Citation and Source Attribution Standard

1. Purpose

This standard establishes the Bureau of Digital Antiquities’ requirements for the identification, citation and attribution of source material used in public institutional records.

Digital preservation frequently depends upon evidence assembled from material created at different times, retained under different conditions and accessed through different technical environments.

A surviving website, archival capture, screenshot, contemporary publication, technical document or earlier Bureau record may each provide evidence about a Digital Object. None should be represented as establishing more than the source itself reasonably supports.

The purpose of citation is therefore not solely to identify where information was obtained. Citation forms part of the Bureau’s record of provenance.

2. Scope

This standard applies to source material used in:

• Digital Object Records;
• Field Reports;
• Preservation Bulletins;
• Technical Notes;
• Publications Manuals;
• Annual Reports where detailed source attribution is required;
• Collections and associated curatorial material; and
• other public Bureau documentation where factual or documentary claims depend upon identifiable external evidence.

The level of citation should be proportionate to the nature of the record.

A short catalogue description does not require the citation apparatus of a formal Field Report. Material supporting significant historical, preservation or provenance determinations should nevertheless remain identifiable within the Bureau’s documentary record.

3. General Principle

A citation should permit a reader, examiner or later Bureau officer to understand the source upon which a statement or determination was based.

Where practicable, a citation should identify:

1. the creator, publisher or responsible body;
2. the title or descriptive name of the source;
3. the date of publication or creation, where known;
4. the relevant network location or archival reference;
5. the date on which a network resource was accessed or verified, where material to the record; and
6. any qualification necessary to explain the condition or provenance of the source.

Information that cannot be established should not be invented to complete a citation.

The absence of a known date, author or original address should be recorded as uncertainty where that absence is significant.

4. Categories of Source Material

Bureau research may rely upon several categories of documentary evidence.

These include:

• Primary network resources — surviving websites, services or other Digital Objects observed directly at a public network location;
• Archival captures — preserved representations obtained through a web archive or other archival system;
• Contemporary documentation — publications, announcements, manuals, journalism or other material produced during the operational period of the object;
• Technical documentation — specifications, software documentation, source material, configuration records or other technical evidence;
• Visual records — screenshots, photographs, scans or recorded demonstrations;
• Retained files and metadata — digital files, filesystem information, embedded metadata or other retained technical material;
• Later historical sources — retrospective research, interviews and secondary accounts; and
• Bureau records — earlier catalogue entries, reports, examination notes and institutional documentation.

The category of a source does not by itself determine its reliability.

Sources should be assessed according to their provenance, proximity to the matter being documented, internal consistency and relationship to other available evidence.

5. Surviving Network Resources

Where a Digital Object remains publicly accessible, direct observation may provide evidence of its present condition.

The record should distinguish present observation from historical fact.

The fact that a website displays a statement, date or attribution does not necessarily establish that the displayed information has remained unchanged since original publication.

Where the continued accessibility of the resource is material to a Bureau determination, the date of observation or verification should be recorded.

A current network resource may support statements concerning its present content, structure and accessibility. Historical claims derived from that resource should be evaluated separately.

6. Historical Network Addresses

Historical network addresses should be recorded exactly enough to identify the resource under examination.

The Bureau should distinguish between:

• an original or historically documented address;
• a later address used by the same Digital Object;
• a redirect;
• an archival address;
• a reconstructed or mirror location; and
• a former address now occupied by unrelated material.

The present existence of a domain name does not establish continuity with the Digital Object historically associated with that domain.

Where a former address has been reassigned or its content materially replaced, the address may remain relevant as historical evidence but should not be presented as a current access point to the original object.

7. Archival Captures

An archival capture is evidence of material preserved or observed by an archival system at a particular point in time.

It is not automatically equivalent to the original Digital Object.

When an archival capture is material to a finding, the record should identify, where practicable:

• the archive or repository;
• the captured network address;
• the capture date;
• the archival access location; and
• the date on which the capture was examined by the Bureau.

Limitations should be acknowledged where relevant.

A capture may omit external resources, scripts, images, media, server-side behaviour or other dependencies present in the original operational environment.

The existence of a capture therefore establishes evidence of preserved material, not necessarily a complete representation of the object as it functioned at the time.

8. Screenshots and Visual Evidence

A screenshot documents a visible presentation observed under particular conditions.

Where an external screenshot is reproduced by the Bureau, its source should be identified where practicable.

Where the Bureau creates the screenshot directly, the attribution should make that distinction clear.

A screenshot should not be used as sole evidence of functionality that cannot be established from the image itself.

For example, an image of a navigation control may demonstrate that the control was visually present. It does not by itself demonstrate that the control functioned.

Likewise, a screenshot should not be represented as the Digital Object itself.

9. Contemporary and Secondary Sources

Contemporary sources may provide evidence unavailable from surviving Digital Objects.

Such material may be particularly important when establishing:

• original publication dates;
• creators or responsible organisations;
• historical network addresses;
• intended function;
• contemporary reception;
• technical characteristics; or
• the relationship between related systems.

Later secondary sources may assist interpretation and historical reconstruction but should not automatically displace contemporary evidence.

Where a later account conflicts with contemporary documentation, the difference should be examined rather than silently reconciled.

10. Conflicting Evidence

Conflicting evidence is a normal condition of digital historical research.

The Bureau should not resolve a conflict solely to produce a simpler public record.

Where one source is considered more reliable than another, the basis for that assessment should be identifiable from the available evidence or examination.

Where the conflict cannot reasonably be resolved, the publication should preserve the uncertainty.

Suitable language may include:

• “reported as”;
• “documented by”;
• “appears to have”;
• “the available record indicates”;
• “the Bureau has not independently established”; or
• “the surviving evidence is inconclusive.”

Such qualifications should communicate genuine evidential limits rather than serve as routine editorial disclaimers.

11. Attribution

Attribution identifies the creator, custodian, publisher, archive or other responsible source associated with material used by the Bureau.

Attribution must not imply ownership by the Bureau where none exists.

External images, archival captures and reproduced material should identify their source where practicable.

Bureau-created screenshots may be described using a form such as:

Screenshot captured by the Bureau of Digital Antiquities

where that description accurately represents the origin of the image.

The source of the underlying Digital Object should be identified separately where necessary.

12. Citation of Bureau Records

Bureau publications should cite other Bureau records using their permanent identifiers.

On first significant reference, the identifier should ordinarily be accompanied by the title.

For example:

PM-000001 — Bureau Editorial and Style Manual

or:

FWX-000002 — Space Jam Website

Where the context remains clear, subsequent references may use the identifier alone.

Relationships recorded through the Bureau publication or catalogue system should supplement rather than replace meaningful references within the text.

13. Evidence and Bureau Assessment

Publications should distinguish between what a source records and what the Bureau concludes from that evidence.

A source may establish that a network address was advertised at a particular date.

An archival capture may establish that particular material was observable by the archival system at another date.

A contemporary article may document how a service was described publicly.

The Bureau may use those sources collectively to reach an assessment of the identity, continuity, condition or significance of a Digital Object.

The assessment remains a Bureau determination and should not be attributed to the sources unless those sources themselves make the same determination.

This distinction is particularly important where a Preservation Status, Operational Status or recovery finding depends upon interpretation of multiple incomplete sources.

14. Unavailable and Lost Sources

The loss of a source does not necessarily invalidate an earlier documented observation.

Where a source previously examined by the Bureau is no longer publicly available, the record should not silently replace its former address with an unrelated current resource.

Existing citations may be retained as historical references.

Where an archival copy or successor source is identified, it may be recorded in addition to the historical citation provided that the distinction is clear.

The Bureau should avoid presenting an archival substitute as though it were the originally cited source.

15. Editorial Review

Source references should be reviewed as part of the publication process.

Review should consider:

• whether the source supports the associated statement;
• whether observation and inference are distinguished;
• whether historical and current addresses are clearly identified;
• whether archival captures are described accurately;
• whether reproduced material is appropriately attributed;
• whether uncertainty has been retained where necessary; and
• whether relationships to other Bureau records are correctly identified.

A technically valid link is not sufficient evidence that a citation is editorially appropriate.

Likewise, a broken historical link is not sufficient reason to remove a citation from the documentary record.

16. Maintenance of this Standard

This standard is maintained by the Publications Office under the general editorial framework established by PM-000001 — Bureau Editorial and Style Manual.

Revisions should preserve the distinction between editorial presentation and the evidential requirements of Bureau research.

Changes affecting substantive citation or attribution requirements should be recorded through revision control.

---

Prepared by Robert C. Lieu
Director of Publications
Publications Office
Bureau of Digital Antiquities
1 October 2026