 |
 |
Marc, Dave, thanks for your prompt replies, I do appreciate that even a second standard maybe transitional. I guess the question would be if these requirements are mandatory, but not achievable, then where would that leave companies hoping to achieve those high marks against the standard? Regards, Edgar. On 1/24/08, Marc Fresko <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Edgar, Dave, > > You are both quite right - this won't work all that well for high volume > transactional systems. > > At this very late stage in the production of MoReq2 (final draft being > published this week...) I can do little more than to apologise, and to say > it is a shame that this point was not raised sooner. > > But it is not all gloom here: as all the EDRMS vendors will tell you, > what gets installed often has features that are not specified in the likes > of MoReq2 - and one such feature might, just might, be the ability to switch > off this warning message - nothing in MoReq2 prevents that. > > Just for clarification (Dave): MoReq2 is not presuming that titles are > unique, else it would require rather more than a warning; and it most > definitely is not negating the need for any other metadata. It is presuming > that the title is important enough that it most often should be unique. > Clearly that does not apply in your situation. > > > > *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 *Nixon, David > *Sent:* 24 January 2008 21:42 > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: MoReq 2 - Capturing Objects with same file name - Issue > > > > Indeed...it seems to presume that the title is the unique identifier for > objects within the classification scheme which rather negates the > functionality of meta data and record ID's. > > I cannot see how this would be workable in high transactional > systems...obviously there are ways around this like appending a unique id to > the title if the record if it already exists. > > It shouldn't ba mandatory in the context of applying standards against > workable solutions IMHO. > > Dave Nixon > Sharepoint Consultant > Altran-CIS > > -----Original Message----- > From: The UK Records Management mailing list on behalf of Edgar McCulloch > Sent: Thu 24/01/2008 21:25 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: MoReq 2 - Capturing Objects with same file name - Issue > > MoReq 2 Requirement 2842 "The ERMS must warn the user if an attempt is > made > to capture an object with a title which already exists in the same entity > or > to re-title an object with a title which already exists in the same > entity" > > MoReq 2 is allowing records to be stored against a RM File and directly > into > a classification. It also stipulating that record title should be unique. > I am ok with this for RM files. However we have incredibly high > transactional systems that store 1000s of records under > single classifications every day. They often have the same name. > > The ERMS manages the retention - x years from create date. We retrieve > them > through a third party application and have the ability to search on unique > ID etc within metadata fields (which is not the name). > > Can anyone else see an issue with this requirement. I am not sure of why > it > is mandated?? > > Regards > > Edgar > >