Yes, I was going to point out that those AACR2 headings with date qualifiers were qualifying neither by the date of the work or by the date of the expression, but by the date of the manifestation.
There was nothing flawed about AACR2, it simply had a different way of organizing things.
Though come to think of it, slapping a date on the end of “Works” or “Selections” was never an AACR2 requirement, either; it was an LCRI addition to AACR2. But the point is, it was always date of publication (i.e. manifestation).
So we have both “undifferentiated” work access points (“Selections …” representing more than one work) as well as duplicate work access points (more than one access point for the same aggregate “selections” work due to its being reprinted and therefore having two or more AACR2 access points qualified by two or more dates).
Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
Re: “Date of work”. A fine example of “work” in the extra-RDA context meaning something other than “Work” in the RDA/FRBR/LRM context. The kicker here is that the MARC definition of the bib X00 $f begins: “Date of publication used with …”
As a former RDA trainer, I agree with others that RDA training missed the mark on this matter since the early days. Ditto differentiating same-language expressions within access points.
Mark K. Ehlert Alma: NA02
Cataloging and Metadata Librarian Primo: MT NA01
O'Shaughnessy-Frey Library, University of St. Thomas
"Experience is by industry achieved // And perfected by
the swift course of time"--Shakespeare, "Two Gentlemen of
Verona," Act I, Scene iii