2.1 Provenance Context
2.1.3 Self-Documentation
While documentation activities cover the observation and documentation by one actor of an-other’s activities, many such documentation activities are in fact the observation and document-ation of one’s own. One of the most prominent examples would be a group documenting its own meeting by means of minutes.
General Pattern TheSelf-Documentationpattern covers thecontext of creationof documents as the result of the direct or indirect observation and documentation of an actor’s own activities.
This pattern is a specialization of theDocumentation(V:2.1.2) pattern. TheSelf-Documentation pattern exhibits one distinct principal sense:
1. The documents (E31) created by a direct or indirect documentation or observation of one’s own activities: For example, a parliamentarian group documents its own meetings, or travelers on a journey write a report about their trip.
Figure34shows the generalSelf-Documentationpattern. Self-documentation is represented with the new classC2akmSelf-Documentationas a sub-class ofC1akmDocumentation. The main difference to the parent pattern is that instances of the classE7 Activityare documented that are carried out by thesameinstance of the classE39 Actorwho is also carrying out the self-documentation.
Figure 34– GeneralSelf-Documentationpattern.
Figure2.1.3shows that an instance of the classE39 Actorcarries out both the self-documentation activity (C2akm) and the activity (E7) itself, which is documented by the self-documentation activity.
As in the case of theDocumentationpattern, the self-documentation is based on a mandate which determines the self-documentation in terms of its principle targets (R4.1akmand R4.2akm).
These targets are either types of activities or particular activities, both of which are, again, carried out by the same instance ofE39 Actorwho has been entrusted (R3akm) with the mandate (C5akm) to document these activities.
The result of such mandate-based self-documentation are oftenofficial accounts (Rechenschafts-berichte)such as proceedings, government statements, or minutes, but also other “unofficial”
documents on the internal business and proceedings of agencies.
In other words, the viewpoint potentially found in such documents pertains to an actor and what this actor would like others to know or believe about his or her own activities. This viewpoint can be an internal one, in this case potentially relatively “unfiltered” and typically
“non-public”, or a public one, in which case the documented perspective is likely to be filtered.
For example, the members of a parliamentarian committee document their meetings by taking minutes. Such meetings are carried out by all participants of that meeting and every participant is formally a contributor to its minutes.
The classE65 Creation, of whichC2akmSelf-Documentationis a sub-class, refers to those actors who created the content of a document and not simply the person who actually wrote down the text. This difference is not explicitly addressed in the general pattern; however, the CRM propertyP14.1 in the role ofwould permit the specification of the role played by an actor during a creation activity. Large quantities of documents in state archives are probably the results of such self-documentation activities; that is, activities where an administrative body or state institution created documentation about its everyday business.
Example - “Minutes of a particular group”
Context “I would like to visit the Bundesarchiv SAPMO in Berlin in order to look up various documents of the KPD and SPD for the time between 1914 and 1933.”
Q002-01-04barch “[I would like to see] the minutes of the Reichstag (1919-1930).”
The general question type isresource discovery <specific type>. Thewantedentity is<activity>.
The relevantgivenentities areparticular group(“Reichstag”), atime-span(“1919-1930”), and type of document(“minutes”). Thesupplementaryinformation includesparticular group(“KPD”,
“SED”).
The question is amaterial factquestion since it inquires about an observable relationship between a document, the minutes, and documented activities. Theprovenance contextis self-doc [particular group]since we are looking for documents the Reichstag created about its own activities. Theaboutness contextisevents [type of activity].
The question does not specify any particular activity or type of activity documented by the requested minutes. However, since the user is asking for minutes of the Reichstag, “meeting” as a general type of activity can be inferred. Similarly, since a general type of requested document is given in the question, the query could specify a controlled term such as “minutes” as the type of the requested documents.
Figure35shows a possible query instantiation: The query asks for any documents (E31) of the type “minutes” which are about any activity (E7) of the type “meeting”. These activities occurred during the time-span (E52) 1919 - 1930. The documents are the result of any self-documentation (C2akm) activity recording any activities of the type “meeting”, both of which have been carried by the same actor (E39). This actor was a member of the Reichstag (E74) and had been entrusted with a mandate (C5akm), here the particular example of the “parliamentary rules of procedure of the Reichstag”, to take minutes of meetings on which the self-documentation activity was based.
Figure 35– Q002-01-04barch: Minutes of the Reichstag.
Such a query would retrieve any documents of the type “minutes” documenting any “meeting”
activity of an actor who was a member of the Reichstag and who documented these meetings according to the particular mandate “parliamentary rules of procedure of the Reichstag”.
In this query pattern, the generic classE39 Actoris used because the user’s inquiry does not specify whether only particular groups or type of groups conducted such self-documentation activities or whether particular persons or type of persons also did so. By using the generic class E39 Actorthe query remains inclusive in this regard.
Similarly, by using the fictitious term “meeting” as an example for the type (E55) of activity (E7), any such activity would be included in a query. Controlled terms from a controlled vocabulary would allow an easy adaptation of the query to target more specific types of activities of the Reichstag such as parliamentary or committee meetings. The latter is the case in the next example.
Example - “Minutes of committee meetings”
Context “[person name], as a delegate in the Reichstag from 1920 until 1930, was active in various committees of the Reichstag.”
Q002-05-02barch “Are the minutes of these committee meetings (...) in the Bundesarchiv?”
The general question type isresource discovery <specific type>. Thewantedentity is<activity>.
The relevantgivenentities areparticular person(“[person name]”),particular group(“Reichstag”), type of group (“committees of the Reichstag”), time-span (“1920-1930”), the type of activity (“committee meeting”), andtype of document(“minutes”).
The question is amaterial factquestion since it inquires about an observable relationship between documents and a type of activity. Theprovenance contextisself-doc [type of group]since we are looking for documents the Reichstag created about its own activities. The aboutness contextisevents [type of activity].
While this question is very similar to the previous one, here the user is more specific regarding the requested minutes. In this example, a specific type of meeting is given, “committee meetings”, and a particular person is given who has been active in various committees of the Reichstag. The statement “was active” can be interpreted as the membership of that particular person in various committee groups of the Reichstag, such as particular committees on legal or financial affairs.
The user is interested in the minutes of activities which were of the type “committee meeting”
and have been carried out by those groups of which the particular person was a member.
Figure36shows a principal query pattern which mostly resembles that of Figure35.
Figure 36– Q002-05-02barch: Minutes of committee meetings.
The query pattern could be modified to retrieve additional potentially relevant documents.
For example, the question could be interpreted as focusing on committee meetings in which the particular person participated regardless of whether he or she was a member of a particular group. In this case, the entityE74 Groupcould simply be replaced with the entityE21 Personin Figure36.
Example - “Report of a particular activity”
Context “In 1980, a delegation of the FDGB led by Harry Tisch laid down a wreath of flowers in Oradour. The visit was part of a trip of the FDGB to France (...). At this time, Tisch was also a member of the Politbüro of the ZK of the SED.”
Q005-08-02barch “Where can (...) the report on this trip (...) be found?”
The general question type isresource discovery <specific item>. The wantedentity is <activ-ity>. The relevantgivenentities areparticular group(“FDGB”, “Politbüro of the ZK”, “SED”), particular person(“Harry Tisch”),particular place(“Oradour”, “France”), time-span(“1980”), par-ticular activity(“trip to France”, “laying down of a wreath of flowers”), andparticular document (“report”).
This is amaterial factquestion since it inquires about an observable relationship between a document and its topic. Theprovenance context isself-doc [actor]since an actor who must
have participated in the trip created the report; at least the context of the inquiry suggests that an official or internal report is requested and not other types of account such as newspaper articles, in which case a documentation activity would be prudent. Theaboutness contextisevents [particular activity].
The provenance context of this question is specified as self-documentation because a report about an activity in the sense of a direct account can only be written by someone who has participated in the activity. The query pattern therefore assumes an unknown person (E21) to have carried out both the self-documentation and the documented activity.74
The further context of the question leads us to conclude that the user is looking for an official report on the trip to France rather than any kind of indirect or unofficial account. The exemplary query pattern therefore includes as an additional parameter an unknown mandate which has been entrusted to the person who carried out the self-documentation, in turn based on this mandate. The query is thus limited to official reports of the trip insofar as these reports have resulted from self-documentation activities based on an official mandate.
For the requested documents, the type “report” may be additionally assumed. The usefulness of this information depends on the existence of an adequate controlled vocabulary listing appropriate terms for types of documents. The type of document may also be derived from the particular or the type of mandate or self-documentation. Even though the user asks for the specific item“the”report on the trip to France, there may of course be several reports available.
The query, therefore, inquires after any document reporting on the trip to France as the result of the described provenance context.
Figure37shows a possible query pattern. The query asks for any document (E31) of the type
“report” (E55) which is about the particular activity (E7), “the trip to France of the FDGB in 1980”, and which has resulted from any kind of self-documentation activity (C2akm). Both the self-documentation and the trip to France must have been carried out by the same unknown person (E21) who, at the same time, had been entrusted with a mandate (C5akm) to write a report (C2akm) on the trip (E7).
74Note that “report” could be interpreted differently as also including indirect accounts of the trip such as a newspaper article. In this case, the documentation activity could be used in order to widen the scope of the query.
Figure 37– Q005-08-02barch: Report on a trip to France.
The trip to France of the FDGB in 1980 most likely occurred before the actual writing of the report. The activity of self-documentation in this example conceptually comprises the extent of the documented activity, the trip to France, and the time-span during which the report was written.
The particular activity “the trip to France of the FDGB in 1980” could be more explicitly described by additional given contextual information, such as the place “France”, the date “1980”, or the group “FDGB” as the actor carrying out the activity. The role of contextual information for specifying events and activities is described in detail in theEventspattern (V:2.2.2).
Since the user provided additional contextual information in the inquiry, the rather general query pattern shown in Figure37could be further specified with particular given information.
For example, instead of querying for any person, the query could specifically ask for the particu-lar person, “Harry Tisch”, as the actor who participated in the trip to France and wrote a report of it.
On the other hand, a query could try the particular group “FDGB” as the actor who carried out both activities. Finally, by using the classE39 Actor, the query would remain inclusive regarding whether a particular group or person acted in the context of the two activities. In this regard, the question is a good example for possible indirections.
Statistics In the whole sample, theSelf-Documentationpattern has been assigned to 49 ques-tions representing 10% of all quesques-tions, of which 39 belong to the sample from the BArch representing 11% of all question in that sample. The remaining 10 questions belong to the sample from the NAN and represent 7.6% of all questions in that sample.
The most important primary entity of interest are particular groups with 26 counts in the whole sample, representing 53% of all inquiries. Of these 26 most belong to the BArch sample with 22 questions which represent 56% of all inquiries assigned to theSelf-Documentationpattern in that sample. Only 4 self-documentation questions (40%) with a particular assigned group appear in the NAN sample. In the context of self-documentation, only one particular person
(2%) appears in the whole sample from the NAN. Types of group occur four times (8.2%) in the whole sample of which three (7.7%) are part of the BArch sample and one (10%) of the NAN sample. “Type of persons” does not occur.
Provenance Context All(n=467) BArch (n=345) NAN (n=131)
Self-Documentation 49 10% 39 11% 10 7.6%
- Self-Documentation [ actor ] 18 37% 14 36% 4 40%
- Self-Documentation [ particular person ] 1 2% 0 - 1 10%
- Self-Documentation [ type of person ] 0 - 0 - 0
-- Self--Documentation [ particular group ] 26 53% 22 56% 4 40%
- Self-Documentation [ type of group ] 4 8.2% 3 7.7% 1 10%
Table 7– Occurrences of the general patternSelf-Documentation. Note that percentages for the primary entities of interest are per current general pattern.
In many cases, the more generalDocumentationpattern (V:2.1.2) has been assigned even though the more specificSelf-Documentationpattern would also have been applicable. The numbers indicate that the self-documentation of particular groups is relevant; that is, documents about one’s own activities such as reports or minutes.
Summary TheSelf-Documentationpattern extends theDocumentationpattern and specifically describes the documentation of one’s own activities. This idea of observing one’s own activities, again in a direct or indirect manner and possibly based on a mandate, is represented by the new classC2akmSelf-Documentation.
The pattern emphasizes official or unofficial, public or internal accounts of an actor, especially of state and administrative agencies, regarding the activities of this actor and what this actor would like other actors to know or believe regarding these activities. The decisive criterion is that an actor presents his or her own viewpoint regarding his or her own actions. The designation – internal or external and thus public – of such self-documents can be modelled using the
Correspondencepattern (91:162).
In particular, “internal” documents, for example, minutes or accountability reports, are of high significance in state archives. Their value for historical research is that they result from routine and the daily business of administrative bodies and state agencies, thus documenting their plans, decisions and discussions, from internal and potentially “unofficial” and relatively
“unfiltered” perspectives. Questions about how and why particular groups reached decisions or inquiries focusing on the reasons, plans (V:2.2.3) and aims of particular groups will utilize this pattern.