On 9/3/07, Randy Preston <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> The main issue I have with this definition of "recordkeeping" is that it
> conflates two very distinct records-related activities, involving two
> distinct entities of responsibility, into one act.



I have to agree with Randy, I think this confusion of two activities into
one term may be why we don't see a universal acceptance of the term
"recordkeeping" throughout the RIM profession globally.

It's interesting, but I alos think this is a clear example of the quote
about "two Nations separated by a common language"

Seldom in the US do you see the term "recordkeeping" used.  In 36CFR, Part
1220,  the NARA definitions include:

"recordkeeping requirements"  all statements in statutes, regulations, and
agency directives or authoritative issuances, that provide general and
specific requirements for Federal agency personnel on particular records to
be created and maintained by the agency

and "recordkeeping system"  a manual or automated system in which records
are collected, organized, and categorized to facilitate their preservation,
retrieval, use, and disposition

But no definition for recordkeeping itself.  Same is true for the ARMA
Glossary.

The term is widely used in the UK and AUS, and I've seen it used a lot in CA
as well... but not in the US.  It also appears in ISO 15489, so it must be
used extensively elsewhere in the EU.

Larry
-- 
Larry Medina
Danville, CA
RIM Professional since 1972

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]