陈智为和邓绍兴的文章[注]先后提出了‘档号”的命题,这无疑对档案工作的理论和实践都具有积极的意义,应当充分肯定。惟其中对“目录号”的归属和作用的观点,未敢苟同,仅以管窥之见提出商榷,欲得明教。陈、邓的文章均把“目录号”包括在“档号”之中,井作为一项基本内容,显然失之牵强。不言而喻,“档号”应是档案的编号,即管理人员在工作过程中为固定档案的排列顺序、便于统计和查找所赋予档案的号数。诸如全宗号、案卷号、件号或页号。而“目录号”就不同了,“目录号”是目录的编号,目录属于检索工具。因此,“目录号”与“档号” (含全宗号、案卷号、件号或页号)是性质不同的两种编号。把“目录号”纳入“档号”的范畴,未免鱼目混珠。陈、邓的文章在表述编制“档号”的作 Chen Zhiwei and Deng Shaoxing articles [] have put forward the “file number” proposition, which undoubtedly has a positive meaning to the theory and practice of the file work, it should be fully affirmed. However, the “catalog number” of the attribution and However, Chen and Deng’s articles all included the “catalog number” in the “file number”, and as a basic content, they apparently lost their opinions Obviously, the “file number” should be the file number, that is, managers in the course of their work as a fixed file in order, easy to count and find the number of files given, such as the file number, docket number, Part number or page number, and the “catalog number” is different, the “catalog number” is the catalog number and the catalog belongs to the search tool. Therefore, “catalog number” and “ Or page number) is a different nature of the two numbers. The ”directory number“ into the ”file number“ category, without any doubt. Chen, Deng’s article in the preparation of ”file number" for the