![Sample our Museum and Heritage Studies journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5945/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Museum-Heritage-Studies.jpg"})
Abstract
Metadata go through an evolutionary process from creation to archival preservation. During this process, some metadata are re-used (inheritance), other metadata are eliminated (extinction) and still others are updated or newly generated (mutation). Unlike other literature that focuses on metadata inheritance and mutation, this evolutionary view highlights the extinction of metadata. As such, it might raise awareness about the appraisal and selection of metadata in digital curation practice.
Notes
1. J Evans, S Mckemmish and K Bhoday, ‘Create Once, Use Many Times: The Clever Use of Recordkeeping Metadata for Multiple Archival Purposes’, Archival Science, vol. 5, 2005, pp. 17–42.DOI 10.1007/s10502-005-4625-x
2. G Acland, K Cumming and S McKemmish, ‘The End of the Beginning: The SPIRT1 Recordkeeping Metadata Project’, 1999, available at <http://www.infotech.monash.edu.au/research/groups/rcrg/publications/asaq99.html>, accessed 15 December 2012.
3. A Cunningham, ‘Six Degrees of Separation: Australian Metadata Initiatives and their Relationships with International Standards’, Archival Science, vol. 1, no. 3, 2001, pp. 271–83.
4. Evans, Mckemmish and Bhoday, 2005.
5. J Evans, Building Capacities for Sustainable Recordkeeping Metadata Interoperability, PhD thesis, 2007.
6. W Duff and D Bearman, ‘Grounding Archival Description in the Requirements for Evidence’, Archivaria, vol. 41, 1996, pp. 275–303.
7. B Reed, ‘Metadata: Core Record or Core Business’, Archives and Manuscripts, vol. 25, no. 2, 1997, pp. 218–41.
8. E Shepherd and V West, ‘Are ISO 15489-1:2001 and ISAD(G) Compatible? Part 1’, Records Management Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, 2003, pp. 9–23. E Shepherd and V West, ‘Are ISO 15489-1:2001 and ISAD(G) Compatible? Part2’, Records Management Journal, vol. 13, no. 2, 2003, pp. 62–9.
9. D Bearman and M Hedstrom, ‘Reinventing Archives for Electronic Records: Alternative Service Delivery Options’, in Margaret Hedstrom (ed.), Electronic Records Management Program Strategies, 1993, pp. 82–98. Archives and Museum Informatics Technical Report No. 18. ISSN 1042–1459.
10. H MacNeil, ‘Metadata Strategies and Archival Description: Comparing Apples to Oranges’, Archivaria, vol. 39, 1995, pp. 22.32.
11. D Bearman, ‘Archival Methods’, Archives and Museum Informatics Technical Report, vol. 3, no. l, Spring 1989, available at <http://www.archimuse.com/publishing/archival_methods/>, accessed 22 August 2013.
12. M Hedstrom, ‘Descriptive Practices for Electronic Records: Deciding What is Essential and Imagining What is Possible’, Archivaria, vol. 36, 1993, pp. 53–63.
13. S Mckemmish, G Acland, N Ward and B Reed, ‘Describing Records in Context in the Continuum: The Australian Recordkeeping Metadata Schema’, Archivaria, vol. 48, 1999, pp. 3–37.
14. Bearman, 1989.
15. Mckemmish, Acland, Ward and Reed, 1999.
16. ISO 23081-1: Information and Documentation – Records Management Processes – Metadata for Records. Part 1: Principles, 1st edition, 2006.
17. ISO 23081-2: Information and Documentation – Records Management Processes – Metadata for Records. Part 2: Conceptual and Implementation Issues, 1st edition, 2009.
18. International Council on Archives, ISAD(G): General International Standard Archival Description: Adopted by the Committee on Descriptive Standards, 2nd edition, 2000, ISBN 0-9696035-5-X.
19. International Council on Archives, ISAAR(CPF): International Standard Archival Authority Record for Corporate Bodies, Persons and Families, 2nd edition, 2003.
20. Bearman and Hedstrom, 1993.
21. InterPARES Authenticity Task Force, ‘Requirements for Assessing and Maintaining the Authenticity of Electronic Records’, 2002, available at <http://www.interpares.org/book/interpares_book_k_app02.pdf>, accessed 5 May 2013.
22. NARA, ‘Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Using GRS 20 to Schedule Electronic Systems’, pp. 11, available at <http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/memos/ac28-faq-on-grs20.pdf>, accessed 31 May 2013.
23. J Niu, ‘Appraisal and Custody of Electronic Records: Findings from Four National Archives’, Archival Issues, vol. 34, no. 2, 2012, pp. 117–30.
24. Mckemmish, Acland, Ward and Reed, 1999.
25. CCSDS, ‘Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System’, 2012, pp. 4–6, available at <http://public.ccsds.org/publications/archive/650x0m2.pdf>, accessed 12 May 2013.
26. ibid., pp. 1–14.
27. This records schedule can be found by searching the NARA Records Control Schedule repository at <http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/rcs/>, accessed 22 August 2013.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Jinfang Niu
Jinfang Niu is an Assistant Professor at the School of Information, University of South Florida. She received her PhD from University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Prior to that, she worked as a librarian at the Tsinghua University Library for three years. Her current research focuses on electronic records and digital curation.