Colleagues with an interest in classification (all of us I'd like to think)
may like to access and read a recent (March 2012) academic paper by Greg
Bak from the Archival Studies Program, Department of History, University of
Manitoba, Canada, titled 'Continuous classification: capturing dynamic
relationships among information resources'.  To my knowledge this paper is
not available publicly.  A link to the article is here:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10502-012-9171-8

Bak notes the following in the abstract to the paper:

'Records classification within electronic records management systems often
is constrained by rules derived from paper-era recordkeeping, particularly
the rule that one record can have only one file code - a rule that was
developed to enable the management of records in aggregate.  This paper
calls for a transformation of recordkeeping and archival practice through
an expanded definition of records classification and through item-level
management of electronic records'.

The first part of Bak's paper discusses classification theory, and the
supposed relationship between records classification and biological
classification. He makes reference to Sir Hilary Jenkinson's archival
theory, to the Dutch Manual and recent articles by Kate Cumming and Chris
Hurley.

He notes the problem of assuming that we can achieve a 'perfect'
classification and quotes Mai: 'The arrangement that suits one man's
investigations is a hindrance to another's' - a comment that reminds me of
the problems associated with file or document titling; how you might title
a file or document isn't necessary how I am (or anyone else is) going to
look for it.

Bak notes, with regard to functional classification, that this is 'not
"natural" but created by archivists and recordkeepers to suit professional
recordkeeping purposes, and that it better services the purposes of
recordkeepers than those of records creators and users'.

He also suggests that '... the single-class rule (i.e., a record can only
have one classification applied to it) obscures a key metric for
determining the relevance or importance of electronic information
resources; their repeated use, and the multiple relatonships that result
from repeated use.'

Towards the middle of the paper, Bak discusses functions-based records
classification, Duranti's 'archival bond' and archival appraisal.   He
notes (not surprisingly, for probably many of us) that 'it has become
commonplace among recordkeepers that users of records classifications
systems - including records creators, records users and clerical records
management staff - do not like function-based classification schemes,
either for discovery, filing or retrieval'.  Poor classification, he
suggests, 'leads to unofficial parallel recordkeeping (perhaps better
termed information hoarding) either within a work unit or by individuals in
their own workspace.

Bak then discusses, in a long section, records classification and
electronic records management systems, and then the politics of
classification. In this last section he refers to David Weinberger's 2007
book 'Everything is Miscellaneous', and suggests that his analysis 'has
significant implications for records classification'.

Bak concludes the main part of his paper with a discussion of the theories
of Peter Scott from the mid 1960's, which led to the introduction of the
'Australian' or 'series' system. He quotes Clive Smith in relation to
'virtual files', in which Smith proposed that a correspondence file or
dossier '... no longer exists physically, but only as a collection of
electronic documents that are assembled through some search criteria' that
exists 'only as long as the search is maintained'.

The last part of Bak's paper discussions item-level management and the
future of archival practice.  He notes that 'we are at a moment in archival
history when digital records are compelling us to reconsider archival
systems, standards and practices in light of the realities of digital
information ecologies'.

Andrew Warland
Information Architect, Uniting Care NSW.ACT
Sydney, Australia
(My views entirely)

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]