Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 12:02:08 -0500
From: "Judith A Kuhagen" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: "David W Reser" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Question about LC general comment on full draft
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=__Part321AD680.1__="

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Barbara:  Do you want me to make this be one of my telework tasks for Feb. =
23? -- Judy

Content-Type: message/rfc822

Return-path: <[log in to unmask]>
Received: from ([])
	by with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:50:51 -0500
Received: from ( [])
	by  with SMTP id n1KFolSe008558
	for <[log in to unmask]>; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:50:49 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
Received: (qmail 60679 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2009 15:50:46 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  b=QdLlLr0AgtE/TDmAY4UoJMd8GT3K2ZPl92KVm0W0ZbRlLRIeJJC+UaNujk93joos/hFGKTjTYr6pXqfkkZMgVfu9kTGMtnQUM3DK1YdX0shNWc7wBgTPe482poLCfpmEW9gUmnzLvBq7KXCwX98nCvXbo/ryTni4XpOXNKUBs80=  ;
Received: from unknown (HELO ([log in to unmask] with login)
  by with SMTP; 20 Feb 2009 15:50:45 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:50:46 +0000
To: "Barbara B Tillett" <[log in to unmask]>, "Judith A Kuhagen" <[log in to unmask]>
From: Nathalie Schulz <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Question about LC general comment on full draft
Cc: "David W Reser" <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
References: <[log in to unmask]>
 <[log in to unmask]>
 <[log in to unmask]>
 <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=3.1.0-0810130000 definitions=main-0902200083

Dear Barbara or Judy,

Are you willing to prepare a brief summary of what you are proposing 
for circulation before the meeting?


At 17:40 18/02/2009, Barbara B Tillett wrote:
>I agree with Judy and Dave - Our intention is to have these 
>specifically mentioned, as they are sub-types related to title 
>proper (not variant titles). - bt
> >>> Judith A Kuhagen 2/18/2009 11:03 AM >>>
>Dear Nathalie,
>You're correct:  LC did not state explicitly in the detailed 
>comments that we want new element sub-types for Earlier title proper 
>and Later title proper.  (That's why I apologized to you and to 
>Barbara for not giving more detail in our response.)  As element 
>sub-types they would be "under" Title (equal to other element 
>sub-types such as Title proper, Parallel title), not under Earlier 
>variant title and Later variant title because we don't think they are variants.
>I think you need to hear from Barbara at this point (comments in 
>this email exchange are from Dave and me) to be sure her opinion matches ours.
> >>> Nathalie Schulz <[log in to unmask]> 2/18/2009 10:55 AM >>>
>Dear Judy,
>I may have missed it but, I don't think it was explicitly stated in
>the detailed comments that LC wants new element sub-types for Earlier
>title proper and Later title proper?
>Earlier variant title and Later variant title are existing element
>sub-types under "Title". Are you suggesting that Earlier title proper
>and Later title proper would be sub-types under Earlier variant title
>and Later variant title (not sure if it is "allowed" to have
>sub-types of sub-types), or would they also be subordinate to "Title"?
>I think that it would help discussion at the meeting if there was a
>brief summary of what LC is proposing. I would refer to this in the
>response table.
>The reason that I asked my initial question is that I am preparing a
>compilation of general comments on the draft. I won't include LC
>comment (2) on the element analysis because these will all be
>individually marked as high priority in the response table (as will
>comments by other constituencies that will result in changes to the
>element analysis). I hope this is OK.
>At 15:18 18/02/2009, Judith A Kuhagen wrote:
> >Dear Nathalie,
> >
> >I'm replying for myself just now because Barbara is in meetings all
> >day. She will add her comments later.  I've discussed the following
> >with Dave Reser:
> >
> >        Yes, we made specific comments on wording of instructions
> > when "earlier parallel title," etc., was used because that level of
> > detail isn't reflected in the element analysis table now.
> >
> >        Our major concern (shared by others in their responses) is
> > that including earlier and later titles proper as earlier and later
> > variant titles is problematic because those titles proper are not
> > variants.  Variant titles are titles other than titles proper; if
> > descriptions had been based on issues/iterations having those
> > titles proper, those titles would not have been identified by
> > anyone as variants.
> >
> >        So, what we are most interested in is creating separate
> > element sub-types for Earlier title proper and Later title proper
> > (realize now I should have "breakout" rather than "breakdown").  We
> > would be willing not to identify sub-categories of what remains in
> > Earlier variant title and Later variant title unless others felt
> > that was important.
> >
> >I apologize for not making our "wishes" more clear in the general
> >comment section of our response.  (That was the last segment to be
> >finished ...)
> >
> >Regards, Judy
> >
> >
> >
> > >>> Nathalie Schulz <[log in to unmask]> 2/18/2009 9:42 AM >>>
> >Dear Judy,
> >
> >I preparing a document compiling the general comments on the full
> >draft. I have a question about one of the LC comments:
> >
> >General comments -- element analysis
> >
> >*          (2)  LC has made comments about additions or changes to
> >the element analysis table:  status of devised title (0.6.2); lack of
> >a further breakdown for the element sub-types Earlier variant title
> >(2.3.7) and Later variant title (2.3.8); addition of Date of
> >promulgation of a law, etc. (6.21.2) and Date of signing a treaty,
> >etc. (6.21.3) as element sub-types of Date of work.
> >
> >I am having trouble matching up "lack of a further breakdown for the
> >element sub-types Earlier variant title (2.3.7) and Later variant
> >title (2.3.8)" with a suggested change to the element analysis in the
> >LC detailed comments.
> >
> >There are suggestions to remove the wording "earlier parallel title"
> >and "later variant title" etc. because they are not elements. But I
> >understand that you are saying that the text should match the element
> >analysis and not the other way around?
> >
> >Thanks for your help,
> >
> >Nathalie