Bib records include a mix of work, expression, and manifestation data, and
a lot of the underlying relationships are only implied. If I add a cover
artist's name to a bib record for a literary work (which we do for our
special collections), I'm not relating the artist directly to the
manifestation. I'm saying implicitly "Literary expression is part of
aggregate work; aggregate work includes cover art; Cover art has artixt X."
The fact that I show only "700 $a X, $e artist" on the record for the book
just elides that set of relationships, it doesn't replace it with a simpler
relationship between artist and manifestation. (Cf. FRBR 5.1, third

The argument is that a series edition of a multipart literary work is
(usually and arguably) a different work (NB: work, not expression)--an
aggregate work which contains the literary work (or more precisely, an
expression of the literary work) as its primary content. This all gets
further elided and muddled by LC's decision that one AAP should serve for
both the work and its original language expression.  (Note also that for
LC, the idea that "Difference in translation is clearly a difference in
Expression" isn't really the case when it comes to the AAP--cf. LC-PCC PS
6.27.3, "When identifying an expression not already represented by a name
authority record, do not add another characteristic to differentiate one
such expression from another expression; (e.g., do not differentiate one
translation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet in French from another French
translation ...).")

So, if the HarperCollins Spanish series were reproduced by another
publisher, the extent to which the HarperCollins series AAP could still be
applied would depend on the extent to which the new publisher had added to
or altered the aggregate content. If not at all, I'd be inclined to say
that the HarperCollins series AAP would still be applicable, especially if
the new publisher reproduced the HarperCollins series title page.  On the
other hand, if the new publisher also added its own series title--an
important piece of the definition of a series--then an AAP for that series
could also be formulated and applied.

This all reminds me of the Magic Eye graphics. You look at a flat page of
dense wiggles and speckles of color, and that's all you see, until
suddenly--there's a dinosaur! The FRBR perspective on resources requires
this kind of stereoscopic focus on what at first seems to be fairly a flat
surface but can be resolved into multidimensional layers of entities and


On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 3:02 PM, McDonald, Stephen <[log in to unmask]
> wrote:

>  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.
> 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 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 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

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