카지노싸이트 Librarians Group discussion

I've been slowly going through Niccolò Machiavelli's works to combine/separate errant editions. As with many prolific authors, there are several works that present two or more of Machiavelli's books (e.g., The Art of War & The Prince). Do we have a policy for what to use as the "original publication date" of such works? It seems like there are three choices:

1. Use the original publication date of the oldest work in the collection. (I.e., in the example above, The Art of War was published before The Prince, so we would use its original publication date.)

2. Use the original publication date of the newest work in the collection. (I.e., since The Prince was published later, we would use its original publication date.)

3. Use the original publication date of the entire collection.

Of the three options, I lean toward number 1, because the oldest date should take precedence. I least like number 3, because it seems the least accurate to me, especially when you have multiple editions of a collection published by different sources (as happens with The Art of War & The Prince).

I lean towards #2. A book cannot have a pub date before some of its components were published. I see this as the same issue as the serialized novel pub date question that was raised a couple weeks back.

I lean toward #2 as well.

I favor #3, because the collection of the books is usually an artistic choice of its own -- these were pieces not originally written to go together, but selected to form a new book together at a later point.

I'm with Cait on #3, personally. It's also possible a collection might have a specific introduction (etc) explaining the combo of works included. Seems like the original publication of that exact collection would make the most logical sense.

rivka wrote: "I lean towards #2. A book cannot have a pub date before some of its components were published."

That makes sense.

Cait and Amanda: I see the appeal of that reasoning. However, number 3 seems to offer the least useful date. Many publishers will independently offer the same collection of works. So the original publication date of the collection would not be constant, because it would depend on what the earliest published edition of the collection happens to be on 카지노싸이트. If someone adds an edition published earlier than any of the existing ones, suddenly the original publication date changes. In contrast, the original publication dates of the works contained within the collection do not change.

Amanda (JT) wrote: "It's also possible a collection might have a specific introduction (etc) explaining the combo of works included."

Many editions of a single classic work include introductions and additional content. I think there's an argument to be made that if the "additional content" is significant enough to differentiate the edition as a new work, then it can separately be considered a different work. Those cases aside, when we have multiple editions of the same work with different introductions, translations, etc., we combine those and use the original publication date of the classic work.

Cait wrote: "I favor #3, because the collection of the books is usually an artistic choice of its own -- these were pieces not originally written to go together, but selected to form a new book together at a la..."

That is an interesting and elegant reasoning.

I think I still disagree. ;)

I lean towards #3.

Ben said: So the original publication date of the collection would not be constant, because it would depend on what the earliest published edition of the collection happens to be on 카지노싸이트. If someone adds an edition published earlier than any of the existing ones, suddenly the original publication date changes. In contrast, the original publication dates of the works contained within the collection do not change.

So what? I don't see that as a problem. If your scenario happens, then the publication date would only be moving in one direction, and eventually perhaps would arrive at the accurate year. (This happens to single works all the time, as people add earlier editions.)