On Thu, 2 Dec 2010 14:00:12 -0800, Wayne Finlaison <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>I think the point is the standard is being developed by Standards Australia who
>develop Australian and New Zealand standards in cooperation. The standard is
>not intended to be an ISO standard and is only being developed for
Australia >and New Zealand as far as I know.  Remember AS 4390?  It became
AS ISO >15489 which was debated and consulted on internationally.
>

Hi Wayne-

Understood.  My point was that in the past, the organization in the US
involved in developing and issuing RM related Standards collaboratively
worked with other RM Standards producing bodies and cross-reviewed documents
when they were being drafted and/or revised.  In fact, we had an Australian
member ON the Committee for a few years (cheers, Marge Pember!)

The intent was always to share content to ensure it was consistent (where
applicable) and not contradictory (as MUCH as possible!), with the exception
of known 'national' differences (such as our weird spelling here in the US =)  )

It wasn't intended to make them exactly the same, but to draw upon similar
practices and make cross references where appropriate between other
published Standards.  

And yes, I fondly remember AS4390... I used to wave it in people's faces
saying... See?  SEE???  IT CAN BE DONE!!  I was actually sorry to see ISO
15489 essentially replace it, because I felt AS4390 was actually a BETTER
document, especially after the follow-on DIRKS came out.

Larry
[log in to unmask]

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]