[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
Nancy, thanks for the info. I did checked the slides. In this particular case, do you think that we should treat based slides 16/17, putting the first named author in the second edition to the additional access point and keeping the original first named author in 100 since he is still listed as an author on the piece? Or we should follow the example in Slide 18 (Slide 18 addresses the situation that the author is totally removed from the resources, which may probably happen if there were third edition for the title. Right now he is still listed as the third name on the title page.)
Just to add to the confusion...
In slides 17 and 18 of the PowerPoint presentation "RDA Special Topics: Revised Editions of Monograph" (http://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/source/special_topics_revised_editions.ppt), LC distinguishes between a new edition in which an additional collaborator is named (new expression) and a new edition in which the original creator disappears (new work).
--Nancy SackCataloging DepartmentUniversity of Hawaii at Manoa2550 McCarthy MallHonolulu, HI 96822phone: 808-956-2648fax: 808-956-5968e-mail: [log in to unmask]
On 6/3/2013 4:24 PM, Yan Liao wrote:Jennifer, thanks a lot for the help. If so, I do hope that PCC can add some policy statements focusing on the issue. Even one author is not listed on one resource, he or she may be treated as the main access point of a record if he or she was the main access points of the first edition.________________________________________From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Jennifer Sweda [[log in to unmask]]Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 6:49 PMSubject: Re: [PCCLIST] Main access point of an RDA record for updated edition with different authorHi YanInteresting 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!bestJenniferUPennOn 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 126.96.36.199 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.