MEETING ON THE FUTURE OF RAD - Canadian Committee on Archival Description (CCAD) National Meeting on the Future of RAD CCAD Report with ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
MEETING ON THE FUTURE OF RAD Canadian Committee on Archival Description (CCAD) National Meeting on the Future of RAD CCAD Report with Recommendations Date: May 26, 2016 1. Introduction The Canadian Council of Archives (CCA) convened a Meeting on the Future of the Rules for Archival Description (RAD) at Library and Archives Canada (LAC) in Ottawa on February 4, 2016. Twenty-one participants attended the meeting, along with five observers and seven staff from LAC and CCA. The objective for the meeting was to arrive at a basic consensus regarding the future of archival descriptive standards in Canada and the possible revision or replacement of RAD. The meeting format followed the questions contained in the survey instrument CCAD circulated to the archives community in November 2015. Meeting participants had access to the survey returns and to an analysis of survey results prepared by CCAD. The meeting was structured into six blocks of questions, with 50 minutes of discussion time for each block. At the end of the day, participants returned to each of the survey questions and reviewed the results of the day's discussion for each. This report was prepared by CCAD to summarize the meeting's conclusions and to make recommendations to the CCA Board. Section 2 reports on the consensus (if any) that emerged around each survey question and provides specific CCAD recommendations. Section 3 recapitulates recommendations, organized by priority. The participants in the meeting were: Meeting facilitator: François Cartier, Institut national de la recherche scientifique Canadian Committee on Archival Description (CCAD) members: Richard Dancy (Project Lead), Simon Fraser University Raymond Frogner (CCA Board Liaison), Royal BC Museum Lisa Snider (ACA Rep), Canadian Museum for Human Rights Kat Timms (LAC Rep), Library and Archives Canada Heather MacNeil (Advisor), University of Toronto * Note that the AAQ representative position was vacant at the time of the meeting. Invited participants: Greg Bak, University of Manitoba Creighton Barrett, Dalhousie University Archives Martine Cardin, Université Laval Jennifer Douglas, University of British Columbia Rene Georgopalis, Archives Society of Alberta Dan Gillean, Archives Association of British Columbia Paul Henry, City of Ottawa Archives Tim Hutchinson, University of Saskatchewan Archives and Special Collections National Meeting on the Future of RAD: CCAD Report with Recommendations Page 1
Bill Leonard, Library and Archives Canada
David Mawhinney, Mount Allison University Archives
Christina Nichols, Canadian Council of Archives
Jamie Serran, Council of Nova Scotia Archives
Anna St. Onge, York University Clara Thomas Archives and Special Collections
Lara Wilson, Canadian Council of Archives / University of Victoria Archives
Observers:
Sean Berrigan, Canadian Council of Archives
Jarad Buckwold, University of Manitoba
Courtney Maxwell-Alves, University of Toronto / ACA Student Chapter
Keven Palendak, University of Ottawa / University of Manitoba
Michelle Spelay, University of British Columbia
Amy Spooner, University of British Columbia
LAC/CCA staff:
Guy Berthiaume, LAC
Anne Chartrand, LAC
Émilie Chirip, LAC
Hilary Morgan, LAC
David Knox, LAC
Louise Charlebois, CCA
Isabelle Alain, CCA
2. Findings and recommendations
The presentation of the findings follows the order of the questions in the CCAD survey, grouped into six
thematic blocks. Survey questions Q1 (respondents' contact information) and Q21 (additional comments) are
omitted. Findings are stated summarily here; for the full discussions, see the meeting proceedings, minutes
and discussion summary (available from the CCA's website).
2.1 Purpose and scope of the standard
Discussion consensus
Q2: Is there a need for a separate Canadian standard or could Canadian archivists adopt some other existing standard(s), e.g.
the ICA standards or DACS? Est-ce nécessaire d’avoir une norme purement canadienne ou est-ce que les archivistes canadiens
pourraient adopter d’autres normes en usages p. ex., les normes du CIA ou DACS?
Retain a national descriptive standard. Revise it to align with the international standards ISAD(G) and
ISAAR(CPF). Any departures from the international standards should be explicitly justified.
These conclusions were based on several considerations that emerged in the course of the discussion:
• The international standards were not intended to replace national standards but to provide a
common framework for them.
• There is value in providing more detailed guidance than the international standards offer.
• There may be specific concerns relevant to a Canadian context that Canadian archivists want the
standard to address (e.g. First Nations materials, bilingualism).
• Retaining a national standard preserves a certain freedom of action for Canadian archivists, who
would otherwise be dependent on a remote international organization.
National Meeting on the Future of RAD: CCAD Report with Recommendations Page 2• The ICA standards are currently under review and may themselves change significantly in the coming
years.
• A Canadian standard could make improvements on existing international and national standards and
may be a vehicle for contributing to and positively influencing international standards.
Q3 Are there strengths in RAD that are not found in other descriptive standards and which should be preserved in any revision?
Les RDDA comportent-elles des forces qui ne se trouvent pas dans d’autres normes de description et qui devraient être préservées
au moment de la révision?
Flexibility – RAD handles all levels of description, fonds as well as collections, and it accommodates both
fonds- and series-systems of arrangement.
Examples – RAD's wealth of examples are valuable for teaching, learning and application to specific cases.
Q4 Are there defects in other existing descriptive standards that a Canadian standard should remedy? Est-ce que les autres
normes de description actuelles ont des lacunes qu’une norme canadienne devrait tenter de corriger?
Several areas with potential for improvement were identified:
• Custodial history, including information relating to archivists' own actions on the materials.
• Documentation of changes to descriptions over time.
• Descriptive elements for digital materials.
• Better articulation of relationships between intellectual content and physical carriers, original records
and copies made for preservation and access purposes.
• Openness of the standard to participatory archiving.
• An element for preferred citation.
Q5 RAD's approach was to be a "one-stop shop" for description at all levels in all media. Is this still a feasible aim? For
example, ISAD(G) and DACS focus on aggregate levels of description and leave archivists to look to external media-specific
standards for item-level description. Les RDDA cherchaient à être un « guichet unique » pour la description de tous les niveaux
de tous les supports. Est-ce toujours ce que nous recherchons? Par exemple, les normes ISAD(G) et DACS mettent l’accent sur
les niveaux supérieurs de description et laissent le soin aux archivistes de trouver des normes externes adaptées à des supports
spécifiques pour la description au niveau de la pièce.
With respect to continuing a one-stop shop approach, the group settled on a qualified "yes and no."
Yes: the standard should be comprehensive in the sense that it provides everything required to produce a
complete archival description of any records in any media or format at any level of description.
No: the standard should not try to replicate other specialized standards that have been developed, but rather
point or link to them when appropriate for institutions that are seeking more detailed guidance for particular
media or types of material.
Balancing these two principles – drawing the line between comprehensive and out-of-scope – will be a
challenge in any revision of the standard. There was no clear consensus among the group about the value of
RAD's media-specific descriptive elements, reflecting a similar range of opinion among survey respondents.
Q6 RAD's focus is on archival description. Should this focus continue in the standard or should it expand to take in other
functions? – e.g. accessioning, arrangement, subject indexing, administrative and preservation metadata? Les RDDA mettent
l’accent sur la description de documents d’archives. La norme devrait-elle continuer dans ce sens ou devrait-elle être élargie pour
aborder d’autres fonctions? – p. ex., acquisition, classement, catalogage par sujet, métadonnées d’administration et de
préservation?
National Meeting on the Future of RAD: CCAD Report with Recommendations Page 3The standard should continue to focus on archival description. It will be useful to develop standards or
guidelines for other archival functions (especially accessioning – and work on this is already underway), but
these should be kept separate from the descriptive standard. It was noted that RAD serves institutional
management purposes as well user discovery tasks and that a revised RAD may need to reassess how best to
balance these two purposes.
CCAD recommendations
Recommendation 1
Retain a Canadian national archival descriptive standard (RAD3).
Recommendation 2
Retain the focus of the standard on archival description.
Recommendation 3
Commit to the general principle of keeping RAD aligned with the ICA's international archival descriptive
standards; any departures from those standards (new elements, deprecated elements, changed elements) must
be explicitly noted and justified.
Recommendation 4
Prepare a document mapping out clearly the existing elements of RAD to ISAD(G), ISAAR(CPF), DACS,
EAD3, and RAD2 (at a minimum); the goal is to identify the core elements for the standard, as well as to
identify relationships between and gaps in the existing standards.
Recommendation 5
Prepare a document that succinctly sets out the rationale for RAD revision.
Recommendation 6
Revise RAD's existing Statement of Principles to reflect the commitment to alignment with international archival
descriptive standards.
2.2 Structure of the standard
Discussion consensus
Q7 RAD is organized into a general chapter and separate "media-based" chapters. Should the standard continue this structure?
For example, ISAD(G), RAD2 and DACS organize the standard by area of description and element. Les RDDA sont
structurées en un chapitre général et des chapitres distincts par support. Est-ce que la norme devrait continuer de retenir cette
structure? Par exemple, les normes ISAD(G), RDDA2 et DACS sont structurées par zone de description et élément.
The standard should not be organized by media chapter. It should follow the ISAD(G) model of organization
by element, and any media-specific rules should be integrated into the element rules.
In the course of the day's discussions, a model for structure emerged which gained general support. This
distinguished between three types of document that would together make up the standard:
(i) Core elements:
• A lightweight, brief document that lists the descriptive elements that comprise the standard.
• Each element has at least a title, number, and definition or brief description.
• There may be a regular revision cycle for this document, but it does not change frequently.
National Meeting on the Future of RAD: CCAD Report with Recommendations Page 4(ii) Crosswalks:
• Map the core elements to elements in other standards, including previous versions of RAD, the ICA
standards, DACS, and EAD.
• Constitute the "official" crosswalks of the Canadian archives community to facilitate software
development and data exchange.
• Need to be updated whenever one of the mapped standards changes.
(iii) Implementation guidelines.
• Detailed guidance for applying the core elements, including:
o Application at different levels of description.
o Application to records in different media and formats (including issues relating to digital
materials).
o Examples.
o Recommended taxonomies and controlled vocabularies.
o Links to more specialized standards relevant to a particular element.
o Discussion of general issues / problems associated with an element.
• The guidelines would function as recommended best practice, but could also be opened up to
contributions from institutions, operating as a kind of clearing-house of professional practice.
• Much of the detail from RAD and RAD2 could be incorporated into the guidelines.
• The guidelines should be maintained in an output-neutral format, so that e.g. users could access them
online or output to pdf or filter guidance by a particular format or media type.
Q8 RAD groups elements into areas of description inherited from the bibliographic standards for describing publications
(AACR2 and ISBD). Should the standard continue this form of organization? For example, ISAD(G) introduced new logical
groupings of elements as areas of description (e.g. identity, context, content, etc.). Les RDDA groupent les éléments en zones de
description issues des normes bibliographiques utilisées pour décrire les publications (RCAA2 et ISBD). Est-ce que les règles
devraient continuer d’être organisées ainsi? Par exemple, la norme ISAD(G) a introduit de nouveaux regroupements logiques
d’éléments se divisant en zones de description (ex. : identité, contexte, etc.)
Follow the ISAD(G) model, move away from the current structure inherited from AACR2 and ISBD. It is
recognized that this creates new training challenges, as the current structures has been in place for over 20
years and smaller institutions will need help in the transition to the new model.
Q9 RAD's style of writing and numbering conventions are derived from AACR2. Are there better models? For example,
ISAD(G) provides standardized data for each element (number, name, purpose, rule, examples). Le style de rédaction et les
conventions de numérotation des RDDA sont issus des RCAA2. Existe-t-il de meilleurs modèles? Par exemple, la norme
ISAD(G) prévoit des données normalisées pour chaque élément (numéro, nom, but, règle, exemples).
There was a general preference for the ISAD(G) model.
Q10 RAD includes prescribed punctuation rules. Are these still necessary? Les RDDA contiennent des règles de ponctuation.
Sont-elles encore nécessaires?
Discontinue mandatory punctuation. There are places in RAD where punctuation rules are still useful, for
example when multiple elements are brought together in a single extent statement in the Physical description
area. But this may be addressed by improving the way elements are articulated. Recommendations relating to
formatting of particular data (e.g. dates) can be given where appropriate in the implementation guidelines as
conceived above (see Q7).
Q11 Does RAD need a data model to underpin the standard? This could identify the entities involved in description, their
attributes and their relationships. The data modelling approach was the basis for the thorough overhaul of the librarians'
National Meeting on the Future of RAD: CCAD Report with Recommendations Page 5cataloguing standard (RDA replacing AACR2). The ICA is currently undertaking the development of a conceptual model for archival description (see http://www.ica.org/13799/the-experts-group-on-archival-description/about-the-egad.html). Les RDDA ont-elles besoin d’un modèle de données pour soutenir la norme? Il pourrait identifier les entités de la description, leurs attributs et leurs relations. L’approche de modélisation des données a été utilisée pour la refonte de la norme de catalogage des bibliothécaires (les RDA ont remplacées les RCAA2). Le CIA a entrepris le développement d’un modèle conceptuel pour la description d’archives (voir http://www.ica.org/13800/le-groupe-dexperts-sur-la-description-archivistique/au-sujet-de- legad.html). An entity model would be useful, particularly for clarifying the relationship of intellectual content to physical carriers and formats. Kat Timms (LAC) gave an update on the work of EGAD in her capacity as a member of that working group. A first draft of EGAD's model is expected to be circulated for comment soon. The Canadian archives community should take that as its starting point; next steps would depend on reaction to the EGAD model. It was generally agreed that there is no point here "re-inventing the wheel." CCAD recommendations Recommendation 7 Discontinue mandatory punctuation rules in the revised standard. Recommendation 8 Explore the feasibility of structuring the standard into separate components for (i) statement of core elements; (ii) authorized crosswalks to other standards; and (iii) detailed implementation guidelines drawing on existing RAD. Recommendation 9 Remove from the standard the detailed rules in current Part II (Headings and references); maintain it as a separate guideline document for creating names used as access points. Recommendation 10 Prepare a document for community consultation outlining the proposed structure of the revised standard. Recommendation 11 Study the forthcoming EGAD entity model when it is released and coordinate community response and feedback, with recommendations to CCA on next steps relating to work on the entity model that could underlie RAD3. 2.3 Integration of descriptive requirements for digital archival materials Discussion consensus Q12 RAD includes a chapter on Records in electronic form. Does this chapter still provide an adequate basis for description of digital archival materials? Les RDDA continent un chapitre traitant des Documents sous forme électronique. Ce chapitre est-il toujours adéquat pour la description des documents d’archives numériques? RAD's chapter 9 is problematic but contains some useful material. The group advocated moving away from special media chapters (see Q7), and therefore does not recommend revising this chapter as such. Rather, guidance on the application of specific elements to digital materials should be integrated into the rules for each element or treated in the implementation guidelines (if this model is followed) for particular elements. While a record of any General Material Designation (GMD) type (e.g. an architectural drawing or sound recording) may exist in either (or both) analog or digital format, it may be possible to identify a set of core elements common to all digital archival objects. Work on the entity model (Q11) may help identify these. National Meeting on the Future of RAD: CCAD Report with Recommendations Page 6
Q13 PREMIS is a metadata standard developed to record information relating to the preservation of digital objects. How should an archival description standard relate to PREMIS? PREMIS est une norme de métadonnées élaborée pour enregistrer l’information liée à la préservation des objets numériques. Est-ce qu’une norme de description d’archives devrait prendre PREMIS en compte? There were more questions than answers here. The focus of PREMIS and archival description standards are different, but there is some overlap. Researchers today are more interested in access than in knowing the details of administrative actions on materials, but this may change in the future, particularly as records continue to be migrated and researchers may need to understand changes and potential losses. The standard should not set out to replicate the full PREMIS elements, but there may be some that would support communication of contextual knowledge important to archival description. At a minimum, the standard (or implementation guidelines) should provide a link to PREMIS where appropriate. CCAD recommendations Recommendation 12 Study the requirements for description of electronic records with the goal of identifying a core set of descriptive elements for digital archival materials and integrate digital materials into the implementation guidelines for all elements. Recommendation 13 Survey / get community input on specific problems applying the existing rules for digital materials. 2.4 Governance Discussion consensus Q14 CCAD currently maintains RAD. Within an archival network pressed for resources, what organizational structure will best ensure the standard can be maintained sustainably? Le maintien des RDDA est assuré par le CCDA. Avec un réseau archivistique ayant des ressources limitées, quelle structure organisationnelle devrait-on privilégier pour assurer que la norme soit maintenue de manière durable? Participants generally foresee continuing with the current arrangement whereby CCA / CCAD manages the standard, but it was agreed that it would be useful to follow up with more research into other models as well as the maintenance and governance structures currently in place for other standards. A useful analytical framework is to distinguish between responsibility for (i) the content of the standard; (ii) publication of the standard; and (iii) administrative support and secretariat services for the standard. Q15 What are the costs associated with maintaining a standard and what models exist for ensuring sustainability? For example, RDA is subscription-based, the ICA standards are freely available online, and DACS is available for sale in hardcover and for free in pdf. Quels sont les coûts liés au maintien d’une norme et quels modèles existent pour en assurer la durabilité? Par exemple: les RDA sont disponibles sous forme d’abonnement, les normes du CIA sont disponibles gratuitement en ligne et la norme DACS est disponible sur support papier moyennant des frais, et gratuitement en format PDF. There was general consensus on the need to keep the standard freely available and avoid creating cost barriers, especially for smaller institutions. Beyond this, there were no clear conclusions, other than a recognition that the need for resources is a huge issue. There is a distinction between costs for a one-time revision project vs on-going maintenance; however, there are costs associated with both, plus the need for translation adds to costs in the Canadian context, and generally the standard does not generate revenue. Securing adequate funding will be a challenge. Various ideas were explored including grass-roots fundraising, subscription models, software vendor licensing, fee for training services, contributions from larger institutions, provincial and federal funding, and the feasibility of a larger role for LAC or the Council of National Meeting on the Future of RAD: CCAD Report with Recommendations Page 7
Provincial / Territorial Archivists. If standards development and maintenance is a core function of the Canadian archival system (as the Blueprint 2020 document suggests), there is a need for sustainable funding for this function. The Canadian archives community is too small to rely solely on ground-up funding, whether through voluntary contributions or subscription and licensing models (which may themselves negatively impact community adoption of standards). CCAD recommendations Recommendation 14 Study governance and sustainability models for standards in other national or international jurisdictions and in allied professional fields, with the goal of making recommendations to the CCA for the governance of the standard. 2.5 Consultation Discussion consensus Q16 RAD is a community-based standard; what are the best ways to ensure community input in the revision process? Les RDDA sont une norme issue de la communauté. Comment faire pour assurer la contribution de la communauté au processus de révision? There was general agreement on the need for ongoing consultation with the Canadian archives community and transparency in any revision process. It was noted that when RAD was first drafted, Canadian archivists were beginning from scratch. By contrast, any revision today will build on over twenty years of successful standards implementation, community awareness of international and other national standards, as well as the work that went into the drafting of RAD2 in the early 2000s. Discussion of various possibilities included regular updates / members' input sessions on RAD at provincial and national conferences, town hall and webcast meetings, P/T council input into CCAD activities. There was also general agreement on the value of reviving the CCA's Standards Committee. Q17 Who else should be consulted and what are the best ways to engage them? Examples of potentially interested groups include archivists, archives advisors, archival educators, archives creators, archives users, digital preservation specialists, software developers, and professionals in allied heritage sectors (librarians and curators). Est-ce que d’autres personnes devraient être consultées et quelle serait la meilleure façon de les mobiliser? Exemples de groupes d’intéressés potentiels: archivistes, conseillers en archivistique, éducateurs en archivistique, créateurs d’archives, utilisateurs d’archives, spécialistes de la préservation de documents d’archives numériques, développeurs de logiciels et professionnels de secteurs connexes au patrimoine (bibliothécaires et conservateurs). There was general agreement on the value of consultation with various groups but also cautions relating to the wide diversity of users. There is a commitment to consultation, but archivists need to understand their own priorities. One group missing from the list in Q17 were archival students; they need to be brought into any revision process. The standard should be open to participatory archives – the idea that people other than the archives professionals (e.g. communities) have traditions, perspectives and knowledge relating to archival materials that can contribute to an appreciation and understanding of the records in different ways. CCAD recommendations Recommendation 15 Re-establish CCAD as an active committee of the CCA and expand its network of corresponding members willing to take on work. National Meeting on the Future of RAD: CCAD Report with Recommendations Page 8
Recommendation 16 Explore options for ensuring regular input from provincial / territorial councils in CCAD work. Recommendation 17 Promote CCAD participation in member input sessions in provincial and national conferences (e.g. build this into CCAD work plan). Recommendation 18 Study options for opening Canadian descriptive systems to participatory archives and how this might affect RAD (e.g. revise RAD's existing Statement of Principles, provide elements for user-contributed descriptive content). 2.6 Revision roadmap and transitional strategies Discussion consensus Q18 What are the priorities, how should consultation and revision proceed, what is a reasonable timeline? Quelles sont les priorités; comment devrait-on procéder pour les consultations et la révision; quel serait un échéancier raisonnable? Q19 What is required to support backwards- compatibility, should RAD undergo revision? De quoi avons-nous besoin pour assurer la compatibilité avec les versions précédentes de la norme? La révision des RDDA est-elle nécessaire? Q20 What resources and tools would the archives community require for transition to a new standard? De quels outils et ressources la communauté archivistique aurait-elle besoin pour la transition vers une nouvelle norme? It was generally agreed that it is difficult to provide concrete answers here without a clear idea of what we are transitioning to. In any scenario, there will be a need for training, support, communication, and clear crosswalks mapping the new standard to the old. There will need to be a certain level of acceptance of legacy RAD descriptions for a certain period of time; communicating this should help allay community anxieties around change. CCAD recommendations Recommendation 19 Identify the resources required to implement the recommendations of this report and develop a multi-year planning document. Recommendation 20 Prepare a document for community consultation setting out a transition roadmap and strategies once decisions are finalized regarding the scope and structure of the revised standard. 3. Summary of recommendations The recommendations set out in section 2 are re-grouped here in terms of: (i) general commitments that will inform the revision process; (ii) recommendations relating to organizational issues; and (iii) preparatory actions that will lay the groundwork for the revision. (i) Commitments Recommendation 1 Retain a Canadian national archival descriptive standard (RAD3). National Meeting on the Future of RAD: CCAD Report with Recommendations Page 9
Recommendation 2 Retain the focus of the standard on archival description. Recommendation 3 Commit to the general principle of keeping RAD aligned with the ICA's international archival descriptive standards; any departures from those standards (new elements, deprecated elements, changed elements) must be explicitly noted and justified. Recommendation 7 Discontinue mandatory punctuation rules in the revised standard. (ii) Organizational issues Recommendation 15 Re-establish CCAD as an active committee of the CCA and expand its network of corresponding members willing to take on work. Recommendation 16 Explore options for ensuring regular input from provincial / territorial councils in CCAD work. Recommendation 17 Promote CCAD participation in member input sessions in provincial and national conferences (e.g. build this into CCAD work plan). Recommendation 19 Identify the resources required to implement the recommendations of this report and develop a multi-year planning document. (iii) Preparatory actions (in order of priority) Recommendation 5 Prepare a document that succinctly sets out the rationale for RAD revision. Recommendation 8 Explore the feasibility of structuring the standard into separate components for (i) statement of core elements; (ii) authorized crosswalks to other standards; and (iii) detailed implementation guidelines drawing on existing RAD. Recommendation 10 Prepare a document for community consultation outlining the proposed structure of the revised standard. Recommendation 4 Prepare a document mapping out clearly the existing elements of RAD to ISAD(G), ISAAR(CPF), DACS, EAD3, and RAD2 (at a minimum); the goal is to identify the core elements for the standard, as well as to identify relationships between and gaps in the existing standards. Recommendation 11 Study the forthcoming EGAD entity model when it is released and coordinate community response and feedback, with recommendations to CCA on next steps relating to work on the entity model that could underlie RAD3. National Meeting on the Future of RAD: CCAD Report with Recommendations Page 10
Recommendation 9 Remove from the standard the detailed rules in current Part II (Headings and references); maintain it as a separate guideline document for creating names used as access points. Recommendation 12 Study the requirements for description of electronic records with the goal of identifying a core set of descriptive elements for digital archival materials. Recommendation 13 Survey / get community input on specific problems applying the existing rules for digital materials. Recommendation 18 Study options for opening Canadian descriptive systems to participatory archives and how this might affect RAD (e.g. revise RAD's existing Statement of Principles, allow elements for user-contributed descriptive content). Recommendation 14 Study governance and sustainability models for standards in other national or international jurisdictions and in allied professional fields, with the goal of making recommendations to the CCA for the governance of the standard. Recommendation 6 Revise RAD's existing Statement of Principles to reflect the commitment to alignment with international archival descriptive standards. Recommendation 20 Prepare a document for community consultation setting out a transition roadmap and strategies once decisions are finalized regarding the scope and structure of the revised standard. Note on priorities The priorities as set out here assume that time and resources are available to pursue the research required for recommendations 12 and 13 (study requirements for electronic records), 18 (study possibilities for participatory archives), and 14 (study governance models). Ideally these results would feed into recommendation 20 (transition roadmap) and be embodied in the actual revision. But this may be overly ambitious. Alternatively these recommendations (12, 13, 14, 18) could be seen as long-term research goals that would run on a longer time frame and whose results would eventually be incorporated into the revised standard. In this scenario, the focus of work in the near term would be alignment with the international archival descriptive standards, while leaving open these avenues for further research. National Meeting on the Future of RAD: CCAD Report with Recommendations Page 11
You can also read
