wishing to sound triumphalistic, there is a feeling in Australia that electronic
records are in the process of bringing about an international vindication of the
Australian system. As we know, there is there a tendency for electronic record
keeping systems to be even more complex than their paper-based counterparts
-thus highlighting even more the inadequacies of the record group approach.
Moreover, there is now a growing recognition that, if archivists are to have any
electronic records to preserve, they need to bring them under archival control
much earlier than was previously the case. To sit back and wait for the transfer of
inactive electronic records to archival custody simply will not work, because by
then the records will almost certainly be unable to be preserved, fully understood
or made available for future reference. The case for a continuation of the strict
separation of archivists from active recordkeeping has become completely
unsustainable.
The role of recordkeeping metadata
This assertion leads me to a consideration of the role of recordkeeping metadata
in electronic recordkeeping systems and the nexus between this metadata and
archival systems for intellectual control. In essence, electronic recordkeeping
systems are metadata systems -it is metadata that makes a record a record in
such systems by documenting the structure and context that is necessary for
records to be useable, durable, comprehensible, accessible, authentic and reliable
over space and time. Using the same conceptual model, archival intellectual
control systems are also, clearly, metadata systems.
With this in mind the question that has occurred to us in Australia is -is it
sensible to have totally separate metadata regimes for electronic recordkeeping
systems and for archival intellectual control systems? The answer, clearly, is no.
Instead it makes sense for there to be as much harmonisation and interoperabili
ty as possible between recordkeeping and archival metadata standards and
systems.
So what exactly is the relationship between recordkeeping metadata and archival
description?
To borrow the words of my Australian colleague, Sue McKemmish, description in
the records continuum model:
relates to a complex multi-layered recordkeeping function that is carried out
through a series of parallel and iterative processes that capture and manage
'recordkeeping metadata'.
Recordkeeping metadata is also defined broadly to include all standardised
information that identifies, authenticates, describes, manages and makes
accessible documents created in the context of social and business activity.
Recordkeeping metadata so defined has traditionally been captured and
managed in both recordkeeping and archival control systems.
Description-related processes begin at or before records creation and continue
throughout the lifespan of records. Their primary aim is to provide the intellec
tual controls that enable reliable, authentic, meaningful and accessible records
to be carried forward through time within and beyond organisational bounda
ries for as long as they are needed for the multiple purposes they serve.7
In other words, the advent of electronic records and associated metadata strate
gies is seen by Australian recordkeepers as providing the opportunity to take the
holistic philosophies of Maclean and Scott through to their logical conclusion by
enabling the development of a fully integrated approach to records control.
Where previously there was metadata managed in current recordkeeping systems
and there was metadata managed in archival systems, now it should be possible
to have one set of metadata, namely recordkeeping metadata. Moreover,
while human intervention will always be necessary to create high quality intel
lectual control and description, the advent of automated systems presents the
opportunity to utilise the self-documenting features of software applications to
automatically generate and capture a large proportion of the recordkeeping
metadata that we require.
Of course there has been some North American research into the metadata
requirements for recordkeeping, most particularly the Pittsburgh Project's
research into the metadata requirements for evidence in electronic record
keeping and the University of British Columbia's metadata templates for the
preservation of the integrity of electronic records. While these projects have
been invaluable in terms of enriching our understanding of the opportunities
presented by metadata deployment strategies, they do not provide us in Australia
with all of the answers to our questions concerning the potential of record
keeping metadata.
To this end, a collaborative research project led by Sue McKemmish at Monash
University has set itself the objective of codifying a standard set of recordkeeping
metadata elements that are needed to manage records in electronic networked
environments to meet current and future requirements for access to essential
evidence. In addition, this project intends to classify metadata elements
according to their role in managing records in order to support decision making
about what metadata to capture and to assist in managing related risks. The
research methodology is based upon identifying and analysing existing metadata
standards, mapping matching elements, redundancies and gaps and producing a
comprehensive recordkeeping metadata standard that fulfills our requirements
and which is as interoperable as possible with existing standards.
DE KWALITEIT VAN HET ARCHIEF EN HET ARCHIEFBEHEER
138
ADRIAN CUNNINGHAM /DYNAMIC DESCRIPTIONS
7 S. McKemmish, D. Parer, "Towards Frameworks for Standardising Recordkeeping Metadata", Archives and
Manuscripts 26 (1998), pp. 24-45.
139
