• The Korean Journal of Archival Studies
• /
• no.25
• /
• pp.3-46
• /
• 2010

Digital records management is one whole system in which many social and technical elements are interacting. To maintain the trustworthiness, the repository needs periodical audit and certification. Thus, individual electronic records management agency needs toolkit that can be used to self-evaluate their trustworthiness continuously, and self-assess their atmosphere and system to recognize deficiencies. The purpose of this study is development of self-certification toolkit for repositories, which synthesized and analysed such four international standard and best practices as OAIS Reference Model(ISO 14721), TRAC, DRAMBORA, and the assessment report conducted and published by TNA/UKDA, as well as MoRe2 and current national laws and standards. As this paper describes and demonstrate the development process and the framework of this self-certification toolkit, other electronic records management agencies could follow the process and develop their own toolkit reflecting their situation, and utilize the self-assessment results in-house. As a result of this research, 12 areas for assessment were set, which include (organizational) operation management, classification system and master data management, acquisition, registration and description, storage and preservation, disposal, services, providing finding aids, system management, access control and security, monitoring/audit trail/statistics, and risk management. In each 12 area, the process map or functional charts were drawn and business functions were analyzed, and 54 'evaluation criteria', consisted of main business functional unit in each area were drawn. Under each 'evaluation criteria', 208 'specific evaluation criteria', which supposed to be implementable, measurable, and provable for self-evaluation in each area, were drawn. The audit and certification toolkit developed by this research could be used by digital repositories to conduct periodical self-assessment of the organization, which would be used to supplement any found deficiencies and be used to reflect the organizational development strategy.

• Journal of Ginseng Culture
• /
• v.1
• /
• pp.11-27
• /
• 2019

The Jurchens, the ancestors of the Qing Manchus, had lived scattered in Manchuria and had made their living mostly on ginseng gathering and animal hunting. Their residential areas, rich with deep forest and numerous rivers, provided great habitation for all kinds of flora and fauna, but not so proper for agriculture. Based on their activities of foraging and hunting, the Jurchens developed a unique social organization that was later transformed into the Banner System, the most distinctive Qing military institution. By the sixteenth century, that the external trade brought considerable changes to Jurchen society. A huge amount of foreign silver, imported from Japan and South America to China, first invigorated commercial economy in China proper, and later caused a huge influence on Ming frontier regions, including Manchuria. In the late sixteenth century when the tradition of foraging and hunting encountered with silver economy, the Jurchen tribes became unified after years of competition and transformed themselves into the Manchus to build the Qing empire in 1636. In 1644 the Manchus succeeded in conquering the China Proper and moved into Beijing. Even after that, the Manchu imperial court never forgot the value of Manchurii ginseng; instead, they paid great efforts to monopolize this profitable root. Until the late seventeenth century, the Qing court used the Banner System to manage Manchurian ginseng. The banner soldiers stationed in Manchuria checked unauthorized civilian entrances in this frontier and protected its ginseng producing mountains from the Han Chinese people. All the process of ginseng gathering was managed by the institutions under the direct control of the imperial court, such as the Imperial Household Department, the Butha Ula Office, and the Three Upper Banner in Shengjing. Banner soldiers were dispatched to the given mountains, collect the given amount of ginseng, and send them to the imperial court in Beijing. The state monopoly of ginseng was maintained throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries under the principle that Manchuria and its natural resources should be guarded from civilian encroachment. At the same time, Manchurian ginseng was considered as an important source of state revenue. The imperial court and financial bureau wanted to collect ginseng as much as they needed. By the late seventeenth century as the ginseng management by the banner soldiers failed in securing the ginseng tax, the Qing court began to invite civil merchants to ginseng business. During the eighteenth century the Qing ginseng policy became more dependent on civil merchants, both their money and management. In 1853 the Qing finally ended the ginseng monopoly, but it was before the early eighteenth century that wealthy merchants hired ginseng gatherers and paid ginseng tax to the state. The Qing monopoly of ginseng was in fact maintained by the active participation of civil merchants in the ginseng business.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.37
• /
• pp.371-405
• /
• 2004

International circulation of cultural assets involves numerous countries thereby making an approach based on international law essential to resolving this problem. Since the end of the $2^{nd}$ World War, as the value of cultural assets evolved from material value to moral and ethical values, with emphasis on establishing national identities, newly independent nations and former colonial states took issue with ownership of cultural assets which led to the need for international cooperation and statutory provisions for the return of cultural assets. UNESCO's 1954 "Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict" as preparatory measures for the protection of cultural assets, the 1970 "Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property" to regulate transfer of cultural assets, and the 1995 "Unidroit Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects" which required the return of illegally acquired cultural property are examples of international agreements established on illegal transfers of cultural assets. In addition, the UN agency UNESCO established the Division of Cultural Heritage to oversee cultural assets related matters, and the UN since its 1973 resolution 3187, has continued to demonstrate interest in protection of cultural assets. The resolution 3187 affirms the return of cultural assets to the country of origin, advises on preventing illegal transfers of works of art and cultural assets, advises cataloguing cultural assets within the respective countries and, conclusively, recommends becoming a member of UNESCO, composing a forum for international cooperation. Differences in defining cultural assets pose a limitation on international agreements. While the 1954 Convention states that cultural assets are not limited to movable property and includes immovable property, the 1970 Convention's objective of 'Prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property' effectively limits the subject to tangible movable cultural property. The 1995 Convention also has tangible movable cultural property as its subject. On this point, the two conventions demonstrate distinction from the 1954 Convention and the 1972 Convention that focuses on immovable cultural property and natural property. The disparity in defining cultural property is due to the object and purpose of the convention and does not reflect an inherent divergence. In the case of Korea, beginning with the 1866 French invasion, 36 years of Japanese colonial rule, military rule and period of economic development caused outflow of numerous cultural assets to foreign countries. Of course, it is neither possible nor necessary to have all of these cultural properties returned, but among those that have significant value in establishing cultural and historical identity or those that have been taken symbolically as a demonstration of occupational rule can cause issues in their return. In these cases, the 1954 Convention and the ratification of the first legislation must be actively considered. In the return of cultural property, if the illicit acquisition is the core issue, it is a simple matter of following the international accords, while if it rises to the level of diplomatic discussions, it will become a political issue. In that case, the country requesting the return must convince the counterpart country. Realizing a response to the earnest need for preventing illicit trading of cultural assets will require extensive national and civic societal efforts in the East Asian area to overcome its current deficiencies. The most effective way to prevent illicit trading of cultural property is rapid circulation of information between Interpol member countries, which will require development of an internet based communication system as well as more effective deployment of legislation to prevent trading of illicitly acquired cultural property, subscription to international conventions and cataloguing collections.