Hi Peter,

Before I answer your question of "Why not use the ISO definition instead
of what's in the IF4IT glossary?", I figured I'd put the 4 key definitions
out here, next to each other, to help support my answer.

NOTE: I found the ISO definitions of a Record and Records Management on
Wikipedia.  ISO does not publish their content openly or freely, so there
may be some degree of inaccuracy in Wikipedia's definitions.

Here are the two definitions of a Record, next to each other...

- IF4IT definition of a Record: 1. A documented account of data and/or
information that represents or helps describe the state of an item or
object at one or more specific points in time, often stored and indexed in
some formal manner for later retrieval, that helps address the needs and
issues associated with accounting, auditing, compliance, litigation or
knowledge management in general.


- According to Wikipedia, the ISO 15489 definition of a Record:
information created, received, and maintained as evidence by an
organization or person in the transaction of business, or in the pursuance
of legal obligations, "regardless of media".


Here are the two definitions of Records Management, side by side...


- IF4IT definition of Records Management: 1.  The professional discipline
that involves working with, in or on any aspect of planning, delivering,
operating or supporting for one or more Record Items or any and all
solutions put in place to deal with such Items.  2.  The solution set that
a person or organization puts in place to manage one or more Record Items.
 3.  The process or processes put in place by a person or organization to
assist in the management, coordination, control, delivery, or support of
one or more Record Items.  4.  The Enterprise Capability that represents
the general ability or functional capacity for a Resource or Organization
to deal with or handle one or more Record Items.  Such a term is often
used by Information Technology (IT) Architects when performing or engaging
in the activities associated with general Capability Modeling.

- According to Wikipedia, the ISO 15489 definition of Records Management:
The field of management responsible for the efficient and systematic
control of the creation, receipt, maintenance, use and disposition of
records, including the processes for capturing and maintaining evidence of
and information about business activities and transactions in the form of
records.



So, now that we have the definitions in plain sight, above, I'll attempt
to answer your question of: "Why not use the ISO definition instead of
what's in the IF4IT glossary?"  I believe there are four pieces to the
answer and let me qualify, here, that the following are my options...

First, let me say that I always encourage all intelligent people to look
at all available options so they can determine the best fit for their
needs.  Therefore, if you have access to multiple sources, like ISO "and"
IF4IT, and can afford to buy fee for service solutions, like ISO's
standards, I would recommend using both.  Sounds logical, correct?  This
would especially be true because ISO covers some things that IF4IT doesn't
and IF4IT covers some things that ISO doesn't.  So, a well informed person
would merge the two to get a bigger and better solutions option.  The fact
is that no single source is a perfect and complete source for information,
so why not use all that are available to you?

Second, if you're an enterprise that can't afford access to fee for
service solutions, like those provided by the ISO, you now have other
options that are free and open...  IF4IT's published terms, disciplines,
taxonomies, etc.

Third, there's the issue of information quality...  Simply compare the
definitions of Record to each other and Records Management to each other,
above.  In your own opinion, which of the above definitions look more
thorough to you?

Finally, There's the issue of evolution & maintenance of the
information... A platform like IF4IT grows and changes to adapt more
rapidly than published paper products, like those published by the ISO,
which have to go through paper republishing & reprinting processes, after
every change.  A web platform like IF4IT simply publishes new change
deltas and new incremental information, as soon as it's made available,
making it, both, a more collaborative and responsive solutions option.

Again, the above are just my own opinions and perspectives on the two
options made available for discussion, which are ISO vs. IF4IT definitions
for a Record and for Records Management.

Anyhow, sorry for the long response but I wanted to be thorough.  I hope
this answers your question.

My Best,

Frank
-- 
Frank Guerino, Chairman
The International Foundation for Information Technology (IF4IT)
http://www.if4it.com
1.908.294.5191 (M)






On 5/4/11 12:43 PM, "Peter Kurilecz" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>very interesting glossary.
>
>how were the definitions developed? Considering that ISO 15489 already has
>an internationally recognized definition why not use that instead of what
>is
>in your glossary?
>
>"1. A documented account of data and/or information that represents or
>helps
>describe the state of an item or object at one or more specific points in
>time, often stored and indexed in some formal manner for later retrieval,
>that helps address the needs and issues associated with accounting,
>auditing, compliance, litigation or knowledge management in general."
>
>Peterk
>
>On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Frank Guerino
><[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>>
>> In our own glossary, we have a definition for, both,
>>
>> - a generic "Record"
>> (http://www.if4it.com/SYNTHESIZED/GLOSSARY/R/Record.html),
>> - and correlating generic discipline called "Records Management"
>> (
>> 
>>http://www.if4it.com/SYNTHESIZED/DISCIPLINES/Records_Management_Home_Page
>>.
>> 
>>html<http://www.if4it.com/SYNTHESIZED/DISCIPLINES/Records_Management_Home
>>_Page.%0Ahtml>)
>> that explicitly deals with the management of such a noun.
>>
>> I'm wondering if there's a requirement to clearly define a Public Record
>> vs. a Private Record and create correlating disciplines labeled "Public
>> Records management" and "Private Records Management," respectively,
>>which
>> would act as sub-disciplines to the generic Records Management
>>discipline.
>>
>>
>
>
>-- 
>Peter Kurilecz CRM CA
>[log in to unmask]
>Richmond, Va
>http://twitter.com/RAINbyte
>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/RAINbyte/
>http://paper.li/RAINbyte/rainbyte
>Information not relevant for my reply has been deleted to reduce the
>electronic footprint and to save the sanity of digest subscribers
>
>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]

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]