This report provides an overview of the historical background to the establishment of moderarchives since the foundation of the French National Archives, of how archival science has developesince the publication of the ‘Dutch Manual’, and of the development of an archive community in Japan.It also draws attention to current issues in the creation of a new archival science in the electronic agIn the 19th century, archives were widely recognized both as historical documents and as theinstitutions established for their preservation. Since World War II, two important aspects, i.e. archiveas cultural heritage and as the evidence of activity, have been emphasized as a consequence oarchivists' involvement in managing not only parent-body records but also the archives of the widesociety. As for archives as cultural heritage, they have been particularly enhanced through oral histortechniques reaching into unrecorded community memories, and as for the evidence of activity, it hacome to be more strongly recognized through the study of electronic records, especially how to preservtheir authenticity, in other words, ‘recordness’. Recordness is the evidential value of records, which supported by the metadata of context, structure and content of records. These areas form the metadatafor archival arrangement and description, as found in ISAD(G) & EAD. Now we should proceed textend the horizons of the new archival science on the basis of the discussion so far and in collaboratiowith related disciplines such as library information science.

In Korea archival science is termed ‘Record Studies’, which cover both records and archival administration. The author has recently been involved in a consulting project for establishing a records management system for a major Korean firm. Thereby he came to realize the practical and interdisciplinary nature of records and archival administration. Based on that experience, the author makes two important points about archive education programmes. First, it is argued that lectures with appropriate coursework should stand at their core, as well as offering hands-on experience, for example, in the area of computer applications in order to improve the students’ general practical abilities. Secondly, it is argued that cumulative experience in record keeping in every sphere of society and the analysis of that experience from a scientific perspective is indispensable for the further development of archival science as the very basis of archive education. For the purposes of that development, it is stressed that we should promote interdisciplinary studies in related fields such as systems engineering, business administration, history, library-information science, jurisprudence and public administration. Archives education programmes would profit much from the fruits of such academic pursuits.

The Archives and History academic communities both deal with documentary sources, yet the two disciplines tend to be independent. In the coming years, both will cooperate in the creation of databases and networking. Computers have been introduced to documentation work for three reasons: first, the overwhelming numbers of papers which are the sources for both our fields, secondly, the necessity for precision in recorded information, and thirdly, data sharing. However, it is still not easy to persuade society to recognize the importance of developing databases and networks. Both the history education sector and regional archives sector should undertake the role of initiating discussion in these matters. Archives are part of our society. However, it is important to introduce the idea of ‘modern, international standards for archives’ to Japan. It should be stressed, though, that Japan is still subject to a particularity which resists acknowledgement of their importance. The nature of the issue suggests that various academic communities such as those of law and economics as well as history have to be involved in serious discussions on their contribution to developing society’s consciousness of archives.

The field of Library and Information Science (LIS) has emerged since the 1960s as a new discipline that merges traditional librarianship with information science. Information science grew out of the so-called documentation skills. Rapid innovations in information technology in the 1980s brought about the unfortunate disappearance of library schools in the United States. Nancy A. Van House and Stuart A.Sutton call this development the ‘Panda Syndrome’, after the ‘Panda Ecology’, or the phenomenon whereby species have narrow ecological niches and/or an inability to adapt to the risk of extinction. Based on the analysis of the problem and the observations of the KALIPER project（Kellog-ALISE Information Profession and Education Renewal project）, an active effort to resolve the situation is now under way. New approaches are currently being tested, including 1) addressing broad-based information problems, 2) the introduction of other disciplines and a user-centred core, 3) the incorporation of IT into curricula, 4) experimenting with specialization within the curriculum, and 5) providing flexible instruction. In addition, Joan Durrance has divided LIS research into the following five categories: information technology, information/knowledge (contents), information systems, human information behavior, and cross-cutting areas. In Japan new approaches for overcoming ‘narrow niches’have to be investigated.

Considering the circulation of museum information in the digital age, we need to presuppose a new framework for ensuring the availability of cultural information. In this paper, I draw attention to three points. The first is how we recognize cultural resources. Among museum curators, librarians, and archivists, there are some differences as to how to recognize cultural resources. The second point relates to how we describe collections. We have to think, beyond the three custodial professions, about the standardization of approaches to collections, especially metadata. The third point concerns the generation of cultural information. On the one hand, can we produce cultural information without destroying its value, or, on the other, can we provide added value? These topics are examined for the recognition of collections from the point of view of knowledge management, as well as the philosophy of information management, in pursuit of a re-evaluation of the distribution of cultural information.