Allow me to respond to the points raised concerning MoReq2 in this
thread. I write as the leader of the MoReq2 project, and as the lead
author of the original MoReq.
In what follows, I reproduce a point about MoReq2 in quotes, followed by
my response. Apologies that this is long and detailed - I appreciate it
will not interest all readers.
1. "This wasn't thought of in the latest Moreq2" Not fair! Even the
very first, initial, draft of MoReq2 is not yet complete! Criticisms of
omission can only be valid when a complete draft is available.
2. "perhaps they could put something along these lines into it: 'where
messages are saved in a proprietary format, the option should be
available to save in multiple, including open, formats depending on the
classification'" I anticipate that MoReq2 will include a similar
requirement, not limited to e-mail messages, that an ERMS should be able
to store records in both native and an open preservation format.
However, I doubt that the ability to save in both formats will depend on
what is here referred to as 'classification' - meaning retention
schedules, or disposition authorities - because the logic associated
with the requirement to look out for changes to disposition authorities
would be complicated. There will be nothing to prevent vendors
incorporating such a dependency into their offerings; but I doubt they
will find that its value outweighs its complexity.
3. "MOREQ2 seems to fail to take many things into consideration... "
Again, this is unfair considering that so far only a partial initial
draft has been published. The most you can validly say that this
partial initial draft has omissions. This said, we welcome all
constructive suggestions for improvement. We'd far rather receive
constructive comment than this sort of unfounded and non-constructive
aggression.
4. "many organizations have produced guidance documents based on MOREQ
and make numerous references to 'chapter and verse' of MOREQ that will
now be null and void with the issuance of a completely re-written
document being issued as MOREQ2 that replaces the original, but makes no
cross references to it's predecessor." If this was true, I too would be
worried. It is not. Fortunately, this is a very badly informed
comment, because:
* there is no reason why anything based on a superseded version of MoReq
should in any way be considered "null and void". That idea is without
foundation and the writer has no authority to make such a claim.
* MoReq2 will contain cross-references to its predecessor. It has to -
the cross-references are required in our terms of reference, which are
publicly available, and has been since before their adoption. See
http://www.moreq2.eu/documents/MoReq2%20Scoping%20Report.pdf, page 39
about appendix X sections 1, 2 and 3.
5. "Another area that I haven't been able to clarify is the
differences/similarities between the planned revision to MOREQ and DOD
5015" I am not clear on what efforts the writer has or has not made in
this direction, or why he hasn't been able to 'clarify' this...
However:
* Any constructive comments on drafts of Moreq2 concerning lack of
consistency with other comparable documents such as (and not limited to)
US DoD 5015.2 will be looked on favourably. However, we are not aiming
for complete consistency. Rather, we aim to meet European needs first
and foremost, "raising the bar" for functionality as necessary (as we
did with the original MoReq). To do otherwise slows done the pace of
development in electronic records management either to the pace of the
slowest, or to zero, depending on just how solipsistic you feel.
* I personally have reconciled the original MoReq and PRO 2002 to US DoD
5015.2 (see
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/referencefinal.pdf pages 37
et seq). It is a difficult, inaccurate, and in many ways subjective
process, for several reasons which are too tedious to relate but which
are immediately apparent to anyone trying to replicate the process. It
is not in our terms of reference to repeat the reconciliation for
MoReq2, but there is nothing preventing the writer or anyone else from
doing so, now or later. Allow a few hours of effort to complete such a
reconciliation. The answer as of today, by the way, is that there are a
few, but very few, incompatibilities between MoReq and US DoD 5015.2.
6. "what is a multi-national to do?" Answer: implement an ERMS as you
see fit. Do whatever you want. Both specifications describe what a
system has to be able to do. Neither the European guidance nor the USA
standard specifies how software should be implemented. Software from
leading multinational vendors can, in many or most cases, be configured
to meet European, American, Australian requirements, or a combination,
or none.
Finally, we welcome constructive comment, on MoReq2, as I said above.
But while debate on MoReq2 in this forum is of course legitimate, it is
not a good way to feed suggestions to the authoring team - we are quite
likely to miss them. If anyone has any important suggestions, please
use the MoReq2 Review Panel procedure. We are no longer actively
recruiting Review Panel members, so if you want to join a Review Panel
write us at [log in to unmask]
Phew.
Marc Fresko
EDM & ERM Consulting Services Director
Cornwell Management Consultants plc
Home Barn Court, The Street
Effingham, Surrey KT24 5LG
UNITED KINGDOM
[log in to unmask]
Tel: +44 1372 456086
Fax: +44 1372 450950
www.cornwell.co.uk
Company Number 2668512 - Registered in England and Wales
________________________________
From: The UK Records Management mailing list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steve Norris
Sent: 03 May 2007 21:00
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: File Formats for Capturing Emails in EDRM
You make some good points, Larry.
What is considered a "non-proprietary" format across the pond. I guess
.MSG isn't (though you can view it outside of Outlook). What about PDF
?
I too would like to see documents cross-referencing MoReq2 with MoReq
and DoD 5015.
Regards,
Steve Norris
http://www.alliancegroup.co.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: The UK Records Management mailing list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Lawrence
Medina
Sent: 03 May 2007 20:14
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: File Formats for Capturing Emails in EDRM
Adam Pope <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
It may be useful for an EDRMS to enforce saving criteria
on emails based on classification. Folders with a retention period of
say two years could be stored in a proprietary format, but those with
longer schedules could be saved into an open format.
This wasn't thought of in the latest Moreq2, perhaps
they could put something along these lines into it: "where messages are
saved in a proprietary format, the option should be available to save in
multiple, including open, formats depending on the classification."
Keeping in mind that the majority of participants on this list
are in the UK or elsewhere in the EU, these comments are correct...
however, knowing that some of the participants are involved in this list
because they work for multi-nationals . or just want to know what's
going on "across the pond", I'd encourage a broader perspective here.
When storing any "records" in electronic formats that have
retention periods in excess of 2 years, or that may be involved in
litigation at some time, it's important to consider storing them in
non-proprietary formats whenever possible.
E-mail is an especially tricky issue (in the US at least) when
you work for a Contractor who does work for a Federal Agency, or you are
regulated by a Federal Agency, because the requirements of 36CFR (Code
of Federal Regulations) for managing e-mail come into play. Section
1234.24 requires that any e-mail being retained for more than 180 days
be removed from the native application and placed into an ERMS, unless
the native application is able to demonstrate its capabilities of
managing records in accordance with stated requirements. And when
making this change, ALL information, such as headers, distribution
lists, attachments, nicknames, acknowledgments of receipt, and other
aspects related to the e-mails authenticity, must be maintained as well.
MOREQ2 seems to fail to take many things into consideration...
one of them is many organizations have produced guidance documents based
on MOREQ and make numerous references to "chapter and verse" of MOREQ
that will now be null and void with the issuance of a completely
re-written document being issued as MOREQ2 that replaces the original,
but makes no cross references to it's predecessor. I know this is a
common practice with BSI publications and some other EU guidance
documents I've seen, but I can see where it may cause confusion with
something as far-reaching as MOREQ.
Another area that I haven't been able to clarify is the
differences/similarities between the planned revision to MOREQ and DOD
5015. What happens when a multi-national is required to deploy an
ERMS/EDMS/ECMS that is compliant with BOTH of these sets of guidance?
Has anyone considered producing a crosswalk document that looks
at the requirements of the two to determine if there are any major
discrepancies that would make it potentially impossible for a system to
satisfy the requirements of both? Given neither is a "Standard" - one
is a US-based design criteria that is referred to as a (lower case s)
'standard', and one is a EU-based model requirements document- what is a
multi-national to do?
Larry
--
Larry Medina
[log in to unmask]
|
