JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for ARCHIVES-NRA Archives


ARCHIVES-NRA Archives

ARCHIVES-NRA Archives


ARCHIVES-NRA@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARCHIVES-NRA Home

ARCHIVES-NRA Home

ARCHIVES-NRA  March 2016

ARCHIVES-NRA March 2016

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Question about fonds and creator

From:

Debbie Usher <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Debbie Usher <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 7 Mar 2016 14:48:38 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (160 lines)

Dear Jane,

In our cataloguing, at fonds level, the name of creator is mandatory. You are right that the name of creator is required for a catalogue to be ISAD (G) compliant. Hitherto we've not come across a situation where we can't put in a name of creator.

The rule in ISAD (G) states 'Record the name of the organization(s) or the individual(s) responsible for the creation, accumulation and maintenance of the records in the unit of description'. 

So it should be possible to put a name of a creator even for an artificial collection - as someone must have collected the material, even if it is the archive repository itself that put the material together.

I suppose it is possible, with poor accessions procedure, to find material in a storage area for which you don't know who collected or created it, but that should hopefully be exceptional and not the norm. 

Best wishes,
Debbie.

Debbie Usher, Archivist RMARA
Middle East Centre Archive, St Antony's College, Oxford OX26JF, UK
(01865) 284706 www.sant.ox.ac.uk/mec/meca.shtml Registered charity 1141293

-----Original Message-----
From: Archivists, conservators and records managers. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jane Stevenson
Sent: 07 March 2016 14:00
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Question about fonds and creator

Hi there

I've not had many replies to this enquiry. Which did surprise me in a way, because it feels very fundamental to how we catalogue, and it has become particularly important with the emphasis on interoperability and reuse of data.  So, I'm still really keen to hear more views. 

So far there have been examples of not adding 'creator' because the label doesn't seem to fit; of not adding creator to a fonds description because all descriptions, regardless of whether they are fonds or not, are described as fonds, and then TNA have creator as mandatory at the highest level to which it applies.  My suspicion is that these kinds of variations are likely to be reflected in the broader community...? 

ISAD(G) states: 

All
26 elements covered by these general rules are available for use, but only a subset need be used in any given description. A very few elements are considered essential for international exchange of descriptive information:
a.reference code;
b.title;
c.creator;
d.date(s);
e.extent of the unit of description; and f.level of description

We've tried to abide by this (but added repository, language, and at least some kind of scope and content, because we think these are also vital in a global context). But we've dropped 'creator' as being mandatory for a 'collection' as opposed to a 'fonds', because a collection may or may not be a fonds. 

However, if we are going to stick with 'respect des fonds', which I think most of us see as a central tenant of archival theory, then surely it is best to use fonds purely for a collection with a know creator (or creators)? 

I do see that 'creator' may be interpreted by some as closer to 'author', but I think most archivists do treat it as 'archival creator' which refers to the person or persons or organisation that accumulated the records. So, I feel inclined to stick by the idea that a fonds must have a creator.  I think that at lower levels the creator field is commonly used used for authors, such as when cataloguing correspondence. But maybe that creates some confusion, because the  element is being used differently depending on where you are in the hierarchy. 

Is there anyone that would argue that a creator should not be mandatory for a fonds? Are there lots of archives that use 'fonds' for all of their descriptions, some of which may not really be defined as fonds? 

Another question is whether, if you catalogue at series level, the creator should always be present for a series that is part of a fonds, because, as the series is being described in its own separate description, maybe the ISAD(G) mandatory fields should apply? 

....this is the kind of stuff that keeps me up at night :-) 

cheers,
Jane





On 7 Mar 2016, at 09:12, Garmendia, Jone <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Good morning and sorry for joining this thread a bit late. 
> 
> For records held by TNA creator is a mandatory element of description at the highest level to which it applies. If there are lower levels that include records of a different creator, then the creator names are entered at the lower level. Having said this, I cannot think of any instances of fonds (department at TNA), sub fonds (division at TNA) and series level without creator data. We do not allow a new series to be raised without creator information.
> 
> It is also possible to have  more than one creator in the same entry, particularly because of machinery of government changes... when a record series may continue without interruption in spite of the change of name and even remit of the creating body. 
> 
> Have a good week
> 
> Jone
> 
> 
> Jone Garmendia
> Head of Cataloguing
> The National Archives
> Tel  +44 (0)20 8876 3444 Ext. 2415
> www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Archivists, conservators and records managers. 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tuppen, Sandra
> Sent: 03 March 2016 17:49
> To: JISCMAIL Archives
> Subject: Re: Question about fonds and creator
> 
> Dear Jane,
> 
> At the British Library, our in-house cataloguing system is set up to require the top-level description in any hierarchy to be classed as the 'fonds', whether it be an archive or artificial collection.  So we have many so-called 'fonds' descriptions with no creator.
> 
> Best wishes,
> Sandra Tuppen
> 
> Dr Sandra Tuppen
> Lead Curator, Modern Archives and Manuscripts, 1601-1850 The British 
> Library
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Archivists, conservators and records managers. 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Pamela Birch
> Sent: 03 March 2016 17:28
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Question about fonds and creator
> 
> I admit we use fonds as the top level for all our collections, I don't know how we would could do otherwise. That being the case we currently only use creator in certain fonds level descriptions.
> 
> It's not that we don't know the provenance, but the word 'creator' just doesn't seem to fit, we have the same difficulty with the return of accessions to TNA every year.
> 
> I admit I probably need to re-read the definition of creator as defined in ISAD(G) but it is one bit we have always had some trouble with given the nature of county record office collections.
> 
> Regards
> Pamela Birch
> Bedfordshire Archives
> ________________________________________
> From: Archivists, conservators and records managers. 
> [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Jane Stevenson 
> [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 03 March 2016 17:10
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Question about fonds and creator
> 
> Hi there,
> 
> I have another question about catalogue data and best practice....
> 
> For the Archives Hub we have decided to make 'creator' mandatory if the description is a 'fonds' description. This is on the basis that a fonds has to come from a source - it has to have a known provenance so that the archivist is aware that it is an organic whole.  We don't make creator mandatory for a 'collection' description, as this may refer to a group of materials that is not from a single source.
> 
> However, we have a number of descriptions that are 'fonds' where the creator is given as 'unknown' or variations thereof.
> 
> It seems unlikely to me that the creator can be unknown, because if that is the case, how can we be sure that it is a fonds?
> 
> When I've raised this a few times with a few of our contributors, I have found that the collections in question are really artificial collections. I wonder whether there is a tendency to call all collections 'fonds' even if they are not?
> 
> I'd be really interested to hear any views on this.
> 
> cheers,
> Jane
> 
> 
> Jane Stevenson
> Archives Hub Service Manager
> [log in to unmask]
> 
> T   0161 413 7555
> W  archiveshub.ac.uk
> Skype janestevenson
> Twitter @archiveshub, @janestevenson
> 
> jisc.ac.uk
> 
> Jisc is a registered charity (number 1149740) and a company limited by guarantee which is registered in England under Company No. 5747339, VAT No. GB 197 0632 86. Jisc's registered office is: One Castlepark, Tower Hill, Bristol, BS2 0JA. T 0203 697 5800.
> 
> Jisc Services Limited is a wholly owned Jisc subsidiary and a company limited by guarantee which is registered in England under company number 2881024, VAT number GB 197 0632 86. The registered office is: One Castle Park, Tower Hill, Bristol BS2 0JA. T 0203 697 5800.

Contact the list owner for assistance at [log in to unmask]

For information about joining, leaving and suspending mail (eg during a holiday) see the list website at
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=archives-nra

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager