between source and user. However, search is not the only strategy for exploring archives-users may discover archival materials by moving around in the digital environment. Search is great if we know what we are looking for, but discovery reveals what we did not know existed, it generates new relationships. Linked Data support discovery thanks to their intrinsic nature: the underlying graph is not only a data architecture, but also a network of nodes that can be used as a path to explore freely the vastitude of online resources. Linked Data: risks Unfortunately, the granularity of Linked Data runs counter to current descriptive practices, characterized by the abundant use of free text in archival descriptions, a condition that severely limits the possibilities for interoperability and perpetuates the isolation of archival data, preventing integration with other types of data. This is an inherent limitation of the most prevalent forms of archival representation (inventories and guides in particular), which makes the adoption - rather, the exploitation - of the RDF model difficult. As a matter of fact, all archival descriptive models, including EAD, favor the narrative character of the finding aid. As noted many years ago by Elizabeth Yakel, "the concentration on the finding aid as document rather than as one of many potential representations of discrete data elements has led to problems of reusing archival data archival across the archival continuum and problems in the development of true collection management systems for archives." (Yakel, 2003, p. 18). Trying to move a step further, the International Council on Archives initiated years ago a process of revision of its standards for archival description. This initiative has led to the publication of a new conceptual model in September 2016, clearly and explicitly driven by the RDF data architecture (ICA, 2016). Therefore, this model takes into account the technological developments of recent years, and builds on the idea of graph as the ideal architecture for conveying information on the context: "Modelling description as a graph accommodates the single, fonds-based, multilevel description modelled in ISAD(G), but also enables addressing the more expansive understanding of provenance described above." (ICA, 2016) ICA intends to move archival description from a multi-level to a multi-dimensional approach: "The multidimensional model sees the fonds existing in a broader context, in relation to other fonds. In a multidimensional approach to description, the Records and Sets of Records, their interrelations with one another, their interrelations with Agents, Functions, Activities, Mandates, etc., and each of these with one another, are represented as a network within which individual fonds are situated." (ICA, 2016) This initiative has adopted the key words in current information architecture: graph, multi-dimensionality, networks of interrelations. However, this document raised some relevant objections in the archival community, with regard to different aspects.24 In particular, InterPARES Trust, a large community of hundreds of researchers from all over the world, laid down a set of critical comments about the fairness and transparency of the process, the methodology adopted for developing the model, and the model itself. The concluding statements of the document submitted by InterPARES Trust are quite explicit: In short, we find that RiC-CM is weak as a model, in that it neither defines the structures it uses (entity, property, relation) nor provides a rationale for their use. A conceptual model should identify and define the fundamental bricks used to build the model. Ultimately, the document fails to adequately address a model for discovery of archival resources, a model that accommodates multiple users and uses. EGAD and ICA should re-start the development process on a new, transparent and fair basis (InterPARES Trust, 2016) It will be interesting to see whether and how these concerns will be addressed in the future, and - in case - where this will lead the concept of provenance. As noted before, in the past twenty years the International Council on Archives has changed its approach to provenance a few times, interpreting it first as an agent, then as a single relationship, later as a set of relationships, and now as a multi-dimensional concept. Therefore, there is some reason to believe this is neither the perfect solution nor the final step. Another issue to consider when dealing with Linked Data is expressed outright by Hay Kranen in his blog: "Linked data is all nice and dandy, but if your SPARQL endpoint is only up 50% of the time and it takes a minute to do a query, how do you suppose a developer builds a stable app on top of it?" (Kranen, 2014) The post dates back to 2014, but it still holds true: keeping an endpoint up can be challenging. In a comment to the same post, Marcus Smith noted: "It's almost become an in-joke that six simultaneous users of a SPARQL endpoint constitutes a DDOS attack." In fairness, it should be recognized that endpoints and triple-store technologies are young, so it is likely that the situation will improve in the course of time. The fact that the Semantic Web technologies are rather difficult to implement and require high skills is another issue to consider when dealing with Linked Data. However, this too is a problem related to technologies that are still not completely mature: probably it still needs some time before both technologies and skills become less esoteric. Most of all, the fundamental problem of Linked Data lies in their very structure. The critical problem is the graph. As Bowker and Star note, "[e]ach standard and each category valorizes some point of view and silences another. This is not inherently a bad thing - indeed it is inescapable. But it is an ethical choice, and as such it is dangerous - not bad, but dangerous." (Bowker, Leigh Star, 2000, p. 5-6) We need to archives in liquid times 24 Some critical comments have been posted to both the ICA mailing list devoted to this initiative (ICA-EGAD- RiC Mailing List, http://lists.village.virginia.edu/mailman/options/ica-egad-ric) and the ICA mailing list (ICA Mailing List, http://www.ica.org/en/ica-list-serv). Chris Hurley has published on his blog a dense critique on RiC opening his post with a short yet effective consideration: "RiC is a conceptual model in search of a concept." See Chris Hurley, "RiC at Riga," Chris Hurley's Stuff, August 2017, http://www. descriptionguy.com/images/WEBSITE/ric_at_riga.pdf. William Maher, in his role of Chair of the ICA Section on University and Research Institution Archives, has raised some reasonable and thoughtful 240 giovanni michetti provenance in the archives: the challenge of the digital doubts about RiC in relation to archivists' missions and mandates. See William J. Maher, ICA-SUV 2017 Conference Summary, accessed October 6, 2017, https://icasuvblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/13/ica-suv- 2017-conference-summary/. RiC describes as much as seventy-three "potential record-to-record relations". Instead of "seeking an exhaustive list of every relation that might exist between two records," Ross Spencer has taken a different approach and has outlined in his essay eight relations only. See Ross Spencer, "Binary trees? Automatically identifying the links between born-digital records," Archives and Manuscripts 45 (2017): 77-99. 241

Periodiekviewer Koninklijke Vereniging van Archivarissen

Jaarboeken Stichting Archiefpublicaties | 2017 | | pagina 122