Glen Sanderson asked "We look at records in two basic formats. Physical such as paper, film, something we can touch and feel. Electronic, it exists in a system generally comprised of 1's and 0's. What else is there am I missing a third dimension?"

I would argue that, under certain circumstances, artifacts such geological core samples, should be considered "records".

Many of my learned colleagues have disagreed with me on this matter.

In response, I point out that the US legal system does not consider as meaningful our distinction between "records" and "non-records" when dealing with discoverable materials.

Why should we?

A restful weekend to all,

Fred

---------------------------------
Frederic J. Grevin
[log in to unmask]
212-312-3903
Vice-President, Records Management
New York City Economic Development Corporation

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]