{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02131637995512341, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.093394077448747, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
An Agenda for the Future

As we approach the end of another year it is a good time to assess where we have been and where we are going. The need for self-reflection can apply to our personal as well as our professional lives, and it can also apply to our professional literature. With this issue we come to the end of another volume of the Journal of Archival Organization. I have reported in the last year the recent changes that have taken place—a new publisher, a new format, new editorial board members, and most importantly, new contributions to the literature, often written by first-time authors. We have covered a wide range of issues within the pages of JAO but there are many more areas of inquiry that I hope to explore in the future. Obviously, the impact of technology on both record production and descriptive theory and practice dominates much of our discourse, and rightfully so. Within this realm, we are looking for contributions on such topics as the effect of digital library development on archival and manuscript repository activity; case studies on the use of the Archivists’ Toolkit for collection management and EAD production; archival authority data and the Encoded Archival Context—Corporate Bodies, Persons, and Families (EAC-CPF) standard; and workflow and metadata issues surrounding digital archival collections. Another area of interest is the changing face of public services—how institutions are impacted by the demands of e-mail reference questions from patrons viewing online finding aids and by requests for digital scans of materials as opposed to “old-fashioned” photocopies. Another aspect of technology for archivists to contend with is the identification and preservation of digital content. Regardless of institutional type or size, all repositories are faced with the challenges posed by “born-digital” records and collections. The literature is growing in this area, particularly with regard to preservation. But we also need to hear more from archivists on their approach to the appraisal, description, and access procedures for these records. A special issue of JAO devoted to the use of institutional repositories for archival purposes would be valuable to our profession. While I have focused my discussion on issues of technology, I must reaffirm that “archival organization” encompasses a wide range of functions and activities in our repositories and should not be restricted to description and descriptive standards. The introduction of “More Product, Less Product” in our processing activities should be reported widely in our literature, particularly an evaluation of its strengths and weaknesses. And of course, there