Perhaps, technically, someone might be willing to call a spent bullet or a
prototypical robotic wrist a "document", but I never would ... would you?

I think Larry was making the same point (but I know better than to put
words in Larry's mouth so expect he will chime in to clarify if I get it
wrong) - that the definition of "document" in 15489 is, perhaps, a bit
contrived?  Makes me think of the common technology-related complaint of
end-users ... "make it work for me, don't make me work for it".  Why are we
trying to convince people that that prototypical robotic wrist is a
"document"?  Because we need to convince them of that so it fits our method
and narrative.  Not a great answer, if you ask me (which I realize no one

Ginny said;

> However, I agree with you that distinctions between the two are not a part
> of information governance.  Folks here use "record" and "document"
> interchangeably when discussing an electronic document or file.
I'll also opt to respectfully disagree a bit with this statement (sorry I'm
so contentious today!).  I consider my work to be in the realm of IG, which
certainly includes RM but also other management disciplines, yet I never
use the terms "document" and "record" interchangeably.  Distinctions exist,
can be important distinctions to make when choosing appropriate management
tactics to apply to the content.  "Records" often get more/different
attention and resources than "documents" do because (as any good CRM will
tell you) once a document (or prototypical robotic wrist, or spent bullet)
is deemed to have regulatory, legal, fiscal or operational value to the
organization, we apply additional layers of management to its care.  We
usually don't do the same for mere "documents", or other "non-records".


Julie J. Colgan, CRM

[log in to unmask]

List archives at
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]