perspectives and abstraction levels, age-old concepts such as filing structures and
document types can be found in modern digital systems. In that sense, to
paraphrase the writer of Ecclesiastes "there is nothing new under the sun".
Because of this journey I could develop a basic information model or framework
that at its core only consists of three basic interconnected elements. Each element
has its own characteristics. For me, an information model is a somewhat formal
abstract description of objects, attributes, relationships, and rules in a particular
domain. It was a feasible answer to questions about the possibility to come up
with an information model, including a model for sharing and exchanging
information - independent of social, organisational and technical changes - and at
the same time a model compliant to the required information qualities and to the
interests to preserve the information. This model I defiantly call the Leeuwarder
Information Model (LIM) because Leeuwarden is the place where it came to
existence. Although it is a kind of archival information model, I found it somewhat
insolent to call it that. There are enough other archival information models around.
Despite the organisational or cultural background of actors and despite what
technical instruments are used for processing information, there is always a
consistent undercurrent. An undercurrent from the viewpoint of information as a
constant factor with basic interwoven notions or concepts as context, documents or
more neutral information objects, activities with communication or exchange and
particularly notions about their mutual dependencies.
The sum of these three elements, context, information object and activity can be
called meaningful information (MI). The three elements also determine if a set of
meaningful information makes up an archival record. Information is considered a
record when it can be used in a personal or organisational context as evidence of a
transaction, for reasons of compliancy, conformance and governance. It is mostly
about administrative, legal and fiscal values. As a rule, one can say a record is always
meaningful information, but not all meaningful information is a record.
Meaningful information is only a record because and whenever we want it to be a
record. One could say a record is a construct that lies in the eyes of the beholder. But
to avoid further distraction, this essay is not about the definition of records and
recordness. That is a discussion that will have to take place elsewhere.
A real surprise was to observe that essential parts of my notion of meaningful
information could be annex to the concept of semantic information (SI) of Floridi
(Floridi, 2010). This was a discovery I found worthwhile to look further into.
I will begin with an abstract point by introducing the concept of "something" which
is at the base of my information model (LIM). Then I will outline an example of
daily life which portraits what happens when an activity is triggered by an event: an
activity starts, and information is processed. With that example, I can explain my
information model and the concept of meaningful information. Then I will shortly
point out the elements and characteristics that are part of the connection between
the meaningful information of the LIM and the concept of semantic information of
Floridi. This is preceded with some reflections about what influenced my quest.
rienk jonker a perfect match? connecting partners in the labyrinth of information
The journey and the undercurrent
The world of information has all the characteristics of a chaotic complex system
with lots of turbulence. It is in no way comparable to the familiar, almost static,
paper environment. Nothing remains and everything changes, which is something
we should accept as normal. We as archivists are in this fluid digital world looking
for fixation points; we want to be able to fixate moments. But to be able to fix, it
must be clear why something should be fixed, what content is to be fixed and
eventually how this fixation is to be carried out technically. Our field, the archival
science, has a broad variety of fundamental pillars at its disposal. To begin with - of
course - the Manual for the Arrangement and Description of Archives (Muller,
Feith, Fruin, 1898/1920). This work contains components and concepts that are
still very useful in these modern times. This work has been supplemented by several
useful standards from ICA, ISO, and even the European Union. Not to forget the
results of the international research of InterPares (Duranti Preston, 2008). The
intention of these works is to provide the professional archivist guidance through
the maze or the labyrinth of information concepts and information systems. But is
this assumption of guidance right or are we missing something? If there is already
enough guidance why is it that there are still so many questions asked, why is there
so much unclear? In these turbulent times of digital change, archivists still need a
sustainable fundamental layer on which they can build for a long time.
Perhaps the current concepts and models with derived terms and definitions are still
insufficient for the approach of the current changes. A lot of those approaches are
often accrued from a very persistent "paper mindset", a phenomenon and heritage
which permeates our culture. It is a legacy that could be described as the paper
paradigm. It is a phenomenon that leads to the 'paperisation' of the perception of
the digital environment. This confusion must be resolved. Otherwise we will
continue to drive forward at full speed, only relying on the rearview mirror while the
windshield is still blinded. Therefore, a fundamental reinvention and redefinition of
our professional paradigms is a prerequisite. On the other hand, the archivist as a
practitioner has to travel on the moving high-speed train. And at the same time, he
must find his way into design departments, construction sites, maintenance sites
and boardroom table. This is only possible when the archivist's message is
unambiguous and clear. To be able to do that he needs 'simple' information models
with instruments that meet the following requirements: it is generic, easy to handle
and constant.
It is becoming clearer and clearer that in the world of the infosphere, an archivist
has to look far beyond the bubble of his own discipline. The infosphere is the whole
informational environment constituted by all informational entities, their
properties, interactions, processes, and mutual relations (Floridi, 2013). On the one
hand, archivists need it to find extra support and partners in the complex new
world, and on the other hand to make use of the recognised knowledge of those
partners. But also, archivists must bring those partners into contact with archival
science. It is a science with methodologies that is in a way a secure scientific theory
that cannot be proven wrong, because it has always been reinvented in totally
different contexts, environments, places and times - only the re-inventors are not
aware of this fact.
archives in liquid times
74
75