On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Adam L. Schiff <asch...@u.washington.edu>wrote:
> In RDA Appendix J "reprinted as" and "reprint of (manifestation)" are > listed hierarchically under "reproduced as" and "reproduction of > (manifestation)". I have a 2010 large print edition of a book originally > published in 2003. The manifestation in hand says "This optimized > ReadHowYouWant edition contains the complete, unabridged text of the > original publisher's edition. Other aspects of the book may vary from the > original edition." > > I was considering including a 775 field in the RDA record for the large > print with the relationship designator "reprint of (manifestation)" and a > description of the 2003 edition. However large print editions are not > reproductions, so the placement of "reprinted as (manifestation)" > hierarchically under "reproduction of (manifestation)" seems suspect to me. > > Reprints are clearly equivalent manifestations, but not necessarily > reproductions. Shouldn't "reprinted as" and "reprint of (manifestation)" > be taken out of the reproduction hierarchies in Appendix J? > Hi Adam, I believe the problem here is the mighty misleading wording of the definition of "reprint of (manifestation)" in App. J--in particular, the choice of the phrase "same content". If you look at the definition of the reciprocal term, "reprinted as", you will see that reprints must be the *same expression*. And since editions are different expressions, then your large print edition is not a reprint, even if the content is the same. It is a different expression, but the same work, as the original book; the relationship of the large print edition to the regular-print original would be captured by the AAP for the work (100+245, or however it pans out for this particular resource). That's my take on it, anyway. Trina Trina Pundurs Serials Cataloger Library Collection Services University of California, Berkeley tpund...@library.berkeley.edu http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/ Proudly wearing the sensible shoes since 1990
