As soon as content is changed in any way, a new expression is created.
One more thought on this. I asked what percentage is the same, but I don’t know if that really matters. This strikes me as a normal thing: as authors republish their works, they get longer. I doubt there is even any reason to treat it as a new Expression. It’s just a longer Manifestation of the same work.
Just my two cents.
Jessica, is there a way they could be distinguished by a date? I’m not clear on whether this is enough difference to be a separate aggregate work. What percentage difference is there in the number of poems? If they have the same title, it seems there should be some presumption that they are the same work.
UAB Lister Hill Library
I have a collection of Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s poems, entitled “In this our world and other poems”. It was published in 1895. However, it turns out that a compilation also entitled “In this our world and other poems” was published in 1893 but which contains over 50 fewer poems than the 1895 compilation. Although there is substantial overlap in the contents, to my mind 50 poems is a significant difference (the 1895 volume is 64 pages longer than the 1893 volume) and they are two different aggregate works. No editor is given for either volume and they are by the same publisher, which enhances the appearance of similarity.
I only have the 1895 volume, but even if I had the 1893 volume as well, I am not sure what is the best way to prevent confusion about the differences between the two volumes when I create a work record. There are 124 poems in the 1895 volume so I can’t make 500’s for all of them. Is there a note field I should be using (“Do not confuse with…”)?
This is the second time this has come up at my library this week, so if anyone has any advice, it would be much appreciated.