[log in to unmask]">
I agree that a Spanish translation would need a separate Expression record,
with a qualifier of some sort. And a different Spanish translation (i.e. different translator) would require yet another Expression record, with a different qualifier.
Difference in translation is clearly a difference in Expression.
But what if Harper Collins published a Spanish translation, and a year
later MacMillan published the exact same translation, perhaps even with the exact same art.
Would you give this yet another Expression record?
Even if they are exactly the same except for publisher?
Differences in cover art, publisher, and minor added material like introductions are considered to be part of Manifestations, not Expressions, according to FRBR.
FRBR doesn’t ignore those differences, it just considers them to be in a different category.
I suggest that the differences you are talking about are differences in
Manifestation, not Expression. We would not express different cover art in authority records for individual titles; that would be handled in bibliographic records, as information about the Manifestation, not the Expression.
Just as a Manifestation of a single Work expresses the minor differences in cover art, introduction, and publisher, perhaps we should consider Manifestations of series Works/Expressions, which distinguish identical series differing only in these minor
details. That would satisfy your desire to distinguish these things for the user.
In a new RDA setting, I can imagine having Series broken into Works, Expressions, and Manifestations just as we do with individual titles.
That would be
a significant change, but it is the logical extension of considering a Series as a form of aggregate Work, with Exressions.
[log in to unmask]
Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 3:42 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] order of language and publisher qualifiers
From FRBR 3.3, Aggregate and Component Works--"... from a logical perspective the entity work, for example, may represent an aggregate of individual works brought together
by an editor or compiler in the form of an anthology, a set of individual monographs brought together by a publisher to form a series, or a collection of private papers organized by an archive as a single fond."
My view is that most edited editions of literary works are aggregate works per FRBR because the combine different kinds of work-level content, but that we don't see a
need to describe the aggregate as a separate work. A description of the manifestation with access points which reference the primary work contained in the aggregate and that work's expression-level contributors (editor, translator) suffices. But as Bob Maxwell
pointed out, art and an editor's introduction in such an edition would be regarded as separate works, not part of the primary work's expression. If the artist is named in an AAP, that's properly part of the description of the art as work, or the description
of a component implying the presence of the aggregate work, though the aggregate work per se is otherwise not described in most cases.
Just because we don't pay much attention to the aggregate work in most cases doesn't mean it isn't there. In the case of series, it may be useful to pay more attention
The question of expressions of the series-as-aggregate-work gets back to my initial question. If the series AAP represents the aggregate work, and a publisher releases
an alternate language edition of the series (same art, same introduction, but in Spanish) as may have happened with HarperCollins Spanish edition of Narnia, then that expression of the series work should probably take the AAP "Lewis, ... $t Chronicles of Narnia
(HarperCollins (Firm)). $l Spanish" rather than "Lewis, ... $t Chronicles of Narnia. $l Spanish. $s HarperCollins (Firm))". The latter would be the correct AAP, distinguishing a new series aggregate work (not expression), only if the component works (art,
introduction, etc.) which accompany the text are new, and not carried over from the English edition of the HarperCollins series.
At least, that's how I'm inclining at the moment as I ponder what to do with my Narnia in Danish. I second the list of concerns that Mary Jane Cuneo adds. My goal is
to formulate principled FRBR/RDA basis for continuing the practical solutions to these questions that we've used in the past when creating series authorities; but other interpretations are welcome.