Well before I knew what RM was I had a top secret clearance and so I certainly understand where Larry is coming from. When I led the 2009 update to the AIIM ERM Certificate Program, we made the decision to use "categorization" (or, rather, "categorisation") to refer to grouping so that we could distinguish the grouping from the security. 

But I rather suspect that this position, and Larry's, are in the minority.  Most people would equate "classification" with grouping rather than with code words, access restriction, "need to know", etc. if for no other reason than lack of exposure to the other meaning. 

That's why almost all the vendor marketing materials, analyst white papers, etc. refer to classification. And there's another overload with categorization that relates to the capability some products have to define categories based on clustering or other content analysis techniques. There, you sometimes see "autocategorization" (the defining of categories) and "autoclassification" (the putting of content into the auto-defined categories). 

In short, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on which term to use. I generally try to disambiguate wherever there is the opportunity for confusion, but I suspect you'd have better success convincing IT to stop using "archive" than convincing the rest of the profession and their stakeholders and superiors to limit classification to security-related considerations. 

Regards, 

Jesse Wilkins, CRM
[log in to unmask]
(303) 574-0749 direct
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/jessewilkins

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]