HI John,
I certainly appreciate your points, however "record" IS defined in the
glossary, and to the group, adding "electronic record" seemed superfluous -
which may be why that term also isn't defined in many of the other works
cited.
Moreover, we wanted the Glossary to remain just that - the SAA glossary,
arguably, isn't a glossary but rather an encyclopedia. I don't know the
average length of each definition but I'd be surprised if they are under 150
words each. All the reasons I can think of for including "electronic record"
as a separate term all end up with a very encyclopedic definition that
includes notes about proprietary formats, long-term preservation, computer
access, etc.
I understand your broader point, but with any endeavor of this type there's
going to be a balancing act and where we drew the line was to include
definitions that were of value to RIM practitioners and their broader
constituencies, and terms that were commonly used but carried different
connotations in the RIM world. That's why, for example, we removed
"monitor", "mouse", "PC", etc. - not inherently germane to RIM, MUCH more
common than they were in 1999 for the previous version, and so forth.
Cheers,
Jesse Wilkins
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of John J. O'Brien
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 11:16 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [RM] Glossaries - definition(s) of "electronic records" and/or
"electronic documents"
Always appreciate the work of the InterPARES project(s) - I think it is less
well known that it should be. Wish I could stop by the booth, Randy, but
committed here.
Jesse, however true it may be that "electronic" and "records" may be
comprehensible in RIM terms to RMmgrs, I might dispute whether that is
universal and note that the InterPARES set of related definitions are a good
illustration of why even within the RIM domain there mare many who will not
be well versed in the complex array of factors that mst be managed for
authentic e-records. It would be great if ARMA projects could also take
into account the needs of non-RMgrs in development glossaries, etc. I have
had the unfortunate experience of a senior exec dismissing as irrelevant and
"obviously" out of date a document that did not employ "common" terms like
"electronic records".
Glossaries and such serve an important communication tool, quite beyond
there most direct use. The challenge, I think, is to produce documentation
that both serves the needs of practitioners and, wherever possible, helps
them in translating the domain as something relevant to people not working
in it.
There is some good stuff out there, but always room for improvement, IMO.
Regards,
John
[log in to unmask]
www.irmstrategies.com
www.s4k.com
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present,
place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]
|
