Mary Haider wrote: <If we apply retention to individual documents we are
doing document management. >

You're exactly right Mary, and that is why you see so many attorneys
publishing articles on "document retention". They are looking at it from
the standpoint of discovery, not RM.  Discovery doesn't care about
records series, it cares about documents.  Educating our end users
(including, and perhaps especially, legal counsel) on RM, outside of
legal or other proceedings, is important.  It gives them the proper
foundation to understand the best course to respond to discovery actions
at the document level.

And to tie this into the data mapping topic, agreed Jesse, during
discovery there is often an activity of "data mapping" which includes
mapping the relevance, location and accessibility of documents that are
responsive (or not).  It is not what many of us think of - as what Ginny
described.  Both verbs, but different activities for different purposes.

IMO, both issues tie to the problem of multiple definitions for the same
phrase, based on professional perspective.  Think back to the terms
"information life cycle" and "archiving" that we've struggled with
recently with IT - same kind of issue.

Julie

Julie J. Colgan
Director of Records Management
Nexsen Pruet, LLC

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