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