JP, I believe your first suggestion (see below) is very much in line with an initiative that Ed McCeney, DOI's records officer, has been discussing with NARA and plans to pursue as soon as time and circumstances allow. (2YWB)
While I wouldn't want to overload the DRM team down with too many "opportunities," it would be good if FIRM could be involved in prototyping and testing the DRM for both of the purposes you have outlined. (2YWC)
As you know, I also believe the General Records Schedules (GRS) as well as agency-specific NARA-approved records schedules are among the taxonomies that should be deemed to be authoritative for referencing in the Data Context section of the DRM. (2YWD)
For me the test of the value of the DRM will not be so much the degree to which it accelerates the transmission of electrons (as machine-readable data) as the extent to which it facilitates the effective management and use of high-quality records (by human beings who need to make well-informed decisions). FIRM FOB http://pages.zdnet.com/firmweb/federal_records/id58.html (2YWE)
Deley, John Paul: (2YWF)
- 1) a mapping of "data elements" on routine NARA forms... (e.g. the SF 115, 135 and 258 etc...) to the drm as well as a mapping of fields on some automated agency schedules (incl. the GRS) that have been part of federal ERM's (2YWG)
- 2) a "bridge" between drm elements and some of the "contextual" data elements coming out of the OASIS project.... (IF the OMB metadata guidance being developed as part of the ICGI recommendations is available in the next couple of months - it would be nice to "match" them up as well....especially as they relate to agency's system design/procurement specs - like DOD 5015.2). (2YWH)