Excerpts of email discussion regarding deletion of rule 4A4

From Manon:

The DCRM Editorial Guidelines wiki have the following change in practice recorded for 0G6.5:

0G6.5. Adjacent elements within a single area.  

• (B)(S) Square brackets around supplied information will no longer enclose multiple elements within the same area, per ISBD Consolidated 0.3.2.8. Thus the rule is now simply called "Adjacent elements" and it reads: "If adjacent elements within one area are to be enclosed in square brackets, each is enclosed in its own pair generally enclose them in one set of square brackets. If the square brackets are due to interpolations such as corrections or expansions (see 0G8.2, 4B3, 4B4, 4B5), however, use separate pairs of square brackets." (G) (C: but revised slightly to use imperative tense: "... enclose each in its own pair ...")

For the related instruction in 4A4, the wiki says:

4A4. Fictitious or incorrect information

• (B)(S) If all information relating to the publication, distribution, etc., area appearing in the publication is known to be fictitious or incorrect, transcribe it nonetheless and make an explanatory note. If the real actual details are known, or can be reasonably surmised, supply them at the end of the area as a correction in square brackets. Give Include the source of this information in a the note. If some but not all of the information is known to be fictitious or incorrect, apply the appropriate rule.... [Approved by BSC Feb. 14, 2011; see General notes for additional change of "real" to "actual"](G, except used "element" instead of "area" because G brackets each element separately)(C)

Like G, I was going to use "element" instead of "area" given the change in practice in 0G6.5. However, it occurs to me that we no longer need 4A4 at all and should be able to delete the entire rule. Not only do we have the general rule in 0G6.5, but each of the relevant element-level rules in area 4 (4B9, 4C5, and 4D2.4) has the instruction to follow the transcribed information with its bracketed correction. Before the change in bracketing practice, 4A4 essentially served as an exception to those element-level rules; now it says exactly the same thing as the element-level rules. For the same reason, we can also delete the "If however ..." sentence at the end of each of those 3 rules which refers back to 4A4.

I'm hoping we can agree on this over email without having to resort to a video meeting. What do you all think?

http://dcrmedits.pbworks.com/w/page/69462064/General%20errata
(B)(S) Square brackets around supplied information will no longer enclose multiple elements within the same area, per ISBD Consolidated 0.3.2.8 (which says "When successive elements within the same area are obtained from outside the prescribed sources of information, each is enclosed in its own pair of square brackets.") (G)

http://dcrmedits.pbworks.com/w/page/69463439/Area%200%20errata

0G6.5  (B)(S) Square brackets around supplied information will no longer enclose multiple elements within the same area, per ISBD Consolidated 0.3.2.8.

DCRM(G) did already change 4A4 in the EG wiki to say put each supplied correction directly after its affected element (rather than our old practice of putting all corrections together at the end of the area).