Archival terminology in the USSR and in post-Soviet countries: continuity and change

IF 1.3 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Archives and Manuscripts Pub Date : 2021-05-04 DOI:10.1080/01576895.2021.1913757
Liudmila Varlamova, E. Latysheva, O. Mukhatova, Dzmitry Varnashou
{"title":"Archival terminology in the USSR and in post-Soviet countries: continuity and change","authors":"Liudmila Varlamova, E. Latysheva, O. Mukhatova, Dzmitry Varnashou","doi":"10.1080/01576895.2021.1913757","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The archival schools of the post-Soviet countries discussed in this article (Kazakhstan, Russia, Belarus and Ukraine), despite having much in common, are quite different from one another. Their similarity is due to a comprehensive legal and methodological base inherited from the USSR, as well as to a well-established common practice. The principles of normative regulation of archiving were laid down in the USSR and built on the basic law on archiving and the normative acts of the central state body responsible for the archival affairs of the country. All the countries examined have retained the principles of forming the terminological system of the professional area through the development of a special national terminological standard which includes the terms given in the fundamental law on archiving. However, the extent to which the terminological systems are elaborated and are consistent both within themselves and with the terminological systems of related fields of activity in each country, is different. The article contains an analytical comparison of the definitions of fundamental archival terms standardised in national standards and laws on archival affairs in the abovementioned countries and in the USSR, and also shows the influence of ISO standards on the development of terminological systems in these countries.","PeriodicalId":43371,"journal":{"name":"Archives and Manuscripts","volume":"49 1","pages":"88 - 106"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01576895.2021.1913757","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives and Manuscripts","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01576895.2021.1913757","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT The archival schools of the post-Soviet countries discussed in this article (Kazakhstan, Russia, Belarus and Ukraine), despite having much in common, are quite different from one another. Their similarity is due to a comprehensive legal and methodological base inherited from the USSR, as well as to a well-established common practice. The principles of normative regulation of archiving were laid down in the USSR and built on the basic law on archiving and the normative acts of the central state body responsible for the archival affairs of the country. All the countries examined have retained the principles of forming the terminological system of the professional area through the development of a special national terminological standard which includes the terms given in the fundamental law on archiving. However, the extent to which the terminological systems are elaborated and are consistent both within themselves and with the terminological systems of related fields of activity in each country, is different. The article contains an analytical comparison of the definitions of fundamental archival terms standardised in national standards and laws on archival affairs in the abovementioned countries and in the USSR, and also shows the influence of ISO standards on the development of terminological systems in these countries.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
苏联和后苏联国家的档案术语:连续性和变化
本文所讨论的后苏联国家(哈萨克斯坦、俄罗斯、白俄罗斯和乌克兰)的档案学派尽管有许多共同之处,但彼此之间却存在很大差异。它们的相似之处是由于从苏联继承下来的全面的法律和方法基础,以及一种公认的共同做法。档案规范性管理原则是在苏联制定的,建立在档案基本法和负责国家档案事务的中央国家机构的规范性行为的基础上。所审查的所有国家都保留了通过制定一项特殊的国家术语标准来形成专业领域术语系统的原则,其中包括关于存档的基本法中规定的术语。但是,术语系统的阐述程度和它们本身以及与每个国家有关活动领域的术语系统的一致程度是不同的。本文分析比较了上述国家和苏联在档案事务国家标准和法律中对档案基本术语的定义,并说明了ISO标准对这些国家术语体系发展的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Archives and Manuscripts
Archives and Manuscripts INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
期刊最新文献
Transitioning to open access The Indigenous Archives Collective position statement on the right of reply to Indigenous knowledges and information held in archives Activating and supporting the Tandanya Adelaide Declaration on Indigenous Archives Rancière, political theory and activist community appraisal Towards Transformative Practice in Out of Home Care: Chartering Rights in Recordkeeping
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1