How do you translate ISO 15489-1:2016 records-management policies, capture metadata, retention schedules and authenticity statements without changing the record’s legal or operational meaning? The central rule is to preserve the difference between an original record, a translated derivative, a metadata description and an action performed on the record. A translation that reads smoothly but changes who created a document, when it was approved or whether it was destroyed can damage the very evidence that records management is designed to protect.
This guide explains ISO 15489-1:2016 translation, multilingual records capture, document provenance, record identifiers, controlled metadata, file classification, retention periods, access restrictions, disposal authorisations, transfer logs, authenticity, reliability, integrity and usability. It is aimed at archivists, records managers, public agencies, legal and compliance teams, corporate information offices and translators working with cross-border files. The search intent is narrow: translate records-management documentation with evidence and lifecycle meaning intact, not teach all of document management or generic translation.
Quick answer: identify the record and its business context before translating; maintain the original reference, creator, creation and capture dates, file or series identifier and responsible owner; separate policy from an actual performed action; and preserve each retention trigger, exception and authorisation status. Treat the translation as a linked representation, not as an invisible replacement of the source. If a lawful disposal requirement or litigation hold is uncertain, seek an authorised records or legal decision rather than interpreting the ambiguity away.
- Preserve record identity, provenance, metadata and the lifecycle state.
- Keep retention durations connected to their precise triggers and exceptions.
- Separate disposal approval, execution and verification.
- Release translations as traceable, permission-controlled derivatives.
Records are evidence of activity, not simply files
A file is a technical object. A record is information maintained as evidence of an activity, decision, transaction or obligation in its context. The same PDF can be an informal working draft, a signed contract, an approved minute or a captured record, depending on its business function and status. Translators should not assume that a file stored in a folder called “Final” has formally become a record under the organisation’s rules.
ISO 15489-1:2016 establishes concepts and principles for creating, capturing and managing records, including metadata, systems, responsibilities, controls and processes. It applies across document forms and business environments. This is an important distinction: the standard is not a single software feature, a universal retention calendar or an instruction to save every file forever. It is a framework for managing evidence responsibly.
Before translation, ask what decision the document supports and which process produced it. A procurement approval, a clinical consent form, a school enrolment record and a project change request may all have different owners, confidentiality requirements and retention triggers. A correct target-language sentence must keep those differences visible.
Capture is an event with consequences
A record may be created in a word processor but captured into a records system later. Creation and capture are not interchangeable events. The creator might write a report on Monday, approve it on Wednesday and register it on Friday. If translation compresses those timestamps into a single “issued on Monday”, the target record loses part of its evidence trail.
Records capture commonly associates the content with identifiers, metadata, classification, access rules and a business process. A translator should preserve the name of each event and the system or person that performed it. A note saying “captured by system at 09:14” does not necessarily mean the author approved the underlying report at that moment. “Uploaded” may not mean “accepted as official record”.
When a source does not say whether a capture is complete, do not imply that it is. If an email was submitted but rejected by a system validation rule, the translation should retain the rejection. The easiest way to audit the wording is to ask whether a reader could reconstruct the record’s history using only the target text and its reference to the controlled source.
Authenticity, reliability, integrity and usability each ask a different question
Records-management discussions often group four qualities together, but each answers a different practical question. Authenticity concerns whether a record is what it purports to be and whether its claimed origin can be trusted. Reliability concerns whether the content can be depended upon as a representation of the activity it documents. Integrity concerns completeness and protection from unauthorised alteration. Usability concerns whether a record can be located, retrieved, presented and interpreted over time.
A translator should not replace these terms with one generic word such as “accuracy”. A file can be complete but difficult to retrieve; it can be accessible but lack dependable provenance; a correctly translated copy can still be missing a source attachment. The differences are important in audits and investigations.
Good educational writing explains the distinction with examples. A signed record whose signature cannot be validated presents an authenticity question. An inconsistent account of an event presents a reliability question. A modified attachment with no audit trail presents an integrity concern. A legacy file that cannot be opened presents a usability concern. Translation should preserve which issue the source actually discusses.
Metadata is part of the evidence, not page decoration
A record’s metadata can identify its creator, owner, function, source system, classification, capture date, relationship to other records, approval state and permitted uses. Some metadata are generated automatically; some are supplied by staff; some are corrected later. A translation must not assume that metadata are descriptive labels that can be freely improved. They are often necessary to understand what happened.
Keep stable identifiers intact. If a case number is written as 0000417, stripping leading zeroes may stop a lookup from working. If a filename includes an internal reference, preserve it in a traceable mapping rather than replacing it with a fully translated title and losing the original address. A human-friendly display label can be translated without changing the system key.
Metadata provenance also matters. A field labelled “created by” may refer to the system account that generated a file, not the person responsible for its content. A capture timestamp may use UTC while a business record contains local time. Translate labels and their definitions; do not silently reinterpret the values. When metadata definitions are absent, seek the system’s data dictionary or records policy.
Record, document, information asset and archive are not synonyms
Organisations sometimes use “document management” and “records management” as if they were identical. Document control commonly concerns drafting, review, revision and distribution. Records management concerns evidence within a business context across its lifecycle. An information asset may encompass data or materials that are not individual records. An archive may refer to records preserved for longer-term reasons or to a storage environment, depending on context.
A translated policy that uses the same word for all four can cause real confusion. A draft policy may need collaborative revision, whereas an approved record should have controlled change history. An archive may be closed to general editing but open for appropriate access. A backup copy is not necessarily the authoritative archival record. The translation should preserve the distinctions the source makes.
Where local terminology lacks exact one-word equivalents, use a short controlled phrase and define it. A glossary with examples from the organisation’s actual process is better than insisting on a convenient dictionary choice that implies the wrong stage in the information lifecycle.
Classification and file plans preserve business context
Records are often arranged by business function, activity, matter, case or record series. Translating a classification scheme requires more than replacing folder names. A code may refer to an institution-specific function, and one level may be inherited by many subseries. If the translated tree loses a parent-child relationship, retention and access rules may be applied to the wrong records.
Record classification should not be confused with security classification. A file plan category may identify “supplier contract administration”; a confidentiality marking may identify “restricted”. Both may appear on the same record, but they answer different questions. Use separate labels and fields when the source does.
Treat each code as a controlled identifier. For example, an alpha-numeric classification “FIN-07-B” should remain the key even if its description is translated. A map showing original code, approved target label, meaning, owner and linked retention rule allows readers in another language to navigate the same system without creating a parallel shadow classification.
Retention periods require a trigger, not just a number of years
A retention schedule may say that a series is kept for seven years after contract termination, three years after project closure or a particular period after a learner leaves an institution. These are not equivalent to retention for that many years after creation. The event that starts the clock is part of the rule. If the translation loses “after termination”, it may cause premature destruction or unnecessary storage.
The policy may also distinguish active retention, transfer to archives, review for disposal and permanent preservation. “Retain seven years” is not an instruction to destroy immediately on the seventh anniversary unless the disposal process and relevant authority say so. A schedule is an instruction about management, not necessarily evidence that disposal has occurred.
Retention requirements vary by jurisdiction, type of record and applicable holds or investigations. A translator should preserve the cited legal basis and refer questions about enforceability to the records or legal team. Never invent a universal retention period from an example in another organisation. The target document should be usable for administration without pretending to settle legal conflicts.
Disposal, deletion, destruction and transfer have different meanings
“Disposal” is a controlled records-management action and may cover more than simply pressing Delete. Records may be transferred to another custodian, destroyed under authority or retained permanently. A file disappearing from a user’s inbox does not mean it was lawfully destroyed from the recordkeeping environment. “Deleted locally” and “destroyed according to schedule” are very different claims.
Translate disposal status carefully. Proposed, authorised, scheduled, executed, witnessed and verified are separate stages. A request to dispose does not establish authorisation. A batch disposal certificate may list records approved for destruction without proving the destruction happened if the execution section is blank.
The chain of accountability should be visible in the translated form: who approved, which records were included, what action was taken, when and under which rules. In cross-border organisations, data-protection obligations and legal holds can complicate that process. A translator should identify such references without creating legal advice or changing the decision made by the competent owner.
Litigation holds and investigations interrupt ordinary disposal
A document may be eligible for disposal under its usual schedule but subject to a hold because of litigation, audit or investigation. These situations require careful terminology. A “retention hold” does not necessarily change the permanent classification of the record; it may suspend destruction while a separate matter remains active. Translating “hold released” as “destroy approved” may be seriously misleading.
If the source records a hold on a particular record series, preserve its scope, effective date and release authority. A broad statement such as “all case files retained” should not replace a precise reference to selected cases and custodians. Conversely, a narrow wording must not exclude records genuinely within the stated hold.
The translator’s responsibility is faithful communication. The actual decision about whether a hold applies, when it ends and whether deletion may resume belongs to the organisation’s authorised legal and records specialists. Highlight any conflict between the schedule and the hold record rather than attempting to resolve it through phrasing.
Access permissions and confidentiality should not be expanded
Records systems often maintain separate rules for who may discover a record, read its content, edit metadata, export a copy or authorise disposal. Translation can undermine these controls if it turns “available to authorised caseworkers” into “available to all employees”. Protect qualifiers. A broad-sounding English adjective such as “internal” might not map directly onto the source’s precise security role.
The record can also contain personal data, trade secrets or confidential witness information. A bilingual disclosure may require redaction or a limited extract rather than full translation. Do not decide that the target audience automatically has permission to see every source field. Follow the organisation’s approved disclosure process and preserve references to consent or legal authority where applicable.
When redaction occurs, clearly mark that content has been withheld under the applicable procedure. Do not fill in missing words from context. A faithful translation of an authorised redacted document should remain visibly incomplete in the same meaningful way, so a downstream reader does not mistake the result for the entire original record.
Version histories and audit trails need chronological discipline
A record may pass through drafting, review, approval, capture, correction and later access. Each event can generate an audit-trail entry. A translator should preserve the timestamp, actor, action, object and outcome separately. A login, edit and approval may occur within minutes but are not the same business event. Likewise, a file’s modification date is not always the date the underlying business decision was made.
Revisions are not inherently suspicious. Controlled correction procedures allow legitimate updates while maintaining evidence of what changed. Translation must distinguish an unauthorised alteration from an approved correction, and both from a new version that supersedes the previous one. The reader should not infer tampering merely because a record was revised.
Timezone issues demand explicit checking. A system event recorded in UTC can appear on the previous calendar day in another region. Convert only under a documented policy, preserve original time and offset where necessary, and ensure cross-system events remain correctly ordered. For regulatory evidence, date and time formatting is a substantive part of meaning.
A translated record is a linked derivative, not a replacement original
When a source document is translated, the resulting text can be valuable evidence of what readers in another language were told. But it should not be passed off as the original record. Maintain source identifier, language pair, translation date, translator or service provider, relevant certification statement if applicable, and a link or secure reference to the authoritative original.
Some organisations need a certified translation, a sworn translation or a notarised process for a particular use. These are jurisdiction- and procedure-specific statuses. A translator should not label a document “official certified translation” merely because it was reviewed internally. The required form must be established by the receiving authority.
If the original later changes, the translation may become out of date. Do not silently edit a released translation and erase history. Create a controlled new version or amendment with a cross-reference to the previous one. The records-management principle is simple: a future reviewer should be able to reconstruct which language version was available when a decision was made.
Long-term preservation is not merely storing a PDF
A record that cannot be opened, searched, interpreted or linked to its context may fail the organisation’s needs even if its bytes survive. Preservation may involve maintaining file formats, software dependencies, metadata, relationships and access permissions. Translators may be asked to supply readable labels or multilingual descriptions for a collection, but should not modify the controlled record object casually.
Searchable text can improve discovery, yet an automatically generated text layer may introduce errors. A scan may say 1981 while faulty recognition produces 1987; a translation built from that text can propagate the mistake. Quality assurance should compare the actual source image or authorised text, especially for names, numbers and signature blocks. The translated description should not be treated as proof that the source image was checked unless that review occurred.
Preservation also concerns attachments, embedded objects and external links. A decision memo may refer to a spreadsheet whose formula or data are essential. A translation that carries only the memo may be incomplete as evidence. Document which components were translated and which remain in the controlled original package.
Contracts, government records and school records need context
The same retention word can operate differently across sectors. In procurement, “contract closed” may mark a business milestone; in government, “file closed” may indicate an administrative status; in education, “learner withdrawn” may be an enrolment event with distinct records consequences. Translators should identify the exact business process and responsible authority rather than importing the meaning from another sector.
A global organisation might use an enterprise-wide records policy but face local requirements for payroll, tax, patient, employee, student or public-sector records. Translation should preserve jurisdictional references, exemptions and exceptions. The phrase “according to applicable law” cannot substitute for a specific cited rule where the source supplies one. Nor should a translator invent a reference because a foreign audience expects it.
Real readers need practical clarity. Say who should contact the records manager, which schedule applies, and how a disputed status is resolved if that information is supplied. Avoid vague promises that the translation “ensures compliance”. Compliance depends on actual governance, evidence, systems and legal obligations, not on vocabulary alone.
How to organise a controlled bilingual records project
Begin with an inventory of the source documents, versions, record series, metadata schemas and intended recipients. Identify high-risk fields such as custody, disposal authority, restrictions, retention triggers, signatures and dates. Make a bilingual termbase with approved definitions and prohibited misleading alternatives. Lock identifiers and codes before drafting and map every target file to its source.
Next translate the narrative and field labels, checking all status verbs and time expressions against the source workflow. Preserve document relationships and any redaction. Have a records manager check that the target-language description represents the correct lifecycle state; have a language reviewer check clarity and completeness. For disputed legal requirements, obtain a separate authorised legal review rather than ask the translator to infer the answer.
Release a package containing the controlled original reference, the translated representation, review history and applicable permissions. After release, schedule retranslation only when a source revision or policy change requires it. The result should make evidence easier to find and interpret without making the translation itself an untraceable new source of facts.
Review five high-risk phrases before publication
“Records retained” can describe a completed action, a present state or a future rule; specify which meaning the source uses. “Deleted” may mean removed from a working interface, not destroyed. “Certified copy” may require a formal authority or defined process, not merely high-quality scanning. “Original document” should not be attached to a translation if the file is a derivative. “Approved for disposal” does not establish that disposal was performed.
These phrases often occur in short labels where language teams have little surrounding context. A small contextual note, linked to the recordkeeping procedure, can be more useful than replacing a precise but unfamiliar term with an easy word. Consider the action and evidence the reader could infer from each phrase.
A final quality check should ask: does this target wording change the owner, timeline, access permission, retention trigger, decision status or evidential strength of the record? If yes, it needs correction or explicit authorisation before release. That question is much more reliable than simply asking whether the sentences sound natural.
Eighteen fictional cases in multilingual records management
These original teaching scenarios illustrate translation choices; they do not supply legal advice or certify that a particular records system complies with law.
Case 1: A date of creation mistaken for capture
Source record: A planning document was drafted on 3 June and captured to the case system on 7 June.
Appropriate translation: Preserve both events and their recorded timestamps rather than selecting one as the only official date.
Evidence control: This matters for later reconstruction of when information existed and when it entered the controlled records system.
This case matters because the record’s evidential function depends on what occurred, who had authority, and what the system actually retained or disclosed. A reader should be able to move from a translated phrase back to the controlled record without discovering that the translator altered a status, implied an extra approval or removed a crucial qualification.
Case 2: A leading-zero case number
Source record: A case reference 0000421 appears in a multilingual access request and is shortened to 421.
Appropriate translation: Retain the full identifier as a controlled key.
Evidence control: Search and disclosure systems may depend on the exact characters, not the numerical value.
This case matters because the record’s evidential function depends on what occurred, who had authority, and what the system actually retained or disclosed. A reader should be able to move from a translated phrase back to the controlled record without discovering that the translator altered a status, implied an extra approval or removed a crucial qualification.
Case 3: Approved for deletion
Source record: A disposal form has approval signed, but the execution and witnessing fields are blank.
Appropriate translation: Translate authorisation, not completed destruction.
Evidence control: The recorded stage of disposal determines what can be claimed about the record.
This case matters because the record’s evidential function depends on what occurred, who had authority, and what the system actually retained or disclosed. A reader should be able to move from a translated phrase back to the controlled record without discovering that the translator altered a status, implied an extra approval or removed a crucial qualification.
Case 4: Contract termination trigger
Source record: A schedule says retain for six years after contract termination.
Appropriate translation: Keep the event that starts the period and do not substitute creation date.
Evidence control: A duration without its trigger is not a usable retention instruction.
This case matters because the record’s evidential function depends on what occurred, who had authority, and what the system actually retained or disclosed. A reader should be able to move from a translated phrase back to the controlled record without discovering that the translator altered a status, implied an extra approval or removed a crucial qualification.
Case 5: Email submission rejected
Source record: An application email reached the server but failed record-capture validation.
Appropriate translation: Translate receipt and rejection as different events.
Evidence control: Receiving a file does not prove it was accepted as an official record.
This case matters because the record’s evidential function depends on what occurred, who had authority, and what the system actually retained or disclosed. A reader should be able to move from a translated phrase back to the controlled record without discovering that the translator altered a status, implied an extra approval or removed a crucial qualification.
Case 6: Litigation hold applied
Source record: A retention exception suspends disposal of specified case files.
Appropriate translation: Preserve scope, effective date and controlling authority.
Evidence control: The normal schedule has not necessarily vanished, but disposal may be paused.
This case matters because the record’s evidential function depends on what occurred, who had authority, and what the system actually retained or disclosed. A reader should be able to move from a translated phrase back to the controlled record without discovering that the translator altered a status, implied an extra approval or removed a crucial qualification.
Case 7: Restricted access mistaken for internal access
Source record: A personnel record is available to an authorised HR subgroup only.
Appropriate translation: Keep the subgroup restriction and source role terminology.
Evidence control: Internal employees are not automatically authorised to read sensitive records.
This case matters because the record’s evidential function depends on what occurred, who had authority, and what the system actually retained or disclosed. A reader should be able to move from a translated phrase back to the controlled record without discovering that the translator altered a status, implied an extra approval or removed a crucial qualification.
Case 8: A translated original
Source record: A supplier requests that an English translation be labelled the “original contract”.
Appropriate translation: Describe it as a translation linked to the authoritative signed source.
Evidence control: The derivative should not claim to be the executed original.
This case matters because the record’s evidential function depends on what occurred, who had authority, and what the system actually retained or disclosed. A reader should be able to move from a translated phrase back to the controlled record without discovering that the translator altered a status, implied an extra approval or removed a crucial qualification.
Case 9: Time zone shift
Source record: A system event recorded at 23:45 UTC appears after midnight in another region.
Appropriate translation: Preserve original timestamp and offset with any approved local display.
Evidence control: Chronology can change across date boundaries without any source error.
This case matters because the record’s evidential function depends on what occurred, who had authority, and what the system actually retained or disclosed. A reader should be able to move from a translated phrase back to the controlled record without discovering that the translator altered a status, implied an extra approval or removed a crucial qualification.
Case 10: Unverified archival scan
Source record: A poor image of a nineteenth-century register contains an unclear year.
Appropriate translation: Mark the uncertain reading and request source-image review.
Evidence control: Do not invent a precise year from context or search-engine snippets.
This case matters because the record’s evidential function depends on what occurred, who had authority, and what the system actually retained or disclosed. A reader should be able to move from a translated phrase back to the controlled record without discovering that the translator altered a status, implied an extra approval or removed a crucial qualification.
Case 11: Policy versus performed action
Source record: A department policy requires files to be reviewed annually; no review log has been supplied.
Appropriate translation: Translate the obligation, not a claim that reviews have happened.
Evidence control: Requirements and evidence of implementation belong in different records.
This case matters because the record’s evidential function depends on what occurred, who had authority, and what the system actually retained or disclosed. A reader should be able to move from a translated phrase back to the controlled record without discovering that the translator altered a status, implied an extra approval or removed a crucial qualification.
Case 12: Metadata corrected later
Source record: The system owner corrects a creator field under an approved process.
Appropriate translation: Retain the correction event and previous value where required.
Evidence control: An authorised correction must remain distinguishable from an unexplained alteration.
This case matters because the record’s evidential function depends on what occurred, who had authority, and what the system actually retained or disclosed. A reader should be able to move from a translated phrase back to the controlled record without discovering that the translator altered a status, implied an extra approval or removed a crucial qualification.
Case 13: Transfer not destruction
Source record: An archive record series is handed to a new custodian.
Appropriate translation: Translate transfer with the receiving institution and custody date.
Evidence control: A transfer is not a disposal by deletion even if the sending office no longer holds the files.
This case matters because the record’s evidential function depends on what occurred, who had authority, and what the system actually retained or disclosed. A reader should be able to move from a translated phrase back to the controlled record without discovering that the translator altered a status, implied an extra approval or removed a crucial qualification.
Case 14: Backup mistaken for archive
Source record: A user calls a monthly system backup an archival preservation programme.
Appropriate translation: Preserve the backup function as described.
Evidence control: A recovery copy alone may not meet long-term accessibility and evidential needs.
This case matters because the record’s evidential function depends on what occurred, who had authority, and what the system actually retained or disclosed. A reader should be able to move from a translated phrase back to the controlled record without discovering that the translator altered a status, implied an extra approval or removed a crucial qualification.
Case 15: Record series versus single file
Source record: A schedule covers a series of procurement contracts while a request names one contract.
Appropriate translation: Keep the scope of the record series separate from the individual item.
Evidence control: The translated rule must not silently narrow or broaden its intended population.
This case matters because the record’s evidential function depends on what occurred, who had authority, and what the system actually retained or disclosed. A reader should be able to move from a translated phrase back to the controlled record without discovering that the translator altered a status, implied an extra approval or removed a crucial qualification.
Case 16: Approval signature block
Source record: A template shows a blank approval field, but the English version says “approved”.
Appropriate translation: Describe the field or pending status, not a completed sign-off.
Evidence control: A blank template is not evidence that a decision occurred.
This case matters because the record’s evidential function depends on what occurred, who had authority, and what the system actually retained or disclosed. A reader should be able to move from a translated phrase back to the controlled record without discovering that the translator altered a status, implied an extra approval or removed a crucial qualification.
Case 17: Personal-data redaction
Source record: An authorised disclosure removes identifiers from a source document.
Appropriate translation: Translate the disclosed text and mark the redaction consistently.
Evidence control: Do not guess hidden details or conceal that the supplied version is redacted.
This case matters because the record’s evidential function depends on what occurred, who had authority, and what the system actually retained or disclosed. A reader should be able to move from a translated phrase back to the controlled record without discovering that the translator altered a status, implied an extra approval or removed a crucial qualification.
Case 18: Legacy file cannot be opened
Source record: An archive inventory lists a file that the present system cannot render.
Appropriate translation: Preserve existence, format and current access limitation.
Evidence control: A record’s presence is not proof of its present usability or content verification.
This case matters because the record’s evidential function depends on what occurred, who had authority, and what the system actually retained or disclosed. A reader should be able to move from a translated phrase back to the controlled record without discovering that the translator altered a status, implied an extra approval or removed a crucial qualification.
Essential records-management terminology for translators
Record
Information maintained as evidence of an activity within a defined context. Use the organisation’s approved termbase and source system dictionary; store the original identifier or lifecycle field beside its target-language description rather than replacing an operational key.
Capture
Controlled association of information with a records system and required context. Use the organisation’s approved termbase and source system dictionary; store the original identifier or lifecycle field beside its target-language description rather than replacing an operational key.
Metadata
Structured information describing identity, relationships, status or handling. Use the organisation’s approved termbase and source system dictionary; store the original identifier or lifecycle field beside its target-language description rather than replacing an operational key.
Provenance
Traceable origin and history of a record or its representation. Use the organisation’s approved termbase and source system dictionary; store the original identifier or lifecycle field beside its target-language description rather than replacing an operational key.
Authenticity
Confidence that a record is what it purports to be. Use the organisation’s approved termbase and source system dictionary; store the original identifier or lifecycle field beside its target-language description rather than replacing an operational key.
Reliability
Dependability of content as a representation of an activity. Use the organisation’s approved termbase and source system dictionary; store the original identifier or lifecycle field beside its target-language description rather than replacing an operational key.
Integrity
Completeness and protection from unauthorised alteration. Use the organisation’s approved termbase and source system dictionary; store the original identifier or lifecycle field beside its target-language description rather than replacing an operational key.
Usability
Ability to locate, retrieve, present and interpret a record. Use the organisation’s approved termbase and source system dictionary; store the original identifier or lifecycle field beside its target-language description rather than replacing an operational key.
Retention trigger
Defined event from which a retention rule begins to run. Use the organisation’s approved termbase and source system dictionary; store the original identifier or lifecycle field beside its target-language description rather than replacing an operational key.
Disposition authority
Authorised basis for a particular lifecycle action. Use the organisation’s approved termbase and source system dictionary; store the original identifier or lifecycle field beside its target-language description rather than replacing an operational key.
Litigation hold
Specific restriction suspending normal disposal where applicable. Use the organisation’s approved termbase and source system dictionary; store the original identifier or lifecycle field beside its target-language description rather than replacing an operational key.
Translated derivative
Target-language representation linked to, but not replacing, the source record. Use the organisation’s approved termbase and source system dictionary; store the original identifier or lifecycle field beside its target-language description rather than replacing an operational key.
Frequently asked questions
Can a translation replace the original record?
A translation may be used for an authorised purpose, but it should retain a traceable relationship to the source and should not falsely claim to be the original.
Is a document stored on a drive always an official record?
No. The business process, record status and capture context determine its role. A draft, backup and captured evidence record can be different.
Does a retention period begin when the document is created?
Not necessarily. It may be triggered by closure, termination, completion or another specified event. Translate the trigger exactly.
Does “approved for disposal” mean destroyed?
No. Authorisation and execution are separate stages; preserve each source status.
Should a translator decide if a hold requires longer retention?
No. Preserve the rule and any documented restriction, then refer legal or records conflicts to authorised specialists.
How can bilingual metadata remain useful?
Keep identifiers stable, translate labels carefully, define field semantics, preserve event dates and retain source-to-target mappings.
Why is the standard edition relevant?
Policies and historical records may cite different editions. The edition number is part of the cited document identity and should be preserved rather than automatically modernised.
Official reference and connected learning
The official ISO catalogue identifies ISO 15489-1:2016 as a principles-based standard for creating, capturing and managing records. This article addresses language and evidence preservation within that narrow topic. It does not create a parallel records hub or supply legal retention schedules.
ISO 15489-1:2016 official catalogue. For the wider translation method, see Master Art of Translation; for controlled term learning, the Vocabulary Learning Hub; and for reading precise English obligations, How English Works.