RECMGMT-L Archives

Records Management

RECMGMT-L@LISTSERV.IGGURU.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
John Lovejoy <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 8 Jun 2005 14:45:10 +1000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (29 lines)
Well

The International Standard for Records Management (ISO 15489 for those who
dont know it) talks about disposition of records.  If you wanted to be true
to the standard, then disposition it should be.

However, I am a firm believer in using a simpler word instead of a more
complex one.  It is also appropriate to use the most appropriate word - so
if it makes more sense to use the term 'retention' rather than 'disposition'
(or the simpler 'disposal') then use 'retention'.  The reasons for a
particular term making more sense than others will depend on many factors,
including context, organisational environment, regional idioms, etc.

For what it is worth, the National Archives of Australia issues Records
Disposal Authorities, because they authorise the disposal of records after
certain periods of time.  Of course, they also identify what stuff should be
kept as 'national archives', but this could be seen as a case of disposal
authorisation not given.  Because we call them this, it would be reasonable
to assume that agencies in our jurisdiction also call them by the same name
- it would get confusing if they didn't.

John Lovejoy
I speak for myself, not my employer (for what its worth, I use this
disclaimer so that my views are not taken to be the official views of my
employer - sometimes i speak for them, but not on this occassion)

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance

ATOM RSS1 RSS2