All good questions. I'd like to say that I agree with Mary Jane that these issues are important and we do need to record this information. I am advocating for finding a way to fold this information into the overall RDA/FRBR structure. I believe it is possible
to do this but it may require us to step outside and think about different ways of doing things. For example, I agree that numbering patterns are an important thing we record in series authority records and they do serve and important purpose for our users.
One possibility, in the case of the Chronicles of Narnia, would be to create an expression record for the English language expression, and then have more than one numbering decision that applies to different publications (manifestations). I do know in that
particular case that some of the current series give the number the books in a different order from the original numbering. Numbering change is not an attribute/element that creates a new expression in FRBR or RDA, but there must be some way we could accommodate
this, perhaps using multiple numbering patterns (just brainstorming, perhaps we could qualify the numbering of the newer versions, e.g., "v.1 (revised numbering)"). It would also be much more helpful to our users than our current practice, in my opinion, to
include a 678 history of the work note on the single authority record for the expression explaining the numbering difference, rather than expecting the users to deduce it from the fact that the numbering is different in our different access point strings.
(By the way, we MUST find a way to display to the public these very useful 678 notes that are popping up on RDA records.)
I can’t really say about multipart monographs because I don’t catalog monographs often, but for monographic series, in the past we have made new SARs for new editions to distinguish them so we could manage local treatment decisions, establish a standard form for the numbering, and build separate series indexes for the individual volumes. Pre-RDA, we weren’t thinking in terms of work, expression, manifestation; we were thinking about these tasks. As we re-conceptualize, creating fewer SARs, will these tasks continue be done? If so, how? What do our patrons want/need in these areas? Are the answers to these questions the same for both multipart monographs and monographic series, or different?
Mary Jane Cuneo
Serials cataloging and NACO
Information and Technical Services
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?