or another alternative for different work access points would simply be:
I think you just have to make a judgment as to whether the content has changed significantly enough to have created a new work rather than a different expression. I don't know of any guidance other than personal judgment.
If you decide the compilations are different works then you wouldn't use $f in front of the date:
Is your opinion based on the manifestation titles being the same? If they had different manifestation titles would you lean toward them being different aggregate works? I recently had a similar situation where the manifestation titles were the same but the content was completely different (completely different compilations of short stories by the same author).
Is there any guidance on when the content differs enough to become a new aggregate work?
I would add $f 1893 to the first collection and $f 1895 to the second. They seem like different expressions of the same compilation. You would have a few options:
240 10 Poems. $k Selections (In this our world and other poems). $f 1893
240 10 Poems. Sk Selections (In this our world and other poems). $f 1895
240 10 In this our world and other poems. $f 1893
240 10 In this our world and other poems. $f 1895
University of Washington Libraries
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Jessica Janecki <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 9:06:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: manifestations with same title proper and author but different content
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.