels of description. We believe a more flexible approach such as this might ultimately be beneficial for systems implementors - it keeps the data model simpler, thereby ensuring more consistency in implementation, and makes all properties available to all records regardless of type or level. A record may still describe an aggregation - the way its properties are used would clarify this. Next steps Overall we are impressed with the work of EGAD to date and are excited to see steps being taken to represent archival description as linked data. However, as we have mentioned above, we worry about the ability of under-resourced institutions to take advantage of the standard and its accompanying ontology when they are finalized, given that many of these institutions may have spent years achieving a basic level of compliance with existing ICA standards. As software developers we also have a vested interest in making sure that any new standard is compatible with the ability to write software for implementation. We hope, therefore, that EGAD keeps implementation considerations in mind as it begins work on the next iteration of the model. We also hope that ICA does not plan to cease its standard-related activities once RiC-CM and RiC-O are finalized, as publishing a new standard is only the first step toward making the standard usable by practitioners world-wide. ----- Dan Gillean, MAS, MLIS AtoM Program Manager Artefactual Systems, Inc . 604-527-2056 @accesstomemory From chris.hurley at cba.com.au Mon Jan 30 00:42:38 2017 From: chris.hurley at cba.com.au (Hurley, Chris) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 05:42:38 +0000 Subject: [ICA-EGAD-RiC] RiC: Quo vadis? Message-ID: <02995017A480CC45967DDAE3FDE7AAA3316FF45D@AAUNSWV33.au.cbainet.com> Just before the deadline for comment closes on RiC, here are some clumsy existential questions. They're not just questions for RiC, of course, or what EGAD's next steps should be - but they may apply to the future direction of description overall (RiC or no RiC) - at least I hope it may be so. Query 1 (Structure): Can we define an Entity/Relationship type as one containing instances that all operate according to the same recordkeeping requirements (allowing for extensions by sub-types that augment but do not conflict with the common requirements)? Can they be managed, in other words, using identical rules or practices (with extensions) that are set at the level of each type rather than each instance? I once theorised that an ownership relationship is a succession relationship in disguise - easily demonstrated (see below), but not so easily proven. Can we separate conceptualisation and implementation so that a proliferation of instances within each type would not matter. You could have 8, or 800, or 8000 instances of any type; the same standardised practice would govern all. Implementers could then select those instances that are useful to them, ignore the rest, and then apply the rules (or not) as appropriate. Could that approach be taken within an infrastructure (policies, procedures, roles, etc.) that is not particular to any one descriptive programme, jurisdiction, or prejudice? Query 2 (Identity): How should we think of the nexus between the description of an entity/relationship and the entity/relationship itself? How does an instance-in-action being described differ from the description of it? Is description simply a parallel universe, laying down a descriptive world alongside an actual world? Does a recordkeeping (descriptive) system operate in a descriptive universe or in an actual universe or does it straddle the two? Where does our understanding of a corporation, for example, "exist" - in the actual world or within a descriptive (registration) system, or both? Can a description of an instance-in-action in the actual world (physical or virtual) be turned into a kind of avatar so that it can operate in a recordkeeping system as if it were the thing itself, not just a description of it? What is the difference (if any) between action in the virtual world and action in the physical world? How can two different descriptions of the same instance (in the descriptive world) be reconciled? Is there ever a case of a graphical representation for which no extant personality or actuality exists? Query 3 (Validation): How can authenticity be conferred on descriptions that operate outside of the source or native system? Could they be trust-worthily registered or validated using PKI and/or blockchain? What kind of recordkeeping system would be needed to validate them (viz. descriptions of description) and could that system be a source for persistent identification? To what extent would that require re-contextualisation? I once asked my friend Terry Cook when he was in full flight about top-down appraisal: How do you know when you're at the top? Reminds me of a great story I once heard about Hilary Jenkinson when he was interviewing a nervous young Oxbridge graduate for a job. Asked what had been his special field of study, the youngster replied, "The end of the 17th century, sir". Jenkinson growled, "Which end?" An archivist's question. PS. Demonstration of a succession relationship disguised as an ownership relationship: Consider a simple succession relationship: AGENCY B-----------AGENCY A Now, consider two ownership relationships: FUNCTION G FUNCTION G (from 1901-1925) (from 1925-1980) AGENCY A AGENCY B The ownership relationships can be described in a table: FUNCTION G exercised by .... Dates AGENCY A 1901-1925 AGENCY B 1925-1980 AGENCY C 1980-1995 AGENCY D 1995-date etc. The ownership data captured in the Table is sufficient, without any need for further data input or description in the form of a succession statement, to generate a succession relationship: AGENCY B--------<1925: succeeds in exercise of FUNCTION G>-----AGENCY A Not only has an ownership relationship metamorphosed into a succession relationship, there is added value from depicting how and when the succession arises. The data table can, in fact, generate the following descriptive statements: AGENCY B----AGENCY A in 1925 in exercise of FUNCTION G AGENCY A----AGENCY B in 1925 in exercise of FUNCTION G AGENCY A----FUNCTION G from 1901 to 1925 AGENCY B----FUNCTION G from 1925 to 1980 FUNCTION G----AGENCY A from 1901 to 1925 FUNCTION G----AGENCY B from 1925 to 1980 PPS. The query "Does a recordkeeping (descriptive) system operate in a descriptive universe or in an actual universe or does it straddle the two? " was posed way back in the SPIRT Project (Business Recordkeeping entity class posited as a sub-set of the Business entity class). I never thought the answer was entirely satisfactory, but it was the right question to ask. All the best ___________________________________________ Chris Hurley www.descriptionguy.com Email : descriptionguy at gmail.com ************** IMPORTANT MESSAGE ***************************** This e-mail message is intended only for the addressee(s) and contains information which may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient please advise the sender by return email, do not use or disclose the contents, and delete the message and any attachments from your system. Unless specifically indicated, this email does not constitute formal advice or commitment by the sender or the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (ABN 48 123 123 124) or its subsidiaries. We can be contacted through our web site: commbank.com.au. If you no longer wish to receive commercial electronic messages from us, please reply to this e-mail by typing Unsubscribe in the subject line. ************************************************************** From B.Reed at records.com.au Sun Jan 29 20:03:13 2017 From: B.Reed at records.com.au (Barbara Reed) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 01:03:13 +0000 Subject: [ICA-EGAD-RiC] Comments on RiC-CM Message-ID: Dear folks I attach my personal comments for consideration in the ongoing discussion of RiC-CM. Count me amongst those definitely in favour of the direction of this work. I have expressed some issues that I see with the work in the attached. If anything is unclear, I'd be pleased to elaborate further on request barbara Barbara Reed Director Recordkeeping Innovation Pty Ltd Ph: + 61 2 9369 2343 From faithc at princeton.edu Mon Feb 6 17:26:32 2017 From: faithc at princeton.edu (Faith F. Charlton) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 22:26:32 +0000 Subject: [ICA-EGAD-RiC] Princeton University Library RBSC response to RiC Message-ID: <5B4168BCF846AD4CB0575C5BFE70FB3853867FCF@csgmbx209w.pu.win.princeton.edu> Good evening, Princeton did send in its comments on the draft to EGAD before the deadline, but we wanted to share them via the listserv as well (please see attached). :) Being afforded the opportunity to participate in this exciting endeavor is much appreciated. To restate our introduction, the PUL-RBSC RiC Response Team would like to congratulate EGAD on a high-quality first draft for a long-overdue conceptual model. We are particularly pleased to see a critical discussion of the limiting aspects of hitherto-monolithic concepts such as provenance and original order as well as the introduction of Record Set, which promises to eliminate silent practices of "shoehorning" that have always sat uncomfortable, if seemingly inevitable, with many practitioners. The following comments are meant to address three larger points: The notion of "archival" vs. resource description; The narrow focus on "linguistic, symbolic, or graphic information" and absence of an entity to accommodate non-symbolic items commonly found in archival collections; and The conflation of content, carrier, and container resulting from the discrepancy between the narrow definition of a record as a symbolic entity and some of its properties, which pertain to its physical carrier or storage container. In addition, we seek clarification on the concepts of collection re-use and analog records, as well as some specific elements and property sets. Best, Faith _______________________________ Faith Charlton Lead Processing Archivist, Manuscript Division Collections Princeton University Library One Washington Road Princeton, NJ 08540 609-258-3223 faithc at princeton.edu From mark.matienzo at gmail.com Mon Feb 6 20:57:39 2017 From: mark.matienzo at gmail.com (Mark A. Matienzo) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 17:57:39 -0800 Subject: [ICA-EGAD-RiC] Princeton University Library RBSC response to RiC In-Reply-To: <5B4168BCF846AD4CB0575C5BFE70FB3853867FCF@csgmbx209w.pu.win.princeton.edu> References: <5B4168BCF846AD4CB0575C5BFE70FB3853867FCF@csgmbx209w.pu.win.princeton.edu> Message-ID: Dear Faith - It appears that the attachment was not included in your message, which I've noticed in a few other messages to this list. Could you provide a link to a web-accessbile version of Princeton's comments or send me a copy separately? Best, Mark On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Faith F. Charlton wrote: > Good evening, > > Princeton did send in its comments on the draft to EGAD before the > deadline, but we wanted to share them via the listserv as well (please see > attached). :) Being afforded the opportunity to participate in this > exciting endeavor is much appreciated. > > To restate our introduction, the PUL-RBSC RiC Response Team would like to > congratulate EGAD on a high-quality first draft for a long-overdue > conceptual model. We are particularly pleased to see a critical discussion > of the limiting aspects of hitherto-monolithic concepts such as provenance > and original order as well as the introduction of Record Set, which > promises to eliminate silent practices of "shoehorning" that have always > sat uncomfortable, if seemingly inevitable, with many practitioners. The > following comments are meant to address three larger points: > The notion of "archival" vs. resource description; > The narrow focus on "linguistic, symbolic, or graphic information" and > absence of an entity to accommodate non-symbolic items commonly found in > archival collections; and > The conflation of content, carrier, and container resulting from the > discrepancy between the narrow definition of a record as a symbolic entity > and some of its properties, which pertain to its physical carrier or > storage container. > In addition, we seek clarification on the concepts of collection re-use > and analog records, as well as some specific elements and property sets. > > Best, > Faith > _______________________________ > Faith Charlton > Lead Processing Archivist, Manuscript Division Collections > Princeton University Library > One Washington Road > Princeton, NJ 08540 > 609-258-3223 > faithc at princeton.edu > > > _______________________________________________ > ICA-EGAD-RiC mailing list > ICA-EGAD-RiC at lists.village.Virginia.EDU > http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/ica-egad-ric > > From faithc at princeton.edu Tue Feb 7 12:45:12 2017 From: faithc at princeton.edu (Faith F. Charlton) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 17:45:12 +0000 Subject: [ICA-EGAD-RiC] FW: Princeton University Library RBSC response to RiC In-Reply-To: <0860B21FD4C8614C84DBBCA2A22E90BB5DA9F364@CSGMBX200W.pu.win.princeton.edu> References: <5B4168BCF846AD4CB0575C5BFE70FB3853867FCF@csgmbx209w.pu.win.princeton.edu> <0860B21FD4C8614C84DBBCA2A22E90BB5DA9F364@CSGMBX200W.pu.win.princeton.edu> Message-ID: <5B4168BCF846AD4CB0575C5BFE70FB3853868867@csgmbx209w.pu.win.princeton.edu> Sorry all- Please see the link below to access our Google doc. Best, Faith ________________________________ Faith Charlton Lead Processing Archivist, Manuscript Division Collections Princeton University Library One Washington Road Princeton, NJ 08540 609-258-3223 faithc at princeton.edu From: Regine I. Heberlein Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 9:08 AM To: Mark A. Matienzo; Faith F. Charlton Cc: ica-egad-ric at lists.village.Virginia.EDU Subject: RE: [ICA-EGAD-RiC] Princeton University Library RBSC response to RiC Mark et al., This is the link to our Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m5FjboiAtXasJXalUlT5_zgA6u9sKvTtmO2qlOMFFe0/edit?usp=sharing Cheers, Regine Regine Heberlein Principal Cataloger and Metadata Analyst, Rare Book Collections Princeton University Library One Washington Road Princeton, NJ 08540 609-258-6156 From: Mark A. Matienzo [mailto:mark.matienzo at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 8:58 PM To: Faith F. Charlton Cc: ica-egad-ric at lists.village.Virginia.EDU; Regine I. Heberlein Subject: Re: [ICA-EGAD-RiC] Princeton University Library RBSC response to RiC Dear Faith - It appears that the attachment was not included in your message, which I've noticed in a few other messages to this list. Could you provide a link to a web-accessbile version of Princeton's comments or send me a copy separately? Best, Mark On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Faith F. Charlton > wrote: Good evening, Princeton did send in its comments on the draft to EGAD before the deadline, but we wanted to share them via the listserv as well (please see attached). :) Being afforded the opportunity to participate in this exciting endeavor is much appreciated. To restate our introduction, the PUL-RBSC RiC Response Team would like to congratulate EGAD on a high-quality first draft for a long-overdue conceptual model. We are particularly pleased to see a critical discussion of the limiting aspects of hitherto-monolithic concepts such as provenance and original order as well as the introduction of Record Set, which promises to eliminate silent practices of "shoehorning" that have always sat uncomfortable, if seemingly inevitable, with many practitioners. The following comments are meant to address three larger points: The notion of "archival" vs. resource description; The narrow focus on "linguistic, symbolic, or graphic information" and absence of an entity to accommodate non-symbolic items commonly found in archival collections; and The conflation of content, carrier, and container resulting from the discrepancy between the narrow definition of a record as a symbolic entity and some of its properties, which pertain to its physical carrier or storage container. In addition, we seek clarification on the concepts of collection re-use and analog records, as well as some specific elements and property sets. Best, Faith _______________________________ Faith Charlton Lead Processing Archivist, Manuscript Division Collections Princeton University Library One Washington Road Princeton, NJ 08540 609-258-3223 faithc at princeton.edu> _______________________________________________ ICA-EGAD-RiC mailing list ICA-EGAD-RiC at lists.village.Virginia.EDU http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/ica-egad-ric From B.Reed at records.com.au Tue Feb 7 16:05:11 2017 From: B.Reed at records.com.au (Barbara Reed) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 21:05:11 +0000 Subject: [ICA-EGAD-RiC] Personal comments Message-ID: Hi all It was silly of me to put an attachment onto a listserv posting. So, just in case there's interest, here's a link to the comments, only slightly modified through an introduction http://www.records.com.au/blog/new-conceptual-model-for-recordkeeping-description-records-in-contexts/ barbara Barbara Reed Director Recordkeeping Innovation Pty Ltd Ph: + 61 2 9369 2343 From charonitisg at gmail.com Sat Feb 18 07:13:46 2017 From: charonitisg at gmail.com (george charonitis) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 14:13:46 +0200 Subject: [ICA-EGAD-RiC] Comments upload In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello A question: Is there any problem to upload the archive of comments to a website? I run a personal website and am creating a section about RiC. George Charonitis From dpitti at virginia.edu Tue May 2 10:30:05 2017 From: dpitti at virginia.edu (Pitti, Daniel V. (dvp4c)) Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 14:30:05 +0000 Subject: [ICA-EGAD-RiC] Thank you from EGAD, and going forward Message-ID: <72910F9D-9B7F-4A06-BC84-8802D8227CFF@virginia.edu> Dear International Archival Community: EGAD would like to express much gratitude and appreciation to you for having taken the time to review and provide feedback on the draft Records in Contexts conceptual model (RiC-CM), distributed for consultation from September 2016 ? January 2017. In general, the feedback portrayed your positive sentiment and encouragement for EGAD to continue and complete this work. All of your concerns and suggestions will be given serious consideration by EGAD as it moves forward. The continued development of RiC-CM will benefit from your thoughtful contributions, helping to ensure that it responds to and meets your collective needs and expectations. For your interest, sixty-two individuals, groups, or institutions contributed feedback, representing 19 countries plus two international organizations. When compiled for analysis, this equated to hundreds of pages of comments on numerous aspects of the model. It will take some time for EGAD to work through this feedback, given its extent. To give credit, as well as to ensure that all feedback has been accounted for, the list of contributors is provided below in rough alphabetical order. This feedback was either posted to this list-serv or emailed to the EGAD mailbox. EGAD is now working out a strategy for addressing your feedback. One possibility being explored is to address the issues in digest fashion: issues would be grouped by theme as an aid for EGAD to work through them and respond to the community appropriately. Digest ?updates? could be posted periodically to this list-serv for your review and comment. As such, your ongoing feedback will help shape the model?s continued development. The next step is to start creating this digest, to test if this strategy is workable. An initial exercise to organize the feedback by topic/suggestion has already been completed. We expect to have an update on our strategy in the summer or early fall. Please stay tuned, and comments are always welcome. Best regards, The ICA-EGAD Team (egad at ica.org) ********************************************* 1. Alexander Turnbull Library, National Library of New Zealand, submitted by Nicola Frean, Leader, Arrangement & Description 2. Archives New Zealand, submitted by Lisa Austin, Manager, Description and Discovery 3. Archives of Ontario, Canada, submitted by Adam Birrell, Senior Archivist, Collections Development and Management Unit 4. Archives and Records Association of New Zealand, submitted by Dr. Susan Skudder, Research Librarian, Alexander Turnbull Library, National Library of New Zealand 5. Archivists from France, summary of workshops held by Service interminist?riel des Archives de France; submitted by H?l?ne Zettel, Adjointe au chef du bureau de l'archivage num?rique, des normes et r?f?rentiels 6. Archivists from the United Kingdom, synopsis of a workshop held at Wellcome Trust; submitted by Jenny Bunn, Lecturer and Programme Director, Archives and Records Management, University College London 7. Artefactual Systems, Canada, submitted by Dan Gillean, AtoM Program Manager 8. L?Association des archivistes du Qu?bec, Canada, submitted by Carole Saulnier, Pr?sidente 9. L'Association des archivistes suisses, submitted by Michele Merzaghi, Pr?sident du groupe de travail normes et standards de l?Association des archivistes suisses 10. Australian Society of Archivists, submitted by Julia Mant, President 11. Greg Bak, Assistant Professor of History (Archival Studies), University of Manitoba, Canada 12. Charlotte Berry, Hereford Cathedral Archivist, United Kingdom 13. Brazilian Rio de Janeiro Group and C?mara T?cnica de Documentos Eletr?nicos of Conselho Nacional de Arquivos, submitted by Vitor Fonesca 14. British Library, submitted by Alan Danskin, Collection Metadata Standards Manager 15. Canadian Council of Archives, Canadian Committee on Archival Description (statement only, no comments) 16. George Charonitis, Archivist, General State Archives of Greece 17. Comisi?n de Normas Espa?olas de Descripci?n Archiv?stica, Spain, submitted by the Secretary 18. Margaret Crockett, Consultant Archivist and Records Manager, United Kingdom 19. Vivienne Cuff, New Zealand (personal comments) 20. Department of Information Studies, University College London (Jenny Bunn, Geoffrey Yeo), United Kingdom 21. Discussion Group on Archival Description (Japan), submitted by Izumi Hirano, Archivist, Research Center for Cooperative Civil Societies, Rikkyo University 22. Teresa Doherty, Royal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom 23. Beat Estermann (Bern University of Applied Sciences), Christian Schneeberger (Swiss Theatre Collection), Switzerland 24. Cassie Findlay, Australia 25. Flemish Library and Archives Association; Branch Association of Dutch Archival Institutions; Royal Society of Archivists in the Netherlands; submitted by Filip Boudrez, City Archives of Antwerp 26. Chris Hurley, Australia 27. InterPARES Trust, submitted by Dr. Luciana Duranti, Project Director 28. Italian archival community, represented by Associazione nazionale archivistica italiana and the Italian Institute for the archives, submitted by Mariella Guercio 29. Silke Jagodzinski (The Federal Archives) and Gerhard Mueller (Berlin State Library), Germany (personal comments) 30. Andrew Janes, United Kingdom (personal comments) 31. Mike Jones, University of Melbourne, Australia 32. Prof. Dr. Christian Keitel, Landesarchiv Baden-W?rttemberg, Germany 33. Ar?nzazu Lafuente Uri?n, Directora del Archivo Hist?rico de la Nobleza, Spain 34. Library and Archives Canada, submitted by Kat Timms, Information Standards Specialist 35. John Machin, Information Architect - Records Interoperability Framework, Department of Finance, Australia 36. William J. Maher, University Archivist, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, United States of America 37. Ana M?rcia Lutterbach Rodrigues, Brasil 38. Cindy McLellan, Archivist, British Columbia Institute of Technology, Canada 39. Sol?ne Michon, Chef du service finances, agriculture, environnement, am?nagement et culture, Archives d?partementales de l'H?rault, France 40. Laura Millar, Canada 41. Naczelna Dyrekcja Archiw?w Pa?stwowych (Polish State Archives), submitted by Dr. Bartosz Nowo?ycki 42. National Archives of Australia, submitted by Linda Macfarlane, Director, Policy and Digital Strategy 43. National Archives of Finland, submitted by Jaana Kilkki, Director of Collections Management Division 44. The National Archives, United Kingdom, submitted by Jone Garmendia, Head of Cataloguing 45. Public Record Office Victoria, Australia, submitted by Andrew Waugh 46. Arian Rajh, PhD, Assistant Professor, Croatian Agency for Medicinal Products and Medical Devices, Crotia 47. Barbara Reed, Director, Recordkeeping Innovation Pty Ltd, Australia 48. Resource Description and Access Steering Committee, submitted by Gordon Dunsire, Chair 49. Pat Riva, Canada (personal comments) 50. Michael Rush, Assistant Head of the Manuscript Unit, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University, United States of America 51. Princeton University Library, Department of Rare Books and Special Collections, United States of America, submitted by Regine Heberlein, Principal Cataloger and Metadata Analyst 52. Simmons Metadata Inquiry Lab: RiC Discussion Group, Simmons College, United States of America, submitted by Michelle Janowiecki, Archives Graduate Student 53. Ross Spencer, New Zealand (personal comments) 54. Society of American Archivists, submitted by Rebecca A. Wiederhold, Archives & Manuscripts Catalog Librarian, Brigham Young University, United States of America, on behalf of Society of American Archivists Standards Committee 55. Society of American Archivists Technical Subcommittee on Describing Archives: A Content Standard, submitted by Adriane Hanson, Digital Curation and Processing Archivist, University of Georgia, United States of America 56. Society of American Archivists, Technical Subcommittee on Encoded Archival Standards, submitted by Anila Angjeli, D?partement des m?tadonn?es, Biblioth?que nationale de France 57. Standards Australia Committee IT-021 Records and document management systems, submitted by Barbara Reed, Chair 58. Kenneth Thibodeau, United States of America 59. Kat Timms, Canada (personal comments) 60. Joris Vanderborght, Archivist of the House of Representatives of the Federal Parliament of the Kingdom of Belgium 61. Verband ?sterreichischer Archivarinnen und Archivare, Austria, submitted by Thomas Maisel, Sekret?r 62. Wellcome Collection, submitted by Dr. Christopher Hilton, Data Architect - Wellcome Library, United Kingdom Note: In some cases an institutional affiliation was not provided, or some commenters specifically indicated that their comments were personal in nature and did not represent the views of their institution. From 123module at gmail.com Thu May 4 11:04:42 2017 From: 123module at gmail.com (g m) Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 17:04:42 +0200 Subject: [ICA-EGAD-RiC] Thank you from EGAD, and going forward In-Reply-To: <72910F9D-9B7F-4A06-BC84-8802D8227CFF@virginia.edu> References: <72910F9D-9B7F-4A06-BC84-8802D8227CFF@virginia.edu> Message-ID: Dear Members of the ICA-EGAD Team, thank you for the updates on the process. I noticed that in the list of contributors there is a contribution (n. 28) from the "Italian archival community, represented by Associazione nazionale archivistica italiana and the Italian Institute for the archives". Please be aware that there is a mistake: the Italian archival community is a large and varied community of individuals and organizations. "Associazione nazionale archivistica italiana" is a professional association. As such, it is a major stakeholder, but it does not represent the "Italian archival community"--it can only represent its associate members. Similarly, the "Italian Institute for the archives" (a governmental institution established within the Department of Archives) does not represent the Italian archival community. Therefore, contribution n. 28 should be properly attributed to "Associazione nazionale..." and "Italian Institute...", not to the Italian archival community. Kind regards, Giovanni Michetti Member of the Italian archival community On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Pitti, Daniel V. (dvp4c) < dpitti at virginia.edu> wrote: > Dear International Archival Community: > [...] > To give credit, as well as to ensure that all feedback has been accounted > for, the list of contributors is provided below in rough alphabetical > order. This feedback was either posted to this list-serv or emailed to the > EGAD mailbox. > [...] > The ICA-EGAD Team (egad at ica.org) > > ********************************************* > > 1. Alexander Turnbull Library, National Library of New Zealand, > submitted by Nicola Frean, Leader, Arrangement & Description > 2. Archives New Zealand, submitted by Lisa Austin, Manager, > Description and Discovery > 3. Archives of Ontario, Canada, submitted by Adam Birrell, Senior > Archivist, Collections Development and Management Unit > 4. Archives and Records Association of New Zealand, submitted by Dr. > Susan Skudder, Research Librarian, Alexander Turnbull Library, National > Library of New Zealand > 5. Archivists from France, summary of workshops held by Service > interminist?riel des Archives de France; submitted by H?l?ne Zettel, > Adjointe au chef du bureau de l'archivage num?rique, des normes et > r?f?rentiels > 6. Archivists from the United Kingdom, synopsis of a workshop held at > Wellcome Trust; submitted by Jenny Bunn, Lecturer and Programme Director, > Archives and Records Management, University College London > 7. Artefactual Systems, Canada, submitted by Dan Gillean, AtoM Program > Manager > 8. L?Association des archivistes du Qu?bec, Canada, submitted by > Carole Saulnier, Pr?sidente > 9. L'Association des archivistes suisses, submitted by Michele > Merzaghi, Pr?sident du groupe de travail normes et standards de > l?Association des archivistes suisses > 10. Australian Society of Archivists, submitted by Julia Mant, President > 11. Greg Bak, Assistant Professor of History (Archival Studies), > University of Manitoba, Canada > 12. Charlotte Berry, Hereford Cathedral Archivist, United Kingdom > 13. Brazilian Rio de Janeiro Group and C?mara T?cnica de Documentos > Eletr?nicos of Conselho Nacional de Arquivos, submitted by Vitor Fonesca > 14. British Library, submitted by Alan Danskin, Collection Metadata > Standards Manager > 15. Canadian Council of Archives, Canadian Committee on Archival > Description (statement only, no comments) > 16. George Charonitis, Archivist, General State Archives of Greece > 17. Comisi?n de Normas Espa?olas de Descripci?n Archiv?stica, Spain, > submitted by the Secretary > 18. Margaret Crockett, Consultant Archivist and Records Manager, United > Kingdom > 19. Vivienne Cuff, New Zealand (personal comments) > 20. Department of Information Studies, University College London (Jenny > Bunn, Geoffrey Yeo), United Kingdom > 21. Discussion Group on Archival Description (Japan), submitted by Izumi > Hirano, Archivist, Research Center for Cooperative Civil Societies, Rikkyo > University > 22. Teresa Doherty, Royal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom > 23. Beat Estermann (Bern University of Applied Sciences), Christian > Schneeberger (Swiss Theatre Collection), Switzerland > 24. Cassie Findlay, Australia > 25. Flemish Library and Archives Association; Branch Association of > Dutch Archival Institutions; Royal Society of Archivists in the > Netherlands; submitted by Filip Boudrez, City Archives of Antwerp > 26. Chris Hurley, Australia > 27. InterPARES Trust, submitted by Dr. Luciana Duranti, Project Director > 28. Italian archival community, represented by Associazione nazionale > archivistica italiana and the Italian Institute for the archives, submitted > by Mariella Guercio > 29. Silke Jagodzinski (The Federal Archives) and Gerhard Mueller (Berlin > State Library), Germany (personal comments) > 30. Andrew Janes, United Kingdom (personal comments) > 31. Mike Jones, University of Melbourne, Australia > 32. Prof. Dr. Christian Keitel, Landesarchiv Baden-W?rttemberg, Germany > 33. Ar?nzazu Lafuente Uri?n, Directora del Archivo Hist?rico de la > Nobleza, Spain > 34. Library and Archives Canada, submitted by Kat Timms, Information > Standards Specialist > 35. John Machin, Information Architect - Records Interoperability > Framework, Department of Finance, Australia > 36. William J. Maher, University Archivist, University of Illinois at > Urbana-Champaign, United States of America > 37. Ana M?rcia Lutterbach Rodrigues, Brasil > 38. Cindy McLellan, Archivist, British Columbia Institute of Technology, > Canada > 39. Sol?ne Michon, Chef du service finances, agriculture, environnement, > am?nagement et culture, Archives d?partementales de l'H?rault, France > 40. Laura Millar, Canada > 41. Naczelna Dyrekcja Archiw?w Pa?stwowych (Polish State Archives), > submitted by Dr. Bartosz Nowo?ycki > 42. National Archives of Australia, submitted by Linda Macfarlane, > Director, Policy and Digital Strategy > 43. National Archives of Finland, submitted by Jaana Kilkki, Director of > Collections Management Division > 44. The National Archives, United Kingdom, submitted by Jone Garmendia, > Head of Cataloguing > 45. Public Record Office Victoria, Australia, submitted by Andrew Waugh > 46. Arian Rajh, PhD, Assistant Professor, Croatian Agency for Medicinal > Products and Medical Devices, Crotia > 47. Barbara Reed, Director, Recordkeeping Innovation Pty Ltd, Australia > 48. Resource Description and Access Steering Committee, submitted by > Gordon Dunsire, Chair > 49. Pat Riva, Canada (personal comments) > 50. Michael Rush, Assistant Head of the Manuscript Unit, Beinecke Rare > Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University, United States of America > 51. Princeton University Library, Department of Rare Books and Special > Collections, United States of America, submitted by Regine Heberlein, > Principal Cataloger and Metadata Analyst > 52. Simmons Metadata Inquiry Lab: RiC Discussion Group, Simmons College, > United States of America, submitted by Michelle Janowiecki, Archives > Graduate Student > 53. Ross Spencer, New Zealand (personal comments) > 54. Society of American Archivists, submitted by Rebecca A. Wiederhold, > Archives & Manuscripts Catalog Librarian, Brigham Young University, United > States of America, on behalf of Society of American Archivists Standards > Committee > 55. Society of American Archivists Technical Subcommittee on Describing > Archives: A Content Standard, submitted by Adriane Hanson, Digital Curation > and Processing Archivist, University of Georgia, United States of America > 56. Society of American Archivists, Technical Subcommittee on Encoded > Archival Standards, submitted by Anila Angjeli, D?partement des > m?tadonn?es, Biblioth?que nationale de France > 57. Standards Australia Committee IT-021 Records and document management > systems, submitted by Barbara Reed, Chair > 58. Kenneth Thibodeau, United States of America > 59. Kat Timms, Canada (personal comments) > 60. Joris Vanderborght, Archivist of the House of Representatives of the > Federal Parliament of the Kingdom of Belgium > 61. Verband ?sterreichischer Archivarinnen und Archivare, Austria, > submitted by Thomas Maisel, Sekret?r > 62. Wellcome Collection, submitted by Dr. Christopher Hilton, Data > Architect - Wellcome Library, United Kingdom > > Note: In some cases an institutional affiliation was not provided, or some > commenters specifically indicated that their comments were personal in > nature and did not represent the views of their institution. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ICA-EGAD-RiC mailing list > ICA-EGAD-RiC at lists.village.Virginia.EDU > http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/ica-egad-ric > From dpitti at virginia.edu Mon Sep 18 09:25:21 2017 From: dpitti at virginia.edu (Pitti, Daniel V. (dvp4c)) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:25:21 +0000 Subject: [ICA-EGAD-RiC] Research consulting focusing on RiC Message-ID: <75D1864F-AFBD-4CD7-A798-32A95BDBEF0E@virginia.edu> EGAD would like to share the news that Professor Dr. Jair Martins de Miranda will be serving as a special consultant to EGAD until March 2018. He joins us from the Departamento de Arquivologia at the Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, and he is currently a visiting researcher at the Department of Information Studies at University College London (UK). He is conducting a post-doctoral research study entitled "From the multilevel to the multidimensional: the Records in Context (RiC) standard and the perspectives of archival description in the digital age". If you have questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to email us at egad at ica.org. Best regards, Daniel Pitti EGAD Chair