I don’t quite understand what you’re after either.
There is certainly a theoretical argument for putting the work/expression AAP in a 7xx field, as we always do in RDA when there are two or more works or expressions in the same manifestation. There’s no reason we couldn’t do that, and in a way it might mean greater consistency of approach. As of now we just don’t.
But I don’t think I have seen any suggestion that a work AAP and an expression AAP based on that work could, or should, both be included in a bib record for a manifestation containing just that one expression. Why do you want to do that?
Most importantly, I don’t believe this:
Edwards, Jonathan, $d 1703-1758. $t Works. $k Selections. $f 2013
is an expression of:
Edwards, Jonathan, $d 1703-1758. $t Works. $k Selections
The first is for a particular selection of Edwards’ works that was published in 2013. If a different selection, containing different works, is published in 2014, it would have the AAP
Edwards, Jonathan, $d 1703-1758. $t Works. $k Selections. $f 2014
But that selection would be a different WORK from the 2013 selection, not a different expression of the same work. They cannot be the same work if they have different contents—possibly ENTIRELY different contents, with no overlap.
Your suggestion would allow collocation of all “selections” works under the same heading, while also providing separate index entries for the different works, which might be useful. It straddles the question of whether all “selections” works by the same person should be covered by the same AAP (which seems a polite fiction) or given separate AAPs. But in any case, if we followed your suggestion, we would not be including a work AAP and an expression AAP in a record—we would be including two different work AAPs for the same work, based on different understandings of how “selections” should be handled. Fitting that into RDA would require major changes.
Dear PCCLIST readers,
Thanks to Christopher Thomas and Ted Gemberling for their contributions. My question concerns MARC coding. The pertinent RDA instruction is 6.27.1, for which LC-PCC PS has: For additional guidelines on presentation and punctuation of access points, see Policy Statement 1.7.1. In LC-PCC PS, under Access Points in Name Authority and Bibliographic Records (General), which appears to deal primarily with punctuation, field 240 is specifically mentioned, and two examples are given. But I wonder if, instead of field 240, field 700 can (and should) be used.
Thus, instead of
240 Works. $k Selections
245 Title on preferred source
245 Title on preferred source
700 1_ AAP. $t Works. $t Selections
700 12 AAP. $t Works. $t Selections. $f Year
The case which prompts my inquiry is OCLC 830367645, LCCN 2013930951:
1001 Edwards, Jonathan, ǂd 1703-1758, ǂe author.
24010 Works. ǂk Selections
24510 Jonathan Edwards : ǂb writings from the Great Awakening / ǂc Philip F. Gura, editor.
This record is still in process in LC's catalog. Our local catalog (and LC's) lacks field 240, but one of the numerous agencies that have edited the OCLC master has added it. Why not have instead:
7001 Edwards, Jonathan, ǂd 1703-1758. ǂt Works. ǂk Selections
70012 Edwards, Jonathan, ǂd 1703-1758. ǂt Works. ǂk Selections. ǂf 2013.
Sincerely - Ian
Cataloging and Metadata Services Librarian
George Mason University