Topic
Diplomatics
About: Diplomatics is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 84 publications have been published within this topic receiving 809 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
Journal Article•
TL;DR: In this article, the authors identify the body of knowledge that a trusted record professional needs in order to assess the trustworthiness of digital records and ensure that their continuing authenticity can be demonstrated, if required, at any point during their life cycle.
Abstract: Fifteen years ago, Elizabeth Diamond described the archivist as a forensic scientist. In the past few years, several archival writers have referred to professionals responsible for keeping digital records as trusted keepers or custodians. Undoubtedly, in the digital environment, record professionals are increasingly called to assess and preserve the authenticity of the records they are responsible for, and to act as neutral third parties. But, are they qualified to fulfill this role? This article aims to begin identifying the body of knowledge that a trusted record professional needs in order to assess the trustworthiness of digital records and ensure that their continuing authenticity can be demonstrated, if required, at any point during their life cycle. To do so, it presents some of the concepts developed by the InterPARES Project in the area of diplomatics of digital records; compares them with the relevant concepts of a relatively new discipline called digital forensics; discusses the methodologies used by the two disciplines; and proposes areas that can be jointly investigated by diplomatics and forensics experts to develop an integrated body of knowledge that might be called Digital Records Forensics. RESUME Il y a quinze ans, Elizabeth Diamond decrivait l’archiviste comme un scientifique medicolegal. Depuis quelques annees, plusieurs auteurs dans le domaine de l’archivistique ont qualifie les professionnels responsables de la preservation des documents numeriques de conservateurs de confiance (« trusted keepers »), ou de gardiens (« custodians »). Sans doute, dans l’environnement numerique, on fait de plus en plus appel aux professionnels de l’information pour evaluer et preserver l’authenticite des documents dont ils sont responsables, et pour agir en tant que tierce parties neutres. Mais sont-ils qualifies pour remplir ce role? Cet article tente d’identifier les connaissances que doit avoir le professionnel d’information de confiance pour etre capable d’evaluer la veracite (« trustworthiness ») des documents numeriques et pour assurer que leur authenticite puisse etre demontree, au besoin, a n’importe quel point dans leur cycle de vie. Pour ce faire, l’article presente des concepts developpes par le projet InterPARES dans le domaine de la diplomatique des documents numeriques; il compare ceux-ci aux concepts pertinents derives d’une discipline relativement nouvelle, le numerique medicolegal (« digital forensics »); il discute des methodologies dont se servent les deux disciplines; et il propose des domaines qui pourraient etre explores conjointement par les experts en diplomatique et en numerique medicolegal afin de developper un corpus de savoir integre que l’on pourrait nommer la science medicolegale des documents numeriques (« Digital Records Forensics »).
87 citations
Journal Article•
62 citations
1 Jun 1999
60 citations
TL;DR: The authors compare early works on diplomatics by Mabillon, Daniel Papebroche, and Barthelemy Germon against German ius archivi theorists including Rutger Ruland and Ahasver Fritsch to reveal two incommensurate approaches that emerged around 1700 for assessing the authority of written records.
Abstract: Jean Mabillon's De re diplomatica, whose importance for diplomatics and the philosophy of history is well recognized, also contributed to the seventeenth-century European debate over the relationship among documents, archives, and historical or juridical proof. This article juxtaposes early works on diplomatics by Mabillon, Daniel Papebroche, and Barthelemy Germon against German ius archivi theorists including Rutger Ruland and Ahasver Fritsch to reveal two incommensurate approaches that emerged around 1700 for assessing the authority of written records. Diplomatics concentrated on comparing the material and textual features of individual documents to authentic specimens in order to separate the genuine from the spurious, whereas the ius archivi emphasized the publica fides (public faith) that documents derived from their placement in an authentic sovereign's archive. Diplomatics' emergence as a separate auxiliary science of history encouraged the erasure of archivality from the primary conditions of documentary assessment for historians, however, while the ius archivi's privileging of institutional over material criteria for authority foreshadowed European state practice and the evolution of archivistics into the twentieth century. This article investigates these competing discourses of evidence and their implications from the perspective of early modern archival practices.
33 citations
Related Topics (5)
Performance Metrics
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2021 | 1 |
| 2019 | 4 |
| 2018 | 3 |
| 2016 | 2 |
| 2015 | 5 |
| 2014 | 1 |