I'm not sure whether your comments about local practices were directed to me or not, but I have a few comments.
Tom Berry asked the initial question and I mentioned a few complications-like the fact that our business office uses one name and all other offices use another name.
This is why rules don't always help. You need to go with instinct for clarification. It's not "seat of the pants."
I, too, am a library school-based trained archivist and I do rely on rules when I need to. In fact, if I were still working in the historical society setting and received this collection of business records, I would use the latest form of the name for the collection title and cross reference to the previous names. Perhaps I would even make a reference to Ashland Shakespeare Festival even though that was never the name of the business. As for Portland Center Stage (both old and current versions) and OSF-Portland, I would lump seasons 1-6 together as OSF-Portland (the latest version of those six seasons). I hold on to the name from the first season internally because it was the premiere, and also to establish the historical context and the connection to the history of the currently operating theatre.
I don't see a problem with organizing chronologically, by either library or archival standards. With an organization, it shows when the change occurred.
I am the guardian of history around here, so whatever any other office calls us-or patrons or press-I need to verify facts.
Kit Leary
Oregon Shakespeare Festival
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Landis [SMTP:blandis@LIB.UCI.EDU]
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 9:12 AM
To: ARCHIVES@LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU
Subject: Re: Business name changes and collection titles
Hurrah for Sally Childs-Helton for introducing the notion that there might
be standards here that can help to answer the question that Thomas Berry
originally posted. As a profession we seem to take a "seat of the pants"
approach to naming collections, as though names don't have meaning and
consistency isn't useful to end users in understanding the materials to
which we provide access. The terms "records," "papers," and "collection"
have specific meanings defined for use by U.S. archivists in Hensen's APPM
(see 1.1B4). It mystifies me that we don't tend to gravitate to standards
for advice on matters of description, but perhaps that's just my library
school-based archival training? I'd love to hear more discussion on this
from folks who prefer to stick to local practices for description. What do
you see as the benefits of that approach?
Bill
--
| Bill Landis
| Manuscripts Librarian, Special Collections and Archives
| The UCI Libraries, University of California
| P.O. Box 19557, Irvine, CA 92623-9557
| 949 824.3113 Voice | 949 824.2472 Fax
| blandis@uci.edu
A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List!
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to listserv@listserv.muohio.edu
In body of message: SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname
*or*: UNSUB ARCHIVES
To post a message, send e-mail to archives@listserv.muohio.edu
Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html
Problems? Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <rschmidt@lib.muohio.edu>