19 Karen J. Trivette1 CONTROLLING INFORMATION ABOUT CREATORS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO AND ACROSS ARCHIVAL RECORDS AND THE LAW OF DIMINISHING RETURNS Abstract Purpose: The purpose of this paper was to consider the archival paradigm respect des fonds and to discuss its challenges over time. The article also covered how the author maintained and demonstrated her respect for this canonical archival prin- ciple through current practice and application with contemporary technology via Access to Memory (AtoM), an online archives management software tool. Methods / Approach: The author conducted qualitative research as she re- viewed the scientific literature as well as the presented work of an expert in the field to ascertain the usefulness of authority records or control as they or it relate to the aforementioned paradigm. Results: The scientific literature revealed just how long ago the challenges to respect des fonds actually began and how they ebbed and flowed over time. The principle’s incorporation into current-day archives management software vehi- cles such as Access to Memory lends to its staying power even in light of the chal- lenges. The author’s literature review revealed ways by which records’ creator authority is established, how such is controlled via historical and more recent approaches, and what values these efforts possess. Conclusions / Findings: Most archival operations are not adequately support- ed. There never seems to be enough resources—time, human, space, budget, and more—to manage everything that requires archivists’ precious attention and skill sets. As such, this author questioned the trend of archival science the- ory leaning evermore towards practices (in this case, the practice of authority control) that drain resources away from mission-critical functions. After inves- tigating this topic, the author found herself with more questions than answers. 1 Karen J. Trivette, MLS, ABD, 3rd-Year Doctoral Student, Archival Sciences, Alma Mater Europaea University; Recruiter, Archival Science Faculty and Students, Alma Mater Europaea University, Maribor SLOVENIA; Visit- ing Professor, Paris-Sorbonne Université Abu Dhabi, UAE, Email: karen.trivette@almamater.si. CONTROLLING INFORMATION ABOUT CREATORS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO AND ACROSS ARCHIVAL RECORDS AND THE LAW OF DIMINISHING RETURNS KAREN J. TRIVETTE 20 Where is the line drawn for archivists regarding the delivery of information? In the end, is archival authority control—and the associated tasks which fur- ther exhaust even more of archivists’ meager resources—more a respect des théoriciens than a respect des fonds? Keywords: archives management systems, authority, authority control, authority record, provenance, records creator CONTROLLO DELLE INFORMAZIONI SUI CREATORI E LE LORO RELAZIONI CON E ATTRAVERSO I DOCUMENTI D‘ARCHIVIO E LA LEGGE DEI RENDIMENTI DECRESCENTI Abstract Scopo: Lo scopo di questo articolo era di considerare il paradigma archivistico respect des fonds e di discutere le sue sfide nel tempo. L‘articolo ha anche trat- tato il modo in cui l‘autore ha mantenuto e dimostrato il suo rispetto per questo principio archivistico canonico attraverso la pratica corrente e l‘applicazione con la tecnologia contemporanea tramite Access to Memory (AtoM), uno stru- mento software di gestione degli archivi online. Metodi/Approccio: L‘autore ha condotto una ricerca qualitativa mentre esami- nava la letteratura scientifica e il lavoro presentato da un esperto nel campo per accertare l‘utilità dei record di autorità o del controllo in quanto correlati al pa- radigma sopra menzionato.Risultati: La letteratura scientifica ha rivelato quanto tempo fa sono iniziate effettivamente le sfide al respect des fonds e come sono diminuite e aumentate nel tempo. L‘incorporazione del principio negli attuali veicoli software di gestione degli archivi come Access to Memory conferisce alla sua resistenza anche alla luce delle sfide. La revisione della letteratura dell‘au- tore ha rivelato i modi in cui viene stabilita l‘autorità del creatore dei record, come questa viene controllata tramite approcci storici e più recenti e quali valori possiedono questi sforzi. CONTROLLING INFORMATION ABOUT CREATORS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO AND ACROSS ARCHIVAL RECORDS AND THE LAW OF DIMINISHING RETURNS KAREN J. TRIVETTE 21 Conclusioni / Risultati: la maggior parte delle operazioni di archiviazione non è adeguatamente supportata. Non sembrano mai esserci abbastanza risorse (tem- po, personale, spazio, budget e altro) per gestire tutto ciò che richiede la prezio- sa attenzione e le competenze degli archivisti. Pertanto, questo autore ha messo in discussione la tendenza della teoria della scienza archivistica a orientarsi sempre di più verso pratiche (in questo caso, la pratica del controllo di autorità) che sottraggono risorse alle funzioni critiche per la missione. Dopo aver inda- gato su questo argomento, l‘autore si è trovato con più domande che risposte. Dove viene tracciata la linea per gli archivisti in merito alla consegna delle informazioni? Alla fine, il controllo di autorità archivistico (e i compiti associati che esauriscono ulteriormente le scarse risorse degli archivisti) è più un respect des théoriciens che un respect des fonds? Parole chiave: sistemi di gestione degli archivi, autorità, controllo di autorità, record di autorità, provenienza, creatore di record NADZOR INFORMACIJ O USTVARJALCIH IN NJIHOVIH ODNOSIH DO ARHIVSKIH ZAPISOV IN MED NJIMI TER ZAKON NAJMANJŠIH DONOSOV Izvleček Namen: Namen tega prispevka je bil obravnavati arhivsko paradigmo respect des fonds in razpravljati o njenih izzivih skozi čas. Članek je tudi zajel, kako je avtor ohranil in izkazal spoštovanje tega kanoničnega arhivskega načela skozi sedanjo prakso in uporabo s sodobno tehnologijo prek spletnega programskega orodja za upravljanje arhivov Access to Memory (AtoM). Metode/pristop: Avtor je izvedel kvalitativno raziskavo s pregledom znanstve- ne literature in predstavljenega dela strokovnjaka s tega področja, da bi ugoto- vil uporabnost normativnih zapisov oziroma nadzora, saj se nanašajo na zgoraj omenjeno paradigmo. Rezultati: Znanstvena literatura je razkrila, kako dolgo nazaj so se pravzaprav začeli izzivi za respect des fonds in kako so sčasoma padali. Vključitev načela v sedanja programska sredstva za upravljanje arhivov, kot je dostop do pom- CONTROLLING INFORMATION ABOUT CREATORS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO AND ACROSS ARCHIVAL RECORDS AND THE LAW OF DIMINISHING RETURNS KAREN J. TRIVETTE 22 nilnika, mu daje moč, tudi če upoštevamo izzive. Avtorjev pregled literature je razkril načine, kako se vzpostavlja avtoriteta ustvarjalca zapisov, kako je ta nadzorovana prek zgodovinskih in novejših pristopov ter kakšne vrednosti imajo ta prizadevanja. Sklepi/ugotovitve: Večina arhivskega poslovanja ni ustrezno podprtega. Zdi se, da nikoli ni dovolj virov – časa, ljudi, prostora, proračuna in več – za upravljan- je vsega, kar zahteva dragoceno pozornost in spretnosti arhivistov. Posledično avtor dvomi o trendu teorije arhivske znanosti, ki se vse bolj nagiba k praksam (v tem primeru praksi avtoritete), ki črpajo vire stran od kritičnih funkcij. Po raziskovanju te teme se je avtor znašel pred več vprašanji kot odgovori. Kje je potegnjena črta za arhiviste glede posredovanja informacij? Na koncu, ali je na- dzor nad arhivsko avtoriteto – in s tem povezanimi nalogami, ki dodatno izčrpa- vajo skromne vire arhivistov – bolj upoštevati načelo respect des théoriciens kot spoštovati respect des fonds? Ključne besede: sistemi za upravljanje arhivov, avtoriteta, normativni nadzor, normativni zapis, provenienca, ustvarjalec dokumentov. CONTROLLING INFORMATION ABOUT CREATORS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO AND ACROSS ARCHIVAL RECORDS AND THE LAW OF DIMINISHING RETURNS KAREN J. TRIVETTE 23 1 INTRODUCTION For nearly 200 years, archivists have been guided by the principle of respect des fonds to effectively relate archival records’ creators to the records they create and/ or are responsible for their creation. Indeed, analogous practice in Russia can be dated as far distant as 1721.2 However, in recent decades, mainstay applications of this guiding, instructive, and foundational principle have been challenged or at least certainly brought into question; but to what effect? This paper discussed a brief history of the principle, investigated the challenges to it, demonstrated its applica- tion in the author’s recent former institution’s practice, and attempted to telegraph the future of successfully relating records’ creators to the archives they birth. When considering the respect des fonds, and the possibilities to make it applicable or actionable, what do archivists need to think about or do, both in terms of quali- ty and quantity of information? How much information—even valuable, contextual information—is too much and/or how little information is not enough to satisfy the mandate of archivists to serve as conduits between records—-and their creation con- texts—-and researchers’ discovery of relevant records and the content they carry? In addition to and to augment the respect des fonds principle, some have gravitated towards an authority control approach and not surprisingly so. After all, when one thinks of the phrase “authority control,” one imagines imparting consistency, rep- lication, facilitation, and so on chiefly as applied to name and subject expressions. Also to consider—given myriad other controls that archivists must oversee in- cluding and not limited to physical, intellectual, custodial, bibliographic, etc.—is it reasonable for archivists to assume authority control as an additional require- ment or is that particular realm of control better suited to professional colleagues in technical services units, if resources allow? And then there is context control, which this author only considered at the time of this writing. “Context control extends the traditional focus of single-name rep- resentations to other aspects of the entity that are equally important. Context control not only engages with names but uses the basic activities of entities for identity disambiguation and for providing more accurate representations” (Wiss- er, 2017, 251). Is context control the new item level control in terms of seducing 2 In 1721, “Russian archival legislation prescribed classifying documents by their origins and maintaining the integ- rity of fonds” (Leontieva, 2002, 41). CONTROLLING INFORMATION ABOUT CREATORS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO AND ACROSS ARCHIVAL RECORDS AND THE LAW OF DIMINISHING RETURNS KAREN J. TRIVETTE 24 practitioners to siphon off valuable and often scarce resources from shoring up and adequately supporting core and mission-critical responsibilities? There is also the matter of professional expectation to consider. Whereas a segment of our library science peers, especially technical services colleagues, are indeed ex- pected to develop and apply the skills and expertise for effective authority control, the same cannot be said for archivists. That certainly is not to say that archivists are unable, unwilling, or incapable of learning such skills (if they do not already possess them), and/or of managing such tasks and embracing the added responsibilities. On the contrary, archivists on the whole are especially well-suited to impart controls, es- pecially those based on standards, across and among the archival content in their care. Archival science educator Dr. Gregory Hunter articulated and helped to define archivists’ responsibilities in his 2020 work, Developing and Maintaining Prac- tical Archives. He said, rather economically, that the archivist’s mandate is one to preserve and make accessible the structure, content, and context of archival records and within a standardized framework (Hunter, 2020, 35–36). His focus, however, was not on the context of the creators themselves. In addition, if, as philosopher Jacques Derrida said, “Context gives the archivist credibility” (Derrida, 1996, 4), then it is imperative for archivists to preserve mul- tiple external (fonds, record group) and internal (series, subseries, file) contexts wholly and not in fragments (Trivette, 2024). The question remains to what extent and must an archivist’s reach go beyond controlling archival records and breach the domain of creators and agents otherwise. Perhaps Jennifer Meehan, Director, Special Collections Directorate-Library of Congress, said it most pointedly: “In identifying the external and internal re- lationships of a body of records and communicating them to users through ar- rangement and description, the archivist is both protecting and representing the context of the records” (Meehan, 2009, 75) and thereby fulfilling his/her/their full responsibilities as an archivist (Trivette, 2024). But does that approach truly go far enough in terms of fulfilling his/her/their mandate? This author would argue that by demonstrably honoring our long-held guidepost of respect des fonds, it might just be enough exertion and expenditure of valuable resources rather than taxing archivists to undertake the additional responsibilities of controlling authorities. CONTROLLING INFORMATION ABOUT CREATORS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO AND ACROSS ARCHIVAL RECORDS AND THE LAW OF DIMINISHING RETURNS KAREN J. TRIVETTE 25 1.1 DEFINITIONS The author would like to define this particular archives ecosystem by reviewing some terms relevant to the discussion. They are presented in alphabetical order. Access to Memory (AtoM) is a “web-based, open source application for stand- ards-based archival description and access in a multilingual, multi-repository en- vironment” (Artefactual, 2022a). Archival software involves any computer program that is “designed to facilitate the management of archives” (SAA, 2024b). Authority defines “the source from which the citation is drawn or the source of a written [or otherwise created] work” (Merriam-Webster, 2024). Authority control is “the process of establishing standardized names and index terms for use in archival or bibliographic description and ensuring their consistent application” (SAA, 2024c). In the aggregate, authority control is manifested in the form of an authority file. An authority record is an “entry in an authority file that contains information about the preferred form of a name or subject heading” (SAA, 2024d). An archi- val authority record reaches a bit further as it also provides contextual informa- tion vis-à-vis the agent being discussed (SAA, 2024a). Context is “the organizational, functional, and operational circumstances sur- rounding materials‘ creation, receipt, storage, or use, and its relationship to other materials.” It can also be “the circumstances that a user may bring to a document that influences that user‘s understanding of the document” (SAA, 2024e). Context control is “the process of establishing the preferred form of the name of a records creator, describing the records creator and the functions and activities that produced the records, and showing the relationships among records creators, and between records creators, for use in archival descriptions” (Dryden 2005, 4–5). A creator is defined as “the individual, group, or organization that is responsible for something‘s production, accumulation, or formation” (SAA, 2024f). The defi- nition could also encompass a thing’s ideation and manifestation. Encoded Archival Context originally was “an initiative to produce an XML- based standard to describe records creators, then released as a provisional stand- ard, and later a putative overarching set of standards for encoding contextual CONTROLLING INFORMATION ABOUT CREATORS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO AND ACROSS ARCHIVAL RECORDS AND THE LAW OF DIMINISHING RETURNS KAREN J. TRIVETTE 26 information about archival resources” (SAA, 2024g). Fonds is “the entire body of records of an organization, family, or individual that have been created and accumulated as the result of an organic process reflecting the functions of the creator” (SAA, 2024h). Provenance is the “origin or source of something” and the “information regard- ing the origins, custody, and ownership of an item or collection” (SAA, 2024i). Records in Contexts (RiC) is “a standard for describing archival records within the contexts of their provenance and use” (Popovici, 2024). Respect des fonds, also known as the principe de provenance, is the archival principle that stipulates that records should be preserved “according to their or- igin and in the units in which they were originally accumulated” (SAA, 2024j). 2 METHOD The author conducted qualitative research as she reviewed the scientific literature as well as a presentation from RiC expert and ICA Expert Group on Archival Description member, Dr. Bogdan-Florin Popovici, to ascertain the usefulness of authority records or control as they or it relate to the aforementioned paradigm of respect des fonds. 2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW Since the circa 1960s, respect des fonds has been visited and revisited in the sci- entific literature and among archival science theorists and practitioners alike. The fonds approach versus the contextual functions approach to controlling archival records and, perhaps more pervasively, the information about the records includ- ing their creating entities, really began to gain traction in the 1980s. Among the critics was Max Evans, former deputy state archivist for Wisconsin. He argued that “a function-centric control was more beneficial than the tradi- tional fonds approach.” He further said that “an authority control-based system focuses upon record-generating entities; it consists of descriptions of the histories and functions of organizations and of the administrative relationships between them” (Evans, 1986, 249). Indeed, many theorists have declared that the fonds concept is merely an intellec- tual construct. However, Evans said that “the authority control system is [also] an CONTROLLING INFORMATION ABOUT CREATORS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO AND ACROSS ARCHIVAL RECORDS AND THE LAW OF DIMINISHING RETURNS KAREN J. TRIVETTE 27 intellectual construct, susceptible to emendation as institutions evolve, as func- tions change, and as administrative structures are altered” (Evans, 1986, 249). He continued: “The authority control system is a dynamic system that places each record-creating agency into an administrative hierarchy while also maintaining a record of the changes within the hierarchy over time” (Evans, 1986, 249). While the authority control approach is still based on the principle of provenance, Evans said “it can provide new ways to bring information about agencies together with series descriptions, thus opening up new routes of access and linking related but hitherto separate series of records” (Evans, 1986, 255). Evans advocated for “an archival system based on authority control meets all of the requirements for the management of records throughout their life cycle, per- mits the production of standard archival inventories (as well as specialized guides and other finding aids) on demand, and maintains the principles of provenance and original order” (Evans, 1986, 260). This approach would seem to work as “the descriptions of archival material in such a system are linked to one or more authority records. This system provides the means for maintaining control over and gaining access to archival material by the provenance approach, without the inflexibility of the record group/hierarchy concept” (Evans, 1986, 249). This author finds the record group/hierarchy con- cept quite accommodating. However, in this author’s opinion, it would seem that Evans is more focused on the referral process (to other creators or to other records) and less focused on the more immediate and intimate relationship of creator-to-record. The authority file is or becomes a separate, living and breathing construct related to but completely independent from the archival records archivists are responsible for. This author then asks: are archivists equally responsible for creators’ contexts as we are for the records’ contexts? In 1989, David Bearman addressed the matter in his work, “Authority Control Is- sues and Prospects.” While consistency is at the heart of authority control, Bear- man argued that “archival retrieval will be enhanced by placing more emphasis on increasing the number of access points and less on achieving consistency in indexing” (Bearman, 1989, 286). Bearman described various kinds of authori- ty files and identified several (occupation, time period, geographic coordinates, CONTROLLING INFORMATION ABOUT CREATORS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO AND ACROSS ARCHIVAL RECORDS AND THE LAW OF DIMINISHING RETURNS KAREN J. TRIVETTE 28 form-of-material, and function) that offer the most promise as discovery points (Bearman, 1989, 286). He also advocated for the value of the once often used “reference files” to be used not only in the traditional authority control sense but also as valuable information resources in their own right. While authority files might prove valuable, they still ask more from archivists who increasingly have fewer resources to work with. Indeed, biographical and/ or administrative histories have long been an integral element to archivists’ tel- egraphing valuable information about the records in their care and aligning re- cords with their creating entities. Authority files and control replicate these ef- forts and certainly have the potential to enhance them as well. In 2008, the distinction between describing creators versus describing records was brought to the fore by Larry Weimer as SAA’s Describing Archives: A Content Stand- ard (DACS) was embraced in U.S. practice. In addition to DACS’ usage, Encoded Archival Context (EAC) gained traction internationally. Weimer stated that “DACS‘s optional approach of describing creators in authority records separate from, but linked to, descriptions of holdings has the potential for the ‘rediscovery’ of provenance in U.S. repository collections” (Weimer 2008, 33). He noted that “multiple provenance (e.g., the Australian series system), postmodern theory of archives, and an increased emphasis on provenance as function are some of the reconceptualizations of archival context that compliance with DACS may inspire” (Weimer, 2008, 33). Peter Horsman explained in 2011 that “context is not completely different from provenance, but it is potentially richer, and above all, does not focus on the fonds as a physical entity, but on understanding the meaning of records, how they were created, used, and maintained across space and time” (Horsman, 2011). This au- thor asked: what is the cost of such richness and should archivists’ attention not be on the fonds and leave the discovery of untold meanings to researchers? In her 2017 work, Archives: Principles and Practices, Laura Millar addressed the challenge of “over-prescription.” She stated that “as the functional approach grows more popular, archivists around the world are developing thesauri and au- thority lists to control the terms used to describe different activities in work and life. ICA’s ISDF [International Standard for Describing Functions] provides guid- ance on how to prepare descriptions of functions, and these descriptions may also identify business processes, activities, tasks, transactions or other actions” (Mil- CONTROLLING INFORMATION ABOUT CREATORS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO AND ACROSS ARCHIVAL RECORDS AND THE LAW OF DIMINISHING RETURNS KAREN J. TRIVETTE 29 lar, 2017, 228). She continued to say that “Rigidly defining functions or agents presumes a level of certitude and precision that does not relate with the messiness of real life, personal or corporate. Over-prescription may help fit functions, agents and records into boxes, but who wants to live in a box?” (Millar, 2017, 228). This author agreed with Millar and further asked why would archivists want to reach so very far beyond their mandated responsibilities and exhaust available resources at the expense of not satisfying core responsibilities? Millar ultimately gave archivists some breathing room in declaring that they could “have it both ways.” She said that “It seems to me that the custodial approach and the functional approach do not need to be mutually exclusive. An institution may choose to adopt a functional approach to arranging and describing records that reflect a con- tinuing organizational function…The same institution may also, quite reasonably, de- scribe archives in custody, such as personal papers, by capturing information about all of the materials in hand” (Millar, 2017, 225). Ciaran Trace reminded readers that “all told, from the late 1960s onward, the notion of provenance had increasingly been seen as dynamic rather than static in nature and conceptual rather than logical in application” (Trace, 2020, 332). Further, “the notion of external provenance, with its immediate tie to a creator, had taken on a more ex- pansive horizon, and the nomenclature of ‘context’ had come to the fore to capture this new understanding of relationships and interrelationships” (Trace, 2020, 332). There are many more voices in the scientific literature representing both choirs regarding the “fonds versus function” debate; however, this author, having worked in too many overly stressed repositories, remains squarely in the respect des fonds congregation. 2.2 RECORDS IN CONTEXTS: EXPERT COLLEAGUE INQUIRY AND COMMENTARY RiC is the natural outgrowth of the function side of this debate. According to the ICA Expert Group on Archival Description (EGAD), “RiC emerged from existing stand- ards for archival description such as ISAD-(G), ISAAR-CPR and ISDF3 and was creat- ed to overcome certain limitations associated with these standards” (ICA EGAD, 2024). 3 ISAD-(G), ISAAR-CPR and ISDF are ICA standards International Standard for Archival Description General, International Standard Archival Authority Record for Corporate Bodies, Persons and Families, and International Standard for Describing Functions. CONTROLLING INFORMATION ABOUT CREATORS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO AND ACROSS ARCHIVAL RECORDS AND THE LAW OF DIMINISHING RETURNS KAREN J. TRIVETTE 30 EGAD declared such limitations including: 1. A lack of coherence given they all emerged from separate processes; 2. Being technologically and intellectually outdated; 3. A lack of uptake (except for ISAD(G)) by archival institutions and software providers; 4. Not being based on rigorously controlled and identified entities, thus leaving too much room for interpretation (ICA EGAD, 2024). As for the second and third points, AtoM (discussed below in segment 4.3) sat- isfies the technological need as it marries respect des fonds and the value-added authority control content and context. This author respectfully disagrees as to their being outdated technologically or intellectually. Professor Dr. Bogdan-Florin Popovici works at the National Archives of Romania and is a member of the ICA EGAD. He is also an archives educator for Alma Ma- ter Europaea University’s master’s program in archival science. On 27 June 2024, Dr. Popovici delivered an address to attendees of the SAA International Archival Affairs Section annual meeting. Popovici discussed the founding of and the implementation of RiC as a descrip- tive standard and what he saw as the future of its adoption and application within and across repositories. Popovici noted that the RiC-Conceptual Model is actually not a standard in the vein of ISAD(G) in that it is not one simply to be adopted and implemented. It is rather a framework and is not an “all or nothing” set of prescriptive inclusions or directions (Popovici, 2024). That said, in his presentation, Popovici offered some pre-implementation guide- lines for repositories’ staff such as: - Do a needs gap analysis [and/or assessment]; - Assess the costs and benefits of your choice either to implement RiC or not (be- ing clear on the advantages of your inclusions and the risks/savings associated with your exclusions); and Consider [and be prepared for] the need for change management (Popovici, 2024) CONTROLLING INFORMATION ABOUT CREATORS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO AND ACROSS ARCHIVAL RECORDS AND THE LAW OF DIMINISHING RETURNS KAREN J. TRIVETTE 31 He also asked listeners to consider the following: - Which entities [things] should be used? - Which attributes [feature, characteristic, or property] or sub-attributes should be used? - Which relations [connections between entities] should be used and how much detail should be provided? - What extensions or specializations are needed? (Popovici, 2024) Popovici declared that the potential impact of RiC on archivists’ descriptive prac- tice includes discovery of new records’ “aggregations;” the accommodation of digitized records; recognizing fading borders of finding aids; acknowledging a conundrum between provenance and pertinence; and sharing work with the cy- berworld will yield new meanings. The potential impact of RiC on researchers includes: a newly found freedom to create facets and new contexts; the discovery of new meanings as derived from new connections of information; a potentially enhanced ease of retrieval (Popo- vici, 2024). The RiC standard was authored by ICA’s EGAD, which, as of 2022, had twen- ty-one members from fourteen countries. Version 0.1 was released in 2016, after which feedback was gathered from the international archival community. This was followed by substantial revisions, which led to the current version, 0.2; it was released in 2021. A second call for comments took place and comments were received in early 2022. RiC was launched at the beginning of 2023; at the time of this writing, version 0.2 was still in draft form but was thought to be mature enough to use in projects (ICA EGAD, 2022). ICA stated that “the [RiC] standard makes it possible to describe archives in a more precise and nuanced way and to represent the variety of relationships that bind them to their contexts” (ICA EGAD, 2023). This author wondered how much relationship variety is truly of value and to whom. 3 RESULTS The scientific literature revealed just how long ago the challenges to respect des fonds actually began and how they ebbed and flowed over time. The principle’s CONTROLLING INFORMATION ABOUT CREATORS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO AND ACROSS ARCHIVAL RECORDS AND THE LAW OF DIMINISHING RETURNS KAREN J. TRIVETTE 32 incorporation into current-day archives management software vehicles such as Access to Memory lends to its staying power even in light of the challenges. That said, with the establishment of RiC, and its being embraced in the archives com- munity, this author is curious to witness whether the virility of respect des fonds will stay the course going forward. 4 DISCUSSION 4.1 HISTORICAL CONTEXT The French developed the central concept of respect des fonds rather than “organ- izing archival records according to pre-determined classification schemes based on subject matter or content” (Jimerson, 2009, 72). A fonds would be based not only on its origins but also the function of the creating origin. This principle would become “the foundation of the Prussian concept of provenienzprinzip and it still stands as a founding concept and practice” for modern archival manage- ment (Jimerson, 2009, 72). A key treatise that served as an early attempt to codify archival theory and prac- tice was published in 1830, “when François Guizot, French Minister of Public Instruction, issued regulations requiring the application of respect pour les fonds to the records of the départements in the Archives Nationales” (Gilliland-Swet- land, 2000). However, it was not until 1841 that French archivist and librarian Natalis de Wail- ly put forward the principe de provenance as the theoretical origin of the fonds d’archives. Ultimately, “respecting the principle of provenance is essential to the evidential value of archival records” (Couture & Rousseau, 1987, 162). Eventually, it was the Dutch archives theory masters Samuel Muller, Johan Adriaan Feith, and Robert Jacobus Fruin who wrote the internationally respected and now paradigmatic archives management treatise entitled the Manual for the Arrangement and Description of Archives in 1898 (Trivette, 2024). Within a sea of endless realities that archivists face including and not limited to insufficient education, training, and resources otherwise, the respect des fonds still “presents [a] worthy focus of archival aspiration” (MacNeil, 1994, 16). CONTROLLING INFORMATION ABOUT CREATORS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO AND ACROSS ARCHIVAL RECORDS AND THE LAW OF DIMINISHING RETURNS KAREN J. TRIVETTE 33 4.2 COMPLICATIONS AND SIMPLIFICATIONS The long-standing rule to respect des fonds has been intellectually and ethically criticized by both archival theorists and practitioners for decades. The rule fo- cuses on the entity that created or accumulated records and “maintains that the accumulated body of records is to be kept together” (ICA, 2023). However, “the focus on the person or group that accumulated the records, it is argued, often does not reflect the social and material complexity of the origins of the records” (ICA 2023). While this might be true, archivists must weigh the value of teasing out, discovering, and presenting these complexities. Indeed, such complexities are abundantly clear in recorded evidence and the chain(s) of interactions only multiply. “Individuals interact with one another and with groups, and groups with other groups. Records by one individual or group are often found in the records of another individual or group. The intellectual content of a record may be related to the content of one or more other records” (ICA, 2023). Further still, “a single record or single accumulation of records may be jointly created by more than one individual or group, both simultaneously and/or succes- sively. More than one person or group may play different roles in relation to one record or one set of records” (ICA, 2023). To complicate this landscape even more, “people create and use records but also are frequently the subject of records. The emergence of collaborative editing in the networked digital environment has led to other complexities in determining the origination and ownership of records, as many digital records have complex multiparty authorship, and the use of remote storage services that are not fully controlled by the users raise issues of ownership and custody” (ICA, 2023, 4). It is true that the “origination of records is much more complex than the long-es- tablished understanding of fonds.” Indeed, the records in a fonds do not exist only in relation to itself nor in isolation. The fonds and its records “exist in layers of interconnected contexts, past, present, and future” (ICA, 2023, 5). None of these facts erases the need for archivists to provide the answer to what this author considers the most crucial of questions vis-à-vis evaluating evidence: who or what is the source of the information? In order to establish the authentici- ty, credibility, and integrity of the records in their care, archivists must be able to answer this question. CONTROLLING INFORMATION ABOUT CREATORS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO AND ACROSS ARCHIVAL RECORDS AND THE LAW OF DIMINISHING RETURNS KAREN J. TRIVETTE 34 4.3 ATOM AND ITS AUTHORITY FILE APPLICATION At this author’s former employer4, AtoM was selected over other archives man- agement software tools, such as ArchivesSpace5, because AtoM directly aligned with ICA’s ISAD(G) standard. This was important to the end user because it had adopted ISAD(G) as a structural standard. In other words, ISAD(G) provided descriptive elements (26 in total) for what elements to record about an archives unit. It was used in combination with SAA’s DACS, which standardized how to express the contents of an informational element. In AtoM, authority records are documented information about actors vis-à-vis an archival institution’s records. Artefactual uses the term actor in relation to “cor- porate bodies, persons, or families who interact with archival materials;” these actors are typically records creators (Artefactual, 2022b). The data elements used to describe authority records are based on the ICA’s Interna- tional Standard Archival Authority Record for Corporate Bodies, Persons and Fam- ilies (ISAAR). ISAAR defines authority record as “The authorized form of name combined with other information elements that identify and describe the named enti- ty and may also point to other related authority records” (Artefactual, 2022b). Although “authority records are maintained separately from archival descrip- tions” in AtoM, they can be linked to descriptive units by associating specific entities (persons, families, or corporate bodies) as creators or as access points (Artefactual, 2022c). Users can take advantage of this capability and be more standards compliant given “AtoM’s standards-based archival description tem- plates for ISAG(G), RAD6, and DACS” (Artefactual, 2022c). 5 CONCLUSION This author subscribes to repeatedly and consistently applying the respect des fonds in that it helps to ensure trustworthiness in the archives and even though it has been challenged and over the course of many decades and up until current day. Whatever other value-added approaches are employed, respect des fonds po- 4 SPARC Connect is the AtoM instance for the Fashion Institute of Technology-State University of New York. See https://atom-sparc.fitnyc.edu/ for more information. 5 ArchivesSpace is an archives management software program much like AtoM. Unlike AtoM, it is not directly aligned with a descriptive standard. 6 RAD is Rules for Archival Description and is maintained by Canadian Council of Archives. CONTROLLING INFORMATION ABOUT CREATORS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO AND ACROSS ARCHIVAL RECORDS AND THE LAW OF DIMINISHING RETURNS KAREN J. TRIVETTE 35 sitions records to serve, with a high degree of confidence, as evidential surrogates for past human activity and experience. In her experience, the author has found that the respect des fonds principle is the archives management tradition that is consistently agile and adaptable; this is manifested through her use of the AtoM archives management software and its inherent respect of the paradigm. With such respect intact, this author—and perhaps her readers—comes full circle in that the creator is the ultimate delinea- tor—fonds, functional, and otherwise. REFERENCES Artefactual Systems, Inc. (2022a). Access to Memory. Retrieved at https://www. accesstomemory.org/en/ (accessed on 21 September 2024). Artefactual Systems, Inc. (2022b). Authority Records. Retrieved at https://www. accesstomemory.org/en/docs/2.8/user-manual/add-edit-content/authority-re- cords/#authority-records (accessed on 21 September 2024). Artefactual Systems, Inc. (2022c). AtoM, Authority records, Biographical his- tories, and Access points. Retrieved at https://www.accesstomemory.org/ en/docs/2.8/user-manual/add-edit-content/authority-records/#atom-author- ity-records-biographical-histories-and-access-points (accessed on 21 Sep- tember 2024). Couture, C. and Rousseau, J. Y. (1987). The Life of a Document: A Global Ap- proach to Archives and Records Management. Montréal: Véhicule Press. Derrida, J. (1996). Archive Fever: A Freudian Impression, trans. E. Prenowitz. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. Dryden, J. (2007). “From Authority Control to Context Control.” In J. Dryden (ed.), Respect for Authority: Authority Control, Context Control, and Ar- chival Description, (1–13). New York: Routledge. Published simultane- ously in Journal of Archival Organization, 5(1–2). Retrieved at https://doi. org/10.1300/J201v05n01_01 (accessed on 22 September 2024). Fashion Institute of Technology-State University of New York. (2024). SPARC Connect. Retrieved at https://atom-sparc.fitnyc.edu/ (accessed on 22 Septem- ber 2024). CONTROLLING INFORMATION ABOUT CREATORS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO AND ACROSS ARCHIVAL RECORDS AND THE LAW OF DIMINISHING RETURNS KAREN J. TRIVETTE 36 Gilliland-Swetland, A. (2000). Enduring Paradigm, New Opportunities: The Value of the Archival Perspective in the Digital Environment. Washington: Council on Library and Information Resources. Horsman, P. (2011). Wrapping Records in Narratives: Representing Context through Archival Description. Paper presented at the Usability of the Ar- chives of the International Tracing Service Workshop at the ITS, October 10–11, 2011. Hunter, G. (2020). Developing and Maintaining Practical Archives: A How-To- Do-It Manual (version Third edition). Chicago: ALA Neal-Schuman. International Council on Archives (ICA). (2004). ISAAR (CPF): international standard archival authority record for corporate bodies, persons and fami- lies (2nd ed). International Council on Archives. International Council on Archives (ICA). (2023). Records in Contexts–Founda- tions of Archival Description, Version 1.0. Retrieved at https://www.ica.org/ app/uploads/2023/12/RiC-FAD-1.0.pdf (accessed on 23 September 2024). International Council on Archives (ICA). (2024a). Records in Context–Con- ceptual Model. Retrieved at https://www.ica.org/resource/records-in-con- texts-conceptual-model/ (accessed on 23 September 2024). International Council on Archives (ICA). (2024b). Records in Context–Intro- duction to Archival Description. Retrieved at https://www.ica.org/resource/ records-in-contexts-introduction-to-archival-description/ (accessed on 23 September 2024). International Council on Archives, Expert Group on Archival Description (ICA EGAD). (2022). Resource of the Month: Introducing Records in Contexts: The New ICA Standard for Describing Records. Retrieved at https://www. ica.org/resource-of-the-month-introducing-records-in-contexts-the-new-ica- standard-for-describing-records/ (accessed on 23 September 2024). Jimerson, R. (2009). Archives Power: Memory, Accountability, and Social Jus- tice. Chicago: Society of American Archivists. Leontieva, O. (2002). Archives and Archival Issues of Russia. Comma, 2002(3– 4), 40-48. Paris: International Council on Archives. CONTROLLING INFORMATION ABOUT CREATORS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO AND ACROSS ARCHIVAL RECORDS AND THE LAW OF DIMINISHING RETURNS KAREN J. TRIVETTE 37 Meehan, J. (2009). Making the Leap from Parts to Whole: Evidence and Inference in archives arrangement and Description. American Archivist, 72(1), 72–90. Retrieved at https://doi.org/10.17723/aarc.72.1.kj672v4907m11x66 (accessed on 21 September 2024). Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. (2024). Authority. Retrieved at https://www. merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authority (accessed on 21 September 2024). Millar, L. (2017). Archives: principles and practices (Second edition). Facet Publishing. Retrieved at https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&d- b=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=1519710 (accessed on 23 September 2024). Muller, S., Feith, J. A., Fruin, R. J. and Vereniging Nederland. (2003). Manual for the Arrangement and Description of Archives. Translated by Arthur H. Leavitt. Chicago, IL: Society of American Archivists. Popovici, B. (2024). Records in contexts (RIC). Presentation delivered to the So- ciety of American Archivists International Archival Affairs Section Annual Meeting, 27 June 2024. Society of American Archivists (SAA). (2024a). Archival Authority Record. https://dictionary.archivists.org/entry/archival-authority-record.html (ac- cessed on 21 September 2024). Society of American Archivists (SAA). (2024b). Archival software. Retrieved at https://dictionary.archivists.org/entry/archival-software.html (accessed on 21 September 2024). Society of American Archivists (SAA). (2024c). Authority Control. Retrieved at https://dictionary.archivists.org/entry/authority-control.html (accessed on 21 September 2024). Society of American Archivists (SAA). (2024d). Authority Record. Retrieved at https://dictionary.archivists.org/entry/authority-record.html (accessed on 21 September 2024). Society of American Archivists (SAA). (2024e). Context. Retrieved at https://dic- tionary.archivists.organization I/entry/context.html (accessed on 21 Septem- ber 2024). Society of American Archivists (SAA). (2024f). Creator. Retrieved at https://dic- tionary.archivists.org/entry/creator.html (accessed on 21 September 2024). CONTROLLING INFORMATION ABOUT CREATORS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO AND ACROSS ARCHIVAL RECORDS AND THE LAW OF DIMINISHING RETURNS KAREN J. TRIVETTE 38 Society of American Archivists (SAA). (2024g). Encoded Archival Context. Re- trieved at https://dictionary.archivists.org/entry/encoded-archival-context. html (accessed on 21 September 2024). Society of American Archivists (SAA). (2024h). Fonds. Retrieved at https://dic- tionary.archivists.org/entry/fonds.html (accessed on 21 September 2024). Society of American Archivists (SAA). (2024i). Provenance. Retrieved at https://dic- tionary.archivists.org/entry/provenance.html (accessed on 21 September 2024). Society of American Archivists (SAA). (2024j). Respect des fonds. Retrieved at https://dictionary.archivists.org/entry/respect-des-fonds.html (accessed on 21 September 2024). Trace, C. (2020). Maintaining Records in Context? Disrupting the Theory and Practice of Archival Classification and Arrangement. American Archivist, 83(2), 322–372. Retrieved at https://doi.org/10.17723/0360-9081-83.2.322 (ac- cessed on 24 September 2024). Trivette, K. (2024). Dissertation manuscript not yet submitted for review as of 30 September 2024. Weimer, L. (2008). Pathways to Provenance: DACS and Creator Descriptions. Journal of Archival Organization, 5(1–2), 33–48. Retrieved at https://doi. org/10.1300/J201v05n01_03. (Accessed on 24 September 2024). Wisser, K. (2017). Module 19: Introducing EAC-CPF. In C. J. Prom and K. Kies- ling (eds.), Putting Descriptive Standards to Work, Trends in Archives Prac- tice Series, (pgs. 239–296). Chicago: Society of American Archivists. CONTROLLING INFORMATION ABOUT CREATORS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO AND ACROSS ARCHIVAL RECORDS AND THE LAW OF DIMINISHING RETURNS KAREN J. TRIVETTE 39 Summary This article considered and discussed the benefits and liabilities of ways to con- trol information about archives creators and their relationships to and across archival records. The author discussed the tension between the fonds versus the functional approaches to control creator information and repeatedly found that the more complicated the approach, then the more susceptible the enterprise was to the Law of Diminishing Returns. The author conducted a scientific literature review and revisited a presentation from an expert on descriptive and contextual archives matters and an author of the Records in Contexts standard. He laid out some implementation suggestions and offered insights into the new descriptive model. The trajectory of archives management is one of chaos to control to a nearly unlimited array of controls. including and not limited to respect des fonds. In conclusion, after investigating this topic, the author found herself with more questions than answers. In the end, is archival authority control—and associated tasks which further exhaust even more of archivists’ meager resources—more a respect des théoriciens than a respect des fonds? Typology: 1.01 Original Scientific Article CONTROLLING INFORMATION ABOUT CREATORS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO AND ACROSS ARCHIVAL RECORDS AND THE LAW OF DIMINISHING RETURNS KAREN J. TRIVETTE