[1]
Abraham, T. 1991. Collection policy or documentation strategy: theory and practice. American Archivist. 54, Winter (1991).
[2]
Abraham, Terry 1995. Documentation strategies: A decade (or more) later.
[3]
Acceptance in Lieu: https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/tax-incentives/acceptance-lieu.
[4]
Alexander, Martha Latika and Gautam, J.N 2004. Interoperability and open archives initiative protocol for metadata harvesting ( OAI-PMH ).
[5]
Anarchivist 14AD. My Journey With Encoded Archival Description.
[6]
Anchor, R. 2013. ‘More product less process’: method, madness or practice? Archives & Records. 34, 2 (2013).
[7]
ArchivalSoftware: http://archivalsoftware.pbworks.com/w/page/13600254/FrontPage.
[8]
Archives and Records Association Guide to standards.
[9]
Archives and Records Council Wales 2005. Archives Network Wales project evaluation: Results of a user survey , July-August 2005.
[10]
Archives Task Force 2004. Listening to the past, Speaking to the future: Report of the Archives Task Force.
[11]
Australian Society of Archivists. Committee on Descriptive Standards 2005. Describing archives in context: a guide to Australian practice. Australian Society of Archivists, Committee on Descriptive Standards.
[12]
Baerlett, N 2001. Appraising university records: A retrospective analysis.
[13]
Bailey, C 1997. From top down: The practice of macro-appraisal. Archivaria. 43, Spring (1997).
[14]
van Ballegooie, M. and Duff, W. 2006. Digital Curation Manual: Instalment on archival metadata.
[15]
Barry, L. and Tedd, L.A. 2008. Local studies collections online: an investigation in Irish public libraries. Program. 42, 2 (2008).
[16]
Bearman, D. and Lytle, R. 1985. The power and principle of provenance. Archivaria. 21, (1985).
[17]
Bearman, D. and Lytle, R. 1985. The power and principle of provenance. Archivaria. 21, (1985).
[18]
Beattie, Heather 2009. Where narratives meet: Archival description, provenance, and women’s diaries. Libraries and the Cultural Record. 44, 1 (2009).
[19]
Benedict, K. 1984. Invitation to a bonfire: Reappraisal and de-accessioning of records as collection management tools in an Archives – A reply to Leonard Rapport. American Archivist. 47, Winter (1984).
[20]
Blue Ribbon Task Force 2010. Sustainable Economies for a Digital Planet: Ensuring Long-Term Access to Digital Information.
[21]
Boles, F. 1982. Disrespecting original order. American Archivist. 45, 1 (1982).
[22]
Boles, F. 1985. Exploring the black box: The appraisal of university administrative records. American Archivist. 48, 2 (1985).
[23]
Boles, F. 1987. Mix two parts interest to one part information and appraise until done: Understanding contemporary record selection processes. American Archivist. 50, Summer (1987).
[24]
Boles, F. and Greene, M.A. 1996. Et tu Schellenberg? Thoughts on the dagger of American appraisal theory. American Archivist. 59, Summer (1996).
[25]
Boles, F. and Young, J.M. 1991. Archival appraisal. Neal-Schuman Publishers.
[26]
Booms, Hans 1987. Society and the formation of a documentary heritage: Issues in the appraisal of archival sources. Archivaria. 24, (1987).
[27]
Bouché, Nicole 1997. Implementing EAD in the Yale University Library. American Archivist. 60, (1997).
[28]
Brichford, M.J. and Society of American Archivists 1977. Archives and manuscripts: appraisal and accessioning. Society of Archivists.
[29]
Brothman, Brien 1991. Orders of value: Probing the theoretical terms of archival practice. Archivaria. 32, (1991).
[30]
Brown, A. 2007. Developing Practical Approaches to Active Preservation. International Journal of Digital Curation. 2, 1 (2007), 3–11. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v2i1.10.
[31]
Brown, A. 2013. Practical digital preservation: a how-to guide for organizations of any size. Facet Publishing.
[32]
Brown, R. 1995. Macro-appraisal theory and the context of the public records creator. Archivaria. 40, (1995).
[33]
Bülow, A. et al. 2011. Preparing collections for digitization. Facet, in association with the National Archives.
[34]
Bunn, J. 2013. Developing descriptive standards: a renewed call to action. Archives and Records.
[35]
Caswell, M. 2012. Using classification to convict the Khmer Rouge. Journal of Documentation. 68, 2 (Mar. 2012), 162–184. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1108/00220411211209177.
[36]
CDL Digital Special Collections 2009. Collection Management and Creation Strategies for UC Special Collections and Archives.
[37]
Chan, L and Zeng, M 2006. Metadata interoperability and standardization: a study of methodology part 1: Achieving interoperability at schema level. D-Lib Magazine. 12, 6 (2006).
[38]
Clanchy, M.T. 2013. From memory to written record: England 1066-1307. Wiley-Blackwell.
[39]
Committee of Inquiry into the Changing Learner Experience 2009. Higher education in a Web 2.0 world.
[40]
Consultative Committee for Space Data System Practices 2012. Reference model for an open archival information system (OAIS).
[41]
Cook, T. 2000. Archival science and postmodernism: New formulations for old concepts. Archival Science. 1, 1 (2000).
[42]
Cook, T. 1993. The concept of the archival fonds in the post-custodial era: Theory, problems and solutions. Archivaria. 35, (1993).
[43]
Cook, T. 2011. We are what we keep: We keep what we are: Archival appraisal past, present and future. Journal of the Society of Archivists. 32, 2 (2011).
[44]
Cook, T. 1997. What is past is prologue: A history of archival ideas since 1898 and the future paradigm shift. Archivaria. 43, Spring (1997).
[45]
Cook, Terry 2000. Appraisal methodology: Macro appraisal and functional analysis. Part A: Concept and theory.
[46]
Cook, Terry 2001. Fashionable nonsense or professional rebirth: Postmodernism and the practice of archives. Archivaria. 51, Spring (2001).
[47]
Cook, Terry 2004. Macro-appraisal and functional analysis: documenting governance rather than government. Journal of the Society of Archivists. 25, (2004).
[48]
Cook, Terry 2005. Macroappraisal in theory and practice: Origins, characteristics and implementation in Canada, 1950-2000. Archival Science. 4, (2005).
[49]
Cook, Terry 1997. What is past is prologue: A history of archival ideas since 1898 and the future paradigm shift. Archivaria. 43, Spring (1997).
[50]
Cook, Terry and Schwartz, Joan M 2002. Archives, records and power: From (postmodern) theory to (archival) performance. Archival Science. 2, 3–4 (2002).
[51]
Corporation for National Research Initiatives Welcome to the handle system.
[52]
Council of Nova Scotia Archives’ 2009. Archives Management Software Review.
[53]
Couture, C. 1995. Archival appraisal, a status report. Archivaria. 59, (1995).
[54]
Cox, E and Czechowski, L 2007. Subject access points in the MARC record and archival finding aid: Enough or too many? Journal of Archival Organization. 5, 4 (2007).
[55]
Cox, R.J. 2004. No innocent deposits: forming archives by rethinking appraisal. Scarecrow Press.
[56]
Cox, R.J. 2002. The end of collecting: Towards a new purpose for archival appraisal. Archival Science. 2, (2002).
[57]
Craig, Barbara L. 2003. Perimeters with fences? Or thresholds with doors? Two views of a border. American Archivist. 66, (2003).
[58]
Craig, B.L. and Thomson Gale (Firm) 2004. Archival appraisal: theory and practice. K.G. Saur.
[59]
Creating a digital New Zealand: New Zealand’s digital content strategy: 2007. http://www.itu.int/wsis/stocktaking/docs/activities/1211236218/DigitalContentStrategy.pdf.
[60]
Curation Reference Manual | Digital Curation Centre: http://www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/curation-reference-manual.
[61]
Currall, J. et al. 2007. The world is all grown digital.... How shall a man persuade management what to do in such times? International Journal of Digital Curation. 2, 1 (2007), 12–28. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v2i1.11.
[62]
Daniel, I. 2009. New digitisation workflow proposal. National Library of Wales.
[63]
Davidson, J 2006. Persistent identifiers.
[64]
Day, M. 2004. The selection, appraisal and retention of digital scientific data: the ERPANET / CODATA workshop. Ariadne. 39 (2004).
[65]
Day, Michael 2002. Metadata mapping between metadata formats.
[66]
Department for Digital, Culture Media & Sport 2021. Export of Objects of Cultural Interest 2018-19 and 2019-20.
[67]
Derangement and Description: A chaotic little archives webcomic: https://derangementanddescription.wordpress.com/.
[68]
Dicken, J. 2000. Twentieth century literary archives: Collecting policies and research initiatives. New directions in archival research. Liverpool University Centre for Archive Studies.
[69]
Documentary Strategies: A Decade (or More) Later: 1995. http://webpages.uidaho.edu/special-collections/papers/docstr10.htm.
[70]
DOI 2011. The DOI system: Factsheets.
[71]
Doylen, Michael 2001. Experiments in deaccessioning: Archives and online auctions. American Archivist. 64, (2001).
[72]
Duchein, Michel 1983. Theoretical principles and practical problems of respect des fonds in archival science. Archivaria. 16, (1983).
[73]
Duff, W. and Harris, V. 2002. Stories and names: Archival description as narrating records and constructing meanings. Archival Science. 2, 3–4 (2002).
[74]
Dunning, A. 2009. Digitizing the past: next steps for public sector digitization. Digital Information: Order or Anarchy?. Facet Publishing. 117–132.
[75]
Duranti, L. 1993. Origin and development of the concept of description. Archivaria. 35, (1993).
[76]
Duranti, Luciana 1994. The concept of appraisal and archival theory. American Archivist. 57, Spring (1994).
[77]
EAD Practices Working Group 2008. Library of Congress Encoded Archival Description best practices.
[78]
EAD Working Group 1998. Development of the encoded archival description DTD.
[79]
EAD Working Group 1998. Development of the encoded archival description DTD.
[80]
EAD Working Group 2002. Encoded archival description tag library version 2002 - EAD technical document No. 2.
[81]
Eastwood, T. 2002. Reflections on the goal of archival appraisal in democratic societies. Archivaria. 54, (2002).
[82]
Edina Data Centre 2011. What is metadata?
[83]
Encoded Archival Context Working Group 2011. Encoded archival context: Corporate bodies, persons and families.
[84]
Europeana: Think Culture 2012. Europeana: Think culture: Strategic plan 2011-2015.
[85]
Europeana: Think Culture Explore Europe’s cultural collections.
[86]
Export licensing: http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/what-we-do/supporting-museums/cultural-property/export-controls/export-licensing/.
[87]
Foote, K.E. 1990. To remember and forget: Archives, memory, and culture. American Archivist. 53, (1990).
[88]
Fox, M 1997. Implementing encoded archival description: An overview of administrative and technical considerations. American Archivist. 60, 3 (1997).
[89]
Garrod, P 2000. Use of the UNESCO thesaurus for subject indexing at UK NDAD. Journal of the Society of Archivists. 21, 1 (2000).
[90]
Gateway to Archives of Scottish Higher Education (GASHE) 2006. GASHE standard for creating activity descriptions.
[91]
George Washington University 2010. University writing class remembers holocaust victims.
[92]
Getty Research Institute 2000. Art and architecture thesaurus online.
[93]
Godby, C.J. et al. 2004. A Repository of Metadata Crosswalks. D-Lib Magazine.
[94]
Goodison, N. 2004. Goodison Review securing the best for our museums: Private giving and Government support. HMSO.
[95]
Goss, S. 2013. Facilitating access to archival material: The creation of EAD records for the online archive of California. PNLA Quarterly. 77, 2 (2013).
[96]
Greene, M.A. and Daniels-Howell, T.J. 1997. Documentation with an attitude: A pragmatist’s guide to the selection and acquisition to modern business records. The records of American business. Society of American Archivists.
[97]
Hackman, L.J. 1987. The documentation strategy process: A model and a case study. American Archivist. 50, Winter (1987).
[98]
Hackman, L.J. and Warnow-Blewett, J. 1987. The documentation strategy process: a model and a case study. American Archivist. 50, Winter (1987), 12–47.
[99]
Hajo, C 2009. Scholarly editing in a Web 2.0 world.
[100]
Halbert, M. 2009. Comparison of Strategies and Policies for Building Distributed Digital Preservation Infrastructure: Initial Findings from the MetaArchive Cooperative. International Journal of Digital Curation. 4, 2 (2009), 43–59. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2218/ijdc.v4i2.92.
[101]
Ham, F.G. 1984. Archival choices: Managing the historical record in an age of abundance. American Archivist. 47, Winter (1984).
[102]
Harvey, D.R. 2010. Digital curation: a how-to-do-it manual. Facet.
[103]
Harvey, Ross 2007. Digital curation manual instalment on appraisal and selection.
[104]
Helen Willa Samuels 1986. Who controls the past. American Archivist. 49, 2 (1986).
[105]
Hensen, S.L. 1983. Archives, personal papers, and manuscripts: a cataloging manual for archival repositories, historical societies, and manuscript libraries. [Manuscript Division, Library of Congress].
[106]
Higgins, Richard 1998. A case study of EAD implementation at Durham University Library Archives and Special Collections. Archives and Museum Informatics. 12, (1998).
[107]
Higgins, S. 2008. The DCC curation lifecycle model. The International Journal of Digital Curation. 3, 1 (2008), 134–140.
[108]
Higgins, S. and Inglis, G. 2003. Implementing EAD: the experience of the NAHSTE project. Journal of the Society of Archivists. 24, 2 (2003), 199–214. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/0037981032000127052.
[109]
Hill, Amanda 2002. Bringing archives online with the Archives Hub. Journal of the Society of Archivists. 23, 2 (2002).
[110]
Hill, Amanda et al. 2006. Different strokes for different folks: Presenting EAD in three UK online catalogues. Journal of Archival Organization. 2–3 (2006), 183–195.
[111]
Hill, Amanda 2004. Serving the invisible researcher: meeting the needs of online users. Journal of the Society of Archivists. 25, (2004).
[112]
Holley, Rose 2010. Crowdsourcing: How and why should libraries do it? D-Lib Magazine. 16, 3/4 (2010).
[113]
Holley, Rose 2010. Crowdsourcing strategies for archives.
[114]
Holley, Rose 2010. Stories to tell: The making of our digital nation.
[115]
Home, Rebecca 2011. Crowdsourcing brings historical archive online.
[116]
Hooland, S. van and Verborgh, R. 2014. Linked data for libraries, archives and museums: how to clean, link and publish your metadata. Facet Publishing.
[117]
Horsman, Peter 2002. The last dance of the phoenix, or the re-discovery of the archival fonds. Archivaria. 54, (2002).
[118]
Hughes, L. 2002. Why digitize? The costs and benefits of digitization. Digitizing collections: strategic issues for the information manager. Facet. 4–30.
[119]
Hughes, L. and Green, D. 2002. Digitizing collections: strategic issues for the information manager. Facet.
[120]
Hull, F. 1981. The use of sampling techniques in the retention of records: A RAMP study with guidelines.
[121]
Hurley, C. The Australian (‘series’) system: An exposition. The Records Continuum: Ian Maclean and Australian Archives First Fifty Years: Ian Maclean’s and Australian Archives First Fifty Years. National Archives of Australia.
[122]
Hurley, C. 1998. The making and keeping of records: (1) What are finding aids for. Archives and Manuscripts. 26, 1 (1998).
[123]
Ide, M. and Weisse, L. 2006. Recommended appraisal guidelines for selecting born digital master programs for preservation and deposit with the Library of Congress.
[124]
International Council on Archives 1996. International Council on Archives code of ethics.
[125]
International Council on Archives 2011. ISAAR (CPF): International standard archival authority record for corporate bodies, persons and families, 2nd Edition.
[126]
International Council on Archives 2000. ISAD(G): General international standard archival description.
[127]
International Dunhuang Project The Silk Road online.
[128]
Jenkinson, H. 1965. A manual of archive administration. Lund, Humphries.
[129]
Jenkinson, H. 1980. Modern archives. Some reflections on T R Schellenberg.
[130]
Jenkinson, H. 1980. The choice of records for preservation in wartime: some practical hints. Selected writings of Sir Hilary Jenkinson.
[131]
Jimerson, R. 2003. Archives and manuscripts: deciding what to save. OCLC Systems & Services. 19, 4 (2003).
[132]
Jimerson, R. 2006. Embracing the power of archives. The American Archivist. 69, 1 (2006).
[133]
Johnston, D 2001. From typescript finding aids to EAD (Encoded Archival Description). A university case study. Journal of the Society of Archivists. 22, 1 (2001).
[134]
Kaplan, Deborah et al. 2011. Archival description in OAI-ORE. Journal of Digital Information. 12, 2 (2011).
[135]
Kiesling, K 1997. EAD as an archival descriptive standard. American Archivist. 60, (1997).
[136]
King, K Introduction to Web 2.0 for archives.
[137]
Kingsley, Nick 2003. Archives Task Force Discussion paper 3: The Electronic "National Archives Network”.
[138]
Kitching, C. and Hart, I. 1995. Collection policy statements. Journal of the Society of Archivists. 16, 1 (Mar. 1995), 7–14. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/00379819509511756.
[139]
Larkin, P. 1983. A neglected responsibility: contemporary literary manuscripts. Required writing: miscellaneous pieces 1955-1982. Faber.
[140]
Lavoie, Brian F 2014. Technology watch report: The Open Archival Information System Reference Model: Introductory guide, 2nd Edition.
[141]
Library of Congress Library of congress authorities.
[142]
Local Government Association Integrated public sector vocabulary.
[143]
Macneil, Heather 2005. Picking our text: Archival description, authenticity, and the archivist as editor. American Archivist. 68, 2 (Fall-Winter) (2005).
[144]
McGovern, N.Y. 2007. A Digital Decade: Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going in Digital Preservation? RLG DigiNews. 11, 1 (2007).
[145]
Meehan, J. 2009. Making the Leap from Parts to Whole: Evidence and Inference in Archival Arrangement and  Description. American Archivist. 72, 1 (2009).
[146]
Menne-Haritz, A. 1994. Appraisal or documentation: Can we appraise archives by selecting content? American Archivist. 57, 3 (1994).
[147]
Mercer, H. 2004. The National Archives appraisal policy: Background paper – the Grigg system and beyond.
[148]
Mildren, Rob 2004. The Scottish Archive Network Project evaluation report.
[149]
Millar, Laura 2002. The death of the fonds and the resurrection of provenance: Archival context in space and time. Archivaria. 53, (2002).
[150]
Miller, D.R. et al. 2004. Putting XML to work in the library: tools for improving access and management. American Library Association.
[151]
Miller, F.M. 1990. Arranging and describing archives and manuscripts. Society of American Archivists.
[152]
Miller, F.M. 1990. Arranging and describing archives and manuscripts. Society of American Archivists.
[153]
Momryk, Myron 2001. "National significance ”: The evolution and development of acquisition strategies in the manuscript division , National Archives of Canada. Archivaria: the Journal of the Association of Canadian Archivists. 52, Fall (2001).
[154]
Morris, L 1997. Developing a cooperative intra-institutional approach to EAD implementation: The Harvard/Radcliffe digital findings aids project. American Archivist. 60, Fall (1997).
[155]
Mortimer, I 1999. ARCHON and the indexes to the National Register of Archives: Past, present and future. Program: Electronic Libraries and Information Systems. 33, (1999).
[156]
Muller, S. et al. 1968. Manual for the arrangement and description of archives. Wilson.
[157]
N2T Archival resource key (ARK) identifiers.
[158]
National Council on Archives: Rules for the Construction of Personal, Place and Corporate Names: 1997. http://archiveshub.ac.uk/ncarules/.
[159]
National Information Standards Organization (NISO) 2007. A framework of guidance for building good digital collections, 3rd edition.
[160]
Nesmith, T. et al. 1993. Archival studies in English-speaking Canada and the North American rediscovery of provenance. Canadian archival studies and the rediscovery of provenance. Scarecrow Press.
[161]
New South Wales Government State Records Equipment for digitisation.
[162]
O’Brien, Jeff 1997. Basic RAD: A short introduction.
[163]
Online Archive of California 1998. The Online Archive of California (OAC) Project: A prototype union database of encoded archival finding aids, 1998.
[164]
Padfield, T. et al. 2001. Copyright for archivists and users of archives. Public Record Office.
[165]
Padfield, T. 2019. What is copyright? Copyright for archivists and records managers. Facet Publishing.
[166]
Pancza, János Hungarian National Digital Archive and Hungarian participation in Europeana.
[167]
Paradigm Project 2008. Workbook on digital private papers.
[168]
Parker, Elizabeth 2002. Records life cycle structure study.
[169]
Pearce, N. 1984. Deciding what to save: Fifty years of theory and practice. Archival choices: managing the historical record in an age of abundance. Lexington Books. 1–18.
[170]
Peters, V. 2005. Developing archival context standards for functions in the higher education sector. Journal of the Society of Archivists. 26, 1 (2005).
[171]
Pitti, Daniel 1999. Encoded Archival Description. An introduction and overview. D-Lib Magazine. 5, 11 (1999).
[172]
PREMIS Editorial Committee 2015. PREMIS Data Dictionary for Preservation Metadata, Version 3.0.
[173]
Procter, M. and Cook, M. 2016. Manual of archival description. Routledge.
[174]
Prom, Chris 2002. The EAD cookbook. A survey and usability study. American Archivist. 65, 2 (2002).
[175]
Putting the ‘Where’ in the Archives: Internet Mapping and Archival Records: 2010. http://web.archive.org/web/20130411082237/http://www.librarystudentjournal.org/index.php/lsj/article/view/112/275.
[176]
Reed, B. 1993. Archival appraisal. Keeping archives. Thorpe in association with the Australian Society of Archivists.
[177]
Reviewing committee: https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/supporting-collections-and-cultural-property/reviewing-committee.
[178]
Ribeiro, F 1996. Subject indexing and authority control in archives: The need for subject indexing in archives and for an indexing policy using controlled language. Journal of the Society of Archivists. 17, 1 (1996).
[179]
Riley, Jenn 2010. Seeing standards: A visualization of the metadata universe.
[180]
RLG EAD Advisory Group 2002. RLG best practice guidelines for encoded archival description.
[181]
Robyns, M.C. 2014. Using functional analysis in archival appraisal: a practical and effective alternative to traditional appraisal methodologies. Rowman & Littlefield.
[182]
Roe, K. 2005. Arranging & describing archives & manuscripts. Society of American Archivists.
[183]
Ruch, A. Supporting interoperability of distributed archives using authority controlled ontologies.
[184]
Rusbridge, C. 2006. Excuse Me... Some Digital Preservation Fallacies? Ariadne. 46 (2006).
[185]
Samuels, H.W. 1986. Who controls the past. American Archivist. 49, Spring (1986).
[186]
Schellenberg, T.R. 2003. Modern archives: principles and techniques. Society of American Archivists.
[187]
Schellenberg, T.R. 2003. Modern archives: principles and techniques. Society of American Archivists.
[188]
Schellenberg, T.R. 1956. The appraisal of modern public records. National Archives bulletin 8.
[189]
Scott, Peter J and Finlay, G. 1978. Archives and Administrative Change: Some Methods and Approaches (Part I). Archives and Manuscripts. 7, (1978).
[190]
Scott, P.J. 1966. The record group concept: A case for abandonment. American Archivist. 29, (1966).
[191]
Shapley, M. 2014. The ANU Archives implementation of ica-atom software.
[192]
Shepherd, Elizabeth and Pringle, R 2002. Mapping descriptive standards across domains: A comparison of ISAD(G) and SPECTRUM. Journal of the Society of Archivists. 23, 1 (2002).
[193]
Shepherd, Elizabeth and Smith, C 2000. The application of ISAD(G) to the description of archival datasets. Journal of the Society of Archivists. 21, 1 (2000).
[194]
Sims, R.M.C. 2003. Obligations and aftercare: the depositor and service standard agreements. Journal of the Society of Archivists. 24, 2 (2003), 215–221. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/0037981032000127061.
[195]
Smith, L. and Rowley, J. 2012. Digitisation of local heritage: Local studies collections and digitisation in public libraries. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. 44, 4 (2012), 272–280. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000611434760.
[196]
Society of American Archivists 2011. A different kind of web: new connections between archives and our users. Society of American Archivists.
[197]
Spiro, L. 2009. Archival Management Software: a Report for the Council on Library and Information Resources.
[198]
Stapleton, R. 1983. Jenkinson and Schellenberg: a comparison. Archivaria. 17, (1983).
[199]
Stevenson, A and Stevenson, J 2011. Lifting the lid on linked data: Linked data and the LOCAH project.
[200]
Stevenson, J 2010. The impact of Web 2.0 on archives.
[201]
Stevenson, Jane, and Ruddock, Bethan 2010. Moving towards interoperability: Experiences of the Archives Hub. Ariadne. 63, (2010).
[202]
Stobo, Victoria 2013. Copyright and risk: Scoping the Wellcome Digital Library Project.
[203]
Stockdale, R. 2000. The retrospective conversion of the British Library manuscripts catalogues: A description of the project. Journal of the Society of Archivists. 21, 2 (2000).
[204]
Stockting, William and Queyroux, F 2004. Encoding across frontiers. Journal of Archival Organization 3 (2/3).
[205]
Stratton, Barbara 2010. Seeking new landscapes: A rights clearance study in the context of mass digitisation of 140 books published between 1870 and 2010.
[206]
Sweet, Meg 2001. The internationalisation of EAD (Encoded Archival Description). Journal of the Society of Archivists. 22, 1 (2001).
[207]
Tax relief for national heritage assets - Detailed guidance: 2013. https://www.gov.uk/tax-relief-for-national-heritage-assets.
[208]
Technical Subcommittee on Encoded Archival Description 2013. EAD revision.
[209]
Tennant, R. 2002. XML in libraries. Neal-Schuman Publishers.
[210]
The Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems 2011. Audit and Certification of Trustworthy Digital Repositories.
[211]
The Interactive Archivist: 2009. http://interactivearchivist.archivists.org/.
[212]
The National Archives 2007. Acquisition and disposition strategy.
[213]
The National Archives 2004. Applying for Grant Aid. The National Archives.
[214]
The National Archives 2012. Appraisal policy.
[215]
The National Archives Appraisal toolkits.
[216]
The National Archives 2004. Archive Collection Policy Statements: Checklist of Suggested Contents.
[217]
The National Archives 2006. Loan (deposit) agreements for privately owned archives.
[218]
The National Archives Operational selection policies.
[219]
The National Archives 2006. Surveying historical manuscripts: some guidelines.
[220]
The Society of American Archivists Statement of principles for the CUSTARD Project.
[221]
Theimer, K. ed. 2015. Appraisal and acquisition: innovative practices for archives and special collections. Rowman & Littlefield.
[222]
Theimer, K. ed. 2014. Description. Rowman & Littlefield.
[223]
Theimer, K.M. 2010. Web 2.0 tools and strategies for archives and local history collections. Facet.
[224]
Tschan, R.A. 2002. A comparison of Jenkinson and Schellenberg on appraisal. American Archivist. 65, Fall/Winter (2002).
[225]
Tullock, J. and Alexandra, C. 2004. Logjam: an audit of uncatalogued collections in the North West. The North West Museums, Libraries and Archives Council.
[226]
UK Archives Discovery Network UKAD: Promoting archives discovery for the benefit of researchers.
[227]
UNESCO UNESCO thesaurus.
[228]
University of London Computer Centre UK archival thesaurus.
[229]
University of Nottingham 2012. The Wollaton Library Collection episode 3: Digitisation.
[230]
Vitali, S The second edition of ISAAR(CPF) and authority control in systems for archival descriptive systems.
[231]
Vogt-O’Connor, D. 2000. Selection of materials for scanning. Handbook for digital projects: a management tool for preservation and access. M.K. Sitts, ed.
[232]
W3C 1997. Date and time formats.
[233]
Wajon, Scott 2012. Digitisation workflow.
[234]
Walch, V. I 1994. Standards for archival description: A handbook.
[235]
Walters, T.O. 1996. Contemporary archival appraisal methods and preservation decision-making. American Archivist. 59, Summer (1996).
[236]
Weber, L.B. 1990. Record Formatting: MARC AMC. Describing Archival Materials: The Use of the Marc AMC Format. Routledge.
[237]
Wells, E. 2012. Related Material – The Arrangement and Description of Family Papers. Journal of the Society of Archivists. 33, 2 (Oct. 2012), 167–184. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/00379816.2012.722528.
[238]
Whyte, Angus and Wilson, Andrew 2010. How to appraise and select research data for curation.
[239]
Williams, C. 2006. Managing archives: foundations, principles and practice. Chandos.
[240]
Williams, Caroline 2006. Studying reality: the application of theory in an aspect of UK practice. Archivaria. 62, (2006).
[241]
Yakel, Elizabeth 2003. Archival representation. Archival Science. 3, 1 (2003).
[242]
Yakel, Elizabeth 2003. Archival representation. Archival Science. 3, 1 (2003).
[243]
Yeo, Geoffrey 2008. New approaches to archival description Standards for archival description " The need for descriptive standards is no longer a subject for debate ”.
[244]
Yeo, Geoffrey 2005. Understanding users and use: A market segmentation approach. Journal of the Society of Archivists. 26, (2005).
[245]
Zeng, M and Chan, L 2006. Metadata interoperability and standardization - A study of methodology part II: Achieving interoperability at the record and repository levels. D-Lib Magazine. 12, 6 (2006).
[246]
Zhang, J. and Mauney, D. 2013. When archival description meets digital object metadata: A typological study of digital archival representation. The American Archivist. 76, 1 (2013).
[247]
2021. Cultural Gifts Scheme and Acceptance in Lieu - report 2021. Arts Council England.