 |
 |
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__=" --=__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 --=__Part321AD680.1__= Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-path: <[log in to unmask]> Received: from sun8.loc.gov ([140.147.249.48]) by ntgwgate.loc.gov with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:50:51 -0500 Received: from smtp806.mail.ird.yahoo.com (smtp806.mail.ird.yahoo.com [217.146.188.66]) by sun8.loc.gov 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; s=s1024; d=btopenworld.com; h=Received:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=QdLlLr0AgtE/TDmAY4UoJMd8GT3K2ZPl92KVm0W0ZbRlLRIeJJC+UaNujk93joos/hFGKTjTYr6pXqfkkZMgVfu9kTGMtnQUM3DK1YdX0shNWc7wBgTPe482poLCfpmEW9gUmnzLvBq7KXCwX98nCvXbo/ryTni4XpOXNKUBs80= ; Received: from unknown (HELO NAT.btopenworld.com) ([log in to unmask] with login) by smtp806.mail.ird.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Feb 2009 15:50:45 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 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? Nathalie 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. > >Judy > > >>> 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. > >Regards, > >Nathalie > >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 --=__Part321AD680.1__=--