Should DACS make a distinction between processing note and revision note?

[regineheberlein]

Link to related tickets

• Processing note should be a single level required or optimum
• Revision notes should be required · Issue #70 · saa-ts-dacs/dacs · GitHub
• Define minimum required element set for description of each iteration (revision) · Issue #73 · saa-ts-dacs/dacs · GitHub
• Should we index and display ? #1454

I expect that this will require a

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

[regineheberlein]

This ticket is currently blocking #69, #70, #72, #73

[regineheberlein]

Summary of opposing viewpoints expressed across the tickets linked above:

• processing and revising are fundamentally the same activity (with initial processing activities marking the start of continuous revision)
• processing relates to physical objects, revision relates to intellectual description / data / changes to the finding aid only
• processing notes are patron-facing, revision notes are internal-facing

[regineheberlein]

What needs to happen to make progress on this ticket:

• compile data points that describe processing activities v. revising activities for each of the three ways of framing the question (this has been tried for one possible approach already, see

  • 72

  • 73)

• as practitioners, what problems or pain points do we see with either? what would be a more functional solution?

[jdean43]

As a 15 percent solution, we think there could be a clearer justification for this proposal included in the ticket.