CA Before archival description can be replaced by metadata, "archivists must first study their user needs, identify processes that protect the integrity and impartiality of records, and ensure the capture of important contextual information." (p.38)
Phrases
<P1> Unfortunately, information systems often do not create records, concentrating instead on the preservation of information to the detriment of recordkeeping. Concern over this issue has lead Wallace to promote a new role for archivists, one that places them at the conception of the life cycle, establishing standards for record preservation and management as well as dictating record creation. Demarcation between archivists and records managers disappears in this new paradigm, and a new role as auditor, system designer, and regulator begins to emerge. (p.34) <P2> "Metadata are essential if archivists are to maintain the integrity and authenticity of evidence of actions. McNeil likens metadata systems to protocol registers and sees metadata itself as evidence, as well as a means of preserving evidence." (p.35)
Conclusions
RQ Will metadata replace archival description? Will metadata requirements fulfill the needs of secondary users? Will metadata require secondary descriptions?
Type
Web Page
Title
An Assessment of Options for Creating Enhanced Access to Canada's Audio-Visual Heritage
CA "This project was conducted by Paul Audley & Associates to investigate the feasibility of single window access to information about Canada's audio-visual heritage. The project follows on the recommendations of Fading Away, the 1995 report of the Task Force on the Preservation and Enhanced Use of Canada's Audio-Visual Heritage, and the subsequent 1997 report Search + Replay. Specific objectives of this project were to create a profile of selected major databases of audio-visual materials, identify information required to meet user needs, and suggest models for single-window access to audio-visual databases. Documentary research, some 35 interviews, and site visits to organizations in Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal provided the basis upon which the recommendations of this report were developed."
Type
Web Page
Title
Towards a Digital Rights Expression Language Standard for Learning Technology
CA The Learning Technology Standards Committee (LTSC) of the Institute for Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) concentrated on making recommendations for standardizing a digital rights expression language (DREL) with the specific charge to (1) Investigate existing standards development efforts for DREL and digital rights. (2) Gather DREL requirements germane to the learning, education, and training industries. (3) Make recommendations as to how to proceed. (4) Feed requirements into ongoing DREL and digital rights standardization efforts, regardless of whether the LTSC decides to work with these efforts or embark on its own. This report represents the achievement of these goals in the form a of a white paper that can be used as reference for the LTSC, that reports on the current state of existing and proposed standardization efforts targeting digital rights expression languages and makes recommendations concerning future work.
Conclusions
RQ The recommendations of this report are: 1. Maintain appropriate liaisons between learning technology standards development organizations and those standards development organizations standardizing rights expression languages. The purpose of these liaisons is to continue to feed requirements into broader standardization efforts and to ensure that the voice of the learning, education and training community is heard. 2. Support the creation of application profiles or extensions of XrML and ODRL that include categories and vocabularies for roles common in educational and training settings. In the case of XrML, a name space for local context may be needed. (A name space is required for both XrML and ODRL for the ÔÇ£application profileÔÇØ or specifically the application ÔÇôLT application- extension) 3. Advocate the creation of a standard for expressing local policies in ways that can be mapped to rights expressions. This could be either through a data model or through the definition of an API or service. 4. Launch an initiative to identify models of rights enforcement in learning technology and to possibly abstract a common model for use by architecture and framework definition projects. 5. Further study the implications of patent claims, especially for educational and research purposes.
