THE PROBLEM
Why should the next person start again when someone has already investigated the same question?
A document’s context often has to be reconstructed when it is used in another system. Sources, classification and history become difficult to follow across organisations.
What if … · hypothesis
A record could carry its context.
An archivist finds a decision used in a later case. What if they could trace the original, see which version was used and understand what others built on, even after a system change? The real consultation file below offers a small trail to begin with.
REAL SOURCES · FOCUSED EXAMPLE
Follow a case number beyond its register
Consultation file I2020/02346 contains responses to inquiry SOU 2020:55. Bill 2021/22:225 refers back to both the inquiry and the consultation file. Select a step and inspect the evidence in the preserved bill.
EVIDENCE IN THE BILL
The bill refers to the consultation file
Remissvaren finns tillgängliga i Regeringskansliet (I2020/02346).The passage comes from the project’s preserved copy of the bill. The relationship label is our interpretation and the record has not been independently reviewed.
Open the publisher’s source590 relationship records and candidates were identified in the bill. Of these, 562 have not been independently reviewed. This count concerns the bill, not the entire consultation file.
Three kinds of value, three different views
The same chain may be valuable locally, across organisations and for public scrutiny. That does not mean all content should be shared. Choose a proposed view to see what we want to test.
Local
The responsible organisation needs source records, versions, case history and the judgments that give context. This is a proposed view, not an operating Intertween node.
LET’S EXPLORE
What we want to explore with the framework
We want to examine whether Wrapper can preserve source references and retention information, and whether Tracker can make the history understandable. Where does the model fit existing practice, and where does it fall short?
These sources are openly published. We have not yet shown an operating organisational node, a complete consultation file as a Knowledge Object or a tested arrangement for local, shared and public views. That is the next question to explore with registrars, archivists and people who build and steward the systems.
The protocol describes how identity, source, rights, relationships and history could travel without taking over responsibility for the original.
Read the protocol overviewPossible source material
Public records, decisions, registry entries and disposal decisions.
An example
Bill 2021/22:225 refers to consultation file I2020/02346 and inquiry SOU 2020:55. The connection can be evidenced in the bill text. This shows a published source chain, not a complete case or an operating Knowledge Object.
What we need to learn
Which details exist in the case register but not in the published text? Which judgments and rights need to accompany a relationship in another context? A real operational case may change both the problem framing and the proposed response.
What should remain useful, and on whose terms?
What evidence must the archive preserve for a decision to be examined, what may others see and who may authorise disposal? A time limit needs to trigger review that takes preservation duties into account.
Questions to test. The examples do not establish that these protections or decision rules are implemented. Read about responsibility and conditions ↗
Test the question together
Do you have a case where records are findable but their context is hard to follow? Start with a small set of records you may use in a test. We describe sources and possible relationships, ask responsible people to review them and examine what could be useful locally, for others and for public scrutiny. The first test can stay with you.
The aim is to learn what actually becomes easier and what the model needs to change.
Start a conversation about this path