I've always maintained a clear distinction between a 'record' and a
'document'. In the electronic environment the notion of 'declaring the
record' makes sense to me.
With the continuum conceptual set, this distinction is often set aside
as artificial, it being held that we are in fact dealing with the self
same entity but at different stages of its journey. (ie the record and
document are really the same thing)
This notion has never helped me in working with records, where it is
demonstrable on a daily basis that a record constitutes the evidence of
human action/transaction and that transactions inevitably reach a
tipping point at which we have 'the' record. (ie completion/end)
OK, some transactions may involve a protracted process and in such cases
the accountability of the whole process may constitute the weight of
evidence in respect of any particular transaction. But then it is the
accountable evidence of the whole process that constitutes the record
(at 'process end') and hence we still end up with 'the' record. My
point? A 'record' at some stage has to be nailed to the sticking post.
(ie declared as distinct from a document or as here, un-finished
process)
Essentially, the distinction between 'record' and 'document' appears to
me to be very 'real' not 'artificial'. Does the continuum model really
deny this?
Gerry.
Mr.G.Dane
Records Manager
University of Newcastle
|