I don’t see anything in LC-PCC PS 6.27.3 that says not  to differentiate different series.  The section that mentions the 4 exceptions is marked LC practice; since LC doesn’t deal with series entries, it’s unlikely they would say anything about them.  The PCC section says pending outcome of the report.

 

There seem to be a couple of dozen series containing the Chronicles of Narnia.  There would be absolute chaos if they were all entered under the same AAP.  A series is not the same as a work, and this case as well as any case of a series containing the collected works of an author proves the folly of that approach.

 

------------------------------------------

John Hostage

Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger

Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services

Langdell Hall 194

Harvard Law School Library

Cambridge, MA 02138

[log in to unmask]

+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)

+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 22:29
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Series title from two publishers, one numbered, other unnumbered

 

I agree that if it is purely a reprint, it should be considered the same series.  What I was thinking is that there are cases where two publishers publish the same set of books, but they get separate AAPs.  The case I had in mind was Chronicles of Narnia.

 

All of the following AAPs start with the name of the author, “Lewis, C. S. (Clive Staples), 1898-1963”:

                … Chronicles of Narnia (Collier Books (Firm))

                … Chronicles of Narnia (Harper Collins (Firm))

                … Chronicles of Narnia (MacMillan (Firm))

                … Chronicles of Narnia (Scholastic (Firm))

 

But looking again, I see that all those records are AACR2 records.  Under RDA 6.27.3 “Authorized Access Point Representing an Expression”, adding a qualifier such as publisher is still the correct procedure.  But the LC-PCC PS instructs us not to do this, except for music resources, sacred scriptures, translations, and language editions.  The Narnia records have not been corrected to current policy yet.

 

I was mistaken, forgetting the Policy Statement.  We should always use the same AAP for a series (with those four exceptions).

 

                                                                                Steve McDonald

                                                                                [log in to unmask]

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Benjamin A Abrahamse
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 5:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Series title from two publishers, one numbered, other unnumbered

 

Still following this discussion, and I'm unsuccessfully trying to imagine a situation in which a user would prefer to be provided with two series access points in the catalog instead of one, when the underlying content is the same.

It would be particularly annoying, I think, when a library holds the original series and replaces individual volumes over time with reprints. A perfectly normal thing to do, as copies disappear or get worn out, and the original imprint is no longer in print. If the series was treated as two different series, it would give the impression to the less than careful searcher that there are gaps in the library's holdings when in fact there aren't.

Perhaps it would make sense in a rare collection where an imprint is of some historical value in and of itself? But for your usual working collection, it just seems to be adding another layer of complexity for the user to deal with.

 

b

 

 

 

Benjamin Abrahamse

Cataloging Coordinator

Acquisitions and Discovery Enhancement

MIT Libraries

617-253-7137

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 3:32 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Series title from two publishers, one numbered, other unnumbered

 

No, the question is not “are these two different works, or are they two different manifestations?”  I think we can all agree that they are the same work, and they are clearly different manifestations.

The question is actually, “are the series two different _expressions_?”

As you note, the AAP pertains to the work/expression.  If they are different expressions, then a different AAP is appropriate.  I have not examined the issue deeply enough to determine whether it is a different expression, but that is what you need to determine.

                                                                                Steve McDonald

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kevin M Randall
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 2:40 PM
To: [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
[log in to unmask]
847.491.2939

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Gordon Marr
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 1:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Series title from two publishers, one numbered, other unnumbered

 

Let’s not be too pedantic, even though we are all librarians. It would simply be clarifying to have separate series, would it not?*

If you have to count the differences (but don’t consider them alone but rather together), there are specific differences in the publisher, country of origin, dates of publication, form of name determined by literary warrant, explicitly-stated physical format (some libraries would prefer not to order pbks.), distinctly (legally) separate publisher responsibilities, etc.

Note that the Haymarket volumes are not being published synchronously with the Brill volumes but as an “afterthought.”

By the way: are there any differences in size (say over 2 cm) or pagination of the volumes published by Brill and Haymarket?

OK, now before you start chopping up those justifications (which all have to be considered together, of course) to try to prove there is only one series involved, try justifying which approach would best serve “patrons” rather than absolutely meet the obtuse requirements of the “RDA police.”

*Sounds like this discussion is veering off into the old arguments about whether “reprints” are identical to original editions. Rather than get into that again, I’d point out that the real issue relates to the fact that any library can do anything it wants with its local collection, even ignore RDA, MARC, OCLC, etc., but that fact does not justify obviating more explicit cataloging (including authority work) for shared utilities than the local libraries want or need. If you want to mix all the volumes together and not distinguish them in your local collections, feel free, but, please, not in records made available to every library in the world.

PS: not a rant, just not feeling well these days…

Cheers!

John G. Marr

DACS

Zimmerman Library

University of New Mexico

Albuquerque, NM 87010

[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.

 

local collections, feel free, but not on records made available to every liblry in the world.

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 11:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Series title from two publishers, one numbered, other unnumbered

 

John wrote:

 

"That should be enough to justify a separate series authority record."

 

I don't understand why republishing the series creates a new work.  It's just a new manifestation of the same series as a work as best as I can see.  Why would a new series authority record (i.e., a different work) be made in this situation?

 

Adam Schiff

Adam L. Schiff
Principal Cataloger
University of Washington Libraries
Box 352900
Seattle, WA 98195-2900

 

_____________________________
From: John Gordon Marr <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2016 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: Series title from two publishers, one numbered, other unnumbered
To: <[log in to unmask]>

Haymarket’s website has this to say: “In 2009, Haymarket … extended a long-term partnership with the journal Historical Materialism, Brill Publishers, and the Historical Materialism Book Series to make available the entire Historical Materialism Book Series in paperback format. That should be enough to justify a separate series authority record.

And when we talk about “the series”, let’s be sure we are not talking about “apples and oranges” in any other sense A quick look at the records LC has produced for their volumes suggests that all the volumes published by Brill have been numbered, but Haymarket has been inconsistent.

John G. Marr

DACS

Zimmerman Library

University of New Mexico

Albuquerque, NM 87010

[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 Wilson, Pete
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 5:31 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Series title from two publishers, one numbered, other unnumbered

 

Thanks, Robert, and Amy, Benjamin, John and Jennifer.  I sent a separate response to Jennifer.

As I said in that response to Jennifer, my instinct suggests that the Haymarket editions of the books are in a separate series that needs its own authority record, but I believe I’m a little behind on my seriesology, and I’m disinclined to go against majority wisdom.  I do see the practical benefit to proceedings as if there is just one series, shared between two publishers.  For the moment at least I’m going to follow your advice.

The existing authority record already treats the series as numbered/unnumbered.   Doesn’t it need a 643 for Haymarket?  How might we need to qualify that 643 in a $d subfield?  I suppose a 667 might also be helpful.

John Marr, you suggested treating the series statement in the Haymarket books to be merely a reprinting of Brill’s series statement.  I don’t think that would be precisely accurate.  Haymarket’s website has a section for their “HM series” (as the website calls it), as if the series belongs to Haymarket as much as it does Brill.  It feels like a case of parallel publication in different countries, with the added complication of the numbers dropping off the Haymarket editions.

Pete Wilson

Vanderbilt University

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 10:48 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Series title from two publishers, one numbered, other unnumbered

 

I agree with Amy. Also the current policy is that change in numbering (numbered or unnumbered) does not create a new series work. And series can change (or share) publishers without becoming a new series. Catalogers still need to make a judgment whether two collections with the same series name are the same series or not, but we need to use other criteria to make that judgment. In this case since the series have the same title, they contain the same monographs, I’d say they’re the same series, and as Amy says it would be useful to supply the numbering if one of the publishers omits it.

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 Amy Turner
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 4:44 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Series title from two publishers, one numbered, other unnumbered

 

I am going to answer from a practical viewpoint, without digging around in the rules.  I believe that it would be most useful to users to supply the numbering in the cases that Haymarket omits it, and to use one authority record for both publishers. This would allow a user looking for number x of the series to find either edition quickly.

 

Amy Turner

Duke University

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wilson, Pete
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 10:18 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Series title from two publishers, one numbered, other unnumbered

 

Hello wise ones,

 

I am going to ask people on this list a question that I would previously have addressed to my great Vanderbilt colleague Ann Ercelawn, who has, sadly (for me), retired.  She knew more about series than me and when she didn’t know the answer she knew the right people to ask.

 

Brill publishes a series called Historical materialism book series, for which authority record n 2002096283 was made.  It is a numbered series.  However, Haymarket Books in Chicago has republished many books in this series in paperback, using the same series statement.  The Haymarket editions do not always have numbering, however—my first impression is that early on they may have used the same number as Brill at least sometimes, but that the volumes have been unnumbered for quite some time.  There are a couple of PCC records for Haymarket editions in which the cataloger bracketed in a series number taken from the Brill website (there is an explicit note to that effect).

 

Haymarket has been doing this since 2005.  Shouldn’t there be a separate authority record for the Haymarket series?  There is not; nor is there an additional 643 on the Brill authority record for Chicago and Haymarket.  The numbering fixed field is set at “c” on the Brill authority, however, perhaps because of the lack of numbering on Haymarket editions.

 

Thanks for any help you can give!

 

Pete Wilson

Vanderbilt University