Tension in scope between DACS 2.7 and DACS Part II

[mfeustle]

Principle 2. Users are the fundamental reason for archival description.

Principle 4. Records, agents, activities, and the relationships between them are the four fundamental concepts that constitute archival description.

There is a need for greater clarification in scope and purpose between DACS 2.7 and Part II. One could make a case that for many repositories, DACS 2.6 and 2.7 are serving as the de facto archival authority record, for a variety of reasons including available time and labor, a sense of redundancy, a lack of a place for an archival authority record to "live" (and/or the bandwidth to develop records intentionally or investigate repositories like SNAC), and above all, the fact that DACS part I is generally more widely implemented.

For users -- both archival practitioners and outside users -- the result is a missed opportunity to realize the possibilities for enhanced context and wider discovery that a full archival authority record allows, falling short of the last bullet point in Principle 4:

"Relationships, which connect agents, records, and activities, convey meaning that may not be apparent from the contents of records alone. Relationships may be simple or may comprise a complex network of interactions among multiple records, agents, and activities."

Many possible approaches could address this issue. The simplest would be adding prose to 2.7 that clarifies how these two similar descriptions of creators do not pre-empt or cancel each other out. The most complex would be entirely reconsidering the two-part division of DACS, or perhaps the order of chapters. Of course, it is desirable for many reasons to maintain alignment with ISAAD(G)/ISAAR-CPF and EAD/EAC-CPF, pending updates to those standards. It is quite likely that the the process toward solving this issue will be iterative and incremental.

I expect that this will require a major change to DACS.

2.7 Administrative/Biographical History (Optimum)

[gwiedeman]

Relates to #57

[marieelia]

Notes from TS-DACS working group breakout session (Maristella Feustle (creator of issue), Marie Elia, Linda Hocking, Dan Michelson, and Cory Nimer):

• Recommend creation of archival authority records where possible, but retain creation as added value (i.e. not required)
• Provide more guidance on content to easily repurpose/reuse (Principle 6) in creation of archival authority record (or to enhance existing)
• Include more references to Principles within the rules to demonstrate alignment
• Move 2.6 out of identity element area and into chapter 12 (Related Corporate Bodies, Persons, and Families) to better align with Principle 4 (Records, agents, activities, and the relationships between them....)
• Currently, detailed instruction is in 2.7, and refers to 11.2, where there's a minimal statement; recommend the inverse, which prioritizes creation of archival authority records.
• Reconsider split of Parts I and II, particularly with publication of RiC-CM