I think we'll all be happy if the snappily abbreviated mnemonic reference
dies a quick death. However, I still have difficulty reconciling using
multilevel references at all if we intend to keep to ISAD(G)'s description
rules by non-reference links. Why not reference museum or library style, a
unique reference for each item but not one that links to any other
reference? Create links instead by the use of description Richard mentions.
Do the links have to be explicit even - or is that taking the nanny
archivist attitude to users too far?
Certainly references and provenance do not have to walk hand in hand, and a
reference can never of itself be relied on to indicate provenance -
presumably this is why ISAD(G) insists on other essential elements for
description, let alone administrative/custodial notes. But if referencing
is merely an office document retrieval system, why pretend it is anything
more? Does the multilevel reference code have any place in archival
descriptive theory?
I have vacilated for and against using a reference at every level of
description as a part of theory, but it always seems to come down to
negative experiences with complex references. I want to have a professional
base for my views - I need to be able to sleep at night! Is there any
theoretical base for creating a reference code - or filing system - by Fonds
Function Activity Process Transaction - or can I just go 1-2-3?
Mark Stevens
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|