[DCRM-L] DPC: minor wording change to 7A1.1 for clarity

[Lenore Rouse]

  Manon's 2 sentences are better but "that" vs. "which" is a choice well 
above my pay-grade that/which I leave to others!

Responding to Larry's objections, I can understand why one doesn't want 
to make frivolous changes, but it also seems to me that when a new draft 
is under consideration, there is a golden opportunity to fix problems as 
hindsight suggests them, including awkward sentences that make our 
readers wince, do a double-take or reread the sentence in bafflement. 
Getting fresh eyeballs on the text and catching sentences like the one 
that/which Erin identified (even in the wee hours of the morning!) seems 
like an added dividend in this process.

What's wrong with the current wording? Hard to say precisely, but maybe 
too many thoughts are being compressed into an overly compact and vague 
mass?  Placement of  "especially" troubled me. Can notes qualify and 
amplify "especially"? They may be "especially" useful in some instances, 
but "especially" seems to modify not the note but a human reaction to 
the note. Further there's the phrase "certain information" (makes the 
reader wonder just what information you're concealing here, and will it 
be explained later?) Or is it just contrasting with "uncertain 
information"? Anyway I hope some improvement to the wording of this and 
other murky sentences can be made without upsetting the whole DCRM 
applecart. Clarity seems "especially" important in the DCRM manuals 
since there are no LCRIs to help people divine the intent of a phrase 
and its also important when fewer and fewer administrators see any value 
in paying people to agonize over rulebooks in the first place.

Lenore


On 5/21/2011 12:55 PM, Manon Theroux wrote:
> The DCRM(B) sentence is a carryover from DCRB. I never found it
> confusing. But, I guess some do? Responding to Lenore's suggested
> wording:
>
> Shouldn't the "which" be a "that"?  I don't have ready access to the
> latest Chicago Manual of Style at home, but I was always taught "that"
> should be used to introduce a restrictive clause and "which" should be
> used to introduce a non-restrictive clause.
>
> Also, I'd maybe split the sentence into two. Something like:
>
> 7A1.1. Notes qualify and amplify the formal description. They are
> especially appropriate for recording information that the rules may
> exclude from the other areas of the description.
>
> -Manon
>
> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Joe A Springer<joeas at goshen.edu>  wrote:
>> Lenore's version looks like a good one.
>> Joe
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Helena Zinkham"<hzin at loc.gov>
>> To: "DCRM Revision Group List"<dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
>> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 9:22:29 AM
>> Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] DPC: minor wording change to 7A1.1 for clarity
>>
>> Thank you, Lenore!  Better words for where I was heading.  -- Helena
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Lenore Rouse [rouse at cua.edu]
>> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 9:48 AM
>> To: DCRM Revision Group List
>> Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] DPC: minor wording change to 7A1.1 for clarity
>>
>>   Erin that's a HUGE improvement I think. I fiddled with it a bit more
>> but someone might provide another formulation better balancing
>> clarity/brevity. Here's my attempt:
>>
>> 7A1.1. Notes qualify and amplify the formal description, and are
>> especially appropriate for recording that information which the
>> rules may exclude from other areas.
>>
>>
>> Lenore
>>
>> On 5/21/2011 12:34 AM, Erin Blake wrote:
>>> It's been a while since the last Discussion of a Proposed Change to DCRM
>>> came along, so I hope I remember how to do it. This isn't a big-deal
>>> proposal, just a change to clarify a confusing sentence.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Current text:
>>>
>>> 7A1.1. Notes qualify and amplify the formal description, especially when
>>> the rules for such description do not allow certain information to be
>>> included in the other areas.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Proposed revision:
>>>
>>> 7A1.1. Notes qualify and amplify the formal description, especially when
>>> the rules for other areas exclude certain information.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Any objections? Improvements?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      EB.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Lenore M. Rouse
>> Curator, Rare Books and Special Collections
>> The Catholic University of America
>> Room 214, Mullen Library
>> 620 Michigan Avenue N.E.
>> Washington, D.C. 20064
>>
>> PHONE: 202 319-5090
>> E-MAIL: rouse at cua.edu
>>

-- 
Lenore M. Rouse
Curator, Rare Books and Special Collections
The Catholic University of America
Room 214, Mullen Library
620 Michigan Avenue N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20064

PHONE: 202 319-5090
E-MAIL: rouse at cua.edu