Ok - I  maybe speaking heresy to the purists but the notion of a single 
copy in an EDMS system (perhaps referenced in multiple ways) is 
somewhat of a dream, at least in the record-keeping systems I have seen 
to date. Let me explain....

In a pure (ideal) record-keeping system you might think of the 
record-keeping application (particularly an Electronic system) sitting 
above the other systems acting like a kind of lets say in technical 
terms a middleware - managing the object regardless of where it is. So 
the record might exist in a web page, a financial database, a name 
index database etc. The record-keeping system (in the ideal world) 
would manage the individual object in-situ (in the application where it 
resides). Ideally the user experience would also be managed through 
this layer.

The reality is somewhat different (at least in my experience). The 
system that manages the record requires the object (record) to be 
'loaded' into the system where it is managed and then presented when 
required through some sort of interface that either mimics the original 
or is a derivative of the original. For example a (Microsoft) Excel 
viewer may present an Excel document in a form that looks like an Excel 
sheet in a form that makes it appear like an Excel sheet; alternatively 
the original system may handle the presentation (any change to the 
document will have to be written back to the record-keeping system as a 
NEW record). I have experience of a system that does a mixture of both 
these strategy.

The interesting thing we (and other customers) experienced  in this 
system (which shall remain nameless) is that the vendor had what they 
called alias to an original document, which you might consider as a way 
of having one 'actual' document and multiple references to it [ think 
of an alias as a kind of short-cut in a MS Windows world).  In a pure 
EDMS sense the 'original' document would reside in some repository 
where the references to it would point. The reality was unfortunately 
the original object was managed where it lay in the context it was 
originally assigned and any alias reference  was a separate instance - 
ergo I could delete the original in its context and the alias would 
then point to...nothing! To their credit the vendor (after much 
"discussion" with the record-keeping community they were servicing came 
around to the record-keeper community thinking that this was an an 
unacceptable situation). Their solution was to develop a way of 
'moving' the original around to the place where the longest sentencing 
of the object applied and other alias would then point. The alternative 
in the meantime was to have 'duplicate' copies kept in the multiple 
contexts - in other words multiple copies of the same information in 
the different context they were being kept in... just like a physical 
hardcopy world! The more things change the more they stay the same is 
the saying of choice here.

Now to a certain extent I can see the point - why complicate a system 
with trying to manage these complex linkages: just put the document in 
multiple times into the different context (electronic storage costs are 
relatively cheap these days). Maybe they are right, perhaps the single 
document reference approach is a view from the past  (when storage was 
more expensive and an issue - assuming you do not consider the back-up 
/ 'IT" archiving issues [ note: I am explicitly stating IT archive here 
not using the term in the record-keeping sense].

I should also make the point (from an Australian perspective at least) 
that when I am talking context here i am speaking of a 'file' or folder 
if you like context . That is a referenced document considered to be a 
record is kept in the file (folder in an electronic sense) in a 
collection of such like documents / records considered to be of a like 
context. As a way of example Rick Barry made the observation about the 
Poindexter/Ollie North inter actions - each e-mail in an individual 
sense might not have made sense unless it was referenced in relation to 
the other ( that is what makes a record-keeping system and a 'file' 
system useful versus the (generally) IT notion that a search using a 
term will retrieve all relevant documents - regardless of how 
sophisticated the algorithm and other clever technology used this is 
and will remain in my experience a fantasy for the future [but not 
necessarily the reality - nothing beats hype] . So anyway back to the 
point -  the collection of documents in that file are managed for the 
life of that context. Ergo a document in either the physical world or 
the electronic world could be place in different contexts and be 
managed and have a different life in each context (imagine say cloning 
yourself like in the Michael Keaton movie of some time ago - same 
person, different experiences not shared even though their source was 
the same).

At the end of the day you will have to make judgement calls on what to 
do in your business. Trying to get a pure system might not be possible 
- it is not like record-keeping has a high profile - and having your 
voice heard above the babble of IT people (albeit people with good 
intentions if not necessarily a clear understanding of information 
management issues: good with data not with information) is a battle. 
Three electronic copies of the same document might seem crazy to some 
(though not to anyone in a hardcopy world). Assuming an open system 
where all staff have access to all material the worst that would happen 
is that someone will get three copies presented when doing a search 
(confusing the issue of what is the record unless they understand that 
they need to view the documents in relation to the context they are 
kept in - just like in a physical world). Alternatively if you apply 
restrictions to the context by limiting access to people with a 
need-to-know you might eliminate or ameliorate the issue e.g. the only 
people who have access to the finance file are generally the finance 
people and the originator, the only person with access to the manager 
file is generally the manager (and of course the record-keepers 
supporting them all). In this way the different groups might not ever 
see the 'other' groups use of the same original document.


Anyway this e-mail has probably gone on long enough - the people that 
like the short and concise discussions will be foaming at the mouth (if 
they have reached this far of course).

I am happy to discuss any of this off-line with anyone who feels they 
need to debate / discuss this further.


have a good weekend from Canberra
(Temp 23 degrees Celcius / 73 degrees F)

John D

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