Hunting of the Snark (Looking for Digital “Series”)

Hunting of the Snark(Looking for Digital “Series”) Question : Is it possible to serialise the digital archives held in the south-west corner of your repository? © Chris Hurley 2011

Yes, and No • It is possible to describe them as series, if we think that is worth doing, but only by re-imagining the Australian (“Series”) System. • Bear in mind : we don’t serialise records. Records come to us structured (“snarked”) or not at all. Being a record = being nested into a snark. • There’s nothing special about a series. It’s just another kind of snark – a way of understanding how records are structured (how they exist in relation to each other and to context). A boojum will also do the trick. © Chris Hurley 2011

The Basics • The snark (an entity used in documenting r.keeping e.g. agency, series, etc) is basic to archives; like atomic structure is to physics • We find them in the interrelation of parts in an organised whole (structuration) • They are time-bound; nested; context-dependent • They provide intellectual understanding of content, not physical (repository) control – such as the technology of digital archiving. As of old, snarks are supported by (but not found in) repository or registry tools but by intellectual controls shaped by pressure of business needs © Chris Hurley 2011

Archives 101 : what descriptive archivists do (not) - Archivists do not observethe r/keeping process;they are part of it Thought for the day Documentation is currently in the bottom 40% of lookups on Merriam -Webster.com. 27 Sep., 2011 © Chris Hurley 2011

Do’s and Don’ts • DON’T think of this as a descriptive process applied to records in custody after they have been transported into an archives • DO think of it as a framework for understanding and managing the r/keeping process within which records can be documented for many different purposes - creation, preservation, etc • DO understand that “series” is only one of dozens of descriptive types at our disposal © Chris Hurley 2011

What we do (custodial view)  ARCHIVES © Chris Hurley 2011

Description (classic view)  ARCHIVES © Chris Hurley 2011

Discovery paradigm shift • We used to construct search pathways based on contextual frameworks. You found the records you wanted through context. • On-line, we first find records you may want, then contextualise them by filtering the results. © Chris Hurley 2011

Description paradigm shift • We used to organise and preserve records in a form given them by the transactional activity whereby they were created and used. • On-line, we re-assemble data into usable views and invoke description to understand what it means. © Chris Hurley 2011

The reconstituted record • Data standardised by transaction type • Form (diplomatics) • Identity data for customer • Identity data for involved parties • Customer data • Transaction log • Rules © Chris Hurley 2011

How we describe (classic view) Organisation/Familysubject of rights & duties Agency/Person Also : authors, correspondents, Agent involved parties, clans, tribes, iwi, nations, societies, sects, role, etc. _______________________________________________________________________ Ambient Function“-ing” & “-ize” words Function Also : mandate, Business Function process, practice, operation, behaviour, Activity execution, enactment, administration, accomplishment, Act(ion) “relationship”, undertaking. program, routine, procedure, method, etc. _______________________________________________________________________ Archive(s)/Fonds/Record Groupdata; documentation Series Also : sequence, Item recordkeeping system, database, object, document, docket, file, array, hash-table, heap, tree, stack, queue, index, register, movement card, etc. © Chris Hurley 2011

But .... • You will look in vain inside your ERA for a “series” (a meaningful organisation of objects reflecting creation and use) and • In the corporate world of ICT, “agencies” (independent r.keeping system”) will also be thin in the ground © Chris Hurley 2011

New typology of description Organisationfunction Agency Documents Group creates Series Deeds Doers Item classic VIEWre-imagined VIEW © Chris Hurley 2011

Limitations of classic view Maclean & Scott dealt with what they saw • Organisations and agencies are not conceptual, they belong to the world Maclean/Scott set out to describe, but they are merely instances of the “Doer” type (if you don’t like “Doer” call them sardines). • Series and items are not conceptual, they are Documents (call them trout if you want). • Functions and activities are Deeds (call them cod if you prefer). If we want to leave their world and operate in the one that has taken its place, we must conceptualise where they stipulated. We don’t disavow their work, we re-build it. © Chris Hurley 2011

The x factor (scaleability) • In Scott’s formulation, entities were defined stipulatively (setting out observable characteristics of instances of the entity-type) : to pin them down within the CRS application. • He didn’t provide conceptual definition (hypothetical constructs involving application to particular cases of a theory of description). © Chris Hurley 2011

You say “function”, I say “activity” • He wasn’t wrong but, like Darwin trying to explain evolution before Mendel’s theory of genetics (or Newton before Einstein), he didn’t have all the pieces. • Scott’s formulations derive from a world of paper-based recordkeeping in a registry-based environment. • We can’t just go on applying those formulations, we must re-imagine them. © Chris Hurley 2011

In a re-imagined world We’ve only just begun ... • Stop stipulating (until concepts are clear) : “series” and “item”, for example, are just labels we attach to instances of the trout type. We should think of them as big trout swallowing little trout (nesting). • Ask questions : 1. Can a trout swallow a cod? Some relationships must cross the species barrier. Are there any which do not?2. SPIRT said r/keeping is a sub-species of cod. Are sub-species allowed? If so, what is their significance?3. Can an entity belong to two species? Hybrids?4. Where do rules, procedures, routines fit? Roles? © Chris Hurley 2011

Three entity types • The Deed : A documented activity or action or the invocation of an action (e.g. the process or step that is being documented in business and/or recordkeeping).? An authorisation or power to act. • The Document : An object or accumulation of documentary objects containing or conveying meaning. ? The process for documenting/gathering. • The Doer : Corporate or natural persons (an ISAAR “authority”) that undertake, authorise, or are otherwise involved in documented activity – including the roles they adopt in that regard. © Chris Hurley 2011

Relationship types • Generation : create, control, make, embrace, author, own, comprehend, include, contain, perform, authorise, develop, apply. • Succession : precede, succeed, post(pre)date, ante(pre)date, supervene, displace, replace, supersede, supplant. • Interaction : participate, involvement, engagement, interest, commerce, dealings, intercourse, fertilisation. • ??????? : We have yet much to do in this area. Should the above categories be broken down? Question : Does a father generate a son or does the son succeed the father? © Chris Hurley 2011

How entity-types are used Parent 1 Parent 2 Parent 3 ownssuperior Previous A doer Subsequent L Previous B Subsequent M documentdeed Previous C Subsequent N owned subordinate Child 101 Child 102 © Chris Hurley 2011

How it Works in “practice” Documents to be structured adequately The method employed I would gladly explain, While I have it so clear in my head, If I had but the time and you had but the brain — But much yet remains to be said. and managed appropriatelymigration multiplicity datum While r.keeping remains in disarray, without design and metadata supporting adequate structure, the archives in your repository may need extra work © Chris Hurley 2011

The Deed (in application) Purpose : end rather than the means by which it is accomplishedwe assist low income earners to get affordable housing we improve the welfare of Aborigines Enablement : outcome to be predicted in a specific instance.we build and manage public housing units  we provide rent subsidies  we maintain an Aboriginal Health Service  we are going to steal your children Action : a step taken in a specific instance. we am building a block of flats here and you will have one  I am releasing a tender now  I am signing a contract now  I am signing your lease agreement © Chris Hurley 2011

The Document (applied) Fonds defined by provenanceElvis Presley Archive James Boswell PapersState Archives of Ruritania Ruritanian State Department Fonds Sequence defined by structureScores and Recordings Invitations Sent and ReceivedArchives of the Presidency Overseas Cables : Outwards Object defined by purposeLove Me Tender (a score)Inauguration Ceremony Records1946, August 13 : Offer of Aid to Transylvania 1754, Oct 19 : To Dr J. – invitation to dine at Stone’s Chop House © Chris Hurley 2011

The Doer (applied) Corporation or Family organises action and bestows authority/unityUnited Nations Organisation Government of the Commonwealth of AustraliaThe Tudors Ministry of Foreign AffairsBritish Embassy, Washington Actor, Agent, or Person undertakes actionSecretary-General, UNO Henry VIII Fred Nerk (Minister of Foreign Affairs) Kim Philby Role or Function mission or responsibility undertakenby Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington (1769-1852) C-in-C Allied Forces, Belgium (June 1815) Prime Minister, Great Britain (1828-1839; 1834) © Chris Hurley 2011

Migration / Transformation MIGRATIONre-locate legacy data to successor application; duplication TRANSFORMATIONcopy data for use in alternative application(e.g. data warehouse, cartulary, ?ERA) MORTIFICATION (?ERA)When does r/keeping stop? © Chris Hurley 2011

Multiplicity • Multiple provenance : 2+ “creators” in different time periods in the same context • Simultaneous multiple provenance : 2+ “creators” in the same time period in the same context • Parallel provenance : 2+ “creators” in the same time period in different contexts © Chris Hurley 2011

The descriptive datum Metadata is not enough .... He had bought a large map representing the sea, Without the least vestige of land: And the crew were much pleased when they found it to be A map they could all understand.          “Other maps are such shapes, with their islands and capes! But we’ve got our brave Captain to thank: (So the crew would protest) that he’s bought us the best- A perfect and absolute blank” ... you also need a point of reference © Chris Hurley 2011

Scaleability Org 1 (entity 1234) --Agency 1 (entity 1235) Entity 1238 (r/k system*) --Series 1 (entity 1236) --Entity 1236 (boojum) --Item 1 (entity 1237) --Entity 1237 (boojum) --contents --Entity 1239 (object) classic VIEWre-imagined VIEW*process © Chris Hurley 2011

Simultaneous Multiple Provenance ... James Boswell invites Dr Johnson to Dinner JB corres JB invites JBSJ JB Stone’s JB Entity 1239 (object) SJ Entity 9321 (object) JBSJ SJ invites SJ corres © Chris Hurley 2011

... on steroids James Boswell invites Dr Johnson to Dinner corres invitesdiarise Stone’s res’n :JBSJ :JB extend :JB confirm :JB make :SJJB :SJ accept :SJ schedule :SJ rsvp Joint Entity 1239 (object) deeds doers documents © Chris Hurley 2011

A r/k view involves at least one link between entities Which views of the data qualify as “series”? All or some logically possible views? All or some functionally possible views? All executed/implemented views? All utilised (accessed) views? What metadata is mandatory? Identity : a record is unique Date(s) : a record is timebound Relationships : no record stands alone ?Anything else (for description, not evidence)? Some description will always be required, but... How much can be embedded by good system design & functionality and adequate metadata? © Chris Hurley 2011

Hunting of the Snark (Looking for Digital “Series”)