I agree that FRBR is not some sort of Platonic ideal. I however don't agree that it doesn't really work for serials or other aggregate works such as series. It is not the same as the model we've used in the past under AACR2 (if there was in fact a model) but that doesn't mean it doesn't work, it's just different. I don't believe that the FRBR model is perfect, but I am convinced that the FRBR model is an improvement over the previous organizing principles, whatever they may have been. I'm advocating for seeing if our resources can in fact fit into the model rather than saying "this isn't the way we've always organized things, there must be something wrong with the model." Saying this isn't the same as saying we should try to strait-jacket round pegs into square holes. I'm just not convinced that the pegs are in fact not the same shape as the holes.
Hope you're having a good time in Germany.
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?