<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6001.18602" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="MARGIN: 4px 4px 1px; FONT: 10pt Segoe UI">
<DIV>I find Manon's sentences to be the clearest. Shouldn't the "<STRONG>may</STRONG>" be omitted though, to keep in line with the more direct meaning of the original sentence Erin was working on, so as to have the following: </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>7A1.1. Notes qualify and amplify the formal description. They are<BR>especially appropriate for recording information that rules exclude from other areas of the description.<BR></DIV>
<DIV>Karen<BR><BR>>>> Manon Theroux <manon.theroux@gmail.com> 5/21/2011 9:55 AM >>><BR>The DCRM(B) sentence is a carryover from DCRB. I never found it<BR>confusing. But, I guess some do? Responding to Lenore's suggested<BR>wording:<BR><BR>Shouldn't the "which" be a "that"? I don't have ready access to the<BR>latest Chicago Manual of Style at home, but I was always taught "that"<BR>should be used to introduce a restrictive clause and "which" should be<BR>used to introduce a non-restrictive clause.<BR><BR>Also, I'd maybe split the sentence into two. Something like:<BR><BR>7A1.1. Notes qualify and amplify the formal description. They are<BR>especially appropriate for recording information that the rules may<BR>exclude from the other areas of the description.<BR><BR>-Manon<BR><BR>On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Joe A Springer <joeas@goshen.edu> wrote:<BR>> Lenore's version looks like a good one.<BR>> Joe<BR>><BR>> ----- Original Message -----<BR>> From: "Helena Zinkham" <hzin@loc.gov><BR>> To: "DCRM Revision Group List" <dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu><BR>> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 9:22:29 AM<BR>> Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] DPC: minor wording change to 7A1.1 for clarity<BR>><BR>> Thank you, Lenore! Better words for where I was heading. -- Helena<BR>><BR>> ________________________________________<BR>> From: dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu [dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Lenore Rouse [rouse@cua.edu]<BR>> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 9:48 AM<BR>> To: DCRM Revision Group List<BR>> Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] DPC: minor wording change to 7A1.1 for clarity<BR>><BR>> Erin that's a HUGE improvement I think. I fiddled with it a bit more<BR>> but someone might provide another formulation better balancing<BR>> clarity/brevity. Here's my attempt:<BR>><BR>> 7A1.1. Notes qualify and amplify the formal description, and are<BR>> especially appropriate for recording that information which the<BR>> rules may exclude from other areas.<BR>><BR>><BR>> Lenore<BR>><BR>> On 5/21/2011 12:34 AM, Erin Blake wrote:<BR>>> It's been a while since the last Discussion of a Proposed Change to DCRM<BR>>> came along, so I hope I remember how to do it. This isn't a big-deal<BR>>> proposal, just a change to clarify a confusing sentence.<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> Current text:<BR>>><BR>>> 7A1.1. Notes qualify and amplify the formal description, especially when<BR>>> the rules for such description do not allow certain information to be<BR>>> included in the other areas.<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> Proposed revision:<BR>>><BR>>> 7A1.1. Notes qualify and amplify the formal description, especially when<BR>>> the rules for other areas exclude certain information.<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> Any objections? Improvements?<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> Thanks,<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> EB.<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> --------------------------------------------------<BR>>><BR>>> Erin C. Blake, Ph.D. | Curator of Art& Special Collections | Folger<BR>>> Shakespeare Library | 201 E. Capitol St. SE | Washington, DC<BR>>> 20003-1004 | office tel. (202) 675-0323 | fax: (202) 675-0328 |<BR>>> eblake@folger.edu | www.folger.edu<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>><BR>> --<BR>> Lenore M. Rouse<BR>> Curator, Rare Books and Special Collections<BR>> The Catholic University of America<BR>> Room 214, Mullen Library<BR>> 620 Michigan Avenue N.E.<BR>> Washington, D.C. 20064<BR>><BR>> PHONE: 202 319-5090<BR>> E-MAIL: rouse@cua.edu<BR>><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>