Feedback on the adaptation of RiC model to the Colombian context
Jhon Gonzalez
Dear colleagues,
I would like to put forward for your consideration a document we are currently developing, which seeks to adapt the Records in Contexts (RiC) model to the Colombian context.
Given the specific cultural aspects, the challenges in its practical implementation, and the dualities faced in a country where archival description is still at an early stage of development, we are keen to ensure that this adaptation is not only technically sound but also sensitive to the realities of our environment.
For this reason, we are open to — and indeed welcome — all kinds of comments, observations, and suggestions that you may have. Your perspectives will be of great value in refining the proposal and ensuring that it resonates both locally and internationally.
In addition, I would like to raise a question regarding copyright considerations: as our work is not a literal reproduction of the RiC model but rather an adaptation to a specific national context, what would be the appropriate way to address copyright and intellectual property issues? Any guidance or experiences on this matter would be most helpful.
Thank you in advance for your time and contributions.
Kind regards,
Jhon Gonzalez
Archivistadigital.com
Andrés Felipe ECHAVARRIA PELAEZ
Dear Jhon,
As a Colombian, I am very interested in contributing to this important adaptation of the RiC conceptual model for Colombia (although I currently live outside the country). I should clarify that I am not an archivist, but rather a research engineer, and my comments arise from the difficulties I have encountered when working with archives and their description in my research projects.
In favor of multilingualism in RiC exchanges and considering that this is a project with scope in the Spanish-speaking world, I find it valuable to offer my observations in Spanish. However, at the end of the email I include the English version to facilitate the community's participation in the discussion.
___________
"El presente Esquema de Metadatos es una adaptación para el contexto normativo y archivístico de Colombia del modelo conceptual 'Records in Contexts Conceptual Model (RiC-CM) Version 1.0', obra del International Council on Archives Expert Group on Archival Description. El modelo original está licenciado bajo una Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License y puede ser consultado en [https://www.ica.org/resource/records-in-contexts-conceptual-model]. Esta adaptación ha sido desarrollada por el Archivo General de la Nación de Colombia."
- Tabla 4 Agent (RiC-E03) - Agente (RiC-Col, p. 46)
Según la documentación RiC-CM (p. 23-24), la entidad Agent es RiC-E07. La entidad RiC-E03 corresponde a Record Set. - Tabla 5 Activity (RiC-E04) - Actividad (RiC-Col, p. 46-47)
Según RiC-CM (p. 33), la entidad Activity es RiC-E15. La entidad RiC-E04 es Record (RiC-CM, p. 23-24).
3. La Entidad Instantiation (RiC-E06) - El Contenido Intelectual vs. su Soporte
- Instanciación 1: El documento original, impreso en papel de seguridad, con la firma manuscrita del Ministro y el sello oficial. Sus metadatos describirían el tipo de papel, la tinta, sus dimensiones físicas.
- Instanciación 2: El archivo PDF generado a partir del original, con una firma digital, que se publica en el Sistema Electrónico de Contratación Pública (SECOP) o en la página web de la entidad. Sus metadatos describirían el formato (application/pdf), el tamaño del archivo (ej. 256 KB), el algoritmo de hash, etc.
- Instanciación 3: Una copia escaneada (imagen JPG) del original en papel que un funcionario envía por correo electrónico para un trámite interno. Sus metadatos describirían la resolución de la imagen (ej. 300 ppp), el formato (image/jpeg), etc.
- RiC-E04 Record se define como:
"Discrete information content formed and inscribed, at least once, by any method on any carrier..." (RiC-CM, p. 24). Aquí, el énfasis en "discreto" es clave. - RiC-E03 Record Set se define como:
"One or more records that are grouped together by an agent based on the records sharing one or more attributes or relations." (RiC-CM, p. 23-24). En este caso, el énfasis en "agrupados" es la clave.
___________
1. Regarding your question about copyright:
It should be noted that the RIC Conceptual Model is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, which explicitly grants you the right to "transform and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially." Your archival work, being an adaptation and not a literal reproduction, is fully permitted. The only fundamental condition is to provide appropriate credit. To adequately comply with the license, I suggest including in the first pages of your document (for example, on a credits page or in the introduction) a statement similar to the one I provide below:
"El presente Esquema de Metadatos es una adaptación para el contexto normativo y archivístico de Colombia del modelo conceptual 'Records in Contexts Conceptual Model (RiC-CM) Version 1.0', obra del International Council on Archives Expert Group on Archival Description. El modelo original está licenciado bajo una Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License y puede ser consultado en [https://www.ica.org/resource/records-in-contexts-conceptual-model]. Esta adaptación ha sido desarrollada por el Archivo General de la Nación de Colombia."
In the notes below, I refer to your document as (RiC-Col, p. XX) and to the Records in Contexts–Conceptual Model as (RiC-CM, p. XX).
2. Some inaccuracies in table headings
I have observed some minor issues (probably due to oversight) in the headers of some tables, of which I detail two examples below:
- Table 4 Agent (RiC-E03) - Agente* (RiC-Col, p. 46) According to RiC-CM documentation (p. 23-24), the entity Agent is RiC-E07. The entity *RiC-E03 corresponds to Record Set.
- Table 5 Activity (RiC-E04) - Actividad* (RiC-Col, p. 46-47) According to RiC-CM (p. 33), the entity Activity is RiC-E15. The entity RiC-E04 is Record (RiC-CM, p. 23-24).***
I recommend reviewing the headers of the following tables that present similar inconsistencies. It is imperative to conduct an exhaustive review of all mentions of entities and their codes to ensure they correspond exactly with those defined in the RiC-CM. An error in the coding of fundamental entities would completely undermine the interoperability that is sought to be achieved.
3. The Entity Instantiation (RiC-E06) - Intellectual Content vs. its Carrier
A national adaptation must, above all, preserve the internal logic of the model to guarantee coherence and future interoperability. Your draft document opts to omit the Instantiation (RiC-E06) entity in its initial proposal to simplify adoption. While this is a valid strategy, it is crucial to understand that this omission leaves out one of the most transformative capabilities of the model, especially in the context of digital preservation and documentary evidence management.
The RiC conceptual model establishes a fundamental separation between the "what" (the information) and the "how" (its carrier).
"RiC-CM introduces another important distinction. The information content or message that is communicated in a record or record part is distinguished from the inscription or representation of that content in a physical form (digital or analogue), in other words an instantiation. A record or record part does not exist until it is represented in at least one instantiation." (RiC-CM, p. 21)
Let's think of an Appointment Resolution issued by a Ministry:
The Record Entity (RiC-E04): It is the intellectual content and the legal act of appointing a person to a position. It is the information itself: "[Person X] is appointed to the position of [Position Y] effective from [Date Z]". It is an abstract but real entity.
The Instantiation Entities (RiC-E06) associated with that Record:
- Instantiation 1: The original document, printed on security paper, with the Minister's handwritten signature and official seal. Its metadata would describe the type of paper, ink, its physical dimensions.
- Instantiation 2: The PDF file generated from the original, with a digital signature, published on the Public Procurement Electronic System (SECOP) or on the entity's website. Its metadata would describe the format (application/pdf), file size (e.g., 256 KB), hash algorithm, etc.
- Instantiation 3: A scanned copy (JPG image) of the original paper document that an official sends by email for an internal procedure. Its metadata would describe the image resolution (e.g., 300 dpi), format (image/jpeg), etc.
4. The Distinction between Record (RiC-E04) and Record Set (RiC-E03) - The Case of the "File"
I confess that I am personally sensitive to this issue because it generates problems in document description in NEDA (Spanish Standard for Archival Description). The draft document, in its effort to make the model more accessible, introduces an ambiguity by suggesting that the "Record" entity can represent a file, which contradicts the aggregation logic of the RiC-CM model and dilutes its precision.
The RiC-MC is explicit that Record is a discrete unit and Record Set is a grouping.
- RiC-E04 Record is defined as: "Discrete information content formed and inscribed, at least once, by any method on any carrier..." (RiC-CM, p. 24). Here, the emphasis on "discrete" is key.
- RiC-E03 Record Set is defined as: "One or more records that are grouped together by an agent based on the records sharing one or more attributes or relations." (RiC-CM, p. 23-24). In this case, the emphasis on "grouped" is the key.
In the draft document, under the concept of "Documento (Record)", it states:
"2. A nivel de unidad documental compuesta: Un “Record” también puede ser un expediente que agrupa varios documentos relacionados con un mismo asunto, trámite o proceso." (RiC-Col, p. 27). This statement is conceptually incorrect according to the RiC-CM model. A Record should not "be" a file that groups other documents. A file is a Record Set that contains Records.
This distinction is important because a file has its own properties that are distinct from those of the documents it contains. The file has an opening date and a closing date, while each document within it has its own creation date. Mixing them creates ambiguity. Furthermore, the complete file (Record Set) can be related to the function it documents (e.g., "Contracting Process"), and at the same time, a specific document within the file (Record) can be related to its individual creator (e.g., the lawyer who drafted the contract). On the other hand, it is the basis for being able to manage file components individually. For example, a document within the file may have a different security classification than the rest. If everything is a single "Record", this granular management becomes impossible to model.
I hope these comments will be useful for the progress of the implementation of RiC in Colombia.
Best regards,
Digital Humanities Research Engineer
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Records_in_Contexts_users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Records_in_Context...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Records_in_Contexts_users/53265e46-5ed5-4ac1-89fa-4485a4f629f4n%40googlegroups.com.
Digital Humanities Research Engineer
Jhon Gonzalez
Estimado Andres
Muchas gracias por tu mensaje y por el interés que has mostrado en la adaptación del modelo conceptual RiC para Colombia. Tu perspectiva como ingeniero investigador resulta muy valiosa, ya que aporta una mirada interdisciplinaria que enriquece la discusión y nos ayuda a comprender mejor los retos que surgen al trabajar con archivos en proyectos de investigación.
Aprecio especialmente el esfuerzo de compartir tus observaciones en español. Por supuesto, podemos establecer un canal de comunicación en español para que el intercambio sea más fluido. Estaré encantado de continuar este diálogo y profundizar en tus aportes, asegurando que se integren en la discusión en curso.
Gracias nuevamente por tu disposición a contribuir. Espero que podamos mantener el contacto y avanzar juntos en este importante proceso de adaptación.
Cordialmente,
Jhon
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Records_in_Contexts_users" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/Records_in_Contexts_users/kE60Ir8eLz8/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to Records_in_Context...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Records_in_Contexts_users/CAK1vtuxia%2BpGRpdrLY3ZCwGbZYJX_0abJuN7un6FSgcWAd%2BMOQ%40mail.gmail.com.