IDENTIFICATION AREA

Reference code

Necessity of establishing codes for the archival institution/detention of archival  estate.

We consider that it is not  necessary. It should be considered the signs of the institutions. Would It be really necessary the establish codes for the archival institution and/or detention of archival estate, if the same institutions generally have nationally accepted signs, that differentiate one from each other?

The code, numerical by unit of federation, could be provided, in Brazil, by CONARQ.

We don’t consider it is necessary, once that you can use the sign of each UF, which differentiate them from the others.

Necessity of creation of sub-slots, with a defined number of numerical digits, for identification fond, sub-fond, series, sub-series, file.

We consider that the institutions that already have an organised estate, also have relative notation for each document set (fonds), so it is not necessary either, once each institution must have the freedom to establish the number of digits concerning of each level of description.

Title

If it is a fundamental slot, it should be present in all the levels, what would aggrieve in cases of  file, the distribution of information between this element and the 3.1. Relating to these levels, if it is obligatory this slot, should be determined what would be considered as fundamental in a file title.

According to this observation, we consider that the AN should re-read pages 13 and 14 from the translation of the Standards. There everything is very well explained. Besides that, we know that to the files and items we can attribute names or numerical or even alpha-numerical codes to differentiate them. And also if the description is a multilevel, and by document set (fonds), nothing prevent that the same document title in fonds and/or different levels.

Dates of creation of the documents of the unit of description

The unit of description should be limited by the universe of estate already  kept in custody by the archival institution. If the unit of description is opened, this fact should be indicated in another slot.

In this case, our opinion is that, on the Standards, it is very clear. The date of creation is the date of creation of the oldest document from the unit of description. Concerning of the “limitation by the universe of estate already  kept in custody by the archival institution”, we consider that it should be indicated in the slot “History of Custody”. Also there is not a necessity of indicating in any other slot when the unit of description is opened. For that you only have to take a look at the examples on page 15 of the Brazilian translation of the Standards.

Level of description

It is necessary to correlate to the levels of description above.

We consider that it is not necessary. What is very clear in the Standards is that they were established aiming to the organised files and that they use the informatics to the building of their data basis. Since it is a pacific point, this relation will already be done by the finding aids printed by the computer.

Dimension of the unit of description (quantity, volume or extension)

Necessity of sub-slots for registering of the dimensions by class / support / format, at once in case of a special material it is necessary to register if it is a spool tape or a cassette tape, if the photo is black and white or colourful, the dimensions for each one of these kinds and in each size.

We also do not agree with the National Archive. We consider that it can be indicated by rolling means, as in its own example of the Standards (page 16). The creation of slots or sub-slots beyond the ones indicated by the Standards is unnecessary and counterproductive. The “Rules for multilevel description” (Standards, page 12) are very explicit: description from the general to the particular, considerable information to the level of description, relation among the descriptions, not repetition of information. This way, it is avoided the redundancy of information, which is prejudicial labour of the researcher.

CONTEXT AREA

Name of the creator
Necessity of compatibility with the ISAAR(CPF), document which must be object of translation by the work group instituted on National Archive.
On the contrary by the determined by ISAD(G), it is appraised as strategic the filling of this slot even when it is equal to the information consisted of in the element 1.2 (Title).

This item only must be described “when this information does not consist of in the title” (Standards, page 17). If this slot is filled unnecessarily, there will be redundancy of information, contradicting, this way, the rules for the multilevel description.

In the cases of  inherited fonds, the information will be repeated in the element “Administrative / Biographic History”.
It would be interesting to establish sub-slots or transform it in a repetitive slot.

Administrative / Biographic History

Dates of accumulation of the unit of description.

Related to this, we do not have any consideration to be made. The own CIA, according to Ana Franqueira, still have doubts about the filling of this slot and it should be one of the elements of discussion when the re-exam of the Standards.

If there are a lot of creators, should the dates be considered by creators, or only the last accumulator?

Information considered expendable, once in fond, sub-fond, series and sub-series levels the creators (descriptive element 2.1) and the administrative / biographic history (descriptive element 2.2) give indications about accumulation. In file level the information does not fit. It would be interesting to know the aims of the Commission when creating this slot.

It is necessary to precise better the definition of dates of accumulation (slot 3.0.3) that, the way it is, it is confusing.

Many problems are noticed for the detection of dates of accumulation, like in the cases of private fonds that receive additions of documents after the death of the titular, extinguished organs that remains for a long time in a taking stock situation, privatised organs and concessions of services which new corporations maintain the estate of the primitive ones.

This slot would be of difficult filling  in case of description of collections (artificially created document set).

History of custody

Immediate origin of purchasing
 

CONTENT AND STRUCTURE AREA

Ambit and content/ summary

There, we consider that it deals if explaining the topic and also describing the types of documents, according to the Standards, page 19.

Evaluation, elimination and duration

Additions

Arrangement system

It should be divided into two parts: the first part with closed sub-slots, where it would be indicated the stage of organisation and, the second one, where, if organised the arrangement system would be described. On the contrary, it seems that the structure of the description is only turned to the organised documentation.

If accepted the proposal above, it would be necessary to change the name of this element of description.

Include here, when necessary, information about previous arrangements.

For us, it is more than clear that the Standards are only applicable to the ORGANISED estates. This way, the institution that keeps the custody of the archival estate of permanent importance is forced to organise it, even before describing it.

ACCESS AND USAGE CONDITIONS AREA

Legal Statute

The text in not precise about the information to be registered here, not clarifying if it is to be indicated the general legislation and / or specific legal instruments related to the unit of description in this matter.

For us, it is clear that the legal instruments referring to the unit of description should be quoted. If we have in the same fond a "series" that dispose of a specific legal instrument determined the access conditions to it, this also should be quoted.

Access Conditions

The separation among physical specifications and access conditions do not consider that the physical specifications of the support several times is a condition of limitation to its access. Besides, the stage of organisation also restricts the access.

If in one fond, any file have documents which their access should be restricted due to their physical state, for example, it must be indicated  in a proper space, which is the slot “Physical Specifications”. In this slot, we only should, at our understanding, indicate what is asked (See page 21 of the Brazilian translation of the Standards) and do not exceed that. One more time, we remember that the documentation has to be organised, so, this way it has the possibility of being described.
 

Copyright / Conditions of reproduction

Idiom

Physical specifications

See 4.2 (Access conditions).

Instruments of research

The indications of the instruments must obey to the standards of bibliographic reference. The type of document should consist of the title (inventory, repertory, etc.) and the object estate of the description (fond, series, sub-series, etc.).

If there is a instrument of research that observes each level, this should be indicated in the level which it is referring to. In this case, we do not consider that the rules of Bibliographic Reference of ABNT should be followed, only should be quoted the types of instruments of researches of each level.

RELATED SOURCE AREAS

Localisation of The Originals

Existence of copies

Related units of description

Related estates

Note of publishing

Here we consider it is necessary that the Rules of Bibliographic Reference of ABNT should be followed.

NOTES AREA

Notes

General Observations

Complete examples were missing or, at least, one distributed by the sorted elements of description.

The structure asks for a discursive filling, being interesting the existence of closed sub-slots.

The structure tends to fragment  information that, naturally, would be disposed together.

It would be interesting that the date of realisation of the description and its actualisation were registered.

We consider that, when it is done an actualisation of the units of description, the previous one should be discarded. In the case of publishing of the Guide of the Institution, for example, this already comes in its proper space, so, there is no necessity of retaining to this point.

It would be interesting a slot to take notes of the remarkable physical specifications (parchment with ( ILUMINURAS) , Etc.)

It can be as well described in the slot "Physical specifications".

It is suggested a slot for the creation of indexing.

As the Standards presuppose a computerised data basis, this observation does not make sense, once the key-words of each fond can be determined for searching ends, once the indexing is an instrument to help the search (or are we deluded ?).

It is alerted that the elements of description considered essentials (Brazilian version of the ISAD(G), Page 8) are essentials for some levels of information exchange, not for other ones, it is, the set of elements of description considered as essentials is not the same for all the levels.

They are essentials for INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE OF DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION, they are not for the description.
These elements allow you all to have a very general vision of the described level.

It would be interesting to increase in the appendix a situation of direct relation between fond and item. It is alerted, also, for situations in which an item is in the same level of a level of a file.

Since, from the archival point-of-view, “a document does not have if it is not in a whole”, we do not see any reason to this observation.

Content slot could contain specific sub-slots to allow the indexing of their information.

It was already commented in the item "It is suggested a slot for the creation of indexing”.
 

The observations in highlight are from the Group of Study of Brasilia, group formed by the archivists:
 

Jackson Cavalcanti Júnior, ArPDF (Co-ordinator)
Adsan Jacqueline V. Stelmer, Chamber of Deputy
Inaldo Marinho Júnior, Chamber of Deputy
Lígia Pinheiro da Silva, Chamber of Deputy
Lúcia Margarida Alheiro da Silva, ArPDF
Vânia Lúcia Alheiro Rosa, Chamber of Deputy
Zila Silva, ArPDF