ubiquity, heterogeneity and multifunctionality of metadata, this test identified 137 different metadata assertions (i.e., different instances of types of metadata), and 16 types of assertions. Two types cut across all stages of the lifecycle, one cut across two stages, and the other fifteen were evidenced only in one stage. (Gilliland et al., 2008, p. 31). In 1999, the Australian Recordkeeping Metadata Schema (RKMS) concisely identified the objects that are the primary focus of archivists and other recordkeepers as a set of entities such as records, recordkeeping, agents, business process and mandates as well as the various relationships that might exist between each at any point in timespace (McKemmish et al.). The developers of the schema assert that these are the objects that need to be described at relevant points in their lives, from the moments of systems design and records creation onwards. The task of that description is to ensure that these objects can be understood semantically and epistemologically, and trusted bureaucratically, juridically and socially. Additionally they must help the user to assess the object with regard to its authoritativeness, authenticity and reliability; they must place it within its broader documentary context or archival bond (e.g., within a given fond); identify it (and here it would be interesting to look at the degree of consonance with ideas developed in the LIS field of cognitive authority as well as of 'relevance' and 'aboutness' (Wilson, 1983; 1968)); and support potentially infinite interpretations and understandings of what the objects being described reveal about dynamic constructions of identity, memory, and truth. All of these abilities are, of course, in turn contingent upon the degree, nature and ultimately the trustworthiness of the associated metadata, so much so that the management, elimination and preservation of digital metadata through some form of trust regime has become a growing professional concern (Gilliland, Rouche, Evans and Lindberg, 2005). If trusting a record means the existence of trustworthy metadata, how then does one manage constantly accruing metadata in such a way that it maintains its trustworthiness? This may prove to be one of the most pressing questions facing these fields in the face of escalating amounts of metadata in the digital world and also growing political distrust in records and data. One suggested approach is to develop a metadata management scheme whereby redundant metadata would be eliminated and notarized summaries would be prepared for large aggregations of metadata, which could then also be discarded. Another possible approach would be more ecological-relying upon organizations to invest more in sustaining the trustworthiness of those records and other objects that they wish or need to trust and preserve. However both approaches raise important ethical issues related to equity and the resource capacity of different institutions and communities to manage relevant necessary metadata over the long-term that meets professionally and legally acceptable practices for preserving its authenticity. One additional observation should be made at this point. As Wallace predicted, metadata has proven to be essential in recordkeeping, and to have more and more potential as new digital capabilities emerge, but it is not everything. Recent developments in digital forensics rely not on metadata but instead on very physical properties of the medium on which records are inscribed. Nevertheless, interpreting the trace inscriptions detected through digital forensics also must draw upon existing trusted contextual metadata. Finally, although the concept of metadata in the archival science and other recordkeeping fields has been defined primarily in the context of electronic records - and theoretical developments regarding born-digital materials have largely been focused on records created by bureaucratic activities and systems - it is important to bear in mind, as stated at the outset of this paper, that metadata is inherent to all information and cultural objects. Electronic records research and development have helped us to understand the roles and manifestations of metadata, but everything we have learned can be applied to records and other archival materials regardless of their genesis or form. For example, Yeo makes the point that organic accumulations and artificial collections may not be mutually exclusive aggregations, even though theory and practice tends to draw quite a rigid distinction between the two (Yeo, 2010; 2012a; 2012b). Artificial collections, as well as aggregations of personal papers are also the products of human activity and also have inherent metadata that speak to their genesis, nature, transmission, aggregation and so forth. Moreover, as we move forward and use value-added linking metadata such as RDF, as well as automatically exploiting and compiling inherent metadata elements in archival, digital humanities and big data initiatives, we will be moving into a new universe of meta-fonds and meta-collections and meta-metadata. Characteristics of Archival and Recordkeeping Metadata Notwithstanding Eno's admonition that metadata is too complicated to explain, at this point we can observe that at its most straightforward, archival and recordkeeping metadata can be thought of as encompassing anything and everything that relates to an object of interest within these fields (i.e., any entity or relationship) that is not the object itself. This metadata accumulates and envelopes the object as it moves through time. Metadata also operates in various one-to-one and one-to-many relationships. For example, metadata can relate to an individual object, or to an aggregation of objects. Structural, epistemological and ontological relationships exist between different types and instances of metadata, in addition to the relationships between the kinds of entities identified in RKMS. For example, there are multiple organic and cumulative relationships between the provenancial, descriptive, preservation, interpretative, affective, performative, and 'making' and 're-making' metadata layers that accumulate around and between the original record 'objects' as well as their versions and copies and the fonds within which they are filed. Originals, copies and parts of a record can also participate in new archival formations, with various familial-type relationships (parent-child, sibling, spouse, cousin, generational) that potentially have certain resonances with the notion of bibliographic families first articulated by Wilson (1986). Digital capabilities only expand the ways and moments in and at which this can occur. We might further consider dividing metadata into two types. The first we might call 'trace metadata', that is metadata that is indigenous to the records and the system and agents that created and handled them. Trace metadata is often created simultaneously with the actions that it reflects, and accumulates across actions, for which it serves as evidence. That evidence might be called upon in legal and audit processes, for institutional decision-making and self-knowledge, and for historical analyses, among other uses. archives in liquid times 218 anne j. gilliland 'the wink that's worth a thousand words': a contemplation on the nature of metadata and metadata practices in the archival world 219

Periodiekviewer Koninklijke Vereniging van Archivarissen

Jaarboeken Stichting Archiefpublicaties | 2017 | | pagina 111