Revision notes should be required

[regineheberlein]

This relates to Description Control as affected by Principle 11

Revision notes should be required; the language in chapter 8 currently leaves open whether this is a requirement or not.

The requirement should include the following:

• who made the change
• when it was made
• a description of changes made as specific as is reasonable

Changes that should be explicitly required to be documented in this way:

• changes to titles
• changes to call numbers
• changes to any other identifying elements

I expect that this will require a

• [ ] Minor change to DACS
• [x] Major change to DACS

[regineheberlein]

Proposed action:

• remove "added value"
• add to https://saa-ts-dacs.github.io/dacs/06_part_I/02_chapter_01.html#single-level-required
• replace introductory paragraph with:

"Use this element to record substantive revisions made to the description of the resource. Substantive changes may be understood as those edits that affect the identity of resources or re-contextualize or otherwise significantly affect the information as it was previously presented.

Examples of edits that affect the identity of resources include changes to title, call number, or any other identifying information.

Examples of edits that re-contextualize information include the addition or removal of or to notes, dates, or controlled access terms; intellectual re-arrangement; wording changes to remove harmful language or change the description reparatively; or any edits however minor that alter the meaning of what was previously recorded.

When preparing a revision statement, include

• the source of the information
• the rules or conventions on which the revision is based
• the names or functions of the archivists who prepared the revision, in accordance with their consent and institutional policy
• the date of the revision
• a brief summary of the nature of the revision

Establish a consistent policy regarding the content, form, and placement of citation of sources.

This note describes changes to the descriptive record; do not confuse with notes indicating changes to the collection itself (such as physical re-arrangement, accruals, or conservation treatment)."

[searcy]

Just throwing in my support for both this and Issue 69 (Processing notes) -- it would be great to get some guidance and examples on how these notes should be used together in ways that are complementary rather than repetitive.

[rovinghistorian]

What is meant by the "rules or conventions on which the revision is based"? We'll add a revision note, as a couple for examples, for when we process additions to collections, or if a researcher or curator discovers an error in our description. I wouldn't say these kinds of revisions are really rule- or convention-based? We are noting who made the change, when, and the source/decision for making that change. We won't necessarily name specific names for who discovered information was incorrect, but we'll state "researcher discovered corrected date information" or something along those lines, and note who made the change in our collection management system.