 |
 |
Edgar I am responding as the leader of the MoReq and MoReq2 teams. You are right about what MoReq says. More relevant today, I think, is what MoReq2 will say. As you may know, MoReq2 will be published early in 2008. It contains many enhancements to the original MoReq. Both MoReq and MoReq2 are underpinned by the concept that there is only one version of any record (I think that PRO 02 uses the same concept, but I haven't checked) . That's a theoretical point. I appreciate that in the real world many people think in terms of versions of a record. What remains possible, with any of these models, is to relate different records together - and that is what I think you currently do. I don't fully understand your statement that "All the approved versions sit nicely as one object". I am not sure what this means in either IT terms or in records management. You have, for one document (say) 30 "approved versions", each of which is equivalent (as you say) to one record. So you have 30 records. This is not really "one object" in IT terms, (well it could be, but it would be risky and complicated); and it certainly is not a single record (it is 30 separate records, each with its own metadata describing its dates, authorship and so on); but it would make sense to file all 30 together in one place (in the same file or whatever). All drafts of MoReq2 have been posted on the project website ( www.moreq2.eu, panellists page). The current draft is close to final in many areas; in particular the section dealing with document management (10.3) is stable. Here are the four draft requirements that, together, come closest to addressing your concern: 3418 Where there are multiple versions of a document the ERMS must be able to capture the document as a record in all of the following ways, with one being selected as default at configuration time and the user being able to select one during capture: * the most recent version; * one version that is specified by the user; * all versions stored, held as a single record; * all versions stored, held as separate but linked records. 3700 The ERMS must allow document version storage to be configurable by an administrative role, at configuration time or later, at class and file level within the classification scheme, with at least the following default options for each class and file: * all versions of all documents are stored in the class or file; * only the most recent version (where an administrative role has the ability to specify major or minor versions) of each document is stored in the class or file; * a number of versions of each document are stored in the class or file, the number being specified by an administrative role. 2380 The ERMS must be capable of version control, that is managing different versions of an electronic document as a single entity. 2379 The ERMS should be able to restrict users to viewing: * only the latest version of a document; * selected versions of a document; * all versions of a document; * versions that have been captured or registered as records, the choice to be made at configuration or a later time by an administrative role. MoReq2 will also support a new concept, namely "sub-files"; you could, if you want, use a sub-files to partition a file so that all versions and records associated with one document appear together. I am not sure that this fully addresses your concern. We might be able to enhance this by an explicit requirement to allow users to relate document versions and records, but I cannot promise that as it needs careful thought and we are perilously close to freezing the content. Let me know (quickly!) if you have any comment. Out of curiosity, in what sector/industry/business are you working? Marc Fresko EDM & ERM Consulting Services Director Serco Consulting New London Bridge House 25 London Bridge Street London SE1 9SG United Kingdom T +44 (0) 207 089 4650 F +44 (0) 207403 0834 M +44 (0) 7767 325 630 [log in to unmask] www.serco.com <http://www.serco.com/> /consulting <http://www.serco.com/> This e-mail and any attachments are for the intended addressee(s) only and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not a named addressee, do not use, retain or disclose such information. This email is not guaranteed to be free from viruses and does not bind Serco in any contract or obligation. Serco Limited. Registered in England and Wales. No: 242246 Registered Office: Serco House,16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire RG27 9UY United Kingdom. ________________________________ From: The UK Records Management mailing list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edgar McCulloch Sent: 14 December 2007 11:49 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: MoReq - Documents v Records Hi, I have been looking at the MoReq spec and have some confusion regarding documents v's records. I have documents which have 30 or more approved versions. Each approved version may have 10 draft versions. In my eyes, each approved version is a record. I allow my users to alter the versions (minor versions) and send them for approval (for the major version/next record). All the approved versions sit nicely as one object.... the minor versions are stripped out. The users only see the most current version. I also endorse this one object approach. I really do not want to manage 30 or more separate objects. I have 3,000 new versions being created per week - I never want the user to see an old version I am able to prevent older version from being modified, prevent them from being deleted, I have the versions under retention / classification control. Why does it seem to infer that only a single final version of a record should exist? Is MoReq (or TNA) pointing me to proliferating versions as objects ... or am I reading it incorrectly? MoReq..... An EDMS... * allows documents to be modified; * allows documents to exist in several versions; * may allow documents to be deleted by their owners; * may include some retention controls; * may include a document storage structure, which may be under the control of users; * is intended primarily to support day-to-day use of documents for ongoing business. * MoReq..... An ERMS... * prevents records from being modified; * allows a single final version of a record to exist; * prevents records from being deleted except in certain strictly controlled circumstances; * must include rigorous retention controls; * must include a rigorous record arrangement structure (the classification scheme) which is maintained by an administrative role; * may support day-to-day working, but is primarily intended to provide a secure repository for business records. Regards, Edgar