Smart Metadata and the Archives of the Future - InterPARES

(1)

Smart Metadata and

the Archives of the Future

Sue McKemmish Joanne Evans

Anne Gilliland-Swetland Nadav Rouche

Richard Marciano

Hans Hofman

(2)

15th International Congress on ArchivesMcKemmish et al. www.wien2004.ica.org1

CreateOnce, Use Many Times: The Clever Use of Recordkeeping Metadata for Multiple Archival Purposes

Joanne Evans,Sue McKemmish and KarunaBhoday

Metadata is a key component in thecreation,management and preservation of electronic records,aswell as their innovative use as archives,memory and knowledge. Howevermetadata generation and deploymentare currently resource intensive and application specific. Metadata creationis not usuallyfully automated.Metadata created inoneapplication of potential relevance toother applications isnotshared betweenapplications. Although data modeling, mark up languageand syntax initiatives areaddressing thedata representation requirements for metadata translation and exchange, thisfunctionalityhasnot as yet beenutilized in the systems that support eGovernmentand eBusinessprocesses,electronicrecordkeeping and archival description. Moreover therehasbeen little progressin relation todevelopingstrategiesandmeta-tools for the translationof metadata attributes and valuesbetween schemas in these environments.TheMonash Clever Recordkeeping Metadata (CRKM) project addressesthechallenge of automating metadatacreation andsharing metadata between businesssystems,current recordkeeping systemsand archivalsystems.This paper explores the relevance of theCRKM projectto futurearchival systems and the deployment ofmetadatafor multiplearchivalpurposes. It is presentedas partof theSmart Metadata and the Archivesof the Future session thataims to communicate the progress and findings of several inter-related collaborative researchprojectsand standardsinitiatives. Other papers in the session report on therelated work of the InterPARES2DescriptionResearch Team (Designinga Meta-Registry for the Registration, Analysis and ArchivalExtensionof Pre-Existing Metadata), the SanDiego SupercomputingCenter’s development ofPersistent Archives Technology (MetadataTools andSustainableArchives Technologies), and theISOMetadatafor Records Standard(SmartMetadataResearch and International Standards).

The Archivesof the Future

It is possible to re-imagine archival systems of thefuture that: xManage therecordsof multiple groups and individualsbeyond theboundaries of thepersonal or corporate archivexRepresent multidimensional contextsof creation, capture, organisation and pluralisation –juridical,organisational, functional,procedural, technological and recordkeepingxProvide multiple views of parallel recordkeepinguniversesxContinuously and cumulatively weave relationshipsbetween records and related people,organisationalstructures, functions and activities to assist inpreserving their evidentialvalue and enablemultiple access paths to records and theirmeaningsxKeep records relating to all recordkeeping and archivingprocessespersistently linked to the records they form and transform.Such archival systems wouldhave great potential utility in relation to thepreservation andaccessibility of electronic recordsof continuingvalue, as well as to the management of currentrecords. The locusof the archives systemmight exist as aninterface to archivalrecordsheld by anarchival institution,but it might also link toall records,publicly available or not, of continuingvalueornot(of continuingvalue), still maintained in the recordkeeping systems of individualagencies. In this sense, the collective archivescould be preserved and made accessible invirtualspace. Custodial arrangements and issuesofwherethe record is physically located wouldcease to beof prime importance. (McKemmish et. al. 2005, Ch.7).

Archivists at the beginningofthe new millennium are challenged todevelop archival systems for theglobalised societies of the21 st century, systems that can operate beyond the levelof theindividualorcorporate archive, andof collective archives as we nowknow them, to describe multiple recordkeepingrealities, encompass the worldviews of all theparties to the transactions therecordsdocument, andprovide meaningful access paths to all stakeholders. ChrisHurley has recently coined the term “parallel provenance” to refer to archival descriptive systems that could describe parallelrecordkeepinguniverses:

Recognising that the documentation createdwithin theNew Zealand national archivessystemlargely reflects the culturalviewsof thePakeha majority,but living in a society in whichbi-culturalism is more than mere rhetoric, Hurley began toquestionhow theviews of the Maori couldbe accommodated insystems defined byPakeha standards,and toseek a set of alternative, equallyvalidwaysofviewing anddocumenting the records. He is currently exploringhow theAustralian

(3)

series system, and related metadata schema developments,with theirpowerful relationalcharacteristics might accommodate suchdifferences,enabling alternative readings of the records and their contexts to be added bydifferent communities of stakeholders.It is possible withintheseframeworks torepresent recordsfrom different perspectives, from the point of viewof the creator,otherparties to the transaction, andother stakeholders, in and through time, from individual,community, corporate and societal perspectives. (McKemmish et. al. 2005,Ch.7)

Eric Ketelaar has explored the implications of thisapproach to archival practice with reference to theconceptof communities ofrecords as developedby Jeannette Bastian, and associated ideas aboutsharedownership andjointheritage (Ketelaar2004; Bastian2003). Bastiandefines a community of records as:

the aggregateof records in all forms generatedby multiple layers of actions and interactionsbetween and among the people and institutionswithin a community (Bastian, 2003,p. 5).

According to thisview, “therecordsof a community become the products of a multi-tiered processofcreation thatbegins with the individual creator but canbe fully realizedonly within theexpanse of anentire community of records”(p.3). Thus:

all layers of society are participants in the makingof records, and the entire community becomesthe largerprovenance ofthe records (p. 83).

Drawingout the implicationsof these conceptual approaches, Eric Ketelaar points to the matrix of mutual rights and obligationsof all theparties involved andhow they would extend to all aspectsofrecordkeeping and archiving – ownership,custodianship, appraisal,description, access and so on (Ketelaar 2004).

Essential to the development of archival systems of thefutureof thekind envisaged, systems that couldalsonegotiate and manage such matrices ofmutual rights and obligations, are emergingmetadatamanagement frameworks andschemas that specify the types of standardised information or metadatathat integrated archiving and recordkeepingprocesses operating within broad archival frameworks would need tocapture in order to fulfil these multiple purposes.Within these frameworks,recordkeepingmetadata is defined as:

structured or semi-structured informationthatenables the creation, management and use of recordsin and throughtime, and within and across thedomains in which they are created andused.Recordkeeping metadata is used to identify,authenticate, and contextualise records, as well as the people,processes and systems involved in their creation,management and use (Wallace 2001, p.255).

Metadata schemas provide semantic and structural definitions of metadata, including the names of metadata elements,how they arestructured,and their meanings. Archivaldescriptive standards andcontrol system specificationscanbe envisaged as traditional forms ofrecordkeeping metadata schema.

Within a records continuum frame of reference,standardisationof metadata and descriptive practices occurs across all recordkeeping environments, including business systems, recordkeeping systems, andsystems for the long-term preservationof recordsof historical and culturalvalue(archives). Thus anemphasison the clever use ofmetadata, including the re-use and inheritance of metadata from differentbusinessapplications and environments for furtherutilisation in broader cultural and accountabilitydomains, is anemerging anddistinguishingfeature of the approach of theAustralianrecordscontinuum community of practice.

The Challenge

In current recordkeepingpractice,many of the types of metadata created and used byrecordsmanagement systems are also created andused in a varietyof otherbusiness applications, such asdesktopdocument authoring,web content management,human resourcemanagement, and workflowsystems. But records management systems as currently implemented donot drawon these othersystems as sources of metadata; rather they re-create it–often in manual and resource intensive ways.Aparallel situation exists inrelation toresource discovery metadata. For example, inAustralia AGLS resourcediscovery metadata, as specified inthe national standard (National Archives of Australia

(4)

2004) is most often createdretrospectivelyat the time a document is made availableon a website,rather thanbeing automatically suppliedbythe software in which thedocument was originally created, although this applicationwould have also created almost identical metadata inorder to manage andretrieve thedocument. Archival organizations andprograms also describerecordsof long-term valuefrom scratch when they are transferred to their control, althoughDavid Bearman alertedus to thefutility of suchan approach and the need todevelop strategies to enable descriptivesystems to inheritmetadata fromcurrentrecordkeeping systems over fifteen years ago (Bearman 1989). Archivaldescription,which assures the integrity andusability of records through time, is thus hugely resourceintensive as it seeks to retrospectively describerecords. Efforts toprovideaccess to archival recordsthroughgateways that operate above the level of individual archival institutions and collections alsorely on similarly resource-intensive methodsof retrospectively describingthe records withreference tometadata or archivaldescriptive standardsdesigned to support such access.

If archival systems of thefuture are to providefor emergingconceptsof parallel provenance andcommunities of records, andmanage shared ownership, joint heritage and multiple access paths, thecapture and implementation of metadata which candescribe multiple contextsof creation, managementand use in andthrough time will be essential. A key challenge is todevelop systems, processes andtools that will enable metadata tobe createdonce, thenused and re-used many times for multiplepurposes in different contexts in and through time.

Interoperability

The Clever Recordkeeping Metadata Project (CRKM) brings togetherresearchers andpractitionersfrom MonashUniversity and UCLA, theNational Archives of Australia, the State RecordsOfficeofNSW, and theAustralian Society ofArchivists’ Descriptive Standards Committee to explore issuesassociatedwith metadata interoperability. The aim is to demonstrate how we canbegin tomove away from the current,resource intensive processes of manual metadata attribution and stand-alonesystems,towards an integrated suite of businesssystems and processes supporting recordkeeping and archivingfunctions, environments in which metadata can be createdonce andusedmany times. It is this vision ofintegrated system environments and clevermetadata whichunderpins much of thedevelopment inrecordkeepingmetadata standards todate.

Digital environments offer us the opportunity to move away from our “minimal descriptive systems”(Reed 2003,p. 19) – butweneedto take thelead in articulatingourrequirements anddemonstratingthe “business”case for automating the capture and re-use of metadata required for recordkeeping andarchivingprocesses, and reinventing archival description as a processofmanaging, augmenting, andre-purposing the rich mines of metadata inour environments.

There are many definitionsof interoperability, but oneofparticularusefulness tous is that presented in discussionof the <indecs> metadata frameworkwhichprovides a reference model relating tointellectual property rights management:

Interoperabilitymeans enabling information that originates inone context tobeused in another inways that are as highly automated as possible (Rust et. al. 2000, p. 6).

Withreference to this definition,wewant tosee metadata created inbusiness systems which is relevantto recordkeeping being made available to records management applications, as well as metadata of relevance to businessprocesses which is created inrecordsmanagement applicationsbeing re-used inbusinesssystems. Wewant to see metadatain organisational recordkeeping systems being inherited byarchival control systems and metadata whichoriginates inarchival control systems being madeavailable to recordkeeping andotherbusiness systems. Wewant to explore how metadata in archivalcontrol systems can be re-located into parallel recordkeepinguniverses or other informationspaces.This involves exploring how metadata can crosstechnical,spatial and temporal boundaries in automated ways.

Towards Integrated Systems

Recordkeeping metadata standardsdevelopers look to a future inwhich their standardswill beimplemented in integrated systems environments that enable the clever use and re-purposingofmetadata. In practice there havebeen significant implementation problems, as current systemsenvironments do not as yet support the integratedprocesses for sharingmetadata and re-using it for

(5)

multiple purposes anticipatedby thestandards developers.Moreover thedevelopment of meta-tools,such as metadata schema registries and mapping tools, which support theautomatic creationofmetadata and the translationof metadata attributesand values has not keptpace with the theoretical advances and standards initiatives.The metadata registries in theresource discovery sector, forexample, havesofar had limitedfunctionality focusingon identifying anddescribing metadata schemaand standards.However, archivists are not alone in envisagingintegrated system environments and some of thecurrent practical limitationsare being overcomebytechnological developments. The lackof support in currentsystems for metadata sharing and re-use is a legacy of closed,proprietary systems where anymetadataor dataexchanged with otherapplications would be hard-coded intotheapplication. Thisbarrier isbeing broughtdownby the trend toopensystems and componentbased architectures 1. Forapplications tobeviable in such environments, theirdata and services must be capable ofbeingaccessed, invoked and manipulatedby other system components. Standardized data representationsacross these components are also essential. Thishas led to thedevelopment of a numberoftechnologies to facilitate this integration, e.g.encoding languages likeXML for therepresentation of structureddata, lightweight communicationprotocols likeSOAP, andother technical standardssupporting webservices 2, as well as a proliferation of metadata standardsinitiatives supportingdatainterchange.

There is also growing interest in metadata schemaregistries as tools to support metadata re-use.Anumberof research anddevelopment projects havebeenundertaken or are underway to explore thearchitecture andfunctionality of schema registriesto supportmetadata interoperability (OLIN; DCMI) .The common vision is that suchregistriesprovide metadata about existingmetadata element sets tosoftware and/orhuman agents.With such metadata the agent can thendetermine the suitability and/orhow touse theelement set for its purposes. There is also interest in theseregistries managing mappingsbetween metadata element sets and thus providingservices to support metadata translation betweenapplications.

Although these developments are ofrelevance torecordkeeping and archiving, a more comprehensiveand complexview of the translation requirements associatedwithrecordkeeping and archivingprocesses is emerging compared with that taken byother communities interested in metadatainterchange.This relates toour need to examine how to makepossible translations toand frombusiness systems,recordkeepingsystems and archival systems,translations across levels of aggregation, translations through time, andtranslations across contextualboundaries.

Layers of InteroperabilityModel

In 2001-2002 researchers involved in pioneeringmetadata registry activities in the informationmanagement area came together as aWorkingGroupon Metadata Registries, sponsoredby the DELOSNetworkof Excellence onDigital Libraries.Their aim was to consolidate their experiences and “articulate a shared set of principles underlying the constructionof metadata registries” (Baker et. al. 2002). In theresultantwhitepaper they present a simplemodelof the layers of interoperability inwhich issues associatedwithmetadata re-use andre-purposing may be explored – see Figure1.

Layer 3 (a) Attribute Space (e.g. LOM, Dublin Core, MES,indecs) (b) Value Space(e.g. ontologies,classifications,controlled vocabularies, taxonomies)

Layer 2

1 ‘Component technology is a blendof object-oriented and Internettechnologies. In a component-basedarchitecture, the components of a system have generic interfaces through whichthey advertise their functionalities, enabling the dynamic loading of the components’(InteroperabilityClearing House, http://www.ichnet.org/glossary.htm)2 The W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) definition of web services is ‘A Web service is a software systemidentified bya URI[RFC 2396], whose public interfaces and bindings are definedand described using XML. Its definitioncan be discovered byother software systems. These systems may theninteract withtheWeb service in amanner prescribed byits definition, using XML basedmessagesconveyed by Internet protocols.’http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/Glossary/printable.html#W

(6)

Representation(e.g. XML,RDF, DAML-OIL)

Layer 1 Transport andExchange(e.g. HTTP Get, OAI ProtocolforMetadata Harvesting)

Figure1 Layers of Interoperability

From: Thomas Baker et al.,Principles of Metadata Registries, 2002

Layer 3 is theabstract layer and is divided into an attribute space and a value space. Metadata consists of attributes, i.e. the characteristics orproperties to be describedsuch as Title, Date and Subject, andvalues, i.e. thevalues assigned to those characteristics such as the specific title, date andsubject matterof a particular information resource. The attributespace encompasses thedefinition anddescriptionofthe attributes and may be formally presented as a metadatastandard. The definition of thisattributespace may include data that identifies attributes, definestheir purpose, describes usage rulesandconditions andexpresses relationships amongst them. It may also define the value space, i.e. the domains from which metadata values for anattribute may be sourced. This value space thus incorporates classification systems, controlledvocabulariesand other instruments from which metadatavalues may be constructed.An example of this abstract layer in theresource discovery field is thedefinitionof the Dublin Core Metadata Terms (available at http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/). It specifies the elements, element refinements, encoding schemes, andvocabulary terms of themetadata schema. An example in the recordkeeping field is theNationalArchives of Australia’sRecordkeeping MetadataStandard for Commonwealth Agencies (NAA 1999.1).

Underpinning this abstract layer is a conceptual data model. A conceptualdata model identifies the“things”beingdescribed and theirrelationship to one another.In so doing it provides theperspective orthe context of metadata, hence determining the characteristics of the attribute and thevalue spaceaccordingly. For example,the Dublin Core Metadata Set is basedon a bibliographic model where aninformation resource is viewed as an object, whosecontent has beencreated by authors, whichisdistributedbypublishers, and over which certain rights are held. Hence these are thequalities of theobject the metadata set seeks to capture.Whereas the NAA Recordkeeping MetadataStandardisconcerned with information resources that functionasrecords, the agents that create them, and therecordkeepingprocesses thatmanage them and assure theirreliability andauthenticity.

Layer 2 is the representation layer where “the attributes and valuesofLayer3 are representedorinstantiatedusing particular syntactic bindings in encodinglanguages such as XML orXML/RDF,whichare processable bymachines”(Baker et.al.2002, p. 6).The relationship between layer3andlayer 2 is thereforeone to many, i.e. there may be many different representationsof the abstract space.For example an XML Schema of the Dublin CoreMetadata Element Set and an RDF Schema encodingfor the DublinCore Metadata Element Set with thedefinition of the title element expanded is illustratedbelow (see Figure2 and 3 respectively).

Thefinal layer incorporates the protocolsformetadata transport and exchange that allow therepresentations from layer 2 tobe moved between systems. This is the technical layer and as noted earlier there are many technologicaldevelopments in thisarea making the integration of systems easier.TheOAIProtocol for Metadata Harvesting is one suchdevelopment enablingdataproviders to exposetheir metadata to service providerswho can accessit. For example the National Library of Australia uses thisprotocol in theprovision of PictureAustralia, “a federateddiscovery servicebasedonaggregated metadata” about images from a numberof Australian institutions (Boston2003).

In the contextof this model,metadata registries are defined as:

applications that use metadata languages(Layer 3)in a form processableby machines (Layer 2) inorder to make those languages available foruse bybothhumans and machines. To be processable in automated ways, inotherwords, the conceptual structures mustbebound to machine-processable formats (Baker et. al. p.7).

(7)

Metadata registries manage and manipulaterepresentations of the attribute andvaluespace, interactingwithother systems using appropriate transport and exchange protocols. As a corollary to the abovedefinition, if metadata registries are to support the automated translationof metadata between schemas,then the translations must also be in machine-processableforms.

Figure 2 XMLSchemarepresentation of the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set 1.1

Source:http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/simpledc20021212.xsd

Figure 3 RDF Schemarepresentation of the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set 1.1

Source:http://dublincore.org/2003/03/24/dces#

Recordkeeping Metadata Initiatives

The current statusof metadata initiatives in therecordkeeping domain canbedescribed with referenceto this model.We can see that therehasbeen much activity in the abstract layer with the developmentof a numberof recordkeeping metadata standards and the specification ofmetadata needs infunctionalrequirements for records management systems. In Australia, these initiativeshavebeenpartof a suiteof standards, best practice models and guidelinesdeveloped to address thechallengeof managing

(8)

electronicrecords andother information objects. The main objectives have been to supportreliable,trustworthy and accountablebusinessprocesses,to provide better accessto information resources online,particularly in the areas of eGovernment and eBusiness, andtosupport the quality, and longterm preservation and accessibility of the archivalheritage (McKemmish 2000, Cunningham 2001). The suite includes international and nationalrecords management standards (StandardsAustralia 1996and 2002;InternationalStandards Organisation 2001 and2004), and standards andguidelines issued ina number ofnational andstate government jurisdictions, includingresource discovery andrecordkeepingmetadata standards developed by twoof the industrypartners in the CRKM Project, theNationalArchivesof Australia and the State Records Authorityof NSW (NAA 1999.1and1999.2;State Records Authority NSW 2000;State Records ofSouth Australia2003;MoReq - CornwellManagement Consultants2001; Public Record OfficeUK2002).

Over a longerperiod of time, there havebeen a number of initiatives nationally and internationally to develop archival descriptive standards and models for descriptive practice. Examples include the workofthe InternationalCouncil on ArchivesDescriptive StandardsCommittee(http://www.ica.org/eng/mb.com/cds/descriptivestandards.html), and independent initiatives such as EAD, Encoded Archival Description (http://www.loc.gov/ead) and EAC,EncodedArchival Context(http://www.library.yale.edu/eac). These initiatives have also mainly addressed the abstractinteroperability layer. The project’s third industry partner,the ASA Committee on DescriptiveStandards,hasbeen a contributor to thedevelopment of standardiseddescriptivepractices at bothnationaland international level, particularlythrough the development and promotionof standards.

In Australia, the continuing evolution of theseries system and the development of the AustralianRecordkeeping Metadata Schema (McKemmish et.al. 1999 and 2000) as a framework standard for thedevelopment of sector specific recordkeeping metadata schemas and archival description standards“reach towards ways of representingrecordsand their contexts as richly and extensively as possible”:

TheAustralian Recordkeeping Metadata Schema extends the Australian series systemconceptsof context,drawingon records continuum thinkingrelating to a record’s complexand dynamic social, functional, organisational,procedural, anddocumentary contextsofcreation, management, anduse through spacetime, and informed by the insightsof ChrisHurley and Terry Cook. The contextualisationprovided in the Schema enables the linkingofrecords to ever broadening layers of contextual knowledgein order to carry their meaningsthrough time (McKemmish et. al. 2005, Ch. 7).

As indicated above, such initiatives relate to the abstract attributes andvalues layer of interoperability.In both the Commonwealth and NSW public sectors, concerns about thequality of currentrecordkeepingand the lackof compliance with standards point to the fact that so far the lower layers of interoperability identified in the model havenotbeen addressed. For example, althoughCommonwealthgovernment agencies are required to comply with recordkeeping metadata standards,and government websites mustuseAustralian Government Locator Service (AGLS)metadata toprovide better access to governmentinformation online and facilitate eGovernment, audit findings confirm that in practice thereare majorproblems with implementationof the standards (AustralianNationalAudit Office 2002 and 2003). Inrelation toarchival descriptivepractice, theASADescriptiveStandards Committee sees thedevelopment ofprocesses and tools that support the cleveruse of metadata in archivaldescription, in particular its inheritance from business applicationsandenvironments and its re-use for archivalandculturalheritage purposes, as essential to the successfulimplementationof such standards.

Recordkeeping Metadata Representations

Sowhile therehasbeen much activity in theabstractattributes and values layer, therehasbeen less in the representation layer.Developersof recordkeeping metadata standardsor functionalspecificationsforrecords management systems have tended to see representation issuesas implementation issues. Butwe can see fromthe interoperabilitymodel,and its definition of metadata registries, that an essentialrequirement for automated re-use and re-purposingof metadata is the expression of the concepts in theattribute and value space in a machine processableform. So if recordkeeping metadata standarddeveloperswant automated metadata capture and re-use then theyneed to explore encodings thattranscend particular implementations andfoster the requiredinteroperability. As partof this work, issues in the translation between the abstract and representation layersmay also need investigation. ThewhitepaperoftheWorking Groupon Metadata Registriesnotes that the constraintsof an encoding

(9)

language maymean adaptationor evendistortion ofthe underpinning conceptual models (Baker et. al. 2002,p. 7). Thus any such impactswill need tobe assessed and addressed.

Theserepresentation issues are not for standard developersalone. It is theintent of the CRKM Project to foster dialoguebetween standardsdevelopers, implementers and vendors through theprototypingofan integrated system environment with tools to support metadata interchange. This environment can beusedby all parties togain sharedunderstandings andinsight into the issues that arise at this interface.For implementers and vendors, the progressmade on theprotocols for metadata transport and exchangemeans that they cannow turn their attentionfromquestions of “how to exchange metadata”to “whatmetadata to exchange”.

Re-useand Re-purposing

The layers of interoperability model can also beutilised to locate issues associatedwithmetadatacapture and re-use that the CRKM Project is seeking to investigate.

In the attributespace, we need to explore how to describe and manage data about metadata schemas in order to allow for automated translationsbetween metadata sets. For thiswe candrawon the work of a relatedproject, InterPARES2, outlined below, which is investigating thefunctionality ofsuch a registry. As our focus is on metadata relatedto recordkeeping,weneed toexamine how to makepossible translationsbetween business systems and recordkeeping systems, translations across levelsofaggregation, translations through time, and translations across contextualboundaries– a morecomprehensive and complex view of translation requirements than that takenby other communitiesinterested in metadata interchange at this stage.In the information management area the focushasbeenon transforming metadata across similar resourcedescription systems, while discussionsof metadatainterchange in businesssystems relate to “in time” rather than‘through time’ translations. TheSemantic Webcommunity is developing technologies to facilitate automated datasharing and re-use acrossboundaries, but theirvision, at thisstage,has been criticized as lackingunderstandings of cultural dimensionsand unable todeal with changing meanings in time and place (Veltman 2004)Wewill thereforeneed to lookat whether theseinitiatives canbe extended to allowfor the spatial andtemporal translationsof attribute spacesrequired to supportrecordkeeping.

Similarly we will need to examine how thevaluespace canundergo multi-dimensionaltransformations. To move metadata values through time and spaceweneed to investigate when and how to make theunderpinnings and contexts of “knowledge organisationsystems” 3 usedto constructthem visible and explicit inorder topreserve meanings.We may also need to investigatehowmappings between value spacesaremadeand defined.

Aswell as these issues in theabstract layer, weneed to investigate and specify our requirements for methods and tools to support automated translation in therepresentation layer.Ofparticular relevanceto this aspectof the CRKM Project are research initiativesbeingundertaken at the SanDiegoSupercomputer Center. Theseinitiatives, as discussedbelow, have looked at tools and technologies fordigital archiving and long term preservation, including metadata representation, translation andon-going management.

TheCRKM: ConceptualFramework, Design andMethods

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework for the projectis provided byrecordscontinuumtheory and therecordscontinuummodel (Upward 1996 and1997,McKemmish 2002),which support thedevelopment ofcomplex, integrated systems and processes to manage records and archives in and through time, andacross space.It has also provided the conceptualframework for thedevelopment of Australian recordsmanagement and recordkeeping metadata standards, including theAustralian RKMS, RecordkeepingMetadata Schema (McKemmish et al, 1999 and 2000), whichprovides a modelfor thedevelopment of sector specific recordkeeping metadata andarchival descriptive standards,and is currently beingredeveloped as an Australiannational standard.The recentlypublished ISO technical specification,

3 The termknowledge organization systems encompasses the manytools usedto classify,control andorganizeinformation, including authoritylists,classification schemes,thesauri and ontologies. It wascoined by theNetworked Knowledge Organization Systems Working Group atits initial meeting in 1998.

(10)

ISO/TS 23081-1:2004 Information anddocumentation - Recordsmanagementprocesses - Metadataforrecords -- Part 1: Principles, alsodrewon thisSchema, adopting its conceptual models to identifythe typesof metadata required to support theinternationalrecords management standard,ISO 15489-1(ISO2001 and2004). TheISO recordkeeping metadata standard,Australian RKMS andrelated sectorspecific schemas and their conceptual models are key components in the metadata managementframework referenced bythe CRKMProject.

Development of Proofof Concept Demonstrator

Thefirst stageof the CRKMproject involves the construction of a ‘proofof concept’prototype todemonstrate an integrated system environment supporting automated metadata capture andre-usefor a fictitious, though realistic, organisational setting.Within this environment, working models of therequired meta-tools tofacilitate metadata translations canbeiteratively developed and evaluated.Thisstagewill include the development and documentationof metadata creation, management, and multipleuse scenarios as thebasisforbuilding the prototype.

The prototype will demonstratehow recordkeepingstandards-compliant metadata canbe created andcaptured through a mixtureof automated and manual processes inparticular application environmentsfor subsequentre-use across applicationsformultiple purposes. It will be developed iterativelyemployinguser-centred and rapidprototyping techniques. Existing office and workflow tools will beextended and integratedusing scripting languages, to enable metadata tobe re-used andvalue-added asthe business transactions, records, information objects andresources that the metadata describes and manages move from one application to another in complex intranet andInternet environments, acrossdomains and through time. This will allow investigationof issues associatedwith the translationofmetadata across theseboundaries as well as explorationofthe design andfunctionality of supportingmeta-tools. The aim is for the CRKMresearchers to work closely with a programmer and a focusgroupof experts to extend existingsoftware andmetadata deployment functionality in small,user-centrediterations.Adopting this agile approach to systems development generates new ideas and re-prioritisesoldones as the prototype evolves and insights develop. Unlike traditionalsystems developmentmethods which attempt to develop a complete specificationupfront, this approach is more responsiveto evolving understandingsof userneeds and their interactionwith technologies. (Martin2003)

The Scenario

TheNationalArchives of Australia will provide the test-bed for thefirst prototyping stageof theCRKM project, using a policy development - publishing - archivingworkflow scenario,which iswidely applicable to many organisations irrespectiveof jurisdiction or business activity conducted.Consequently, we expectthe prototypebased onthis workflow will bean important demonstratorforengagingour audience and promoting interoperability.

TheNationalArchives ofAustralia develops a range ofresources from policies and strategies onrecordkeeping inthe Australian governmenttomore detailedinformation,advice, standards, guidelinesand manuals. In addition theArchives,publishesbooks and CD-ROMs aboutAustralianhistory,genealogy andrecordkeepingand guides to the collection.Using the selected scenario, the CRKM researcherswill explore the creation,sourcing and capture of recordkeeping metadata in theprocess of developing suchresources and creation of related records.They will then investigate how therecordkeeping metadatacan bere-used for different purposesandin differentenvironments:1.to facilitate resourcediscovery as resourcesarepublished to the intranet and Internet, and2.to facilitate archival intellectual controlgiventhat the‘master copies’ of theseresourcesandrecords relating to their development andpublicationform partof thenational archives.

The Prototype

Workingwitha focus groupfrom the National Archives andguided by the Australianworkprocessanalysis national standard, CRKM researchers will deriverecordkeepingand metadata requirementsand specifications thatwill inform the iterativeprototypingwork. Thefocus groupwill assist CRKM researchersbyhelping to establish that theworkflow is correctly identified anddocumented,sourcerelevant authoritativemetadata, validate specifications and iterationsof the prototype as theprototypeevolves, andprovidevaluableevaluationon thebusiness utility of metadata andon thefeasibility ofintegrated systems supporting automated capture and re-use of metadata. Thefirst iterationof the

(11)

prototype will examine automated capture andre-useon a very small scale todemonstrate that theconcept is possible. For example, looking at the underlyingmetadata standards for theprototype, theproject may demonstrate translation of a fewelements across the standardswith subsequent iterationsbuilding on this work.

Theprototype’s simulationof systems and recordswill bederived from the business applicationenvironment of theNational Archives.Therepolicies aredeveloped usingdesktop authoringapplications,such as MS WordandOutlook. Records are capturedand managed in a TRIM recordsmanagement system. Resources are published to thepublic website and internally to the intranet.‘Masters’ of these resources and related records will also be transferred to form part of the nationalarchives and intellectually controlledbyRecordSearch 4. Theproof-of-concept demonstratorprototypewill bebased in this businessapplication environment, butwill using themost current versionofTRIM, and will simulate an archival controlsystem usingTabularium 5 rather thanRecordSearch. It isenvisaged that subsequent iterationsof the prototype may involve adding thefunctionality of content management systems to the environment, and extending the scenario to involve the translation ofmetadata fromthe archival control system to a higher levelgateway to archivalresources, such as thosedeveloped usingtheOHRM 6 system of theAustralianScience and TechnologyHeritage Centre.

Implementation Model

The second stageof theproject will involveimplementing theprototype in a real world test-bed site to provide a model for bestpractice. Twodifferent contextsfor implementing the prototype will beused–the context ofa single organisation and thecontext of theperformance of a single function or activityacross multiple organizations.This stagewill include specificationof thefunctionalrequirements for the implementationof theprototype at the test-bedsite, extending theuser-centred, iterative approachto systems development taken in the prototypingstage.

Meta-registries and Meta-tools

Prototypesof tools for metadata translationand deployment will bedevelopedor adapted to supportboth the prototyping and implementation modellingstages.Aworking model of a minimetadataregistrywill be built to document anddescribe thedifferentmetadata standards or schemas employedby thedifferent business applicationsused in thescenarioand test-bedsite. Its functionality will beextended toenable translation of metadata between thedifferent metadata schemas in useso thatmetadatacan bere-used for different businesspurposesand incompliance with differentstandards.

In developing theregistry, representationsofmetadata schemas in machine processableforms will beinvestigated,drawing on theoutcomes ofrecent data modelling,representation and syntax initiatives,as well as relatedworkundertaken in theInterPARES2project and at the San Diego Super ComputerCenter, asdescribedbelow. Mappingsbetween the attribute andvaluespaces of metadata schema and mappingsbetween metadata schemas and metadata held in businesssystems will also be developed.Dependingonthe boundariesacross which these translationswill need to occur, these mappings mayinvolverules for the aggregationofdata or for making contextual metadata explicit. Investigationofhow these mappings canberepresented for automated processing will follow, in thefirstinstance in theform of machineprocessablecrosswalks, and then throughiterative studyof the suitability of emergingsemantic web technologies.

Duringdevelopment of theproof-of-concept demonstratorprototype, theproject will examine andexperiment with the HotMetasuite developedby theDistributed Systems Technology Centre(http://www.dstc.edu.au/Products/metaSuite/) as the means of supportingmetadata interchange; andconsequently, additional tools will be developed to support this functionality. The prototype will explore how recordkeeping metadata compliant with the Recordkeeping Metadata StandardforCommonwealthAgencies can be re-used as resourcediscovery metadata compliant with theAGLS

4RecordSearchis the archival control system of the National Archives of Australia, seehttp://www.naa.gov.au/the_collection/recordsearch.html.5Tabularium is a free-ware collection management system for archives based on the Australian series systemmodel,http://tabularium.records.nsw.gov.au/.6 OHRM is a context based resource discoveryand access system thatlinks creators, archivaland heritageresourcesand published materials based on the Australianseries system model, seehttp://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/ohrm/.

(12)

Metadata Standard and re-used as archivaldescriptive metadata compliant with the CRS (Commonwealth Record Series) Manual, the implementation manual for theNationalArchives’implementationof the series system. Theprojectwill develop the toolsneeded tosupport thistranslation. This will includemanual mappings (inbothdirections) between the variousmetadatastandards and later machine readablecrosswalks to enable automated translation. Theproject will alsodevelop wherenecessary theXMLDTDs andXML Schemas neededby theHotMeta suite to supportthe metadata standards.

Relationshipto Other Research Projects

InterPARES 2

The CRKM Projecthas a close formal relationship with a major internationalresearch initiative,InterPARES2, theInternational Projecton the Preservationof Authentic Records in ElectronicSystems, 2002-2006 7 , which is researching the reliability,authenticity, preservation and accessibilityof electronic recordsof artistic, scientific andgovernment activities:

InterPARES2aims at developing a theoretical understanding of the recordsgenerated byinteractive,dynamic, and experiential systems, their processes of creation, and theirpresent andpotential use in the artistic, scientific andgovernment sectors. On thebasisof thisunderstanding,the projectwill formulatemethodologies for ensuring that therecords created using these complexsystems can be trusted as to their content(that is, arereliable and accurate) and as evidence (that is, are authentic),… selecting those that have tobekeptfor legal, administrative, social or culturalreasons after they are no longerneededby the organizationsthat created them, preserving them in authentic form over the long term, and analyzing and evaluating advanced technologiesfor theimplementationof these methodologies in a way thatrespects cultural diversity and pluralism(SSHRC Grant Application Document, InterPARES2,http://www.interpares.org/).

Outcomes fromthe workofthe Description Team within InterPARES 2 will feed into the CRKMProject, particularly the development of a Metadata Schema Registry,which isparticularly relevant tothe translationof metadata attributes andvalues inthe abstract layer of the interoperabilitymodel, andresearchrelating to meta-tools. Similarly outcomes from the CRKM Project will alsobeusedbyDescription Team researchers.

San Diego Supercomputer Center

Anumberof SDSC initiatives that are building onknowledge in the metadata and meta-tools research space aredirectly relevant to the CRKM Project. TheSan Diego SupercomputerCenter’s (SDSC) Data and Knowledge Systems (DAKS) program is ofparticular interest to the CRKM project.TheDAKSprogram (http://daks.sdsc.edu/) includes tworesearch labs and a numberof research projects that are ofmutual interest to the CRKM project. TheSustainableArchives and Library Technologies (SALT)Laboratoryhttp://www.sdsc.edu/Press/03/012604_SALT.html) and theData Grids TechnologyGroupare investigating a number of interoperability issues.The SALT labwill bedeveloping informationtechnology strategies and conductingresearch in the areas ofdigitalarchiving and long-termpreservation.The Data Grids Technology Groupispursuing researchthat supportsinteroperabilityacrossdistributedresources.TheStorage Resource Broker (SRB) is an example of the typeoftechnology that is beingdeveloped that supports automated metadata management. TheSRB, inconjunction with the Metadata Catalog(MCAT),provideseverywhere access to data sets and resourcesbased ontheir attributes ratherthantheir namesor physicallocations(http://www.npaci.edu/DICE/SRB/).

Researchinto electronic recordsmanagementsponsoredby the NationalArchives andRecordsAdministration (NARA) andSDSCon issues relatingto preservation andmetadata archivinghas led to

7 Funded bytheCanadian Social Scienceand History Research Council,SSHRC,Can$4m), InterPARES is made up of nationalteams from Europe, the UK, Asia,Africa, Australia and North America.The CI in the CRKM Project (Professor Sue McKemmish) is a member of the InterPARES InternationalTeamand Director of theAustralian NationalTeam, whilePI Associate Professor Anne Gilliland-Swetland is a member of the International Team, and Co-Director of the US National Team.McKemmish and Gilliland-Swetlandare also Co-Directors ofthe International Team’s Description Group responsible for coordinating InterPARES research relating tostandards for recordkeeping metadata and archival description.

(13)

a number ofother research projects aimed at developing infrastructure technologies and tools for longterm preservation ofdigital objects.In particular, research into thefeasibility of a ‘persistent archive’; a term used by the SDSCresearchers in someof theseprojects todescribe thedata bits comprisingdigital entities and also the context that defines theprovenance, authenticity, and structure of the digitalentities (Moore, 2003). Another archival project of particular interest, MethodologiesforPreservationand AccessofSoftware-dependent Electronic Records(also knownas Archivist Workbench,http://www.sdsc.edu/NHPRC/) is looking at thefeasibility of developing prototypes of useful toolsforarchivists to preserve and provide access to electronicrecords overthe long-term. Buildingfurtheronthis research is a project; called the Persistent Archive Testbed thatwill enable participating archivalinstitutions to test SDSC’sdata grid andpersistentarchives technologies ona varietyof archivalcollections. The research undertaken in these projects is highlyrelevant to the interoperability issuesbeing explored by the CRKM project,particularlythoserelating to the representation layerof themodel.

Research and StandardsInitiatives

Ashasbeendiscussed throughout the paper, there is a close interrelationshipbetween the developmentof recordkeeping metadata standards, including archivaldescriptivestandards,which address theabstract attributes andvalues layer in the interoperabilitymodel(Layer 3), and the researchbeingundertaken in the CKRM Project. The recently published ISO technical specification,ISO/TS 23081-1:2004Information anddocumentation - Recordsmanagementprocesses - Metadata for records--Part 1: Principles, provides a benchmark forthe development ofbestpracticemetadata standards inthe records and archivesfieldrelating torecordkeeping metadata attributes andvalues, and a set of criteria against which existing andfutureschemasand standards can be assessed in terms of their recordkeepingand archiving functionality. Theresearch beingundertaken bytheCRKM Project will feed into thefurther development of the ISO, including its possible extension to address representationlayer interoperability issues relating to the complex metadata translation requirements of recordkeepingand archivingprocesses.

Conclusion

Therecords continuum provides a conceptual framework that enables simultaneous multiple viewsofrecordkeeping“realities”. The Australian series system and more recent initiatives like the Australian Recordkeeping Metadata Schema and theISO standard forrecordkeepingmetadata set upframeworksfor capturing layers ofrich contextual metadata, and multiple contexts ofcreation, management and usein and throughtime to support archivalpurposes in thedemocratic societies of a globalisedworld of the kind envisaged byTerry Cook, Tom Nesmith, VerneHarris, MichaelPiggott andSue McKemmish(Cook 2000, Piggott and McKemmish 2002,Nesmith 1999,Harris2001).

Most archivalsystem implementations currently privilege therole and rightsof therecords creator, andrepresent the records creator’s worldview and contextrather than theworld views and contextsofotherparties to the transaction, drawingon functionalclassification schemes developed atthe levelofthe corporateor individual archive. However, within these emerging frameworkswe can look to thefurtherdevelopment of metadata and description strategieswhichwill enable archivists in the 21stcenturyto go beyondScott’s original vision ofsequentialmultipleprovenanceto build archivalsystems of thefuture that canencompass Chris Hurley’s “parallel provenance” and Jeannette Bastian’s communities of records, andnegotiate the complex matrices of mutual rights andobligations that Eric Ketelaar’s vision of shared ownership andjointheritage invokes.Within theseframeworks thetranslation of metadatabetween business,recordkeeping and archival systems, across levels ofaggregation and contextualboundaries, andthrough time will be of critical importance. The research onmethods and tools to support such translations being undertaken in the CRKM Project,InterPARES2and at theSanDiego Supercomputer Centerwill contributevital understandings and strategies to theclever use of recordkeepingmetadata informing and transforming the archivesof thefuture.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This research was fundedby an Australian ResearchCouncilLinkage Grant(2003-5),the NationalArchives of Australia, the State RecordsAuthority of NSW, theDescriptive Standards Committee of the AustralianSociety of Archivists, and MonashUniversity.Chief Investigators of the CleverRecordkeeping Metadata Project are: ProfessorSue McKemmish (MonashUniversity);AssociateProfessor Anne Gilliland-Swetland(UCLA) andAdrian Cunningham (NAA). Other personnel include

(14)

Research Fellow Karuna Bhoday (MonashUniversity and NAA), PhDresearcher Joanne Evans(Monash University), agile programmer, SergioViademonte, research coordinator Carol Jackway,industrypartner researchers TonyLeviston(SRANSW), Barbara Reed (ASA) andDuncan Jamieson(NAA), andDSTC research scientist, Dr AndrewWood. For more information about the Project, see http://www.sims.monash.edu.au/research/rcrg/research/crm/index.html.

REFERENCES

Australian National Audit Office (2002),Recordkeeping (Audit Report No. 45, 2001-2002), 1 May 2002,http://www.anao.gov.au/WebSite.nsf/Publications/4A256AE90015F69BCA256BA5000C25D8

Australian National Audit Office (2003),Recordkeeping in large Commonwealth agencies(AuditReportNo. 7, 2003-2004), 24September 2003,http://www.anao.gov.au/WebSite.nsf/WhatsNew/478B4A27724E193BCA256DA50074796C!OpenDocument

Baker, Thomas, Blanchi, Christophe, Brickley, Dan,Duval,Erik, Heery, Rachel, Johnston,Pete,Kalinichenko,Leonid, Neuroth,Heike, and Sugimoto, Shigeo,(2002)Principles of MetadataRegistries, A WhitePaper ofthe DELOS Working Group onRegistries, DELOS NetworkofExcellence on DigitalLibraries, 2002,http://delos-noe.iei.pi.cnr.it/activities/standardizationforum/Registries.pdf

Bastian, Jeannette (2003),Owning Memory: Howa Caribbean Community Lost its Archives and FoundIts History,PhD Thesis, published in 2004 as part of the Contributions inLibrarianship andInformation Science Series

Bearman, D. et al (1999), “ACommon Model to SupportInteroperable Metadata: Progress ReportonReconciling Metadata Requirements from the Dublin Core and INDECS/DOI Communities”,D-LibMagazine5:1 (January 1999),availableathttp://www.dlib.org/dlib/january99/bearman/01bearman.html

Bearman, D.(1989),Archival Methods(Pittsburgh:Archives & MuseumInformatics, 1989)

Boston,Tony (2003), “National Library of AustraliaInitiatives usingthe Open ArchivesInitiativeProtocol for Metadata Harvesting”,Apapergivenby TonyBoston,Director, Digital Services at a National Archives ofAustralia International Seminaron the Use ofStandards in theDevelopmentofOnline AccessSystems for Archives, Canberra,October 2003, available athttp://www.nla.gov.au/nla/staffpaper/2003/boston1.html

Cook, T. (2000), “Beyond theScreen: The Records Continuum andArchival CulturalHeritage”,keynote address at AustralianSociety ofArchivists Conference Melbourne, August2000http://www.archivists.org.au/sem/conf2000/terrycook.pdf

Cornwell Management Consultants (2001),Model Requirements for theManagementof Electronic Records (MoReq), (INSAR Supplement VI,Office for Official Publications of the EuropeanCommission,Bruzelles-Luxembourg, March2001), available athttp://www.cornwell.co.uk/moreq.

Cunningham, A. (2001), “SixDegreesof Separation:Australian Metadata Initiatives and TheirRelationships with InternationalStandards”,Archival Science 1:3 (2001) 271-283

DCMI,DublinCore Metadata Initiative, Open Metadata Registry,http://rdf.dev.oclc.org/myrdf/services/EOpenRegistry

ISO(2001), InternationalStandards Organisation, ISO 15489International Standard: RecordsManagement

ISO(2004), InternationalStandards Organisation, ISO/TS 23081-1:2004Information anddocumentation - Recordsmanagement processes -Metadata for records-- Part 1: Principles

(15)

Harris,V.(2001), “OfFragments, Fictions and Powers: ResistingNeat Theorising about‘The Record’“ in Convergence(Australian Society of Archivists andtheRecords Management AssociationofAustralia, 2001),11-18

Ketelaar,E.(2004), “Communities of Records”,Paper presentedatthe School ofInformationManagement and Systems, Monash University Melbourne,Research Forum, 23 July 2004

Lagoze, C. and Hunter, J. (2001), “The ABC Ontology andModel”,http://metadata.net/harmony

Martin, Robert (2003),Agile Software Development: Principles, Patterns,andPractices, (Pearson Education,New Jersey: 2003)

McKemmish,S.,Piggott, M., Reed, B. andUpward, F. (2005),Archives: Recordkeepingin Society(Charles Sturt University Press, Australia: publicationpending)

McKemmish, S. (2002), “Placing RecordsContinuum Theory and Practice”, Archival Science 1:4(2001) 333-359.

McKemmish, S. (2000), “Collaborative Research Models:A Reviewof AustralianInitiatives”,TheAmerican Archivist 63:2 (Fall 2000)353-67

McKemmish, S.,Acland, G., Cumming,K., Reed, B. andWard, N. (2000),Australian RecordkeepingMetadata Schema (RKMS), Version 1.0,31May2000,http://www.sims.monash.edu.au/research/rcrg/research/spirt/deliverables.html#arkms

McKemmish,S., Acland,G., Ward, N. and Reed, B.(1999), “DescribingRecords in Context in theContinuum: The Australian Recordkeeping Metadata Schema”,Archivaria48 (Fall 1999)3-43

Moore, R. andMerzky,A. (2003), “Persistent Archives Concepts”,Global Grid Forum(December2003) available at http:www.npaci.edu/DICE/Pubs/Data-PAWG-PA.doc

National Archives ofAustralia(1999.1),Recordkeeping MetadataStandard for Commonwealth Agencies Version 1.0 (Canberra: NAA, May 1999), available at http://www.naa.gov.au/recordkeeping/control/rkms/summary.html

National Archives ofAustralia(2004),AGLS Metadata ElementSet,Version 1.3 (Canberra:NationalArchives of Australia), available at http://www.naa.gov.au/recordkeeping/gov_online/agls/metadata_element_set.html

Nesmith, T. (1999), “Still Fuzzy, But More Accurate: Some Thoughtsonthe ‘Ghosts’of ArchivalTheory”,Archivaria47 (Spring 1999), 136-5

OLIN, UKOffice for Libraryand InformationNetworking,DESIRE Metadata Registry,http://desire.ukoln.ac.uk/registry/

Piggott, M. and McKemmish, S. (2002), “Recordkeeping,Reconciliationand Political Reality”, inPast Caring,Proceedingsofthe AustralianSocietyof Archivists Conference, Sydney2002

Public Record Office (2002), Functional requirements for Electronic Records Management Systems,UK Public RecordOffice, available at http://www.pro.gov.uk/recordsmanagement/erecords/2002reqs/

Reed, Barbara, “Recordkeeping in BusinessSystems”,Informaa Quarterly 19:3(August 2003),18-22.

RCRG Monash(1998),Archival metadata standardsfor managing and accessing informationresourcesin networked environments over time for government, social and culturalpurposes; Chief InvestigatorsSue McKemmish and AnnePederson,Principal Investigator Steve Stuckey; fundedby anAustralianResearch Council SPIRT Grant and industry partners State RecordsNSW, National ArchivesofAustralia, QueenslandState Archives,Australian Councilof Archives and the RMAA, http://www.sims.monash.edu.au/research/rcrg/research/spirt/about.html

(16)

Rust, Godfrey andBide,Mark, (2000)The<indecs> Metadata FrameworkPrinciples Model and DataDictionary (June 2000), availableathttp://www.indecs.org/pdf/framework.pdf

StandardsAustralia (1996), AS 4390-1996Australian Standard: Records Management (Homebush:Standards Australia)

StandardsAustralia (2002), AS 15489-2002,Australian Standard: Records Management (Homebush:Standards Australia)

State Records Authority of NSW(2000),NSW Recordkeeping Metadata Standard (NRKMS), October 2000, available viahttp://www.records.nsw.gov.au/publicsector/erk/metadata/rkmetadata.htm

State Records Authority of New South Wales,Government RecordkeepingManual, includes Standardon Full andAccurate Records, Manual forDesign andImplementationofRecordkeeping Systems(DIRKS), andpolicieson Electronic Recordkeeping and Electronic Messages, available athttp://www.records.nsw.gov.au/ via NSWPublic Sector link

State Recordsof SouthAustralia (2003),South Australian Recordkeeping MetadataStandard(SARKMS),http://www.archives.sa.gov.au/publications/SARKMS%20Metadata%20Scheme%20Final%20AMW%20290503.pdf

Upward, F. (1997), “Structuring the Records Continuum Part Two: Structuration TheoryandRecordkeeping”,Archives andManuscripts 25:1 (May1997), 10-35

Upward, F. (1996), “Structuring the Records Continuum Part One: Post-custodial Principles and Properties”,Archives andManuscripts 24:2 (Nov1996),268-85

Veltman, Kim H.(2004), “Towards a Semantic Webfor Culture”,Journalof Digital Information 4:4,(March 2004),http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/v04/i04/Veltman/

Wallace,David, “ArchivingMetadata Forum: Reportfromthe Recordkeeping MetadataWorkingMeeting, June2000”,Archival Science 1:3 (2001),253-269