The article demonstrates how the Records in Contexts standard redefines archival science, suggesting new functions for archivists and information management.
The article discusses the reality of information for archivists in an era when information is not primarily shaped in documentary form. The situation in which contemporary administrative, business, and private information is organized in various formats necessitates a reexamination of the subject of archival science and practice. The author focuses on the ontology of the new professional standard, Records in Contexts, using it to redefine essential professional concepts and develop archival descriptions. As it relies on Description Logics, Records in Contexts introduces two new functions in addition to the existing functions. The author presents the first, terminology and discourse-related function by disassembling archival terminology into simpler, more straightforward concepts or their constituents, and analyzing them through the lenses of Description Logics. This function acknowledges today’s new reality, where information is spread in more forms than just documents. The second function is related to a Description Logics reasoning engine that supports the RiC ontology, allowing for the creation of information that does not need to be anticipated by archivists. This liberates archivists from the Schellenbergian illusion of anticipating users’ needs. The article offers an example of a practical exercise for students in archival science, showing how description is powerful when formatted as data according to the new standard. The two functions discussed are interconnected, and a comprehensive approach would have archivists manage all types of information and organize their output more semantically. The conclusion indicates such a direction, a broader application of the new archival standard compared to the previous one.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arian Rajh (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: