Appendix A - Society of American Archivists

----------------------------------------RATIONALE:2.3.17's simple solution, while straightforward, does not present options suitedto the varied situations often faced by institutional archivistsDACS REVISION:Submitted: 5/4/2011Name: Kate BowersAffiliation: Harvard University / Simmons College Graduate School of Library andInformation Science / TS-DACSE-mail: kate_bowers@harvard.eduPhone:Official Comment? No----------------------------------------DACS REFERENCE:2.3 Title----------------------------------------BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE:I hope the committee can discuss guidance on making _good_ titles in DACSSuggested text:Titles should be:* Accurate* Authentic* Unambiguous* Unbiased* Concise----------------------------------------RATIONALE:In working with archival science students, I noticed that DACS does not provideguidance on what makes a _good_ title. Titles can be technically valid by DACS,but still not be ideal or even desirable.Especially in the days of MPLP, where additional information like folder listsmay not be available to provide a more in-depth surrogate for a collection,aggregation titles are increasingly important.DACS as it currently stands is usually sufficient for the practiced archivist,but it could provide better guidance for the novice or for the non-archivist inan allied field.Action: DACS Revision Page 32 of 158 0113-II-A-DACS