State Records of South Australia MANAGING ELECTRONIC RECORDS ISSUES a discussion paper

The Issues (continued)

2.2 Maintenance of electronic records

This issue has been the subject of extensive discussion and debate over the past ten years. The prominent American expert in this field, David Bearman, has identified three crucial elements to be considered in ensuring the integrity of electronic records though system migration. These elements are know as "context, content and structure". In a traditional format record (such as this paper) each of these elements is physically imbedded in the record itself. However, in the nebulous world of electronic records, many applications are required to ensure that each of these elements is maintained.

This dependence on system applications is the real threat to electronic records - without the correct system applications it is not possible to ensure that each of Bearman's three key criteria are met. To handle this issue archivists and records managers have developed the concept of metadata. In a nutshell, metadata tells us about the context, content and structure of electronic records, about what application was used to create the record, and also tells us about what the record contains (in a summarised form) and when and why the record was generated.

State Records has given some consideration to preparing a mandatory metadata standard for use by all electronic record-keeping systems in the South Australian public service to ensure that all three of Bearman's key principles are met. However, given the divergent range and size of systems currently in use, it does not appear likely that we will be able to clearly specify a single standard for all of the systems. Yet, to meet the objective of boundaryless agencies, and achieve something equivalent to the United States GILS standard (discussed in section 1), it is essential to secure an over-arching standard. As a start discussion within State Records has focused on the idea of issuing a standard spelling out what metadata is and why it is important. Such a standard would require agencies to consider the three key principles and to develop their own metadata elements for the on going management and integrity of the data through system upgrades. For this to succeed, it would seem essential for records managers to understand what metadata is and to be actively involved in developing this for their agencies in conjunction with IT personnel. This raises a question similar to that poses in section 2. In this case, too, training is a pre-requisite before this involvement could be meaningful. But it may also suggest that a more specialised, and higher-level departmental Chief Information Officer would provide the input and authority required.

This idea is only in its infancy. State Records would appreciate any comments on it.

Issues for consideration

1. How worthwhile is it likely to be for State Records to develop a single metadata standard which would embrace all of the electronic systems in use in the South Australian public sector?
2. Should State Records try and identify a set of metadata standards for those whole of government systems which are currently in use, or under consideration, in the public sector?
3. How can State Records deal with the identification of metadata element for agency specific systems?
4. How will State Records ensure that agencies build long term management techniques into systems designed with a specific set of functions, and time frame, in mind?
5. Should State Records adopt a role of training agency staff in the concept of metadata and leave it up to them to ensure that this data is captured so that the records maintain their usefulness? Is this a role which is best seen as something fundamentally new and best carried out by a departmental Chief Information Officer?

Contact the State Records of South Australia

Previous

Next