Yes, if Liver is the preferred title of more than one work, then you need to differentiate them.  The access point Liver (Arias) is certainly adequate.  An alternative would be Liver (1983).  Even better, however, might be to reconsider whether the title proper is just Liver.  If you consider the entire title proper to be Liver: biology and pathobiology, and if that is unique from all other works, you wouldn’t need a 130:


245 00 The liver: biology and pathobiology / ǂc edited by Irwin M. Arias [and six others].


Of course either way, the earlier editions might need either a 130 or a revision to the 245.


You don’t have to name the specific expression in an authorized access point, but you’re certainly permitted to.  In a situation like this, I probably wouldn’t bother.  If I were doing it, I’d probably prefer Liver (Arias). $f 2020  rather than using the edition statement as an other distinguishing characteristic of expression, but that’s just my preference in situations like this.


Adam Schiff

Principal Cataloger

University of Washington Libraries


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Yang Wang
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2020 10:39 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: work-level vs expression-level access points


2 quick questions about a work-level AAP used in this bib record (lccn 2019024961).


130 0   Liver (Arias)


1) The qualifier “Arias” sounds a bit funny and “untoward”, so to speak, since it happens to be a variant form of the lcgft term “Songs.” We all know, for machine indexing and data manipulation, it does not matter at all. But for a human to read and comprehend what it is, would it be better to see a more understandable heading like “Liver (Reference work : Arias)”?  


2) This is the 6th edition of the work. At this point, would an expression level access point be more appropriate?


130 0   Live (Arias) $s (6th edition)


Per OCLC bib file, the first edition was published in 1983; Irwin M. Arias has been its chief editor since the 1st edition. I am not questioning the use of work-level AAP in this bib, seeing that it stands for “[a] distinct intellectual … creation.” I am just inquiring if there’s a best practice when we come to deal with reference books/textbooks that have gone through multiple editions.


If a work-level AAP is all we need, so be it. But if an expression-level AAP is more uniquely helpful to library users, then, why not?