Richard said,

> Our state records director says that if it's
> data it ain't records.  However (and to me)
> if that data exists and was used to create records
> then as long as it is there it can be used to
> re-create records.

I think that data may or may not be a record. To say that it ISN'T a record
is like saying that e-mail isn't a record. Since we've all had THAT
discussion some umpteen million times I'll just say, it's not the format
it's the information.

IMHO, data populating a database is a record 9 out of 10 times. The data in
individual fields, tables, etc. may not be completely understandeable
without all of the relational components, however, it still constitutes or
comprises a record. Whether you can or should schedule individual
components
of the database depends on the type of database and the type of
information.

I can see where scheduling different tables or fields would have some
merit.
I think this will become an increasingly important issue. New databases are
popping up everyday (in my agency anyway), with very little/if any
attention
being paid for retention or scheduling of data within the database. I bet
if
you asked 100 people how long they keep records in the database they would
just say, "it's a database, we keep it forever." This practice flys in the
face of Records Management and Archives practices and, at some point, just
won't be practical. Again, IMHO... =)

Maverick Collier
Records Analyst
City of Bellevue
Bellevue, Washington  98009
425.452.5291
[log in to unmask]