Roundtable on the "Future of RAD (Rules of Archival Description)"
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The Canadian Council of Archives (CCA) has been tasked to develop a plan to update and revise the Rules of Archival Description (RAD) and are seeking input from members of the Canadian archival community. Since 2008 there have been no revisions to the standard and it time to deal with the descriptive reality of digital records (both digitized and born-digital) in archives. The goals of this revision include aims to: - Align RAD with international archival descriptive standards - Clearly articulate the relationship of RAD to relevant standards in other allied professions (libraries, museums, galleries, digital preservation). - Ensure that RAD meets the descriptive requirements of both analogue and digital archival material. - Make RAD accessible to a range of institutions with varying levels of professional staffing. - Ensure any new standard is backwards-compatible with the current version of RAD. Richard Dancy from the Canadian Committee on Archival Description (a Committee of the CCA) participated in this discussion to provide some background on the project and help facilitate discussion on questions including: 1. What are the strengths and weaknesses of RAD in its current form? - Revision would aim to preserve and build on existing strengths. 2. What should be the scope of the standard? - RAD's approach was to be a "one-stop shop" for description at all levels in all media, is this still our aim? Contrast ISAD(G) and DACS that focus on aggregate levels of description and leave archivists to look to external media-specific standards for item-level description. - Should RAD focus only on description or should it take in other functions, e.g. accessioning, arrangement, administrative and preservation metadata? should these be dealt with separately? If separate, what are the relationships? - Does RAD need a data model to underpin the standard? This would identify the entities involved in description, their attributes and their relationships. The data modelling approach was the basis for the thorough overhaul of the librarians' cataloguing standard (RDA replacing AACR2). The ICA is currently undertaking the development of a conceptual model for archival description (see The Expert Group on Archival Description) 3. What form should "alignment" with international standards take? - Should RAD adhere closely to the ICA standards in terms of structure and data elements or is it acceptable to have a minimal set of elements in common but follow a different structure? - Are there deficiencies in the international standards that RAD should seek to remedy? 4. What is the best form for governance of the standard? - Within an archival network pressed for resources, which is the body best able to assume responsibility for maintaining the standard? 5. How should consultation proceed and who should be consulted? - What are the best ways to engage the perspectives of the various groups including Archivists, Archives advisors, Archival educators in academic archival programs, Digital preservation specialists, IT developers, Archives users, Archives creators, Librarians and Curators
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».