Records Management Service Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

Records Management Service — Closed Issues

  • Acronym: RMS
  • Issues Count: 20
  • Description: Issues resolved by a task force and approved by Board
Closed All
Issues resolved by a task force and approved by Board

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
RMSF2-45 RecordKeepers and Suspensions Services no longer exist but their ports are in the specification and the XMI file RMS 1.0b2 RMS 1.0 Resolved closed
RMSF2-44 Service packages require operation definitions RMS 1.0b2 RMS 1.0 Resolved closed
RMSF2-43 Need convention to name referenced object via IDREF RMS 1.0b2 RMS 1.0 Resolved closed
RMS-59 managed record clarification RMS 1.0b1 RMS 1.0b2 Resolved closed
RMS-58 There are no services defined to capture or modify case files RMS 1.0b1 RMS 1.0b2 Resolved closed
RMS-57 RMS would be better cast as a MOF model as opposed to a UML model RMS 1.0b1 RMS 1.0b2 Resolved closed
RMS-56 The transformation algorithm from UML to XSD is inadequate for RMS purposes. RMS 1.0b1 RMS 1.0b2 Resolved closed
RMS-55 RecordKeeper is related to ManagedRecord. Shouldn't it be to RecordSet? RMS 1.0b1 RMS 1.0b2 Resolved closed
RMS-54 Do we need a root to reach everything in the RMS.XSD RMS 1.0b1 RMS 1.0b2 Resolved closed
RMS-53 In the RMS.XSD we have circularity between the rms and ap namespace RMS 1.0b1 RMS 1.0b2 Resolved closed
RMS-52 There are Errors in the RMS.XSD RMS 1.0b1 RMS 1.0b2 Resolved closed
RMS-51 Relationship of CaseFile "Close" and RecordSet "Cutoff" Operations RMS 1.0b1 RMS 1.0b2 Resolved closed
RMS-50 Documents shared among CaseFile's and "vanilla" ManagedRecord's RMS 1.0b1 RMS 1.0b2 Resolved closed
RMS-49 Need to provide formal description of behavior for operations RMS 1.0b1 RMS 1.0b2 Resolved closed
RMS-48 Are we missing a Repository Service? RMS 1.0b1 RMS 1.0b2 Resolved closed
RMS-47 RecordCreator and RecordKeeper must have Agency (or the top level organization) RMS 1.0b1 RMS 1.0b2 Resolved closed
RMS-46 What happens on "destruction" or "transfer" RMS 1.0b1 RMS 1.0b2 Resolved closed
RMS-45 Specification needs declaration of compatibility RMS 1.0b1 RMS 1.0b2 Resolved closed
RMS-44 Need to finish capturing the relationships between the Use Cases and the actors RMS 1.0b1 RMS 1.0b2 Resolved closed
RMS-43 Need to finish UseCaseRealizations –Find Disposition Candidates Realization RMS 1.0b1 RMS 1.0b2 Resolved closed

Issues Descriptions

RecordKeepers and Suspensions Services no longer exist but their ports are in the specification and the XMI file

  • Key: RMSF2-45
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15871
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Larry Johnson [X] (Inactive))
  • Summary:

    Removing the ports will resolve problems of untyped ports in the XMI.

  • Reported: RMS 1.0b2 — Tue, 7 Dec 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — RMS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    These two ports were remnants left from services that were eliminated and were therefore untyped. Furthermore, the remaining ports created tool exchange problems. The port diagram is only used for exposition to demonstrate the scope of service provision and consumption, and will be retained in the specification pictorially to provide overview, but they are removed from the XMI. The diagram is updated with one that correctly presents our current suite of services.
    Additionally
    1. There was a large quantity of Sparx Systems EA extensions in the XMI. These were removed.
    2. The original XMI had PSM constructs included that resulted in portability problems. The XMI is now strictly the PIM and now loads cleanly into both MagicDraw and Sparx EA tools.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Service packages require operation definitions

  • Key: RMSF2-44
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15782
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Larry Johnson [X] (Inactive))
  • Summary:

    All services defined underneath “RmsServices” need to have their service operations detailed. They are in the PIM Model, the PSM WSDL model, and in the PSM WSDL artifacts, but not in the PIM service section of the textual specification

  • Reported: RMS 1.0b2 — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — RMS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Operation definitions have been added

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Need convention to name referenced object via IDREF

  • Key: RMSF2-43
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15671
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Larry Johnson [X] (Inactive))
  • Summary:

    It should be clear that an attribute in the PSM represents a reference to another object and just which object-type it is. For example the attribute might be named a concatenation of the “rolename”, “_”, “ID” to indicate the referenced class via the role of the association. The type of the attribute would be IDREF

  • Reported: RMS 1.0b2 — Sun, 3 Oct 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — RMS 1.0
  • Disposition Summary:

    Resolved as part of Issue 15212. The convention eventually adopted involved W3C type NCName rather than IDREF.
    Revised Text: None

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

managed record clarification

  • Key: RMS-59
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15228
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Lockheed Martin ( John Olden-Stahl)
  • Summary:

    According to the Spec, a managed record can have many categories and a category can have many disposition instructions. Therefore, a managed record assigned multiple categories can have multiple dispositions unless a specific user action is taken to assign one disposition plan for the record set that the managed record belongs to. Please explain?

  • Reported: RMS 1.0b1 — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — RMS 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The resolution to the multiple categories is in Section 8.2.4.3 "Category::RecordCategoryAssociation" where the association between ManagedRecord and RecordCategoryAssociation is documented (emphasis added). The multiple RecordCategoryAssociation's are necessary to keep the history via the previous/next association. There is an analogous description for a Category's multiple DispositionInstruction's (only one is current... the remainder are historical)
    Revised Text: None

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

There are no services defined to capture or modify case files

  • Key: RMS-58
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15227
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Lockheed Martin ( John Olden-Stahl)
  • Summary:

    CaseFile is referenced in the static structure of the model; however, there are no services defined to capture or modify case files. Has this been further defined or should we assume we develop our own services and interpretation?

  • Reported: RMS 1.0b1 — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — RMS 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    The requisite services are to be added

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

RMS would be better cast as a MOF model as opposed to a UML model

  • Key: RMS-57
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15214
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: International Business Machines ( Sridhar Iyengar)
  • Summary:

    RMS would be better cast as a MOF model as opposed to a UML model. Using constructs such as Association Classes cause difficulties in export to XMI and transformation to XSD's. (Raised by Sridhar Iyengar of IBM in the Jacksonville meeting)

  • Reported: RMS 1.0b1 — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — RMS 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    We need to have the model remain as a UML model. This is not a metamodel on which models will be based, but is a model itself. The PSM will need to address the issue of Association Class representation in an XSD. That is being worked under Issue 15212
    Revised Text: None

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

The transformation algorithm from UML to XSD is inadequate for RMS purposes.

  • Key: RMS-56
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15212
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Larry Johnson [X] (Inactive))
  • Summary:

    The lattice of the UML model is converted into a tree, all associations being converted to contained elements causing any shared elements to be copied into others.

  • Reported: RMS 1.0b1 — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — RMS 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Need to add revised text that documents the algorithm and regenerate the XSD.
    The single XSD becomes multiple due to the refactoring that resulted in the resolution of other issues

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

RecordKeeper is related to ManagedRecord. Shouldn't it be to RecordSet?

  • Key: RMS-55
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15114
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Larry Johnson [X] (Inactive))
  • Summary:

    We currently attach RecordKeeper to ManagedRecord, but this was established before we discovered the need to manage record disposition through RecordSet. Is there a case wherein records in a RecordSet have different RecordKeeper's?

  • Reported: RMS 1.0b1 — Thu, 4 Mar 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — RMS 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Delete association between ManagedRecord and RecordKeeper. Establish association between RecordSet and RecordKeeper.
    Provide constraint that RecordSet's cannot be merged in less they have identical RecordKeeper history.
    Added constraint to RecordSet: “RecordSets cannot be merged unless they have the same RecordKeeper”. This is probably also a constraint on the DispositionInstructions service.
    There is an undesirable direction of dependencies. Split the Role subtypes out of the Party package into an RmsRoles package that extends the Party package.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Do we need a root to reach everything in the RMS.XSD

  • Key: RMS-54
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15111
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Larry Johnson [X] (Inactive))
  • Summary:

    Do we need artificial root element to reach everything in the RMS.XSD

    A similar construct was mentioned and used in the Federal Transition Framework XSD. It is not clear for example, that one could transfer ManagedRecords as well as Category for the ManagedRecord to refer to (we may only be able to transfer the Category reference, but not the description of the Category itself

  • Reported: RMS 1.0b1 — Tue, 2 Mar 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — RMS 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Disposition Note: Merged into 50512
    Resolution:
    None
    Revised Text: Unspecified

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

In the RMS.XSD we have circularity between the rms and ap namespace

  • Key: RMS-53
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15110
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Larry Johnson [X] (Inactive))
  • Summary:

    We can eliminate this by splitting out the party model (the only reference from ap to rms) into its own namespace

  • Reported: RMS 1.0b1 — Tue, 2 Mar 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — RMS 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Split out Party and Document from RMSDomain package to eliminate the circularity. Rename packages RmsDomain to RmsCore, Party to RmsParty and Document to RmsDocument.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

There are Errors in the RMS.XSD

  • Key: RMS-52
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15109
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Larry Johnson [X] (Inactive))
  • Summary:

    A number of errors are in the RMS.XSD. Some are namespace problems (there are related issues), others are introduced by the generation of the XSD from the model

  • Reported: RMS 1.0b1 — Tue, 2 Mar 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — RMS 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Merged into Issue 15212

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Relationship of CaseFile "Close" and RecordSet "Cutoff" Operations

  • Key: RMS-51
  • Legacy Issue Number: 15000
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Larry Johnson [X] (Inactive))
  • Summary:

    Currently records sharing a Category are placed into a common RecordSet awaiting a "Cutoff" operation based on an event which is often date related.

    CaseFileRecord's do not generally "Close" at the same time or in the same period.

  • Reported: RMS 1.0b1 — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — RMS 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Add constraint that the CaseFileRecord's that are in a RecordSet must be closed for that RecordSet to be Cutoff.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Documents shared among CaseFile's and "vanilla" ManagedRecord's

  • Key: RMS-50
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14999
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Larry Johnson [X] (Inactive))
  • Summary:

    A document can be shared among multiple ManagedRecord's. The sharing is predicated on the immutability of a Document. CaseFilePart's are permitted to be appendable, deleteable, etc... all modifications of the Document. If a Document is shared among these MR's, constraints must be put on the characteristics of the CaseFilePart to assure to assure the integrity of the Document in the context of the vanilla ManagedRecord.

  • Reported: RMS 1.0b1 — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — RMS 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    In examining this seemingly "innocuous" issue, it became clear that our model was somewhat "upside-down". To resolve it, the CaseFile package will be eliminated and the concepts merged into ManagedRecord. Essentially a ManagedRecord is a CaseFile with immutable parts.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Need to provide formal description of behavior for operations

  • Key: RMS-49
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14973
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Larry Johnson [X] (Inactive))
  • Summary:

    Need to provide formal description of behavior for operations. Inter-operability will be a far stretch without it (Larry Johnson, 20091204)

  • Reported: RMS 1.0b1 — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — RMS 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Out of Scope
    Revised Text:
    None

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Are we missing a Repository Service?

  • Key: RMS-48
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14971
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Hewlett-Packard ( Bill Manago)
  • Summary:

    Are we missing a Repository Service? How do we handle the path were the record will be managed? (Bill Manago, 20091112)

  • Reported: RMS 1.0b1 — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 05:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — RMS 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    We don't want to build in the idea of location and repository structure any more than is necessary. Specifying locations would defeat many of the goals of Cloud Computing, or even basic distributed data principles.
    An implementation may gather information on a desired location (whether we recommend doing so or not) by passing it along as a value of an attribute defined in a AttributeProfile
    Revised Text: None

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

RecordCreator and RecordKeeper must have Agency (or the top level organization)

  • Key: RMS-47
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14134
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Larry Johnson [X] (Inactive))
  • Summary:

    RecordCreator and RecordKeeper must have Agency, following the same rules/pattern as Provenance designation. The ultimate organization of the RecordCreator and RecordKeeper must be the same.

    [JRMS Remaining Issue]

  • Reported: RMS 1.0b1 — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — RMS 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    It is agree this Issue is incorrect. It is quite possible for the RecordKeeper to be from an entirely different agency than that indicated by the Provenance of the record (e.g., when records are seized by a law enforcement agency... they become the RecordKeeper for the period of time that they have custody of the record.)
    Revised Text: None

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

What happens on "destruction" or "transfer"

  • Key: RMS-46
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14132
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Larry Johnson [X] (Inactive))
  • Summary:

    On deletion of a record from the RM system what information is kept to track that it existed and has been destroyed and by what authority and perhaps accessioned by NARA or other Transfer.

    [JRMS Remaining Issue]

  • Reported: RMS 1.0b1 — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — RMS 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    None. However, there may be an additional issue to be raised as to what is deleted when the decision to delete a ManagedRecord is made. The model needs to be notated from ManagedRecord on out with aggregation or containment as to what is contained as part of the record and therefore what will be removed when the ManagedRecord instance is removed.
    In terms of what information is retained (as addressed in this issue), that is dependent on the applicable business rules and regulations and therefore is out of scope of this specification.
    Revised Text: None.

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Specification needs declaration of compatibility

  • Key: RMS-45
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14129
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Larry Johnson [X] (Inactive))
  • Summary:

    The specification should have a paragraph that lists all the RMS's mentioined in the UFAC spec, and DoD 5015.2. AS 4390 Australian Records Standard, and all other non-european standards, ahem, not mentioned in the spec.

    A paragraph above them, simple and sweet that explains why the OMG RMS specification is compatible with them, listing all these current standards and specifications.

    [JRMS Remaining Issue]

  • Reported: RMS 1.0b1 — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — RMS 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Out of Scope
    Revised Text:
    None

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Need to finish capturing the relationships between the Use Cases and the actors

  • Key: RMS-44
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14128
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Larry Johnson [X] (Inactive))
  • Summary:

    Package: RmsUseCases

    [JRMS Remaining Issue]

  • Reported: RMS 1.0b1 — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — RMS 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Out of Scope
    Revised Text:
    None

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT

Need to finish UseCaseRealizations –Find Disposition Candidates Realization

  • Key: RMS-43
  • Legacy Issue Number: 14127
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Object Management Group ( Larry Johnson [X] (Inactive))
  • Summary:

    Package: UseCaseRealizations –Find Disposition Candidates Realization. This package was removed from the submission due to incompleteness & should be added back in and completed.

    [JRMS Remaining Issue]

  • Reported: RMS 1.0b1 — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 04:00 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — RMS 1.0b2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Out of Scope
    Revised Text:
    None

  • Updated: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:58 GMT