[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Quoting Rick Marshall <rjm@zenucom.com>:
> if we archive with xml, what is the legal status of the "document"? eg
> say i archive a document as xml, (an invoice for example) and later
> change the rendering algorithm.
I don't believe that there is too much of an issue. Reprints of all business
documents are allowed in most places. As are photocopies and faxes. It's pretty
amazing to think that the legal profession has caught up with modern technology
but apperently they have.
> now when i print another copy and go to
> court to collect some money the debtor turns up with an earlier rendered
> version and they aren't the same "look". i know and a court would know
> the substance is the same, but would i have a problem with my record
> keeping because the format that people read can change? it's an
> integrity issue.
It's ok. Birth certificates reprints are a classic example of this. The formats
change over the years, every time you get a reprint done. But they're still
legal.
> and how do auditors cope? or are they solving the
> problem by developing audit standards in the xml accounting stuff that
> would make the rendering format inconsequential provided all the content
> was rendered (and how would they know that - if say i left out a
> discount in a later rendering, but it was in the oriiginal?)?
Auditors usually have different means and a different thought process. They are
usually looking for missing documents or reconciling the invoices received
against the payments made as one example.
This is one area where the wonder of xml should really shine. In that it is
possible to create systems where a transaction trail can be created in a
database and retained for a long period of time. Our xml trading/accounting
system certainly does this. Others probably do also.
Regards
David
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
|
