Maybe this is another case where we're arguing over whether two things are the same or different, a fundamental source of disagreements. For Bob, all multipart editions of Narnia in English are the same thing--the literary work Chronicles of Narnia.  For me, they're different--containers of the same work, but with differences among the containers which are worth representing.  Since the principle indication that a series exists is the series title,  I'm inclined to see the series title as naming something separate from the literary work. The series title should apply only to the volumes in that series, not to all instances of the literary work. Hence the need to qualify series titles in AAPs even in a case like Narnia, so that they can specifically name the series each one represents on the volumes belonging to that series.

To regard each series as an expression of the literary work also still seems problematic to me.  There's not enough difference among the texts to mark these as different expressions of the literary work--I'd agree with the point that these are all the same expression.  Hence my preference for seeing these series as distinct though very thin aggregate work shells containing the literary work.

In any case, and in the interests of closure--I'll be submitting my series authority proposals to Bob, whose analyses I respect and who has graciously been overseeing my RDA series review. Thanks to all who have contributed to this discussion. 


On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Robert Maxwell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I agree that FRBR is not some sort of Platonic ideal. I however don't agree that it doesn't really work for serials or other aggregate works such as series. It is not the same as the model we've used in the past under AACR2 (if there was in fact a model) but that doesn't mean it doesn't work, it's just different. I don't believe that the FRBR model is perfect, but I am convinced that the FRBR model is an improvement over the previous organizing principles, whatever they may have been. I'm advocating for seeing if our resources can in fact fit into the model rather than saying "this isn't the way we've always organized things, there must be something wrong with the model." Saying this isn't the same as saying we should try to strait-jacket round pegs into square holes. I'm just not convinced that the pegs are in fact not the same shape as the holes.

Hope you're having a good time in Germany.


Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Cataloger
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of John Hostage <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 2:41 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: order of language and publisher qualifiers
The FRBR model is not a  law of nature.  It is an idealized conceptual model.  It works pretty well for things like a novel created by a lone artist working in his garret.  Others have shown that it doesn't really work for serials.

I know it's a heresy, but I submit that a series is not really a work, and it serves no purpose to try to treat it as one.  A series exists at the level of the manifestation.  Elements like the publisher and the numbering are important attributes in identifying a series.

We shouldn't treat FRBR as a straight-jacket.  Series that contain the complete works of an author are a small minority of cases, but sometimes edge cases illustrate the limits of a model.  A user who is looking all the volumes in the Arden Shakespeare does not want to have to look through all the entries for Shakespeare, William, 1564-1616. Works.  If it is important for us to identify the parts of a series, we need to be able to identify the series uniquely.  By the same token, we don't need multiple identifiers for the same series just because it contains text in multiple languages.

(Over and out from Frankfurt, Germany)

John Hostage
Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services
Langdell Hall 194
Harvard Law School Library
Cambridge, MA 02138

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of McDonald, Stephen [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 13:36
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] order of language and publisher qualifiers

I think you misunderstood me.  I mentioned that a critical edition might actually be considered an aggregate, but that’s not what I was talking about.  I was talking about an ordinary new edition of a single Work.  A new edition, with new cover art, new publisher, and new introduction, is not considered a new Expression—it is a Manifestation of the same Expression as the original edition.  So why should a new edition of a series, with new cover art, new publisher, and new introduction, be considered a new Expression of the original series?  Why should that get a new series authority record, when you wouldn’t make a new authority record for a new edition of a single Work?  Why should a new edition of a series be considered a new aggregate work if the only differences are publisher, cover art, and maybe introduction?  What makes that an aggregate work?


                                                                                Steve McDonald

                                                                                [log in to unmask]


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 12:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] order of language and publisher qualifiers


The thing about aggregate works is that they're not always worth describing. I agree that the aggregate work which a critical edition typically is generally does not need to be described. The access to that edition can be managed in other ways. The argument is that these series could be an aggregate work case that is worth describing, and not just because we've done it that way in the past, but because we've had reasons to do it that way, reasons related to user needs and collection management.




On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 9:33 AM, McDonald, Stephen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I’m not sure I buy that argument.  The same argument could be made with any edition of a single work—new cover art, new introduction, and new glossary does not make an edition into a new Expression.  It is a Manifestation.  An edition with new cover art and introduction is not considered a new aggregate Work.  Only when there is significant additional material, such as a critical analysis, is it considered an aggregate work.  I think Bob is arguing that the same should be true of series.


                                                                                Steve McDonald

                                                                                [log in to unmask]


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 9:47 AM

To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] order of language and publisher qualifiers


The counter argument I'd make to Bob's well reasoned one is that series editions of multipart literary works are not being identified as expressions of the literary work. They're being identified as separate aggregate works containing the literary work, in addition to other work-level content (cover art, new introductions, etc.).  The series title applies to the aggregate work, not to the literary work.  When it becomes an AAP, the series title needs to be qualified to distinguish one series from another and from the literary work itself.  Use of the publisher name as a qualifier is a useful surrogate for a finer analysis of the aggregated components that make up the distinct series work.


I'm not trying to argue hard for this position--just to point out that there's more than one way to see these series in the light of FRBR and RDA.  Adopting Bob's reading would mean a significant shift in the way PCC regards series.  The one above offers a way of continuing most current practices without necessarily turning our backs on RDA.


Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist
Data Management & Access, University Libraries
University of Minnesota
160 Wilson Library
309 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Ph: 612-625-2328
Fx: 612-625-3428
ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242