One thought on this. I’m not sure about all the related RDA and FRBR principles, but I do think “Selections” is questionable as a work because it’s usually not something “selected” by the author but something that later editors or publishers think readers might want. “Poems. Selections. 2013” is just a kind of artificial way to link the work of that person to a particular publication.
I imagine that sometimes an author does create “selections” of his own work during his lifetime.
“Poems. Selections. 2013” may be useful for catalogs, but I wouldn’t call it a work. Or even “Poems. Selections.” Now, “Poems” seems to qualify as one, since the assumption seems to be that it includes all the person’s poems.
In response to my earlier posts, Ted Gemberling said: "Let’s say we used just the more specific 700, with the Expression date. Why would that be better than using the 240?"
Also, Pete Wilson said: "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?"
Perhaps other readers can address these issues. I have more to say, but what follows would likely take a slightly different direction.
And to provide a "course correction" to remedy the defects that Pete identifies, namely --
"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"
-- I'd also appreciate other perspectives. How would you best individuate the particular work that comprises this specific anthology of writings?
Sincerely - Ian
Cataloging and Metadata Services Librarian
George Mason University