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

[Karen Meyer-Roux]

I find Manon's sentences to be the clearest.  Shouldn't the "may" 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:  
 
7A1.1. Notes qualify and amplify the formal description. They are
especially appropriate for recording information that rules exclude from other areas of the description.
Karen

>>> Manon Theroux <manon.theroux at gmail.com> 5/21/2011 9:55 AM >>>
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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20110523/d634151b/attachment.htm