Dear
colleague,
Do you have an interest in the future of the libraries, archives, records
management and information services workforce?
Are you
engaged in workforce development?
If so,
Lifelong Learning
We are
holding a series of consultation events, and would like to invite you to attend
one. Events will be held as follows:
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Llandrindod Wells –
Wednesday 6th June (book by 30th May)
For
more information and a booking form, please see the events page on our website
at http://www.lluk.org/events/events_index.html.
The number of places at these events is necessarily limited, therefore early booking is advised. Booking forms and
initial enquiries should be directed to [log in to unmask].
Please
accept our apologies for cross-posting; we hope you will understand that we are
keen to get good representation across our very diverse
sector.
Please
feel free to forward this invitation to your colleagues and amongst your own networks.
Claire
Kelly
Standards & Qualifications
Administrator
Standards & Qualifications Directorate
Lifelong Learning
DDI: 020 7936 5746
Fax: 0870 757 7889
clairekelly@lifelonglearninguk.org
( LLUK Information and Advice Service: 020 7936
5798
LLUK Switchboard: 0870 757 7890
Standards Verification
LLUK Website: http://www.lifelonglearninguk.org
Click here to subscribe to the Lifelong Learning
This email and any files transmitted with
it are confidential and will be protected by copyright and are for the
attention of the addressee only. This email may also be privileged. If you have
received this email in error please notify us by email reply and delete it from
your system. You may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone.
Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of Lifelong Learning
|
|
Part of the Skills for Business network |
|
t: +44 (0)20
7332 6000
dd: +44
(0)20 7332 6077 m: +44 (0)7917 761307
TFPL Ltd
2nd
Floor,
w: http://www.tfpl.com
weblog: http://www.tfpl.typepad.com
Privacy & Confidentiality
Notice
The
information contained in this E-Mail message is intended only for the person or
persons to whom it is addressed. Such information is confidential and
privileged and no mistake in transmission is intended to waive or compromise
such privilege. If you have received it in error, please destroy it and notify
us on the telephone number printed above. If you do not receive complete and
legible copies, please telephone us immediately. Any opinions expressed herein
including attachments are those of the author only. IDOX plc does not accept
responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the information provided or
for any changes to this Email, however made, after it was sent. (Please note
that it is your responsibility to scan this message for viruses)
Statuatory Information - Company name : TFPL Limited | Registration No: 1946440
| Date of Registrtion: 11 September 1985 | Place of Registration:
From:
The UK Records Management mailing list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Bradshaw, Phillip
Sent: 22 March 2007 14:23
To:
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Version Control
It probably helps here to
appreciate that status and version number are not really the same thing.
I have never seen a
scheme which reduces all the complexities of status / version to a simple
numerical scheme. Status is too complex. You may need to distinguish working
drafts from consultation drafts from final drafts etc.
Anyone considering this
should look at the status element of eGMS. Interestingly although eGMS
amalgamates this in a rather ad hoc way it refers to the IEEE LOM Status
Encoding Scheme which clearly has separate metadata elements for status and
version -page 16 of the following document.
http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg12/files/LOM_1484_12_1_v1_Final_Draft.pdf
Phillip
Bradshaw
Information
Manager
Clerk to the Council
Room 111, County Hall
Phone: 029
2087 3346
Fax:
029 2087 3349
Proactive Publishing Promotes Positive Perceptions
From:
The UK Records Management mailing list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Liz Scott-Wilson
Sent: 22 March 2007 13:55
To:
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Version Control
When
I have written policies/guidelines for version control – in particular
versioning within the document title – I usually reference “best
practice” rather than any standard.
Version
naming conventions such as 1.0, 2.0 being for major changes and 1.1, 1.2 1.3
being minor changes etc are easily understood by users and if mandated won’t
run into much of the way of objection.
However,
many people use 1_0 or v1 or v.1 or v1_0 – and a multitude of variations.
This
is different from considering document status such as DRAFT – again if
you’re having to use the document title then best practice is all you can
rely on.
However
if you are not using the document title and are instead using metadata (or
properties or attributes etc) then you can constrain the choice people have in
both versioning and status through a controlled vocabulary. Of course, if you
can do this then you probably have some sort of DMS!
I
have also noticed that uploading documents to some repositories or software (in
our case SharePoint 2003) can reject file names with certain characters such as
. – which means considering underscores instead.
Good
luck.
Liz
Scott-Wilson
Metataxis
Limited
+44 (0)7746 815 317
Designing
the Information-Centric Environment
Registered in
Registered Address:
-----Original Message-----
From: The UK Records Management mailing list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Claire Park
Sent: 22 March 2007 13:18
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Version Control
Does
anyone know if there is an accepted 'standard' for applying version
control
to documents?
We
have recently discovered that there is a huge difference in the was
version
controls are added to documents across the authority. Admittedly
in
the absence of any corporate guidance users/creators have applied their
own
logic. There is a difficulty understanding what is meant by the
terms
'draft' and 'version 1/2/3', etc.
If
there is a standard, defintion or useful guide I would be grateful if
someone
could point me in the right direction.
Thanks
Claire
Park
**********************************************************************
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If
you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for
delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this
message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly
notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your
employer does not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind.
Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate
to the official business of the Council of the City and
**********************************************************************
Mae'n bosibl bod gwybodaeth gyfrinachol yn y neges hon. Os na chyfeirir
y neges atoch chi'n benodol (neu os nad ydych chi'n gyfrifol am drosglwyddo'r
neges i'r person a enwir), yna ni chewch gopio na throsglwyddo'r neges. Mewn
achos o'r fath, dylech ddinistrio'r neges a hysbysu'r anfonwr drwy e-bost ar
unwaith. Rhowch wybod i'r anfonydd ar unwaith os nad ydych chi neu eich
cyflogydd yn caniatau e-bost y Rhyngrwyd am negeseuon fel hon. Rhaid deall nad
yw'r safbwyntiau, y casgliadau a'r wybodaeth arall yn y neges hon nad ydynt yn
cyfeirio at fusnes swyddogol Cyngor Dinas a Sir Caerdydd yn cynrychioli barn y
Cyngor Sir nad yn cael sel ei fendith. Caiff unrhyw negeseuon a anfonir at, neu
o'r cyfeiriad e-bost hwn eu prosesu gan system E-bost Gorfforaethol Cyngor Sir
Caerdydd a gallant gael eu harchwilio gan rywun heblaw'r person a enwir.
**********************************************************************
|
|