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 to it.  

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.

Stephen
 


On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 12:36 PM, McDonald, Stephen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

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.

 

Stephen

 

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



 

--

Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist

Data Management & Access, University Libraries

University of Minnesota

160 Wilson Library

309 19th Avenue South

Minneapolis, MN 55455

ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242




--
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