Hi Zahra,
I assume you are only practicing on creating an official RDA record for now, since it is not yet implemented by PCC until further announcement. As I understand, MGDs are currently being updated and still contain some conflicting information that will be cleaned up shortly. Since "expression manifested" is an RDA element name, it would be necessary to consult the list of PCC relationship labels that can be accessed in excel or pdf at https://www.loc.gov/aba/rda/mgd/relationshipLabels/index.html ("All Relationship labels" near the top."
The list shows that "contains" is the PCC relationship label for Manifestation: expression manifested (only used for aggregates in bib records).
Yuji
-----
Yuji Tosaka, PhD, MLIS (he/him/his)
Cataloging/Metadata Librarian
Cataloging and Metadata Services
R. Barbara Gitenstein Library
The College of New Jersey
PO Box 7718 Ewing, NJ 08628-0718
------------------------------
Yuji Tosaka
Cataloging/Metadata Librarian
The College of New Jersey
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: Mar 30, 2026 08:30 PM
From: Zahra Gordon
Subject: Relator terms for collection aggregates with expressions by different agents
Timothy,
Thank you for this thoughtful response!
I'll have to think about whether this book might be better treated as an augmentation aggregate. I did consider this possibility, especially since the cover (which is usually given precedence over the colophon as a source of information) presents only the title of the poem and Frost as the author. One reason that I fell back on "collection aggregate" as the safer choice was due to the context of this book in relation to others in the series. For most of the other books in the series, only the title is given on the cover and the title plus statement of responsibility is given on the colophon, so, you could argue that the colophon is actually the chief source (Susan Ostrowski is also the author of most of the books in this series). Also, the description that I gave in my previous post of the commentary in this book was kind of misleading--It includes not only biographical information about Frost and his poem but also commentary about the nature of poetry in general. It occurred to me that given the nature of the text by Ostrowski, its greater length (albeit only two pages), and Ostrowski's responsibility for the series as a whole, someone could just as easily argue that this is a mainly a commentary on poetry by Ostrowski using Frost's poem as an example. Since I could see someone arguing that this could be either a collection aggregate or an augmentation aggregate (and that either work could be considered the augmented work), I decided to prefer to treat it as a collection aggregate per the advice given on page 3 of the MGD on aggregates:
If an aggregate exhibits characteristics of more than one type of aggregate, apply the guidance in this document in the following order:
1. Collection aggregate
2. Parallel aggregate
3. Augmentation aggregate
I should have gone into more detail about my thought process!
This book is admittedly not a great example, but if what I had been cataloging was clearly a collection aggregate with works by different agents and I did want to include access points for the aggregated expressions, would "expression manifested" be the correct relationship label to use in the access points?
Thanks again!
Zahra Gordon
Original Message:
Sent: 3/30/2026 11:41:00 AM
From: Timothy Mendenhall
Subject: RE: Relator terms for collection aggregates with expressions by different agents
Dear Zahra,
For either collection or augmentation aggregates, catalogers may choose to provide direct access to the aggregated content through access points, or may choose to provide a formal contents note. I would lean towards viewing this publication as an augmentation aggregate rather than as a collection aggregate, as the primary content is a single poem by Frost, and the essay by Ostrowski is intended to augment and contextualize the text of the poem. In the MGD for aggregates, there is a comparable example of "An authoritative edition of the novel Persuasion by Jane Austen with associated essays."
For direct access to Frost's poem, an author access point in the 100 for Robert Frost, combined with the title in the 245, serves as the value for Manifestation: expression manifested.
100 1_ $a Frost, Robert, $d 1874-1963, $e author.
245 14 $a The road not taken [...]
If there were at least two essays in addition to the poem, I would lean towards providing a contents note for the poem and essays. However, since there is just a single essay in addition to the poem, and that essay shares a title with the poem, a formal contents note does not seem sensible here. The MGD on aggregates, in the section on augmentation aggregates (see page 8), continues by stating that "Descriptions of augmenting content are cataloger's judgment in most cases," and provides some examples that may be useful. I would thus just include a simple 500 note: 500 __ $a Essay by Susan Ostrowski, leaves 5-10. Optionally, you can add access points for Ostrowski and Dixon:
700 1_ $a Ostrowski, Susan, $e writer of supplementary textual content.
700 1_ $a Dixon, Peter S., $e editor.
Note that per the MGD Relationship Labels, the PCC will continue to use the 7 original RDA relationships such as "writer of supplementary textual content" which were subsumed in Official RDA into the relationship element "contributor person of text."
I hope that helps!
--Timothy Ryan Mendenhall