Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Fri, 6 Sep 2013 21:14:28 +0000 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
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]
|
|
|