Search

This paper aims to give a new definition of the word "Archives" as a result of an accurate survey of doctrinal orientations on this specific subject, analyzing - word by word - each particular lemma which makes up the new proposal. Even though there is no definition that is valid in every context, but archival theory seems to suffer largely from a heterogeneous vision, downstream of a rigorous scientific journey, but dense of conceptual and lexical unexpected contingencies. Each term - with meanings and contexts - does not constitute a simple signifier, but refers to a specific baggage of every disciplinary and cultural tradition. For these reasons, we will attempt to provide an overview of the definitions of archives, from the particular to the general. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper regards the ways archival discipline is treated in DDC. After a short introduction about the discipline in Italy, the essay focuses on the analysis of division 020 of DDC 23, with specific attention to section 025 and with punctual reference to section 651, concerning archival material. The aim of the paper is to point out archival discipline's peculiarities and its differences from library science, as well as underlining the critical issues on how this discipline is handled in DDC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents the state of the art of the cataloguing description of personal relationships between creators of archival records and people that are related to the life cycle of cultural objects, as highlighted by museums, archives and libraries records (i.e. GLAM, translated in italian MAB). Since people are fundamental access points to the cultural heritage, the representation of relationships between people and corporate bodies in Linked Open Data is of increasing interest. Nonetheless, a shared and comprehensive vocabulary of personal relationships is not available yet. Leveraging on Semantic Web technologies, and ontologies in particular, the aim is to identify existing ontologies that allow to represent relationships in their context (i.e. time, space and events); to map and classify different types of personal relationships; and to provide a formal representation of relationships not available in existing ontologies. As a result, we present an ontology, with a controlled vocabulary, for the representation of the scenario of personal relationships in the cultural heritage domain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]