[DCRM-L] Fwd: DPC: Clarify and simplify wording in 4C10

[Deborah J. Leslie]

For the record, I'm *barely* ok with it. One of the reasons that S
changed the wording of 4C10 in the first place is that the original
version is semi-incoherent. If the name of a publisher is present in a
prescribed source, then you could argue that there IS a publisher,
distributor, etc. statement; it's just grammatically inseparable from
information from another area. 

I'd be happier if BSC voted on this, since I presented it as a DPC.
Assuming the vote will instruct us to stay with the B2 version or revert
to the B1 version, I will make sure the discussion is updated on the
DCRM Editorial Guidelines so that when B undergoes a thorough revision,
4C10 can be thoroughly discussed.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Deborah J. Leslie
Sent: Monday, 17 October 2011 20:43
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Fwd: DPC: Clarify and simplify wording in 4C10

I'm ok with that.

-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Carpenter, Jane
Sent: Monday, 17 October, 2011 19:35
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Fwd: DPC: Clarify and simplify wording in 4C10

Dear Colleagues,
I'm in agreement with Manon and Stephen that we leave the original
wording of 4C10 intact. We've promised LC an updated version of DCRMB
which incorporates only those DCRMB rule changes that have already been
proposed and approved, and given the time pressure, I think we should do
just that.  New changes can be proposed at Midwinter or online over the
next months, and discussed with greater deliberation.   

Jane C.