 |
 |
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