 |
 |
Hi Yan Interesting wrinkle--RIP Kiely... My understanding is that you should do exactly what you're proposing you would do, regardless of the fact that Kiely has died, b/c you're identifying a new Expression of what is still the same Work. As the RDA Special Topics: Revised Editions of Monographs documentation states: Edition statement and other elements will still identify expression differences. If I'm wrong, I'd love to hear about it; I catalog lots of Xth edition economics textbooks and co-authors are always being swapped in and out and I'm sure, in at least a few of the longest-running titles, a few of them are stiffs! best Jennifer UPenn On 6/3/2013 6:11 PM, Yan Liao wrote: > > Now our question is whether we still need to list Kiely in 100 to be > consistent with the previous edition? RDA 6.27.1.5 says that "If the > work is presented simply as an edition of the previously existing > work, treat it as an expression of that work. Use the authorized > access point representing the previously existing work. If it is > considered important to identify the particular expression, construct > an authorized access point representing the expression as instructed > at 6.27.3." Seems it encourages to use the authorized access point of > the previous edition. But in this case, the first named author of the > previous edition has passed away, should he still be listed as the > main access point? Moreover, if there is a third edition in the > future, 2 authors are still listed, but Professor Kiely is removed. > They used the same title for the third edition. Should we still use > Professor Kiely as the main access point for the 3^rd ed.? > > Thanks. >