I wouldn't say that adding a publisher name to a title results in a manifestation access point.  It is still a work/expression access point—it is just using the name of the original publisher as an identifying element in naming the work (for lack of any better piece of data).  Even if "Historical studies (Macmillan)" gets reprinted by Penguin, the "Macmillan" qualifier is identifying the series as a work, not as a manifestation.  The work contained within the Penguin reprints would still be identified by the access point "Historical studies (Macmillan)".

So, the publisher *relationship* pertains to the manifestation.  But using that name—or any other manifestation element—in an access point does not automatically turn the access point into a manifestation access point.  At least, under RDA.  Things were quite different in AACR2, when we were indeed creating manifestation access points (which are coming back to haunt us).

Kevin M. Randall
Principal Serials Cataloger
Northwestern University Libraries
Northwestern University<>
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1978!

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of RSC Secretary
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 3:26 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] "Publisher" as relationship designator--correct or not?

Mary Jane et al.,
I am the VERY last person who should advise anyone on current PCC policy about series.  The last SAR I created was many years ago before LC abandoned series authority control.  I realize that the PCC policies are available in the Toolkit but I have not been keeping up with what they say.
I was just trying to clarify which RDA elements applied to which of the WEMI (work, expression, manifestation, item) entities.  I also do agree that sometimes the only logical addition to a series title access point is the commercial publisher even if the result is then a manifestation access point.
Regards, Judy