Yuji Tosaka wrote:

> There was a similar Q&A in one of BIBCO RDA Bridge training webinars:
> 
> Question: Suppose a later edition of a work, considered a new expression,
> lists an additional author. Should the relationship of the new person to
> the work be "author" of the work, though not involved in its original
> creation?
> 
> Answer: I don't have a definitive answer but speaking personally I would
> probably lean to the view that you can be an author of a work even if
> your responsibility is only for a particular expression. (Would you remove
> the ascription of authorship from someone who co-wrote the first edition
> but dropped out for the second?)
> 
> From this exchange, it seems that a work can have different sets of
> creators on different expressions.

If you put the relationships for the resources into an entity-relationship diagram, you will see that it is impossible to have an accurate representation of the relationships between creators and expressions of the works created, if you consider these two different editions to be expressions of one work.

Jean L. Batman is a CREATOR.  So far, I have seen no one dispute that.  And if Batman is a creator, then her name has to be associated with the WORK.  And if you associate her with the work, and consider the 4th edition to be an expression of the original work, you end up also associating her with the previous three editions, which is wrong, wrong, wrong.

It is impossible to have different creators for different expressions of the same work.  It totally violates the FRBR principles.

Kevin