metadata elements
176 views
Skip to first unread message
Dorothy Carroll
May 17, 2024, 12:06:52 PM5/17/24
to records_in_c...@googlegroups.com
Hello,
I am studying metadata and need to describe banknotes - just wondered which elements would be used?
Kind regards
Dorothy Carroll
Richard Williamson
May 21, 2024, 9:37:05 AM5/21/24
to Records_in_C...@googlegroups.com
Hello Dorothy,
A few thoughts! Maybe somebody else will add some complementary
remarks or a different perspective :-).
A priori banknotes might most naturally be considered the domain of
museums (and thus ontologies such as CIDOC) as opposed to archival
institutions, for example when it comes to cataloguing banknotes which
have been issued through the years. But banknotes do, it seems, crop
up in archives; here is an example.
https://manuscripts.nls.uk/repositories/2/archival_objects/37710
I'm not sure whether this is the kind of thing you are interested in,
but the metadata expressed on this page could be encapsulated by
several entities and properties in RiC. The collection itself would
likely be a Record Set (RiC-E03). The individual letters would each
likely be a Record (RiC-E04), and one would use RiC-R024 'includes or
included' or its inverse to express the fact the letters belong to the
collection. It is a bit unclear from the description, but the two
banknotes might too each be modelled as records belonging to the
record set in the same way, or if they are associated to ('attachments
to' in some sense) a specific letter, one might consider the text of
the letter itself plus the two banknotes together as forming a record,
and all three of these would each be modelled as a Record Part
(RiC-E05), and RiC-R003 'has or had constituent' would be used to
express the relationship between the letter as a record and each of
its record parts. Already we see how RiC helps us a little here,
allowing for greater precision!
There is a whole host of metadata on the page that one could place at
any one or all of the aforementioned levels, for example the
acquisition information might be expressed at Record Set level by 'has
sender' (RiC-R031), which one might well set to 'the offices of Sir
John Erskine, Edinburgh' or some variant, where these offices would be
modelled as an Agent, likely specifically a Corporate Body (RiC-E011),
assuming that these offices had some kind of legal status; if not
Group (RiC-E09) would likely be best. One could presumably use RiC-041
('is or was controller of') to express the relationship of Sir John
Erskine to his offices, and RiC-R075 ('is or was location of') to
express the fact that Sir John Erskine resided in Edinburgh. Similarly
one could bring in the creation dates at Record Set level.
But for the banknotes themselves as records or record parts, one has
for example 'has creator' (RiC-R027) to express the fact the banknotes
were made by French prisoners, who could be modelled as a Group
(RiC-E09); the fact that they are prisoners could be expressed by
RiC-A15 'Demographic Group', as could the fact they are French,
whereas the relationship to Valleyfield could be expressed using
RiC-R075 ('is or was location of') again. The fact that the
records/record parts are bank notes could be expressed using RiC-A17
'Documentary Form Type'. How to express the fact that they are
forgeries is interesting, one has RiC-A03 ('Authenticity note') and
RiC-A39 ('State'), but I would I think be inclined instead to regard
the banknotes as records/record parts which themselves are authentic
(i.e. are authentic records of the forgery), and just more precisely
specify RiC-A17 'Documentary Form Type' to be 'Forged banknote'. One
can also express forgery as an Activity (RiC-E15) and use RiC-R033
'documents' to express the fact that the records are documenting
forgery. Saying more about the currency of the banknote, the expressed
value, etc, would probably be the domain of CIDOC or similar, I'd
think. For the same reason as I wouldn't use RiC-A03 or RiC-A39, I'd
be inclined to stay away from the tempting RiC-R012i 'is copy of', as
again I'd consider the domain of this to be copies of records qua
records, not to say something about the content of the record.
And then there is a raft of things that can be applied to each
banknote as an Instantiation (RiC-E06), i.e. pertaining to the
physical incarnation of the record as opposed to only its intellectual
content (the two being related by RiC-R025 'has or had
instantiation'). E.g. RiC-A05 'Carrier Type' for whatever the
banknotes were made of (paper?), RiC-A33 'Production Technique' could
be appropriate for more details of how they were made, RiC-A31
'Physical characteristics note' could also be useful to say something
about the physical preservation state of the banknotes, RiC-A23
('Instantiation Extent') for the dimensions of the banknotes, etc.
There's more that could be said for certain, but perhaps this is
enough to give some ideas and set some reflections in motion! Hope it
helps!
Best wishes,
Richard
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 6:06 PM 'Dorothy Carroll' via
Records_in_Contexts_users <Records_in_C...@googlegroups.com>
wrote:
> --
> 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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Records_in_Contexts_users/35917208.390916.1715854568899%40mail.yahoo.com.
A few thoughts! Maybe somebody else will add some complementary
remarks or a different perspective :-).
A priori banknotes might most naturally be considered the domain of
museums (and thus ontologies such as CIDOC) as opposed to archival
institutions, for example when it comes to cataloguing banknotes which
have been issued through the years. But banknotes do, it seems, crop
up in archives; here is an example.
https://manuscripts.nls.uk/repositories/2/archival_objects/37710
I'm not sure whether this is the kind of thing you are interested in,
but the metadata expressed on this page could be encapsulated by
several entities and properties in RiC. The collection itself would
likely be a Record Set (RiC-E03). The individual letters would each
likely be a Record (RiC-E04), and one would use RiC-R024 'includes or
included' or its inverse to express the fact the letters belong to the
collection. It is a bit unclear from the description, but the two
banknotes might too each be modelled as records belonging to the
record set in the same way, or if they are associated to ('attachments
to' in some sense) a specific letter, one might consider the text of
the letter itself plus the two banknotes together as forming a record,
and all three of these would each be modelled as a Record Part
(RiC-E05), and RiC-R003 'has or had constituent' would be used to
express the relationship between the letter as a record and each of
its record parts. Already we see how RiC helps us a little here,
allowing for greater precision!
There is a whole host of metadata on the page that one could place at
any one or all of the aforementioned levels, for example the
acquisition information might be expressed at Record Set level by 'has
sender' (RiC-R031), which one might well set to 'the offices of Sir
John Erskine, Edinburgh' or some variant, where these offices would be
modelled as an Agent, likely specifically a Corporate Body (RiC-E011),
assuming that these offices had some kind of legal status; if not
Group (RiC-E09) would likely be best. One could presumably use RiC-041
('is or was controller of') to express the relationship of Sir John
Erskine to his offices, and RiC-R075 ('is or was location of') to
express the fact that Sir John Erskine resided in Edinburgh. Similarly
one could bring in the creation dates at Record Set level.
But for the banknotes themselves as records or record parts, one has
for example 'has creator' (RiC-R027) to express the fact the banknotes
were made by French prisoners, who could be modelled as a Group
(RiC-E09); the fact that they are prisoners could be expressed by
RiC-A15 'Demographic Group', as could the fact they are French,
whereas the relationship to Valleyfield could be expressed using
RiC-R075 ('is or was location of') again. The fact that the
records/record parts are bank notes could be expressed using RiC-A17
'Documentary Form Type'. How to express the fact that they are
forgeries is interesting, one has RiC-A03 ('Authenticity note') and
RiC-A39 ('State'), but I would I think be inclined instead to regard
the banknotes as records/record parts which themselves are authentic
(i.e. are authentic records of the forgery), and just more precisely
specify RiC-A17 'Documentary Form Type' to be 'Forged banknote'. One
can also express forgery as an Activity (RiC-E15) and use RiC-R033
'documents' to express the fact that the records are documenting
forgery. Saying more about the currency of the banknote, the expressed
value, etc, would probably be the domain of CIDOC or similar, I'd
think. For the same reason as I wouldn't use RiC-A03 or RiC-A39, I'd
be inclined to stay away from the tempting RiC-R012i 'is copy of', as
again I'd consider the domain of this to be copies of records qua
records, not to say something about the content of the record.
And then there is a raft of things that can be applied to each
banknote as an Instantiation (RiC-E06), i.e. pertaining to the
physical incarnation of the record as opposed to only its intellectual
content (the two being related by RiC-R025 'has or had
instantiation'). E.g. RiC-A05 'Carrier Type' for whatever the
banknotes were made of (paper?), RiC-A33 'Production Technique' could
be appropriate for more details of how they were made, RiC-A31
'Physical characteristics note' could also be useful to say something
about the physical preservation state of the banknotes, RiC-A23
('Instantiation Extent') for the dimensions of the banknotes, etc.
There's more that could be said for certain, but perhaps this is
enough to give some ideas and set some reflections in motion! Hope it
helps!
Best wishes,
Richard
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 6:06 PM 'Dorothy Carroll' via
Records_in_Contexts_users <Records_in_C...@googlegroups.com>
wrote:
> 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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Records_in_Contexts_users/35917208.390916.1715854568899%40mail.yahoo.com.
Richard Williamson
May 23, 2024, 7:44:08 PM5/23/24
to Records_in_C...@googlegroups.com
Just a few further remarks, which I thought you or somebody else on
the list might find interesting to ponder, Dorothy! I came across the
following document, which details a much more systematic and generic
archiving of banknotes (in Australia) than the little example I
discussed in my initial reply, even though historical cataloguing is,
as expected, seen as out of scope. See page 11.
https://www.naa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-12/agency-ra-2014-00441373.pdf
There are quite a few interesting things one could do with this from
the point of view of modelling in RiC. For each individual banknote,
most of the aspects I listed in my initial reply pertaining to its
instantiation (Carrier Type, Instantiation Extent, ... ) would be
equally relevant, and at the record level one could equally well set
'Documentary Form Type' to 'Banknote', etc, one could still record a
creator (the Reserve Bank of Australia), etc.
But to turn to what we can do in addition, for bullet points two to
four on page 11, it might be most natural to regard each group of four
banknotes as a Record, with four Record Parts. One could make liberal
use of RiC E14 'Event' along with RiC R061 'results or resulted in' to
express the fact that a change of head of state (this is the RiC R14
Event), or any of the other possibilities listed, resulted in this
Record.
One could also make use of RiC R023 'has genetic link to record
resource' to relate a record of the kind of the fifth bullet point
('Master standards from each production phase') to the record
consisting of the banknotes coming out of the production, and also RiC
R009 'precedes in time' to relate the different production phase
records, etc.
With regard to the sixth bullet point ('Counterfeit banknotes'), in
addition to the kind of things I mentioned in my initial reply, one
could use RiC R023 to relate the counterfeit record to the record
which the counterfeits derive from. In fact, that sixth bullet point
indicates how a rather complex and circular mesh of relations can
arise: a Record R1 of some banknotes may ('has genetic link to record
resource') be related to a record R2 of counterfeits; we can use RiC
R033 'documents' to express that R2 documents the Activity 'Forgery of
banknotes of kind R1', and then use RiC R061 'results or resulted in'
to express the fact that the counterfeiting led to a change in
banknote, documented in Record R3; R1 directly relates to R3 by RiC
R009 'precedes in time', but the 'long way around' allows us to obtain
a much richer context. One could incorporate the production phases of
R1 and R3 in there as well to be even more precise. This is an example
of the kind of thing where a more traditional, hierarchical archival
description standard would struggle, and where RiC (by design!) does
well :-).
Best wishes,
Richard
the list might find interesting to ponder, Dorothy! I came across the
following document, which details a much more systematic and generic
archiving of banknotes (in Australia) than the little example I
discussed in my initial reply, even though historical cataloguing is,
as expected, seen as out of scope. See page 11.
https://www.naa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-12/agency-ra-2014-00441373.pdf
There are quite a few interesting things one could do with this from
the point of view of modelling in RiC. For each individual banknote,
most of the aspects I listed in my initial reply pertaining to its
instantiation (Carrier Type, Instantiation Extent, ... ) would be
equally relevant, and at the record level one could equally well set
'Documentary Form Type' to 'Banknote', etc, one could still record a
creator (the Reserve Bank of Australia), etc.
But to turn to what we can do in addition, for bullet points two to
four on page 11, it might be most natural to regard each group of four
banknotes as a Record, with four Record Parts. One could make liberal
use of RiC E14 'Event' along with RiC R061 'results or resulted in' to
express the fact that a change of head of state (this is the RiC R14
Event), or any of the other possibilities listed, resulted in this
Record.
One could also make use of RiC R023 'has genetic link to record
resource' to relate a record of the kind of the fifth bullet point
('Master standards from each production phase') to the record
consisting of the banknotes coming out of the production, and also RiC
R009 'precedes in time' to relate the different production phase
records, etc.
With regard to the sixth bullet point ('Counterfeit banknotes'), in
addition to the kind of things I mentioned in my initial reply, one
could use RiC R023 to relate the counterfeit record to the record
which the counterfeits derive from. In fact, that sixth bullet point
indicates how a rather complex and circular mesh of relations can
arise: a Record R1 of some banknotes may ('has genetic link to record
resource') be related to a record R2 of counterfeits; we can use RiC
R033 'documents' to express that R2 documents the Activity 'Forgery of
banknotes of kind R1', and then use RiC R061 'results or resulted in'
to express the fact that the counterfeiting led to a change in
banknote, documented in Record R3; R1 directly relates to R3 by RiC
R009 'precedes in time', but the 'long way around' allows us to obtain
a much richer context. One could incorporate the production phases of
R1 and R3 in there as well to be even more precise. This is an example
of the kind of thing where a more traditional, hierarchical archival
description standard would struggle, and where RiC (by design!) does
well :-).
Best wishes,
Richard
Hope, Aaron (MPBSD)
May 24, 2024, 4:31:44 AM5/24/24
to Records_in_C...@googlegroups.com
Hello RiC users group,
I wonder if anyone here has suggestions for ontologies that can be used to extend RiC-O to accommodate data used for the management of archival containers (e.g. box number, barcodes, shelving location etc.). I know that RiC-CM was explicitly and consciously designed to focus on the intellectual elements necessary to comprehensively describe records, rather than physical management, as stated in RiC-CM section 1.2. But I would be curious to know how others have modeled this type of information.
Relatedly, I am also curious about how or whether one ought to model records that are physically housed together (say in a single box), since this is often a matter of convenience rather than a reflection of any significant archival arrangement. Are the records in a single box a kind of record set? If not, how can one apply a shared barcode as a container identifier to each of the records held within?
Thanks for any ideas,
Aaron Hope
I wonder if anyone here has suggestions for ontologies that can be used to extend RiC-O to accommodate data used for the management of archival containers (e.g. box number, barcodes, shelving location etc.). I know that RiC-CM was explicitly and consciously designed to focus on the intellectual elements necessary to comprehensively describe records, rather than physical management, as stated in RiC-CM section 1.2. But I would be curious to know how others have modeled this type of information.
Relatedly, I am also curious about how or whether one ought to model records that are physically housed together (say in a single box), since this is often a matter of convenience rather than a reflection of any significant archival arrangement. Are the records in a single box a kind of record set? If not, how can one apply a shared barcode as a container identifier to each of the records held within?
Thanks for any ideas,
Aaron Hope
CLAVAUD Florence
May 24, 2024, 5:17:26 AM5/24/24
to Records_in_C...@googlegroups.com
Hi Aaron,
Just a quick answer: the scope of RiC is descriptive metadata, not metadata for managing records.
However, IMHO nothing in fact prevents you from considering the intellectual content of a container box as a Record Set (Record Set having a broad definition), and from using RiC-CM A-22 Identifier attribute, or specialization(s) of this attribute, to store a bar code or box number.
To be more accurate, in such a use case, I would most probably in fact consider the physical materialization of this intellectual content as the Instantiation of the Record Set and assign such an identifier to this Instantiation. Then, of course, one could
say that this Instantiation 'has or had holder' (using RiC-R039i) an archival institution. And even, if you want to use RiC to manage the container boxes in your institution, that it 'has or had location' (using RiC-R075i) a shelf or a stack (which can be
considered a kind of RiC place) - though this kind of information is of course not usually part of descriptive metadata provided to the public.
Another method, probably a better one, still starting from RiC-CM only, would be to extend it and create a specific entity, sub-entity of Thing, to represent boxes and containers. Such entities might then have, among other features, a description (possibly extending RiC-A43 General description attribute for storing for example the dimensions of a box), one to many identifiers, and could be related to the instantiation(s) which they contain - probably using a specific relation that could be also added to RiC.
My first two cents. I hope this helps.
Best regards,
Florence Clavaud
Executive member of ICA/EGAD ; lead of RiC-O development team
Conservatrice générale du patrimoine | General curator
Responsable du Lab des Archives nationales de France| head of the Lab, Archives nationales de France
De : 'Hope, Aaron (MPBSD)' via Records_in_Contexts_users <Records_in_C...@googlegroups.com>
Envoyé : jeudi 23 mai 2024 19:54
À : Records_in_C...@googlegroups.com
Objet : [Records in Contexts users] Ontologies for container management
Envoyé : jeudi 23 mai 2024 19:54
À : Records_in_C...@googlegroups.com
Objet : [Records in Contexts users] Ontologies for container management
--
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.
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 on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Records_in_Contexts_users/YT2PR01MB94297C960E960018BB72A53CF9F42%40YT2PR01MB9429.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.
Merci de nous aider à préserver l'environnement en n'imprimant ce courriel et les documents joints que si nécessaire.
Richard Williamson
May 24, 2024, 6:44:20 AM5/24/24
to Records_in_C...@googlegroups.com
Hi Aaron,
If I may, just to complement Florence's nice reply with a few thoughts
about your question in the first paragraph, whilst we at the National
Archives of Norway have not yet come so far as to have hands-on
experience of using it in this way, CIDOC again looks very promising
to me with regard to modelling physical boxes, shelves, etc: see the
following property for instance (the examples linked to are quite
comprehensive).
https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/p198-holds-or-supports/version-7.1.1
The 'Physical Thing' that is the range of this property (i.e. not the
container/physical box but what it holds) could in addition be
asserted to have the type of an Instantiation in RiC as Florence
described, and then one has formed a bridge between the two worlds
which one can elaborate upon in both directions.
Whilst you did not ask about it and may well already be aware of it
(my apologies if so!), when it comes to digital records, PREMIS looks
well suited to the task; we do a little experience now in Norway with
combining PREMIS with RiC for this purpose, and as expected, it seems
to work well.
In general, where one can both do things in RiC as Florence suggested
as well as use other standards such as CIDOC and PREMIS, it is only a
good thing I think to do both (one of the advantages of open-world
semantics)!
Best wishes,
Richard
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Records_in_Contexts_users/ff34c126f6f64b5293f5e7297fbde099%40culture.gouv.fr.
If I may, just to complement Florence's nice reply with a few thoughts
about your question in the first paragraph, whilst we at the National
Archives of Norway have not yet come so far as to have hands-on
experience of using it in this way, CIDOC again looks very promising
to me with regard to modelling physical boxes, shelves, etc: see the
following property for instance (the examples linked to are quite
comprehensive).
https://cidoc-crm.org/Property/p198-holds-or-supports/version-7.1.1
The 'Physical Thing' that is the range of this property (i.e. not the
container/physical box but what it holds) could in addition be
asserted to have the type of an Instantiation in RiC as Florence
described, and then one has formed a bridge between the two worlds
which one can elaborate upon in both directions.
Whilst you did not ask about it and may well already be aware of it
(my apologies if so!), when it comes to digital records, PREMIS looks
well suited to the task; we do a little experience now in Norway with
combining PREMIS with RiC for this purpose, and as expected, it seems
to work well.
In general, where one can both do things in RiC as Florence suggested
as well as use other standards such as CIDOC and PREMIS, it is only a
good thing I think to do both (one of the advantages of open-world
semantics)!
Best wishes,
Richard
Hope, Aaron (MPBSD)
May 24, 2024, 8:34:12 PM5/24/24
to Records_in_C...@googlegroups.com
Hello Florence and Richard,
Thank you both for your helpful suggestions. I'll have to carefully consider the various options: 1) omitting container metadata from our model (it is currently managed by a separate tracking system anyway), 2) modelling it within RiC using one of the methods Florence mentioned below, or 3) using CIDOC-CRM to extend the model. Out of curiosity, I made a quick attempt at this last option in modelling the attached description of a file of photographs. The possibilities are interesting!
Thanks Richard for mentioning PREMIS in connection with digital records - I was aware of its usefulness for this purpose, but haven't actually got around to employing it in any modelling yet.
All best,
Aaron
-----Original Message-----
From: records_in_c...@googlegroups.com <records_in_c...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Richard Williamson
Sent: May 24, 2024 6:44 AM
To: Records_in_C...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Records in Contexts users] RE: Ontologies for container management
CAUTION -- EXTERNAL E-MAIL - Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Records_in_Contexts_users/CAOapDiLpEEF2Vvnuk2GHigPGasQ3hZSZ1jpQoc0kfX_zmaw76A%40mail.gmail.com.
Thank you both for your helpful suggestions. I'll have to carefully consider the various options: 1) omitting container metadata from our model (it is currently managed by a separate tracking system anyway), 2) modelling it within RiC using one of the methods Florence mentioned below, or 3) using CIDOC-CRM to extend the model. Out of curiosity, I made a quick attempt at this last option in modelling the attached description of a file of photographs. The possibilities are interesting!
Thanks Richard for mentioning PREMIS in connection with digital records - I was aware of its usefulness for this purpose, but haven't actually got around to employing it in any modelling yet.
All best,
Aaron
-----Original Message-----
From: records_in_c...@googlegroups.com <records_in_c...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Richard Williamson
Sent: May 24, 2024 6:44 AM
To: Records_in_C...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Records in Contexts users] RE: Ontologies for container management
CAUTION -- EXTERNAL E-MAIL - Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender.
Richard Williamson
May 27, 2024, 4:13:13 AM5/27/24
to Records_in_C...@googlegroups.com
Hello Aaron,
Very nice!! Fantastic that you created and shared this! Interesting
possibilities indeed!
Best wishes,
Richard
On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 2:34 AM 'Hope, Aaron (MPBSD)' via
Records_in_Contexts_users <Records_in_C...@googlegroups.com>
wrote:
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Records_in_Contexts_users/YT2PR01MB94295F8C072223C35B49A398F9F52%40YT2PR01MB9429.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.
Very nice!! Fantastic that you created and shared this! Interesting
possibilities indeed!
Best wishes,
Richard
On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 2:34 AM 'Hope, Aaron (MPBSD)' via
Records_in_Contexts_users <Records_in_C...@googlegroups.com>
wrote:
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages