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
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)
Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services
Langdell Hall 194
Harvard Law School Library
Cambridge, MA 02138
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
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?
[log in to unmask]
for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
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.
[log in to unmask]
Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 9:47 AM
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
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.