I think it’s a mistake to get ourselves all tied up in knots trying to fit these things into an idealized model that is far from perfect. A series is not really a work or an expression. It is an attribute that various manifestations might have in common. The title of the multipart monograph in question, Collected works of Bernard Lonergan, would be a better identifier than our various attempts at AAPs.
Senior Continuing Resources Cataloger
Harvard Library--Information and Technical Services
Langdell Hall 194
Harvard Law School Library
Cambridge, MA 02138
+(1)(617) 495-3974 (voice)
+(1)(617) 496-4409 (fax)
ISNI 0000 0000 4028 0917
I think the section on aggregates in LRM might solve this particular problem of multiple collections of an author’s “complete works.” From page 65 of the Feb. 2016 draft:
The process of aggregating the expressions is itself an intellectual or artistic effort and therefore meets the criteria for a work. In the process of creating the aggregate manifestation, the aggregator creates an aggregating work. This type of work has also been referred to as the glue, binding, or the mortar that transforms a set of individual expressions into an aggregate. This effort may be relatively minor—two existing novels published together—or it may represent a major effort resulting in an aggregate that is significantly more than a sum of its parts (for example an anthology). An aggregating work is not a discrete section or even necessarily an identifiable part of the resulting manifestation and does not contain the aggregated works themselves.
There’s a handy diagram on page 66. Because an aggregating work is not treated as being in a whole-part relationship with the aggregated works themselves, I think this would allow for two different “aggregating works” that each comprise the same set of individual works, but are still treated as different entities.** How this would actually be described in RDA remains to be seen.
**(Yes, technically it’s more complicated than this, but this is a perhaps-futile attempt to keep the jargon to a minimum.)
(These opinions are my own and not my employer’s)
Bibliographic Access Section
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Gene Fieg
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 2:56 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Queston about "Works" authority record with qualifier
But doesn't that contradict the last sentence of the RDA instruction--works refers to any aggregation of the complete works???
Maybe the "rda" will take care of this.
On Wednesday, April 26, 2017, Jessica Janecki <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From page 466 of Maxwell’s Handbook for RDA
“18.104.22.168.1 Complete Works: “The conventional collective title “Works” is used for a compilation that purports to be the complete works of a person…There may be many compilations of the [complete] works of an author. For cataloging purposes these may all be considered the same aggregate work, although they may represent many different expressions of that aggregate work. Therefore the title works itself would probably never need to be qualified to distinguish it from another aggregate work with the same title.”
As has been pointed out, different compilations of complete (or purported to be complete) works are different expressions. Traditionally they have been distinguished by the date in $f.
*However*, if what you have is a works selections situation, then yes, they are different aggregate works and need to be distinguished.
I guess it depends on how you interpret RDA 22.214.171.124: “Include additional elements in authorized access points if needed to distinguish the access point for a work from one that is the same or similar but represents a different work.”
Are two collections of complete works, edited by different editors or published by different publishers, different works? I honestly don’t know. ON the one hand the collection should be more or less the same in terms of what texts are included; on the other, there are a million ways it could be different (e.g. different order of texts, different commentary, perhaps even different Vorlagen if it’s a translation).
I think it might add to the confusion that an author’s “Complete works” and a FRBR:work are the same word but maybe not the same concept.
It does seem to me that, while under AACR2 we frequently used uniform titles as collocating devices as well as means of identifying resources, under RDA the movement is toward only using them for identification. See for example the effort to move away from uniform titles like “Work name. $l Language” for translations, and instead specifically identify which translation is being accessed. So I wouldn’t be at all surprised if practice is moving toward using access points for works that specifically identify the collection rather than just bring all collections together.
Acquisitions & Discovery Enhancement
I am curious about a “Works” name-title authority record.
The NACO authority with heading
Lonergan, Bernard J. F. $t Works. $f 1988
was recently changed to
Lonergan, Bernard J. F. $t Works (Lonergan Research Institute)
I don’t believe this is legitimate RDA usage, is it?
My understanding is that there is only one “Works” work for each author, possibly with multiple expressions. The parenthetical qualifier here is at the work level, and thus distinguishes this “work” from other “works” that constitute the complete works of Lonergan. (Getting through these multiple senses of “work” is a lot of work.) That does not seem to be correct.