New "Record Group" as Level of Description

[Hans-Arno Mielsch]

Since AtoM 2.9 I noticed the new entry in the the selection list of a level of description called "Record Group".

What does it mean - it is not specified by ISAD standard which we want to use?

Is it safe to delete it? 

(Same goes for "Part")

Regards,

-Hans-Arno

[محمود محمد‎]

Hello, Mr. Hans. According to my knowledge, description levels can be customized according to the needs and nature of the arrangement of archival materials within each entity. This is what the Principles of Archival Description Levels stipulate in the Levels of Description element of the ISAD G2 standard in the margin notes.

According to my study, Fonds, Collection, and Record Group are at the same level as Fonds. That is, they are higher levels. However, each term has its own meaning.

Fonds tend to refer to archival holdings originating from administrative institutions and having an administrative origin, an organizational and administrative structure, and containing series, files, and other administrative records. Therefore, the original arrangement is as they were with their administrative entity.

Record Group refers to groups of records created by an entity or person and used in large sectors that may require combining more than one fond under it, such as educational, healthcare, or judicial institutions, etc.

You can learn more.

https://dictionary.archivists.org/entry/record-group.html

https://journal.cybrarians.info/index.php/cj/article/view/76

Collection. It refers to the artificial collections that an entity has assembled according to its needs, such as a collection of maps, a collection of photographs, or a collection of manuscripts. Within its institutions, documents may belong to more than one source, given that they are an artificial collection, which may depend on form or subject. Therefore, to distinguish between them, the term "collection" was used instead of "fonds" or "record group." Thus, an archival institution may have "fonds" and "collection" at the same level, but each one is distinct from the other.

Part is a semantic term that may be added to a file, such as "part file." This term indicates that the file's contents are incomplete, that there is a time gap, or that the file is incomplete.

Therefore, it is preferable for each institution to determine the nature of its holdings in advance, establish levels of arrangement and their names that are appropriate to the nature of its holdings, and indicate the significance of each name and how it is used in its plan and arrangement of its holdings, so that it serves as a guide for the arrangement and description process. This is because each entity or archival institution has different practices.

Developing a document on the use of levels of description and archival arrangement is important to unify sustainable practice in the organization and prevent fragmentation in the future.

Thanks.

Mahmoud Mohamed

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AtoM Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ica-atom-user...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ica-atom-users/1877a644-4c78-4a26-81b1-df58b7eb7f06n%40googlegroups.com.

[محمود محمد‎]

So Atom gives flexibility to customize description levels.

[Hans-Arno Mielsch]

Yes, that's what I love in AtoM.

But as a beginner, I wonder when it is useful to not to use ISAD(G).

Is there a better standard or is ISAD failing a certain levels?

[Dan Gillean]

Hi Hans, 

The short answer: 

• AtoM supports many different standards and is an international application
• As far as I know, ISAD never formally restricts the use of other levels, it merely includes some example levels
• Record Group is a common level of description in the United States, where the DACS standard is used. AtoM has a DACS template.
• Record Group as a level of description term has been present in AtoM for quite some time - it is not new to 2.9
• Yes, AtoM levels of description are designed to be customizable - you can modify existing levels, add new ones as needed, and/or delete those you don't need or use.
• "Part" was added as an example of a customizable level of description - because AtoM doesn't have a compound digital object viewer, we provided "Part" as an example of how someone could create sub-item levels of description to include multiple digital objects showing the same object or record. Depending on what it is, other sub-item levels a user could create might include "Facet," "Page," "View," "Component," etc.

The longer version: 

First, on Record Group:

When ISAD(G) was originally authored, I believe that the idea at the time was that it would provide a high-level simple model for international interoperability and exchange, but that different countries would then issue their own national standards using ISAD as a base, but adding whatever local requirements or preferences were needed. 

This is exactly what the United States archival community did in developing Describing Archives: A Content Standard (DACS), the national archival standard used in the U.S. - while it is very closely aligned and interoperable with ISAD(G), there are a few subtle changes. In fact, while the preamble and principles in DACS discuss levels of description, there are no specific elements in DACS that correspond directly to ISAD 3.1.4 (Level of Description). Instead, the first chapter in DACS is about levels of description as more general guidance - here are some of the relevant observations it makes: 

DACS does not attempt to define the proper level of description for any set of archival materials. Archivists should follow the prescriptions of their institutions and apply their own judgment in making such determinations.

And, when discussing multi-level descriptions: 

Multilevel descriptions can describe archival materials beginning at any level (e.g., collection level, series level) and must include at least one sublevel. Typical multilevel descriptions begin with large accumulations commonly referred to by archivists as collections, record groups, fonds, or record series. ISAD(G) envisions a descriptive framework that recognizes four levels: fonds, series, file, and item; however, DACS elements can be used to describe materials arranged according to this or any other scheme of articulating levels of arrangement of archival materials.

"Fonds" as a level of description is a very Western European term that never gained traction in the U.S. Instead, "Record Group" is more commonly used to describe high-level aggregations - see for example: 

• https://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/index-numeric/concept.html
• https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2024/10/23/the-origins-of-the-record-group/

Additionally, it's worth noting that ISAD also doesn't seem to explicitly define or limit the terms used for levels of description. Instead, it lists EXAMPLES: 

Meanwhile, AtoM has never taken a prescriptive approach to its standards templates - you can actually hit save on a completely empty description template and it will save the record as a description. It will provide warnings about what fields the relevant standard considers mandatory, but it purposefully does not seek to enforce these. Often in practice, local policies may modify or override any given institution, regional, or national standard, just as the national standards were intended to overly ISAD(G) with more specific guidance for a given jurisdiction. You will note for example that "Sub-subseries" (or sub-sub-subseries, etc) is not included in the listed ISAD(G) examples, and yet you can find this and other sub-levels used often in descriptions considered ISAD-compliant. Neither is "Collection"  shown, but even many Canadian or Western European archivists will make a distinction between a fonds (records accruing naturally in the course of activity) and a collection as something artificially assembled by someone. For all these reasons, and the fact that AtoM is intended to be adaptable and usable internationally in various archival contexts.

Finally, It's worth noting that Record Group was not added as a default term in AtoM in Release 2.9. It was actually added in 2019, as part of the AtoM 2.5 release! And the very first iteration of AtoM's DACS template first appeared in release 2.0, and then was iterated on and improved over subsequent releases. 

On Part as a level of description

This one has actually been present since 2013, and was included as an example sub-item level in the AtoM 2.0 release. 

This was a case where we tried to showcase the flexibility and customizable nature of AtoM's taxonomy terms as a workaround for other limitations - in this case, not supporting multiple digital objects per description, and/or including a compound digital object viewer (that can for example easily let a user navigate all the pages of a book, etc). I have discussed this previously in the user forum - here are some examples: 

• https://groups.google.com/g/ica-atom-users/c/avawKhuvTaY/m/oUhX2d3_BwAJ
• https://groups.google.com/g/ica-atom-users/c/v6s6e-DJuFQ/m/09AO6z0sBAAJ

Hope that helps provide some context!

 

Dan Gillean, MAS, MLIS
Business & User Experience Analyst
Artefactual Systems, Inc.
604-527-2056

he / him

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ica-atom-users/bd48b836-9c90-4030-a557-3322474a1099n%40googlegroups.com.

[محمود محمد‎]

Thank you, Mr. Dan Gillean

This answer has shown me a smart and flexible practice for describing the parts and components of archival material, especially when the archival material includes more than one component that we want to describe under the item level.

Thank you.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ica-atom-users/CAC1FhZLtfAZe2t%2BWgTbPgyg1VT_BMjHqBY00ZTHXJvL2krB%2Bvw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Hans-Arno Mielsch]

Yeah, thanks Dan,

I now understand some more background!

So we will keep "Part" for the issue with multipage digital objects and delete the non ISAD-stuff.

Thanks for the confirmation that it is not a risk at all.

Regards,

-Hans-Arno