Yes, that’s right. This doesn’t actually represent a change in policy or practice from AACR2 (and possibly before), by the way. “Works” has always meant any resource purporting to be an author’s complete works, both under AACR2 and RDA, even if an author is still alive and might continue to create new works. I think this is practical—we take the resource at face value as it presents itself and we aren’t expected to verify if it really contains every last work of the author.
Bob
Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568
"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wilson, Pete
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 12:05 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Series title from two publishers, one numbered, other unnumbered
Robert, the PCC policy seems to mandate treating two “complete works” of a poet, one published halfway through his writing activity and one at the end of it, as the same work, though two different expressions. I assume that this was acknowledged but the approach was still seen as the most workable and appropriate to the models. Is that correct? Is it possible that sometime in the future we will regret that decision?
Pete Wilson
Vanderbilt University
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 8:19 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Series title from two publishers, one numbered, other unnumbered
Yes, “Works” is a different problem from series, though not unrelated since so many series are “works” of an author. There is a serious problem in the authority file because the way AACR2 (and NACO policy) organized works was quite different from how RDA organizes them. The conventional collective title “Works” represents the aggregate containing (or purporting to contain) the complete works of a person (or I suppose family or coporate body). By definition (and PCC policy, still undocumented, but decided at the 2014 Fall Policy Committee meeting) there can be only one such aggregate—either it’s the group of the complete works or it’s not. So any differentiation, if wanted, is at the expression level.
Under PCC policy under AACR2 as represented by the LCRI, uniform titles with “Works” automatically got the year of publication added to them. This is an attribute of the manifestation, not the expression. So we wind up with authority records like
Shakespeare, William, ǂd 1564-1616. ǂt Works. ǂf 1974
Which stands for the Riverside Shakespeare, and also
Shakespeare, William, ǂd 1564-1616. ǂt Works. ǂf 1997
which not only stands for The Riverside Shakespeare, but also the “The complete works of Shakespeare”, “The Unabridged William Shakespeare” and also “The Norton Shakespeare,” all of which are different expressions of the complete works.
Add to this the wrinkle you bring up below: some of these aggregate work expressions have been treated as series (on separate bibliographic records for each part tied together with a series authorized access point); and sometimes the same expression has been treated by another agency as a multipart monograph (on a single bibliographic record). This treatment decision is often arbitrary, based on what the cataloger in a given instance decided, not on the nature of the expression itself.
The basic principle is simple: one expression, one description (a.k.a an authority record that includes one authorized access point).
I am not suggesting that anyone should tackle Shakespeare right now to clean up the records, but for other authors (such as John Wesley) it is worthwhile to figure out what is going on and consolidate (or split) records if appropriate. I don’t know the facts about the Wesley case, but you do. From what you say below it looks as though Wesley, John, ǂd 1703-1791. ǂt Works. ǂf 1975, perhaps Wesley, John, ǂd 1703-1791. ǂt Works. ǂf 1975 (Oxford ed.), and Wesley, John, ǂd 1703-1791. ǂt Works. ǂf 1984 are in fact the same expression. As in the discussion of the other series that’s been going on this week, changing publisher doesn’t make a new work. And it doesn’t make a new expression. It might make a new manifestation (although in this case even that might be debatable). But since authorized access points only exist for the moment at the work or expression level, if the facts you present are correct, then there should only be one description (authority record) for this aggregate work. It happens that it’s also been described as a series, and that’s fine, but it doesn’t change the analysis about whethere there is one or more than one expression.
Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568
"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 6:34 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Series title from two publishers, one numbered, other unnumbered
This may not be quite relevant to the discussion here. But take a look under Wesley, John. Works. Two series in 1975 and 1984.
The one in 1984, first started at Oxford, but then Abingdon took it over and numbering continued from one set to the other, but there are two different authorized headings for the 1984 series as well as for the 1975 series. And in the 1975, one is classed collectively, and the other as monographic set. I forget what we did locally when I catalogued; I may have described separately and classed collectively.
In any case, these "Works" by Wesley can become and did become a bit muddled in terms of description and explaining it to patrons and other librarians.
Gene Fieg
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Kevin M Randall <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
What I was trying to say is that, even though we are creating separate records for separate manifestations, that does not mean we also create separate AAPs. Since a different record does not necessarily mean a different work, you use the same AAP in both if they both contain the same work. We do not identify the manifestation in an AAP (which is what it has been looking like you are arguing for).
Kevin
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of John Gordon Marr
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 4:53 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Series title from two publishers, one numbered, other unnumbered
I’m not sure what you mean, Kevin. The different records identify the different manifestations and do not imply that they are different “works.”
John G. Marr
DACS
Zimmerman Library
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87010
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
**"I really like to know the reasons for what I do!"**
Martha Watson
Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but sharing is permitted.
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 12:53 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Series title from two publishers, one numbered, other unnumbered
Well yes, of course different manifestations require different records. But that has nothing to do with identifying the works.
Kevin
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Gordon Marr
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 1:47 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Series title from two publishers, one numbered, other unnumbered
The differences described come principally from OCLC’s “When to create a new record” (which seems to apply to “manifestations” rather than “works”?)
John G. Marr
DACS
Zimmerman Library
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87010
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
**"I really like to know the reasons for what I do!"**
Martha Watson
Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but sharing is permitted.
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 12:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Series title from two publishers, one numbered, other unnumbered
The question is: Are these two different works, or are they two different manifestations? I haven't seen any arguments that would convince me these are different works, but as far as I can tell no one has tried to argue that they are not different manifestations. The differences described in the post below are manifestation-related, not work-related. Of course such things should be in the descriptions in order to distinguish the Haymarket volumes from the Brill volumes. But RDA does not have provision for constructing AAPs for manifestations. We assign the AAP for the work/expression, not for the manifestation. There may be cases where a manifestation element is used in the AAP in order to distinguish a works/expression (e.g., publisher or place of publication of the first manifestation), but that is because there is no other suitable distinguishing element to use. That does not change the fact that the AAP pertains to the work/expression, not the manifestation.
Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Libraries
Northwestern University
www.library.northwestern.edu<http://www.library.northwestern.edu>
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
847.491.2939<tel:847.491.2939>
Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!
