[DCRM-L] Final call for discussion (was: RE: DPC: Mandatory note on supplied date inconsistency)

[Erin Blake]

Discussion will close at the end of Monday, December 6. 

Two changes proposed, re-worded here for purposes of voting: 

1. Proposed changes to "If the date of copyright or deposit does not
represent the probable date..." [DCRM(B) 4D6.3 and DCRM(S) 4D5.3]:

Existing text: "If the date of copyright or deposit does not represent
the probable date of publication, distribution, etc., note it
nonetheless and supply a more accurate date of publication,
distribution, etc., in square brackets. Provide an explanation for the
supplied date, if possible"

Proposed revision: "If a date of publication, distribution, etc., does
not appear in the source and the date of copyright or deposit does not
represent the probable date of publication, distribution, etc., note it
nonetheless and supply a more accurate date of publication,
distribution, etc., in square brackets. Provide an explanation for the
supplied date."

2. Proposed change to "Patterns for supplying a conjectural date"
[DCRM(B) 4D5]: 

Existing text: "Give any needed explanation in a note"

Proposed revision: "Indicate the basis for the conjecture in a note"

-------

BSC members can see a re-statement of this e-mail on the ALA Connect
site here: http://connect.ala.org/node/119281 

For the discussion thread, please see the DCRM-L archives.

Thanks,

   Erin Blake

--------------------------------------------------
Erin C. Blake, Ph.D.  |  Curator of Art & Special Collections  |  Folger
Shakespeare Library  |  201 E. Capitol St. SE  | Washington, DC
20003-1004  |  office tel. (202) 675-0323  |  fax:  (202) 675-0328  |
eblake at folger.edu  |  www.folger.edu