Skip to main content
Records Authority
Category: Metadata Standards

Records in Contexts

Also known as: RiC, Records in Contexts standard, RiC standard
Simply put

Records in Contexts (RiC) is a standard for describing records and archives, developed and maintained by the International Council on Archives (ICA). It aims to change how records are described and accessed by capturing not only the records themselves but also the layers of context surrounding them, such as the people, organizations, and activities connected to them.

Formal definition

Records in Contexts (RiC) is an archival description standard created and maintained by the Expert Group on Archival Description (EGAD) of the International Council on Archives (ICA). It is intended to describe archival record resources together with their multiple layers of context, including agents and their relationships to records and to one another. RiC includes an associated component, the Records in Contexts Ontology (RiC-O), described as an OWL 2 ontology for representing archival record resources and their contexts, enabling description that goes beyond flat, hierarchical arrangements toward a networked, relationship-based model. RiC concerns archival description specifically and should be distinguished from broader records management lifecycle controls or information governance frameworks, though it operates within the same professional domain.

Why it matters

Traditional archival description has often relied on hierarchical arrangements that mirror the physical or fonds-based structure in which records were held. This approach can obscure the many relationships that give records their evidential value, such as the connections among the people, organizations, and activities that produced or acted upon them. Records in Contexts (RiC) matters because it offers a model intended to capture these multiple layers of context, moving description toward a networked, relationship-based representation rather than a single flat or strictly hierarchical view.

For institutions responsible for archival holdings, richer contextual description can improve discoverability and support more meaningful access, since users can trace relationships across agents, records, and events rather than navigating only a fixed tree structure. Developed and maintained by the Expert Group on Archival Description (EGAD) of the International Council on Archives (ICA), RiC is positioned as a standard that seeks to align existing archival description practices around a common conceptual model. Its associated ontology, RiC-O, provides a machine-readable representation that can support linked-data approaches to archival collections.

It is worth being precise about scope. RiC concerns archival description specifically, and it should not be treated as a records management lifecycle control or a broader information governance framework. Adoption and implementation are still maturing within the profession, and organizations considering RiC should evaluate it in light of their existing descriptive standards, systems, and cataloguing practices rather than assuming it replaces all prior approaches.

Who it's relevant to

Archivists and archival description specialists
Those responsible for arranging and describing archival holdings are the primary audience for RiC. The standard directly addresses how records and their contexts are represented, and archivists evaluating whether and how to adopt RiC will need to consider its relationship to their existing descriptive practices and systems.
Cataloguers and metadata professionals
Because RiC includes the RiC-O ontology, an OWL 2 ontology for representing archival record resources and their contexts, professionals working with structured metadata and linked-data approaches may find it relevant to modeling relationships among records, agents, and activities in machine-readable form.
Institutions and repositories managing archival collections
Organizations that hold and provide access to archival collections may consider RiC as a means of enriching contextual description and improving discoverability. Such institutions will typically weigh adoption against their current standards and infrastructure, recognizing that implementation practices are still maturing.
Records and information governance professionals
While RiC concerns archival description rather than records management lifecycle controls or information governance frameworks, professionals in adjacent roles may find it useful to understand where archival description intersects with, but remains distinct from, their own responsibilities within the same professional domain.

Inside RiC

Conceptual model (RiC-CM)
The abstract framework that describes archival records and their contexts in terms of entities, their properties, and the relationships among them. It provides the intellectual foundation on which the other components of Records in Contexts rest, rather than a technical implementation in itself.
Ontology (RiC-O)
An expression of the conceptual model in a form intended for the semantic web and linked data, typically using ontology languages so that archival descriptions can be published, queried, and interlinked as machine-processable data. The ontology aims to translate the model's entities and relationships into a formal vocabulary.
Entities
The core things the model describes, which may include records and record components, the agents responsible for them, the activities and functions that generated them, and the dates, places, and rules associated with them. The precise set of entities is defined by the model itself rather than assumed here.
Relationships
Explicit, often typed connections between entities, which are central to the approach. Rather than treating context as fixed hierarchical description, the model emphasizes multiple, changing relationships among records, agents, and activities over time.
Multidimensional description of context
An orientation toward representing the many contexts in which a record exists simultaneously, in contrast to a single fixed arrangement. This is intended to accommodate the fact that records may relate to more than one creator, activity, or aggregation.

Common questions

Answers to the questions practitioners most commonly ask about RiC.

Is Records in Contexts (RiC) a records management standard for controlling records across their lifecycle?
No. RiC is an archival description standard developed within the archival community to describe records and their contexts, rather than an operational records management standard governing the control of records across their lifecycle. It should not be conflated with standards addressing recordkeeping processes such as classification, retention, and disposition. RiC concerns how records and their relationships are described, typically for archival and access purposes, which is a distinct activity from managing records as evidence during their active life. Organizations should treat it as complementary to, not a replacement for, records management frameworks.
Does adopting RiC mean replacing existing archival description standards outright?
Not necessarily in the way that is sometimes assumed. RiC was conceived to bring together and build upon earlier archival description approaches, but its introduction does not automatically render existing descriptive practices void or require immediate wholesale replacement. Many institutions maintain descriptions created under prior conventions, and the transition to a RiC-based approach typically depends on organizational priorities, resources, and the systems in use. The relationship between RiC and earlier standards is better understood as evolutionary rather than as a clean substitution.
How does RiC's conceptual model differ from a flat, hierarchical description of records?
RiC is generally characterized by a shift toward representing records and their contexts as interconnected entities and relationships rather than solely through a single fixed hierarchy. In practice, this means that entities such as records, agents, and activities can be linked in multiple ways, allowing relationships to be expressed more flexibly than a strictly nested arrangement permits. Implementers should consider how their existing descriptive data, often structured hierarchically, would map onto a relationship-oriented model, as this may affect data modeling and system design decisions.
What should an institution consider before mapping legacy descriptions to RiC?
Institutions typically need to assess how their existing descriptive data aligns with RiC's entities and relationships, since data created under earlier conventions may not map cleanly. Considerations often include the granularity and consistency of existing descriptions, how implicit relationships were previously handled, and the effort required to make those relationships explicit. Depending on organizational policy and resources, mapping may be phased, and it is prudent to pilot the process on a limited set of holdings before committing to a full migration.
What skills or roles may be involved in a RiC implementation?
Implementation often draws on a combination of archival description expertise and data modeling or information systems capability, because a relationship-oriented model can require different competencies than traditional hierarchical description. Depending on the institution, this may involve archivists, metadata specialists, and technical staff working together. The specific mix of roles depends on organizational size, existing systems, and the scope of the implementation, so requirements should be assessed against local circumstances rather than assumed to be uniform.
How should RiC fit alongside an organization's broader records management and information governance practices?
RiC is best treated as one component within a wider environment rather than as a comprehensive solution to recordkeeping needs. Because it addresses archival description rather than the operational control of records, it typically sits alongside, and does not substitute for, records management processes and the broader accountability framework of information governance. Organizations should be explicit about where RiC's scope ends and where retention, disposition, privacy, security, and other governance concerns are addressed by separate policies and standards.

Common misconceptions

Records in Contexts is simply a newer version of a single earlier descriptive standard, so adopting it means minor reformatting.
It is better understood as an integrating conceptual and ontological approach that reconceives archival description around entities and relationships, rather than a like-for-like replacement of any one prior format. Its adoption typically involves rethinking how context is modeled, not only changing a file structure, and the extent of change depends on organizational context.
The conceptual model and the ontology are the same deliverable.
The conceptual model describes the domain in abstract terms, while the ontology is a separate, formal expression intended for linked data and machine processing. Practitioners often need to distinguish which component they are working with, since they serve different purposes.
Because it supports linked data, Records in Contexts automatically makes records themselves authoritative or trustworthy.
The approach concerns the description and contextualization of records and their relationships. Properties that make something an authoritative record, such as authenticity, reliability, integrity, and usability, must still be established and maintained through recordkeeping practice; a richer descriptive model does not by itself confer them.

Best practices

Clarify at the outset whether a given task involves the conceptual model or the ontology, since they play different roles and inform different design and implementation decisions.
Treat relationships between entities as first-class elements of description, capturing how records connect to agents, activities, and other records rather than relying solely on a single fixed hierarchy.
Map existing descriptive practices and legacy metadata against the model's entities and relationships before migrating, to identify where multidimensional context can be represented and where information may be lost.
Where linked data publication is a goal, plan for the additional skills and infrastructure that machine-processable, interlinked description typically requires, and pilot on a limited scope first.
Maintain the distinction between describing records in context and demonstrating their evidential qualities, ensuring that recordkeeping controls for authenticity, reliability, integrity, and usability remain in place alongside enriched description.
Document local modeling decisions and any adaptations made when applying the framework, so that description remains consistent, defensible, and interpretable over time.