I am beginning to wonder if RDA is more of a code for catalogers than for users.
Looking at the example, what is the movie an expression of? Was there a previous work? Can a movie be a work in or itself? There are Oscars for original script. And what about previous composers for movies, Schoenberg, for instance? On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Benjamin A Abrahamse <babra...@mit.edu>wrote: > Thanks for the answer. We'll keep trying to figure this out. :) > > b > > Benjamin Abrahamse > Cataloging Coordinator > Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems > MIT Libraries > 617-253-7137 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Benjamin A Abrahamse > Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:36 PM > To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 > > I guess my follow-up question would be: are users really going to get > that, in a way that would be useful to them? > > Considering it flummoxed a room full of catalogers. > > Benjamin Abrahamse > Cataloging Coordinator > Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems MIT Libraries > 617-253-7137 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access > [mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind > Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:27 PM > To: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca > Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 > > I understand why a composer can only be 'creator' (rather than > 'contributor') to a musical work. > > But I don't understand why a composer can't be a contributor (rather than > creator) to a 'work' as well as 'expression', when the composer's > contribution is a fundamental part of the work as a whole, not just a > particular expression of it. > > On 10/9/2012 12:24 PM, JOHN C ATTIG wrote: > > "Composer" is qualified by "expression" because there is also a > > relationship designator for "composer" of a musical work. > > > > "Composer (Expression)" is used because the music is simply one aspect > > of the realization of the moving-image work, and the composer is > > therefore a contributor to the expression of that work. A composer > > can only be the creator of a _musical_ work. > > > > John Attig > > Authority Control Librarian > > Penn State University > > jx...@psu.edu > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > *From: *"Benjamin A Abrahamse" <babra...@mit.edu> > > *To: *RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA > > *Sent: *Tuesday, October 9, 2012 12:08:40 PM > > *Subject: *[RDA-L] Question about example in RDA 18.5.1.3 > > > > The second example in RDA 18.5.1.3, "Recording Relationship > > Designators" reads as follows: > > > > film producer > > > > film director > > > > actor > > > > composer (expression) > > > > *Relationship designators recorded in conjunction with the > > authorized access point representing Clint Eastwood as producer, > > director, actor, and composer for***Million dollar baby** > > > > Can someone please explain why composer is qualified by > > "expression"? If he composed the music for the film, wouldn't he be > > considered composer of the work, not the expression? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Ben > > > > Benjamin Abrahamse > > > > Cataloging Coordinator > > > > Acquisitions, Metadata and Enterprise Systems > > > > MIT Libraries > > > > 617-253-7137 > > > > > -- Gene Fieg Cataloger/Serials Librarian Claremont School of Theology gf...@cst.edu Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or content contained in this forwarded email. The forwarded email is that of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University. It has been forwarded as a courtesy for information only.
