[ICA-EGAD-RiC] RiC: Quo vadis?

[Hurley, Chris]

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------<succeeds>-----AGENCY A
Now, consider two ownership relationships:
       FUNCTION G                                     FUNCTION G
<exercised/owned by>                <exercised/owned by>
   (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--<succeeds>--AGENCY A in 1925 in exercise of FUNCTION G
AGENCY A--<succeeded by>--AGENCY B in 1925 in exercise of FUNCTION G
AGENCY A--<exercised/owns>--FUNCTION G from 1901 to 1925
AGENCY B--<exercised/owns>--FUNCTION G from 1925 to 1980
FUNCTION G--<was exercised/owned by>--AGENCY A from 1901 to 1925
FUNCTION G--<was exercised/owned by>--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<http://www.infotech.monash.edu.au/research/groups/rcrg/projects/spirt/deliverables/austrkms.html> (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<http://www.descriptionguy.com/>
Email : descriptionguy at gmail.com<mailto: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. 
**************************************************************