I'm somewhat in agreement with Carlos on this issue. There are several different ways that more than one "edition" (with separate CPDL edition number) can appear on a page. Separate editions for transpositions is just one. Editions with and without keyboard reduction for
a cappella works is another (no reduction works well for singers, but a necessarily longer edition for rehearsal keyboardist is a nicety)and other versions of full scores (eg. for works with accompaniment by several instruments)
versus chorus scores (with or without keyboard versions of the instrumental accompaniment) abound at CPDL. An editor may supply different arrangements, might offer scores in different formats (eg. landscape and portrait orientation), or might post both condensed score and full score editions. Or, for a larger work (such as a mass, cantata, oratorio or song-cycle), there are often separate editions for each movement on a work page.
All these situations (and surely others I've overlooked) make the counting of editions somewhat awkward. Furthermore, there are significant variations from one editor to another (and within a single editor's output) of the extent to which such practices as those mentioned above actually occur. For example, one editor might submit a complete PDF of a mass along with PDFs for the individuals, counting each as a separate edition (even for a rather short mass) - and another editor might submit these (with or without the complete PDF, which is simply obtained by concatenating the PDFs for the individual movements) as a single edition. One editor might submit as separate editions several tranpositions of a work (which are pretty easy to generate) - and another editor might provide transpositions under the same edition number - and still others (with scores available via Scorch or some other similar viewer/downloader) provide a score under a single edition number where the user can choose any desired transposition. For accompanied works, one editor might supply separately numbered editions for each of several instruments, another might supply under one separately numbered edition all the instrumental parts, and yet another might include the instrumental parts with the choral score in a single numbered edition.
Such variances in the way editions are submitted and hence counted go way back through the lifespan of CPDL. They exist mainly because (1) there has been no clear CPDL policy what a CPDL numbered edition should be, (2) the evolution of mechanisms through which scores are submitted to CPDL (through the various add score forms that have been used since the CPDL site became the ChoralWiki site) makes for a wide variety of perceptions as to how editions (especially for some of the situations described above) should be submitted and numbered, and (3) individual editors have their own perceptions about what such policy should be and (in the absence of CPDL standards of policy) act accordingly.
I'm personally of the opinion that the time has come for a serious review of these issues with a view to formulating some sort of sensible policy. And, when done, everything should be on the table including possibly an entirely new "edition" or "cataloging" numbering/classification scheme that might supplant (or be added to) the current CPDL numbering scheme. For example, an edition might have or perhaps should have "subeditions" for such things as instrumental, choral parts, full scores, or simple transpositions - where there is no real separate editorial variance amongst the pieces. Also, probably some sort of distinction should be made between editions for which CPDL provides the PDF (or other files) on its own servers and those where the scores are only available on externally hosted servers - especially since CPDL has no real control over the continued availability of externally hosted scores.
There are other issues, too,perhaps somewhat tangential - such as copyright limitations that some submitters impose - that might impinge on cataloging and edition numbering schemes to be considered. But I think people get my drift: the mere counting of editions submitted by an editor is just the tip of a very large iceberg.
Chuck
