Define minimum required element set for baseline description

[regineheberlein]

This relates to Required Elements as affected by Principle 11

Describe how DACS does not currently meet this principle

We need guidance on how to document revisions in order to meet the principles of iterative description and transparency in description. As a consequence, these retroactively inform what should be required at the outset. (For example, if the author of a revision is a required element, then the author of the baseline description should also be required.)

Specifically, our subgroup recommends that

• all elements in Chapter 5 should be required
• institutions should provide as much information about sources and custodial history as they are able within their documented policies
• Immediate Source of Acquisition:
  • this element should be renamed to allow for documenting mediated acquisition; possibilities include "Aquisition Information", "Source of Acquisition" or similar
  • make explicit if the source of acquisition is unknown
  • make explicit if the source requests to remain anonymous
• Custodial History: should be documented where available (required if known)

I expect that this will require a

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

[jdean43]

Problem we are trying to solve: add provenance information to the required set of elements The Principle(s) it connects to: Principle 11? A summary of all viewpoints you heard: Considering the Chapter 5 elements: We think we should require 5.2. Many of us require 5.2. already. Can 5.1 and 5.2 be combined? 5.1 is a longer, more in-depth version of 5.2. We support renaming the element, removing "Immediate"
5.3-would be helpful to understand why materials were acquired for accountability. Indicating how long something has been at the repository but not accessible. Maybe scheduling information should be separate? Would making this element more simple make it more usable?

Other elements:

Suggestion to move 2.7 to Added value elements-you don't have to have it. Access points should be considered? Maybe okay to be considered optimum.

*We support requiring Processing Note, is another group working on this? There is an issue around breaking it out into it's own element. https://github.com/saa-ts-dacs/dacs/issues/92 https://github.com/saa-ts-dacs/dacs/issues/69

Adding more required elements of this nature will require some practical considerations.

One or several action items that could move the issue forward: Require 5.2, possibly combine 5.1 into 5.2 Blockers, if any: going to council, this is a major revision; this process requires community outreach

[jdean43]

As a 15 percent solution, we are wondering about making the Chapter 5 elements "required if known."