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:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
  

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 3rd ed.?

 

Thanks.