I think it's because it's assumed. For example, I get the change to talk
about RM with a lot of diverse audiences and I often preface the discussion
with the notion that "all records are documents, but not all documents are
records". After that, the discussion generally goes in a couple different
directions: 1. Not all records are documents - what about a) databases or b)
core samples, etc.? My response - document is meant to be broad and I use it
to refer to a self-contained artifact of information, regardless of media or
format.
2. Yes. Next?
3. No - in my organization everything is a record. You're an idiot. Etc.
This is often the most interesting one to me, particularly since it isn't
(or at least hasn't been) a very common approach, even in highly litigated
environments or FOIA/Public Records Act/etc.-covered environments. We had
this discussion in a chapter seminar I delivered early last year and I
thought there would be blows!

So for me, I generally subscribe to the notion you offer, that it ain't a
record until someone says it is - not the specific declaration of the
particular record into a repository, but the fact that there is a notation
somewhere that says "Documents with content X are records and must be
managed appropriately." I also tend to consider working drafts as documents
rather than records and, with very few instances, a record to not be a
record until it's done and actionable. Different clients vary, of course,
but that's my initial approach in most instances. And I also run with
scissors a lot. :)

-- 
Regards,

Jesse Wilkins
[log in to unmask]
blog: http://informata.blogspot.com
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]