Print

Print


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.
>