Revision to Instructions for Adaptations and Revisions (6.27.1.5)

6JSC/LC/33
August 3, 2015

Revision to Instructions for Adaptations and Revisions (6.27.1.5)

 

 

Submitted by Dave Reser, LC Representative

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Revision to Instructions for Adaptations and Revisions (6.27.1.5)

  1. Lori Robare says:

    From Adam Schiff:

    On page 5, LC proposes adding a new example named by title alone. I don’t have any problems with this example, but it’s basically the same as the existing ones: that is, there is no title change between editions. What is also needed are examples that illustrate a change in title between expressions, but for which the work title remains the same. For example:

    Greene, John Robert, 1955- . The presidency of George Bush
    Resource described: The presidency of George H.W. Bush / John Robert Greene. — Second edition, revised and expanded.
    Previous edition published under the title: The presidency of George Bush

    Hacker, Diana, 1942-2004. Research and documentation in the electronic age
    Resource described: Research and documentation in the digital age / Diana Hacker, Barbara Fister. — Sixth edition.
    Previous editions published under the title: Research and documentation in the electronic age

    Quinn, Peter D., 1948- . Color atlas of temporomandibular joint surgery
    Resource described: Atlas of temporomandibular joint surgery / editors, Peter D. Quinn, Eric J. Granquist. – Second edition.
    First edition published as: Color atlas of temporomandibular joint surgery / Peter D. Quinn.

    Page 7:

    In addition to the Williams example, how about:

    Adams, Douglas, 1952-2001. The hitchhiker’s guide to the galaxy (Novel)
    Adaptation by Adams of his radio plays with the same title

  2. John Myers says:

    My concern is that it is not clear why rules 6.27.1.5.1+ are needed once the reformulated 6.27.1.5 identifies the resulting adaptation to “treat the adaptation as a new work.” Isn’t it then sufficient to direct catalogers to the prior rules for “(new) works.” (I confess though, in my haste, I have not closely compared the revised rules against the general rules for the AAP’s for works.)

  3. Matthew Haugen says:

    I think I agree with John; it seems redundant to add new instructions rather than referring back to the existing rules for new works. In that case, it could still be helpful to have these examples added to the existing instructions. But I don’t feel too strongly one way or the other.

    • Kathy Glennan says:

      I agree with John & Matt. There’s a lot of repetition here that I’m not convinced is needed. See how the music instructions deal with the parallel situation in 6.28.1.5.2.

      I also don’t agree with adding the new paragraph at the end of 6.27.1.5.3. This comes directly from 6.27.1.1, and I would assume that it applies to all instructions in 6.27.1. If not, that same paragraph would need to be added wherever applicable in 6.27.1.

  4. Steve Kelley says:

    I like this proposal and think it makes sense.

  5. Kathy Glennan says:

    I do agree with the analysis of & solution for the two exceptions.

  6. Mary Anne Dyer says:

    I agree with this proposal. I also think it would be helpful to include the additional examples.

  7. Tina Shrader says:

    I support this proposal, but I agree that many of the instructions seem redundant, and referencing the earlier instructions might be cleaner than repeating them.

  8. Lori Robare says:

    I also like this proposal. I’m OK with the repetition in general, partly because the examples are so useful and I can’t quite picture how to incorporate that guidance if just referring back to the general instructions. But I do agree with Kathy that the new paragraph at the end of 6.27.1.5.3 doesn’t seem to be necessary.

  9. Diane Napert says:

    I think the re-written 6.27.1.5 is cleaner and easier to follow. Overall, I think the examples are good, but do like a couple of the ones Adam recommends, particularly the one for page 7

  10. Peter Fletcher says:

    I think the proposal is useful for clearly explaining and giving examples of when a new work has been created by the same author, and not just a new expression.

  11. Lori Robare says:

    From Kevin Randall, PCC member:

    Agree in general with the proposal, although it would be preferable to give references to instructions already existing in their logical places, instead of repeating the instructions.

    Just as an aside–but stepping onto my soapbox nonetheless!–I would like to add that I believe way too many resources are treated as expressions of a prior work when they should really be treated as new works. I think when an author updates a work, and it is given a new title, that may very well be something that should be considered a new work. And *absolutely* when a new creator is added and/or a previous creator is dropped, you have a new work. If Authors A and B create “Resource X”, and later that resource is revised as “Resource X second edition” by Authors A and C, you have a new work. Creator relationships are at the work level, not at the expression level. Author B has *no* relationship to the latter resource, and Author C has *no* relationship to the former resource; so Author B *cannot* be called a creator of “Resource X second edition”, and Author C *cannot* be called a creator of “Resource X”.

Leave a Reply