I'm finding this whole issue of "let the metadata guide you through the
buckets" somewhat amusing.  First let me say I am all for reducing the
number of items in a retention and disposition schedule.  I was taught
the functional retention (rather than every item retention) schedule
concept early in my career.  You might say the battles fought and won
over functional schedules (which group record items into functional
categories rather than listing them individually) was the precursor to
the bucket theory.  

However, after reading many of the recent posts (and reviewing ISO
23081-1) referring to the metadata as the means of zeroing in on a
record filed/housed/reposited according to a bucket, I realize we in the
industry have migrated "metadata" from data generated by systems about
data entered in the systems to include data we purposely design and
create to track and locate data in buckets in the systems.  

Reminds me of the early years of Microfilm CAR (computer aided
retrieval) systems.  Same concept of random or somewhat random (each
bucket, so to speak, being a roll of microfilm) location and the
inherent difficulties in retrieving a specific record.

Ginny Jones
(Virginia A. Jones, CRM, FAI)
Records Manager
Information Technology Division
Newport News Dept. of Public Utilities
Newport News, VA
[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]