Archival Science 3: 27-42, 2003.

27
9 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Cooking the Perfect Custard

JEAN DRYDEN
Project manager of the Canadian~US Task Force on Archival Description (CUSTARD);
consultant CopyRight/- Copyright Advisory Services (E-mail: jedryden @interlog.com )

Abstract. A unified Canadian/US descriptive code is the aim of the Canadian/US Task Force
on Archival Description (CUSTARD). Within the framework of the International Council on
Archives' General International Standard Archival Description (ISAD(G)) and the Interna-
tional Standard Archival Authority Record (ISAAR(CPF)), this Task Force, an NEH-funded
project, is reconciling the US cataloging code, Archives, Personal Papers, and Manuscripts
(APPM), with the Canadian Rules for Archival Description (RAD). In this article, the learn-
ings of the process of blending two established descriptive standards are presented in a
preliminary way.

Keywords: archival description, descriptive standards

Custard puddings, sauces, and fillings accompany the

seven ages of man in sickness and in health. Rarely
anywhere, however, are these delicacies prepared in ways
that enhance their simple charm.
The Joy of Cooking

The connection between cooking and descriptive standards may seem at first
to be a tenuous one, arising only from the acronym for the Canada-U.S. Task
Force on Archival Description, known as the CUSTARD project. The Task
Force is one component of a project to produce a data content standard for
the description of archival materials by rationalizing the Canadian and the
American standards (Rules f or Archival Description (RAD) 1 and the second
edition of Archives, Personal Papers and Manuscripts (APPM2) 2 respec-
tively) within the framework of international descriptive standards. While
this seems far removed from the creamy dessert consisting of milk, eggs, and
sugar, the analogy is more apropos than is initially apparent. As the quotation
above suggests, custard is a simple, yet versatile, dish which can take many
forms and flavours. However, the cookbook also suggests that it is not neces-
sarily easy to produce a perfect product every time. A lot can go wrong - the
eggs can curdle, the mixture may separate, the heat may be too high or too
1 Rules for Archival Description (Ottawa: Bureau of Canadian Archivists, 1990).
2 Archives, Personal Papers and Manuscripts, 2nd ed. Comp. Steven Hensen (Chicago:
Society of American Archivists, 1989).
28 JEAN DRYDEN

low. Once prepared, the product must be carefully refrigerated or it will spoil.
A project to blend two established descriptive standards does in fact have
some similarities with cooking custard. What kind and flavour should it be -
a complicated zabaglione or a simple blancmange? Who should the cooks be?
Are the proposed ingredients compatible? When experienced cooks disagree
over the ingredients or method, how should the matter be resolved? The goal
is not to produce the perfect custard but to produce a recipe for custard and
all its variations that will enable archivists to produce many kinds of custard
that will turn out perfectly every time. As this article is being written, the
project has been underway for a year, and the cooking is still going on. The
final product will not be available for another year. However a number of
observations may be made about the process, and this article presents those
learnings in a preliminary way.

Background
The genesis of the CUSTARD project lies in the requirement to revise
APPM2 as part of a revision schedule instituted when it was adopted as a
standard by the Society of American Archivists (SAA). However, a number
of developments in the decade since the publication of the second edition
of APPM in 1989 made a strong case for a broader, more thoroughgoing
revision effort. For one thing, the proliferation of other national standards
such as RAD and the British Manual of Archival Description (MAD3), 3
and the development of international standards such as ISAD(G): General
International Standard Archival Description (ISAD(G)) 4 and ISAAR(CPF):
International Standard Archival Authority Record For Corporate Bodies,
Persons and Families (ISAAR(CPF)), 5 meant that there were more stand-
ards that must be taken into account in any revision process. Furthermore,
the development of the internet and related technological advances made
it possible to communicate information faster and more easily than ever
before. Closely related was the development of Encoded Archival Descrip-
tion (EAD) 6 which provided a data structure standard for communicating
3 Margaret Procter and Michael Cook. Manual of Archival Description, 3rd ed. (Aldershot:
Gower, 2000).
4 ICA Committee on Descriptive Standards, 1SAD(G): General International Standard
Archival Description, 2nd ed. (Ottawa: International Council on Archives, 1999).
5 ICA Ad Hoc Commission on Descriptive Standards, ISAAR(CPF): International
Standard Archival Authority Record For Corporate Bodies, Persons and Families. (Ottawa:
International Council on Archives, 1996).
6 Encoded Archival Description Tag Library, Version 2002. (Chicago: Society of Amer-
ican Archivists, 2002) and Encoded Archival Description Application Guidelines Tag Library,
Version 1.0. (Chicago: Society of American Archivists, 1999).
 COOKING THE PERFECT CUSTARD 29

via the internet detailed archival descriptive information typically found in

finding aids and guides. In order to realize its full potential, EAD required
a. companion data content standard to ensure consistency. All these factors
meant that any revision of APPM2 would not be a simple matter, and
alternative approaches had to be considered.
In the summer of 1995, a team of descriptive standards experts from
Canada and the U.S. met at the Bentley Library at the University of Michigan
to consider the following matters:
9 The development of archival descriptive standards in the U.S., Canada,
and internationally and the relationships between them.
9 The effect of the integration of the various USMARC formats and other
national MARC formats (e.g., CANMARC, UKMARC, etc.) on archival
description.
9 The impact of Internet-based digital information systems on the larger
world of archival and bibliographic metadata, especially with respect to
emerging standards, such as EAD and the Dublin Core.
The Bentley group ultimately decided that a thorough reconciliation and
consolidation of APPM2, RAD, and ISAD(G) was possible and desirable.
The group also concluded that new combined rules for archival description'
could provide thorough data content standards for all manner of archival
materials, regardless of the level of description or the medium. It could also
provide rules for creating access points of all sorts and at all levels that would-
be consistent with the requirements of other systems, e.g., the MARC format7
and the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR). 8 Further, having estab-
lished content standards would ensure not only consistency across archival
finding aids, MARC cataloging records, etc., but would also minimize the
duplication of effort involved in capturing and re-capturing the same data
for different uses. Such rules could indeed become not only the data content
standard for EAD-encoded finding aids, but also the basis for a standard for
all other products of description. 9
In order to bring a broader perspective to the issues raised at the Bentley
meeting, a meeting of Canadian and American experts in archival descrip-
tion representing a broad range of experience and interests met in Toronto
in March 1999 to discuss the possibility of a common North American
descriptive standard. The meeting was characterized by agreement on many
major principles and goals. These agreements were articulated in a document
9 7 An acronym derived from MAchine Readable Cataloguing, MARC provides a uniform
structure within which to exchange information about library holdings.
8 AACR is the data content standard for describing library holdings.
9 The results of the Bentley project are summarized in Wendy M. Duff and Kent M.
Haworth, "Advancing Archival Description: A Model for Rationalising North American
Descriptive Standards", Archives and Manuscripts, 25:2 (November, 1997), pp. 194-217.
30 JEAN DRYDEN

entitled "The Toronto Accord on Descriptive Standards". The Accord follows

in Appendix A.
Thus, the groundwork was laid for a project to produce a data content
standard for archival description that would reconcile RAD and APPM2
within the framework of ISAD(G). A joint effort of the Society of American
Archivists and the Canadian Council on Archives, the project funding came
largely from a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities. To
quote the grant proposal:
... It is expected that the resulting standard will also form the basis of
a content standard for EAD, as well as laying the foundation for the
development of broader and more comprehensive international stand-
ards. Such standards will contribute significantly to more consistent
description of archival holdings in repositories around the world, while
at the same time greatly enhancing user access to these holdings.

The Ingredients

One of the most important developments over the past two decades has been
the development of national and international standards for the description
of archival material and communication of descriptive information about
archival holdings, not just among archivists and repositories, but also to a
wider audience of potential users. However archivists were developing stand-
ards much earlier (whether they knew it or not) as soon as they tried to get
everyone to describe archival material the same way, be it within a single
repository or when developing rules/guidelines for a union list such as the
Union List of Manuscripts in Canada or the National Union Catalog of Manu-
script Collections in the U.S. Developing descriptive standards for archives
has always been a derivative process, that is, no-one develops standards
completely from scratch. All standards, no matter how narrow their applica-
tion, started from existing standards or from current practice. Those who
developed the formal national and international standards that are the focus of
this paper were no different. For example, the two North American standards
are first and foremost based on an existing standard, i.e., the bibliographic
model of Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR2R). 1~ However, RAD
also borrowed much from the first edition of APPM, and APPM2 borrowed
much from the first available RAD chapters. The international standards
subsequently developed were largely based on existing archival standards
(APPM2 and RAD), and started to move away from bibliographic models.
10 Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd ed., 1988 Revision (Ottawa: Canadian Library
Association, 1988).
 COOKINGTHE PERFECTCUSTARD 31

The CUSTARD project is a different sort of venture in that its aim is to

produce a new standard by blending two established standards. Nothing quite
like this has ever been done before, and there is no tried and true recipe.
Certainly the main ingredients are RAD, APPM2, and ISAD(G), and they are
not easily mixed. RAD explicitly provides rules for description of archival
materials in all media at all levels of description. The main focus of APPM2
is the description of textual materials at the fonds or collection level, although
the rules can be used to describe other media and levels. ISAD(G) is a high
level standard which provides only one or two general rules for each element,
and functions more like a data structure standard.
In addition to these diverse basic ingredients, there are now a number
of other standards or ingredients to consider for inclusion in the recipe.
Most importantly, although the original proposal did not address the issue
of harmonizing the rules for choice and form of access points in Part II of
RAD and APPM2 within the framework of ISAAR(CPF), it quickly became
obvious that there was no reason to exclude Part II from the standard, and
many reasons to add ISAAR(CPF) to the list of main ingredients. Closely
related were the fledgling efforts to develop a data structure for Encoded
Archival Context (EAC) in which some members of the group were also
involved; however the work was not advanced enough to merit inclusion
at this time. Furthermore, the recipe is not limited to the main ingredients
- other standards, i.e., MAD3, the first edition of ISAD(G), EAD Applica-
tion Guidelines, and various institutional standards were also considered
as .possible flavouring, as were relevant aspects of professional literature.
While the proposed standard has moved even further away from bibliographic
models, it is worth noting that AACR2R remains on the list of ingredients,
particularly regarding the formation of names so as to maintain consistency
of access points within catalogues containing both bibliographic and archival
descriptions.
However having such a variety of possible ingredients to consider also
has some disadvantages, i.e., at any given time, one or more of these stand-
ards is in the process of revision. As the CUSTARD project proceeded,
both ISAAR(CPF) and EAD were being revised. While the second edition
of EAD was complete in time for it to be considered, the second edition
of iSAAR(CPF) was not, and the changes proposed for ISAAR(CPF) were
significant. Particularly when the goal is to mesh the domestic standard within
the framework of the international standard, it is difficult to move the process
forward without a completed draft to consult. Serious discussions were also
taking place regarding the future and structure of AACR2R.11 When different

11 Jean Weihs, ed. The Principles and Future of AACR: Proceedings of the International
Conference on the Principles and Future Development of AACR, Toronto, 1997 (Ottawa:
Canadian Library Association, 1998).
32 JEAN DRYDEN

standards are being developed or revised simultaneously, it is hard to ensure

consistency. But it is necessary to fix the standard at some point, recognizing
that a standard is a dynamic document which will and should change in
response to new learnings about description, professional practice, and the
needs of end-users.

The Method

The project began in July 2001. The project budget provided for only four
meetings over the course of the project, so most of the work was accom-
plished through email. Drafts of elements were prepared by the project
manager and sent out to members of the group for their comments. After some
experience, it was decided that it would be helpful to focus the responses
by including with each draft a list of particular questions or issues to be
commented on, and a summary of changes made from earlier drafts. To
ensure that the debate about an element did not go on endlessly, it was also
decided that each element would undergo three rounds of comments, with
the second draft incorporating the comments on the first draft, and the third
draft incorporating the comments on the second draft. While working through
email is much faster than distributing paper copies of drafts and comments,
it is still not as satisfactory as working face to face. In an ideal world, the
process would permit frequent meetings at which key issues could be thor-
oughly thrashed out and clearly resolved. This was demonstrated at one of the
meetings, when drafts of particular elements were at a stage where a number
of key points needed to be resolved, and the ability to resolve them face to face
at the meeting was very productive. However, with so few meetings, it was
largely up to the project manager to make decisions about what comments to
incorporate, and justify what to exclude. Cost considerations precluded the
luxury of frequent meetings, but to have such an opportunity to debate and
resolve issues would make a stronger standard.
One of the biggest challenges for this project was the need to blend two
established archival traditions. While to the rest of the world Canada and
the U.S. may look like a monolith, the differences in archival practice are
significant. People were certainly aware of specific differences between RAD
and APPM2 (e.g., sources of information for archival description, inclusion
of dates as part of the rifle, use of 'papers' and 'records' as opposed to 'fonds'
in the title, use of subject in the scope and content, etc.), and some of these
issues were the subject of intense discussion. However the differences extend
beyond specific rules.
Totally aside from archives, the national cultures are very different. Amer-
ican pragmatism and the desire to produce something as quickly as possible
 COOKINGTHE PERFECTCUSTARD 33

stands in contrast to a more reflective and consultative Canadian approach.

These cultural differences have been reflected in descriptive standards devel-
opment, in that Canadians took their time (nearly ten years) to ensure that
RAD was soundly anchored in archival principles. Americans on the other
hand developed a data structure standard (the MARC Archives and Manu-
scripts (AMC) format) to exchange information before there was a content
standard. More than a decade ago, Lisa Weber characterized the different
approaches as follows: "... the Americans dove headfirst into the pool [i.e.,
by developing the AMC format first] and only in mid-air realized that there
was no water; the Canadians are filling the pool first". 12 More recently, Steven
Hensen characterized APPM as having a "Nike-like 'Just Do It' approach" as
opposed to the "deliberative, considered approach" of RAD. 13 From time to
time, frustration was expressed regarding the need to maintain the "doctrinal
purity" of RAD; however the group was convinced that the rules must be
based on a solid foundation of principles so that they form a coherent whole.
The American archival community is characterized by a division that does
not exist in Canada. In the U.S. there is a wide gulf between those who deal
with the records of governments and other corporate bodies, and those who
deal with personal papers and manuscripts. The two groups generally work in
different institutions, and approach the records in their care quite differently.
The manuscript archivists on the group were often initially resistant to rules
which they saw as pertaining only to government records, conceding that they
are needed, but wanting them out of the mainstream of the basic rules. In
Canada, on the other hand, many institutions (including the National Archives
and all the provincial/territorial archives) acquire both corporate records and
private papers, and routinely apply the same descriptive rules to both types of
material.
In the group's first meeting, after matters of process were determined, the
discussion turned to particular rules, and certain areas of national disagree-
ment quickly became evident. One means of making the process smoother
and finding points of agreement was to create a statement of principles ~4
on which the rules would be based. Just as experienced cooks know that
success depends on basic precepts, e.g., when adding hot liquid to an egg
mixture, add the liquid slowly and stir constantly, the group felt agreeing
on certain principles would provide a solid foundation for the rules. The

12 Quoted in Wendy M. Duff and Kent M. Haworth, "The Reclamation of Archival

Description: The Canadian Perspective", Archivaria 31 (Winter 1990-91), fn. 14, p. 34.
13 Hensen, Steven. "Descriptive Standards and Archival Foundations", Archival Outlook,
Jul/Aug 2002, pp. 3, 22.
14 As this is being written, the Statement of Principles is available at www.archivists.org/
news/custardproject.asp. The Statement of Principles will be included in the published
standard.
34 JEAN DRYDEN

task of constructing the statement of principles had a number of benefits in

addition to providing a dispute resolution mechanism. First and foremost, it
helped to refine the group's understanding of description. Secondly, it served
to reveal some of the hitherto unarticulated differences in practice between
and within the two countries. Finally, it proved to be a valuable exercise in
team-building. The statement of principles accurately reflects the blending
of two archival traditions in that most of the principles are drawn from long-
established archival theory, but Principle 6 (that the standard may also be used
to describe collections and discrete items) acknowledges the practical reality
that the creation of so-called "artificial" collections, i.e., materials collected
or grouped together without regard to their provenance or origin, may be
an unavoidable or legitimate means of managing single items or smaller
groups of materials. Principle 5 (that the principles of archival description
apply equally to records created by corporate bodies and by individuals and
families) addressed the distinction in the U.S. community between corporate
and personal records.
Human nature being what it is, there is often resistance to anything new.
Using the new standard will likely require a greater adjustment on the part
of the U.S. archival community than for the Canadian community. While the
structure and presentation of the rules in the new standard look very different
from both APPM2 and RAD, far more of the rules in the new standard
are derived from RAD than from APPM2 because RAD is a more robust
standard. Therefore Canadian archivists are going to be much more familiar
with the new standard than Americans are, and Americans are likely, initially
at least, to find the new standard somewhat daunting because of the number
and complexity of rules. In the process of drafting the rules, the first exposure
to their detailed nature (particularly in the Title and Extent elements) elicited
strong suggestions that if all these rules were necessary (and some were not
entirely convinced that they were), the complex/detailed/infrequently-used
rules should be put in an appendix or otherwise separated from the "basic"
rules. While every effort was made to present the rules for each element in the
order of frequency of use (e.g., where possible, the bibliographic rules have
been put at the end of chapters to which they relate), there was no sound basis
on which to separate (or even identify) complex or "non-basic" rules from
"basic" rules. The recipe for good archival description cannot be reduced to
a mix to which you just add water and stir.
After repeated discussions, people eventually became accustomed to the
number and detail in the rules, and conceded that all the rules related to a
particular element need to be presented together, no matter how detailed.
It was acknowledged that archival description is a complex matter and the
rules must reflect that. Even though the rules may appear daunting at first, as
 COOKING THE PERFECT CUSTARD 35

archivists become more familiar with them, they will recognize the need for
rules that cover very specific situations. If such rules are presented with the
element they relate to, rather than in another place in the standard, people will
be aware of them, and as their understanding of the rules and their application
becomes more sophisticated, they will start to see their utility and use them.
Inherent in this debate is a tension between seeing this standard develop-
ment process as an opportunity to raise the bar in order to improve the level
of descriptive practice, and the need not to make the rules either so difficult,
or so different from entrenched practices, that people will not use them. To
continue the culinary metaphor, providing a recipe that will permit moving
beyond simple baked custard to crbme caramel or crSme brul6e requires
adding more ingredients and learning new skills. The group did agree in
theory that this was an opportunity to provide more rigourous rules which
would result in better, more consistent descriptions, but when discussion
centred on actual rules, it was not easy to achieve the delicate balance between
more robust rules and straightforward user appeal. It must be noted, however,
that the success of the product does not depend on the standard alone. The
development and approval of the standard must be accompanied by education
and training, and institutional implementation. The standard itself need not
be diminished because it will require people to be retrained or will cause
institutions to change their procedures. It should be as complex as it needs to
be with training appropriate to the needs.
Underlying this appears to be a reluctance to acknowledge just how
complex description is. For example, the matter of dates may seem uncom-
plicated, but is enormously complex. Earlier standards recognized only dates
of creation. This standard is the first to acknowledge that there are many
types of dates and identify them. Dates of record-keeping activity, dates
of reproduction, dates of publication are all valid and may differ from the
dates of creation. This innovation was not accomplished without extensive
and sometimes heated discussion within the group. The Extent and Medium
element proved to be similarly difficult. While expressing what a fonds or
series consists of and how much there is of it may seem elementary, the
debate revolved around complex and inter-related issues such as the appro-
priate way to express medium, the overlap between physical and intellectual
forms of material, how meaningful extents expressed in number of containers
or linear measurement are to users, and whether the element should include
information about other physical details.
Closely related to the issue of complexity is what was called the "one-
stop shopping" issue, which came up repeatedly. On the one hand were those
who wanted "one-stop shopping", by which they wanted the standard to
include all relevant rules from other standards (e.g., AACR2R, Cartographic
36 JEAN DRYDEN

Materials, etc.) that archivists could ever possibly use so that they would
not have to consult anything else in order to describe their holdings. On the
other hand were those who wanted the standard to include only those rules
that applied to archival material, with numerous referrals to other standards,
particularly to AACR2R. Regarding the first possibility, it became clear that
including all possible rules would not only result in a very large volume, but
would also require regular monitoring of the standards from which they were
derived, and revisions as those standards changed. On the other hand, those
who wanted archival rules only (combined with referrals to other standards)
were reminded that many smaller archives would not necessarily have access
to all the other standards, and archivists who did not come from a library
background in which they had been exposed to AACR2R would appreciate
having rules which would assist in describing bibliographic materials found
in archival holdings. What resulted was an uneasy truce which might be
called "convenience shopping" in which selected bibliographic rules were
included. While the result may not be completely consistent, the validity of
this compromise will be tested once the standard is in use. If necessary, the
ingredients can be adjusted.
Terminology alone is a great problem. Any set of rules for archival
description must include a glossary which clearly defines key terms. This
project provided an opportunity to examine a number of definitions criti-
cally and redefine or clarify them as required. It quickly became clear that
definitions of terms tend to be borrowed repeatedly from one standard to
another, so that some definitions are decades old. In other cases, the standards
writers have made slight changes to definitions for no apparent reason - are
such changes the result of a deeper understanding of archival description, or
are they merely someone's preference? This project has reviewed the defini-
tions of some of the key concepts and attempted to clarify them so that the
terminology is fixed and used consistently throughout the standard.
The concepts of multilevel description are not well understood. The
application of the principles of multilevel description need to be more
thoroughly explored. A matter of great contention in this project was the
determination of what is the highest level of description. Some institutions
in both countries begin description not at the fonds level, but at the series
level. Using the term "at the highest level" seemed to beg the question and
permit description at any level. In order to accommodate the differences in
practice Principle 3 (that archival description is based on the principles of
multilevel description) was reworked numerous times before it was accept-
able to everyone. The group were mindful that the representation of multilevel
description works well in the paper world where the entire description is
presented and levels can easily be represented using typography or layout.
 COOKING THE PERFECT CUSTARD 37

However it is somewhat problematic in the digital world where a user may

enter a description at a lower level. While the aim of this project is to provide
rules for inputs, not to prescribe any particular output or system, descriptive
systems must ensure that the relationships between levels of description are
provided so that users are aware of the context provided at higher levels of
description.

The Cooks

The project was accomplished through the efforts of a Steering Committee, an

Editor/Project Manager, and an editorial and consultative group, the Canada-
U.S. Task Force on Archival Description. The Steering Committee consisted
of the Chairs of the Canadian Committee on Archival Description (CCAD)
and the SAA Standards Committee (Bob Krawczyk and Kris Kiesling respec-
tively), Steven Hensen (author of APPM), and Wendy Duff (former Chair and
long-time member of the Bureau of Canadian Archivists Planning Committee
on Descriptive Standards). Jean Dryden was the Editor and Project Manager,
working under the direction of the Steering Committee. She was responsible
for much of the work of creating the new content standard by preparing drafts
for discussion and review, incorporating comments, and preparing revised
drafts as the harmonized standard took shape. The task force itself consisted
of seven representatives from Canada (the current members of CCAD), and
six representatives from the U.S. The U.S. membership consisted of two
members of the SAA Technical Subcommittee on Descriptive Standards; the
chair of the SAA Standards Committee; the SAA representative to MARBI,15
CC:DA, 16 and the ICA Committee on Descriptive Standards; a representative
from the National Archives and Records Administration; and a representative
from the Library of Congress.
The Canadian group already had the experience of working together as
CCAD members. The American team was less cohesive; while some of
them had worked together on descriptive standards initiatives, others were
newcomers; as a group they had no experience of working together. Further-
more, the two groups had never worked together. While the discussion always
remained courteous, some time was required to enable people to get to know
each other as people and as archivists so they would come to understand
others' rules and practice.
One might reasonably ask if these were the appropriate people to develop
descriptive standards for archives. While an old proverb says that too many

15 Machine Readable Bibliographic Information Committee.

16 Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access.
38 JEAN DRYDEN

cooks spoil the broth, the rationalizing of two established standards clearly
requires a group effort. Obviously the team must include people who are not
only knowledgeable about the principles and practice of archival description,
but also are committed to the value of standards. During the past two decades,
an increasing number of people in the community have been involved in
developing standards. As a result, the CUSTARD team consisted of a number
of people who had been involved in various standards development initiatives
at the national and/or international levels, as well as in their own institutions.
Furthermore, not only must the team members be experts, but they must
also be seen to be experts and have credibility in the wider community. A
standard usually requires at least some change to the way that people work,
and it is normal to ask "Who did this, and what gives them the right to change
our customary practices?" While some in the wider community still might not
be happy with the changes, there is a better chance of acquiescence (however
grudging) if it is acknowledged that the people developing the standard do
know what they are doing. For that reason the team must be carefully chosen
to represent a variety of interests. If there was anything missing from this
group, it was archivists with expertise in non-textual media.
Everyone comes to the process with baggage and biases derived from their
training, their institutional practice, and their own experiences. However, the
team must be prepared to set aside their baggage, in order to produce the best
standards possible. This means being open to new ideas and being able to put
forward alternatives to the way they have always done it. It also means that the
role of each group member must be clear. If they come from large institutions,
are they there to ensure that their institutional practice is enshrined in the new
standard? Or are they there to contribute to developing the best rules possible,
even if the new rules do not match current institutional practice? Unless these
issues are clarified, there is potential for conflict of interest and uneasiness
among other members of the group who may see the process being driven by
protection of institutional interests.
When APPM and RAD were being developed, they replaced a hodge-
podge of idiosyncratic institutional practices. While people were anxious
about the effect that a new standard would have on their work, there were no
concerns about the implications for large databases containing records from
many institutions. Now, however, there are databases containing thousands
of descriptive records based on APPM2 and RAD, and thus concomitant
concerns that any new standard not contain major changes. It was not easy
to find the balance between maintaining continuity with existing structures,
and improving the rules so that better descriptions result. However, because
these rules were moving away from the bibliographic tradition on which their
predecessors were based, it was important that people were able to let go of
 COOKING THE PERFECT CUSTARD 39

the bibliographic bias in favour of rules which better meet the requirements
of archival materials and archival practice.
No matter what their level of expertise or respect within the community,
the members of any group that is developing rules must also be willing and
able to devote the time necessary to review drafts and comment on them.
Some might think that blending two established standards would be a simple
cut and paste job, but the task proved to be very labour intensive. It was long
ago recognized that, if progress is to be made in a timely fashion, writing rules
for description cannot depend on volunteers trying to squeeze it in during
their evenings and weekends. This project had the luxury of a "chief cook"
who was able to spend much of her time in the kitchen writing and revising
the recipe - the process would have taken far longer had the CUSTARD
members been responsible not just for reviewing drafts but for writing the
rules as well. However the reviewing is not a trivial task, and this aspect
of the process was a concern. Draft chapters were circulated to the group
by email; their comments were posted to the CUSTARD webpage so that
all could read them. The first drafts of the first elements elicited a lot of
comment and an interesting debate on the purpose of title and the need for
detailed bibliographic rules. People responded not only to the draft rules, but
also to each others' comments. Unfortunately that level of debate was not
sustained as subsequent drafts and revisions were produced. Even though the
debate was interesting, it was ultimately unsatisfying because the discussion
just trailed off, and the issues were not clearly resolved online.
As more draft elements were sent out, the participation rate declined
considerably. Not everyone commented on the drafts themselves, and an
exchange of views on others' comments was rare. In an effort to improve
participation, the drafts were accompanied by a series of questions intended
to focus the debate on particular problem areas, and elicit responses to these
particular questions if there wasn't time to do a full review of the draft. Even
with that, people found it difficult to get through all the drafts, let alone
everyone's comments. While the project officer was clearly responsible for
reading and evaluating everyone's comments for possible incorporation into
the next version, that placed a large burden on one person. It was occasionally
helpful to have informal discussions with individual members in order to
resolve particularly thorny issues. The overall success of the process could
not assume that silence meant assent. Rather, success depended on getting
informed responses from the members of the group at each version of each
element.
40 JEAN DRYDEN

Conclusion

As this is being written, the recipe for custard is not yet perfected. However
the process has already revealed a number of lessons about developing
descriptive standards. The availability of new standards and revisions of
existing standards is evidence that much more attention is being paid to
archival description, and that people are thinking and discovering more about
it as they try to codify practice. However, despite all the work done in this
area over the past decade, this process has brought home how little we know
about arrangement and description. Discussions of arrangement in particular
are very limited in the professional literature, and a better understanding of
arrangement can only benefit our understanding of description. We also need
to know more about how archivists use rules for description. However, the
biggest gap in our knowledge concerns those who use the end product - the
archival descriptions themselves. What are their needs? Do they understand
the products based on our lovingly crafted rules? While work has begun to
learn more about users, it is far from complete. The development of this
standard unfortunately took place without the benefit of that knowledge.
However, if one were to embark on a similar exercise, certain lessons
relating to both process and people have been learned from the CUSTARD
project. Before a similar project begins, it should be possible to identify at
a high level the stages of the project, and settle a number of aspects of the
process, i.e., number of drafts, expected response time, specific questions
to focus responses, etc. The process should also include intentional team-
building, for example, participants should come to the first meeting prepared
to discuss their understanding of the project so that the group can agree on
a common vision of the goals and end product. If at all possible, the budget
should allow for more frequent meetings at key points. It is also very clear
that the budget for such a project must include sufficient funds to pay a full-
time staff person. The staff member cannot work alone and must be supported
by a steering committee or advisory group of some sort. The composition
of such a group must be carefully considered. Not only must the members
of such a group be acknowledged experts in the field, but they must also be
willing to consider new ideas and to work together to achieve a common goal.
The issue of whether one is representing one's institution must be clarified in
advance. One of the key learnings, however, is the need to make it clear to the
members of the advisory group the time commitment involved in reviewing
drafts, meeting deadlines, etc.
Has CUSTARD been a success? The proof of the pudding is in the eating
and as this is being written the recipe is not available. As the initial quotation
suggests, custard can be made in a variety of ways with different ingredients
 COOKING THE PERFECT CUSTARD 41

to serve a variety of needs f r o m the simple dish for a child with a sore throat
to an exquisite cr~me brulre for an elegant dinner party. It is hoped that the
standard will enable institutions to describe a range of holdings in a variety
of descriptive products that can be as simple or as sophisticated as required.
As time goes on, the dish will only improve as m o r e people use it and as we
discover more about description. In the meantime, bon apprtit!

Appendix A

Toronto Accord on Descriptive Standards

I. On 12-13 March 1999 a group of Canadian and American archivists inter-

ested in descriptive standards met in Toronto, Canada to discuss the possibility
of a common North American descriptive standard. During the course of the
discussion, the following principles were articulated which are here presented
to the governing bodies for descriptive standards in the respective countries for
endorsement.
a) American and Canadian archivists are both committed to the use of
descriptive standards in archival work.
b) We recognize that users of archives benefit greatly when archives follow
common descriptive practices. A common North American descriptive
standard would be of great benefit to users both in the United States and
Canada.
c) For archivists, a common descriptive standard would be more cost-effective.
North American archivists would only have to develop and maintain one set
of standards, not two.
d) Canadian and American archivists share many principles in common,
making a united North American standard feasible. Among them are:
9 a common descriptive practice and a commitment to the principle of
provenance (respect des fonds) as the basis for archival organization and
description;
9 a willingness to accept and use flexible structures;
9 a recognition that we have both already learned much from each other;
9 an openness to the possibility of merging our mutual standards;
9 a respect for differences and diversity within our respective cultures;
9 a willingness to work together.
e) Given the utility and feasibility of a common set of archival descriptive
standards, both American and Canadian archivists are committed to further
cooperation and collaboration in the development and maintenance of shared
North American archival descriptive standards. This may extend to the
creation of a common development and maintenance infrastructure and
approval process for archival descriptive standards.
42 JEAN DRYDEN

II. As a first step in the process of developing a common descriptive framework, the
participants have committed to the following:
a) Canadian archivists will explore the suitability of Encoded Archival
Description as an appropriate data structure for archival descriptions
compliant with the Rules for Archival Description.
b) American archivists will investigate the suitability of using the Rules for
Archival Description as a data content standard for finding aids encoded
using Encoded Archival Description.