On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Frederic Grevin <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> However, saying "a core sample is a core sample" isn't really responsive
> to my question. If we are defining a record as evidence of business
> activity (squished-down definition) AND we are format-agnostic, why isn't a
> box of geological core samples a "record"?
>

Fred-

I think (in his own way) what Chris was saying is the core samples are an
object that supports a record.  The actual records would be the REPORT
related to the core sample and the initial REQUEST to extract one. The
sample itself would serve as supporting evidence for the record/s.

This would also be true in the case of a DNA sample, or as David posited,
the 'bloody glove', which may be evidence, but in and of itself, it is not
a 'record'.

Larry
[log in to unmask]

-- 
*Lawrence J. Medina
Danville, CA
RIM Professional since 1972*

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]