In order to understand how innovative DACS truly is, surveying the context from which it emerged is necessary. This paper will not provide a detailed history of archival cataloging, although general sources are available to do so.² Since DACS owes its structure to the characteristics of archival material, a few points are worth mentioning, particularly historic milestones in archival content standards and cataloging codes.

One of the most prominent features of archival material (from a cataloging point of view) is the lack of a chief source of information. Kiesling has called archives a “non-transcription community,” while books and serials catalogers form a “transcription community,” in which bibliographic descriptions are based largely on transcription of information on items at hand.³ Other non-transcription communities are becoming more interested in exploring the role of their descriptive information in a more bibliographic context. In this way, archivists can serve as a model for film and video catalogers, computer files catalogers, museum objects catalogers, and others.

Another prominent feature of archival description is the relationship among several types of abstracts of collections: standard bibliographic records, finding aids, inventories, and so on. A one-to-one correspondence between the record and the “thing” being cataloged is not present. By the time descriptions of huge archival collections are recorded in bibliographic records, much information has been lost due to system restrictions and descriptive conventions. In observing this hierarchy of metadata in 1995, Hensen wrote, “It is absurd to imagine that the conventions of author-title cataloging with two or three subject headings could even begin to capture the complexity of most archival materials (even if they had authors and titles.)”⁴ This perception of the limitations of library cataloging to describe archival materials heavily influenced the development of DACS.

Prior to 1967, rules for manuscript cataloging did not appear in library cataloging manuals at all. Choice of entry for manuscripts was addressed in the 1949 A.L.A. Cataloging Rules for Author and Title Entries, but no guidance for description was given.⁵ The 1967 Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR1) introduced rules for describing both individual manuscripts (200–204) and collections (205–207).⁶Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd ed. (AACR2) deviated from AACR1’s approach.⁷ This edition created rules in chapter 4 for cataloging manuscripts that are have been characterized as “not archival.”⁸

Archives, Personal Papers, and Manuscripts (APPM) was a response from the archival community to AACR2, which was seen as inadequate for modern manuscript and archival description.⁹APPM demonstrated that “the system of library-based cataloging techniques embodied in the second edition of Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR 2) could be adapted to serve the needs of the archival community.”¹⁰ In this way, it filled a niche for archives similar to other format-specific implementations of AACR.

In recent years, two major developments affecting archival description have emerged: the International Council on Archives’ General International Standard Archival Description (ISAD(G)) and International Standard Archival Authority Record for Corporate Bodies, Persons, and Families (ISAAR (CPF)).¹¹ Just as the Anglo-American cataloging community interprets the larger International Standard Bibliographic Description (ISBD) framework, American archival cataloging rules have attempted to respond to changes in the international ISAD(G). ISAD(G) might be seen as an archival Dublin Core set of descriptive elements. These core elements can be used at any level of description (e.g., folder or series)

Attempts to create a joint descriptive standard for the American and Canadian archival communities and to accommodate international standards ISAD(G) and ISAAR(CPF) reached a state of hopeful optimism. Although there was not enough common ground between American and Canadian archivists to create joint content standards, “the dialogue between Canadian and U.S. archivists will surely continue.”¹² In the meantime, DACS corresponds very closely to the elements of ISAD(G) and ISAAR(CPF) with only one element excluded. The Level of Description element is excluded based on the acknowledgement that no consensus exists on how to apply terminology for more than five levels of description, and that recording such complexity does not in itself link multilevel descriptions.¹³

DACS, like APPM before it, serves as a replacement for the skeletal rules in AACR2 chapter 4 for cataloging manuscripts, but makes conscious departures from AACR tradition in some ways. It “provides more specific guidance in the description of contemporary archival materials and eliminates some of the less user-friendly aspects of AACR2, including many abbreviations and the coded recording of uncertain dates, conventions necessitated by the space limitations of 3 x 5 catalog cards but no longer helpful or necessary in modern information systems.”¹⁴ Eliminating these less user-friendly aspects may pose the greatest challenge to our thinking about cataloging rules.

DACS begins with a “Statement of Principles,” a “recapitulation of generally accepted archival principles.”¹⁵ This section recaps essential ways in which describing archival materials may differ from describing library materials, particularly in fundamental areas such as respect des fonds, the relationships between arrangement and description, and the description of creators. Next is an “Overview of Archival Description,” which outlines both Access Tools such as MARC 21 and Encoded Archival Description (EAD) finding aids, as well as Access Points that should be provided.

“Part I: Describing Archival Materials” includes “rules to ensure the creation of consistent, appropriate, and self-explanatory descriptions of archival material.”¹⁶ “Part II: Describing Creators” offers a uniquely archival perspective. Naming creators is not sufficient. “Additional information is required regarding the persons, families, and corporate bodies responsible for the creation, assembly, accumulation, and/or maintenance and use of archival materials being described.”¹⁷ This indicates the importance of context in archival description.

“Part III: Forms of Names” consists of “information about creating standardized forms for the names of persons, families, or corporate bodies associated with archival materials … . These can be used in descriptive elements, archival authority records, or as index terms.”¹⁸ Finally, DACS concludes with appendixes, a glossary, a list of companion standards, crosswalks, and full EAD and MARC 21 examples.

At the time of DACS’s publication, its departures from AACR2 were nearly revolutionary. In summing up the changes in archival cataloging practices brought about by the possibilities of EAD-encoded finding aids and their relationship to cataloging, Hensen suggested that new cataloging paradigms had not yet emerged. Referring to the promise of revolutionary bibliographic control at the International Conference on the Principles and Future Direction of AACR convened in 1997, he believed the

inertia inherent in existing catalogs of millions upon millions of bibliographic records is sufficient to discourage most library bureaucrats and administrators from undertaking massive and systematic changes—particularly in an environment that is itself so volatile as to defy reasonable calculation… . [The] archival community … concluded that it must proceed on its own, while the library world may yet move more decisively. ¹⁹

In the last few years, the ongoing process of development of new cataloging standards for mainstream materials has revealed more obvious parallels between DACS and the emerging successor to AACR2. The prospectus for RDA illustrates clearly that some of the major issues articulated in DACS are being considered within the library cataloging community as well.²⁰

Prominent among them is that these rules should be based on principles, should cover all types of materials, should be easy to use and interpret, and “will be used as a resource beyond the library community to facilitate metadata interoperability.”²¹ This broadening of the scope of AACR underscores the emerging Web-format world. Also important is the statement that “the language needs to be clearer and more direct, and that library jargon should be avoided.”²²

In keeping with the idea that RDA is marketed more towards metadata communities beyond libraries, rules will be structured “to facilitate application to a wide variety of resources” with general instructions that are “formulated in clear, concise, and simple terms,” supplemented with more detailed instructions applicable to complicated situations.²³ In addition, the standard will encompass a “general movement towards simplification and an emphasis on principle-based cataloger’s judgment.”²⁴ Another point of similarity is that RDA “establishes a clear line of separation between the recording of data and the presentation of data.”²⁵

RDA’s three-part structure seems to also closely parallel that of DACS, with the first part focusing on resource description. The second will cover the provision of access points for “relationships” and the third covering the formulation of name and title access points and other data used for authority control.²⁶

The development of format-specific rules for archives and manuscripts within the context of RDA also merits mention. The Library of Congress (LC) and SAA have both responded to proposed archival rules to supersede AACR2 chapter 4 in RDA. While the future integration of these comments and DACS’s format-specific rules into RDA remains unclear, the standards will likely continue to overlap to some degree.²⁷

While DACS and RDA both seem revolutionary in many respects, perhaps some of these suggestions have not been taken far enough. If a drive to simplify records and tailor resource description to both users and the materials themselves are noble goals, several areas could be further developed. Although none of these suggestions are novel and provocative, and authors have proposed many of them in the literature before, the emergence of new codes provides another opportunity to raise the questions. It also allows some context for examining how major changes might be made.

First among these seems to be abbreviations. Separating the content of a bibliographic description from its format finally divorces, at least in theory, the description from the legacy of the catalog card. Many abbreviations continue to persist from that legacy. What is the reason, for example, to insist on abbreviations such as “ca.” before dates, when other, fuller syntax might make the point much more clearly to a universal audience?

RDA promises to “minimize the need for retrospective adjustments when integrating data produced using RDA into existing files.”⁴³ This is also the case with DACS, which should cause very little conflict between descriptions created using it and APPM, for example. In the major source of potential conflict, family names, the Anglo-American cataloging community could learn from the specialists in archives. For example, even if RDA does not adopt the user-friendly recommendations on abbreviations, records will be no more difficult to interpret than those records created using pre-AACR rules and punctuation conventions that exist in our combined catalogs to this day.

Another major opportunity is to use DACS as a springboard to examine all aspects of archival description, from initial processing documentation to final finding aids and catalog records. Particularly in those environments where these functional tasks are undertaken by different people, DACS can provide a common ground for archivists, catalogers, and other personnel to look for efficiencies and improvements in the process, an area that some in the profession have identified as a pressing need.⁴⁴

The authority work required by both libraries and archives might benefit from a more collaborative approach, as well. Would maintaining an authorized heading be possible in a wiki-like environment, allowing any institution to contribute additional information or references as they see fit? This is already present in the popular environment, where hyperlinks to explanatory materials often point readers to Wikipedia as an authoritative source.⁴⁵ This allows readers unfamiliar with a topic or concept to be introduced to further information without interrupting the narrative flow of the text. It also might lead to greater standardization simply through forcing the blogger to consider the relationship between the term as used and the term as “authorized” in Wikipedia as the link is constructed. The same principle might work well with the kinds of historical or biographical contexts provided for names and even subjects in resource descriptions. Particularly among specialized communities, this decentralized approach might be more beneficial than limiting references based on the constraints of our old library systems, and would leverage subject expertise where needed.

Another area where such cooperative authority work might benefit both users and libraries is in the realm of serial title changes. Although DACS proposes no such thing, a broad interpretation of the rules for recording administrative structure, predecessor and successor bodies, and names of corporate bodies might allow such context, removed from the heading, to serve as an innovative way to handle serial title changes. For example, if long narratives of administrative histories were provided outside the context of resource catalogs, including references contributed cooperatively for varying names and titles, with a single entry point for the serial itself, the function of a serial title name might be served without ongoing maintenance currently required by current cataloging rules.

The final, and perhaps most challenging, development might be to take simplification of creator heading rules further. For example, AACR2 currently devotes the bulk of chapter 22 to the “exceptions”—headings that are not commonly encountered in most libraries and archives in the English-speaking world. They are even called “Special Rules for Names in Certain Languages,” a title that acknowledges just how obscure these headings are. Entire sections are devoted to Indonesian and Malay names, which are so complex that even the detail found in these rules cannot clarify them for an audience with no knowledge of these languages. Since catalogers working with large collections of Malay materials are likely to have greater knowledge about the formation of these names, as well as reference sources not available to average librarians, cataloging codes could be simplified and shortened tremendously by removing these rules entirely and pointing people who need to formulate these headings to another source.

This would have several benefits. The code itself would be shorter and underlying principles would be more apparent, leading to better-developed cataloger judgment. The perception of complexity that is often seen as a reason not to create descriptions using AACR-type rules might be mitigated. Finally, the disconnect between subject expert usage and cataloger usage that has plagued library history (most recently with the romanization of Chinese characters) possibly could be avoided.

DACS has foreshadowed RDA in transforming description of cultural heritage materials for an Anglo-American world. Many of its innovations, such as separating content from carrier and content from context, are being incorporated in the revision of library standards. Others, such as reducing or eliminating the use of abbreviations, may be more controversial in the larger library community. Nonetheless, catalogers not familiar with archives would do well to think about how archival materials mirror in many ways the types of materials they increasingly are being expected to organize for retrieval. The parallels are not exact, but they are informative.

The impact of DACS at this time is limited to the archival community in the United States, since it is an SAA standard. Just as harmonization between AACR and other non-English speaking standards has been difficult to achieve due to differing descriptive traditions, the efforts to address standards for archives across the world will prove as frustratingly complex. Unlike the MARC environment, where catalogers are largely dependent on bibliographic utilities, archivists retain a high degree of control over their own descriptive records, making compliance difficult, if not impossible, to ensure. DACS attempts to address this problem through flexibility, but that same flexibility may lead to a high degree of non-standardization, even when archivists and catalogers are attempting to follow its guidelines. The legacy of archival description residing in other systems, such as paper finding aids, card files, or even databases, must be addressed.

This leads to one last question that must be asked about the future of all descriptive standards in the cultural heritage community: why should other communities care? Certainly the profession has been successful at standardizing bibliographic description of books and serials to a high degree, even across the English-speaking world. Other types of materials have remained segregated within systems that seem to work for them. Even communities such as museums, which often share libraries’ emphasis on standardized vocabulary for descriptive fields (such as terms from the Art & Architecture Thesaurus) may not see a need to adopt more library-like practices for their entire descriptive framework, despite the best intentions of the drafters of RDA. We must ask ourselves what we are offering these other communities before attempting to create a standard that we hope they may want to use.

Any effort to revise descriptive standards must balance the historical value and proven results of our rules with the promise of the future. DACS succeeds in doing this for archival materials, while still retaining a refreshing simplicity and brevity. We might hope descriptive standards for library materials could achieve the same.