 
| Sender: |
|
| Date: |
Mon, 31 Mar 2008 07:46:18 -0400 |
| Content-Disposition: |
inline |
| Reply-To: |
|
| Subject: |
|
| MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
| In-Reply-To: |
|
| Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 |
| From: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 12:42 AM, Gerard Nicol <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Brent,
>
> Having read the responses to your original question it would appear there
> is differing uses of the term "meta data" between records management and
> IT.
>
> just like other terms have been taken on new meanings, such as archiving
or data retention or is that document retention or records retention.
I think in this case we're trying to get non-IT users to understand how
records are found. Whether we use metadata, tagging, indexing, taxonomy or
whatever we still end up having to explain to the end user what we mean.
I've been in several meetings in the past where we've had to agree on what a
term means before the meeting can proceed. Failure to agree on a definition
can mean problems later on down the line.
--
Peter Kurilecz CRM CA
[log in to unmask]
Richmond, Va
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]
|
|
|
